StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A few quick thoughts:

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Okay fellas, i thought i needed to show his bullshit to you. We need another comedy hour

Hooray!

This is in reference to when i pointed out to him that latent heat of evaporation needs to be accounted for. He didnt take it well.

So I see

Your moron said: Sure, and your scaling is done by who? The engineer who claims heat of fusion is needed in space?


This is in reference to me pointing out to him the fact that there are 40 meter sized vaporized asteroids.

It's also an ad hominem. Not only are Mike's figures valid, but his scaling has been independently corroborated by a lot of other people.

Your buddy said: And that means what? Idiot, you tried to claim that somehow the luminosity of the asteroids somehow contradicts them having a vacuous internal structure. Now you try to weasel out of it?


In reference to me pointing out visual facts about the asteroids which tell their composition.

He's still going with this "A hole in big asteroid means it's much less dense; therefore, all asteroids have lower density" garbage?

FWIW, that's also an appeal to ignorance in making: "You can't prove those asteroids weren't hollow; therefore, they are!"

What a pompous jackass.

The result for our debate? The TESB Asteroid shot could easily have been against a very lightweight asteroid with a density lower than styrofoam. This fits:
A: Scientific and observed facts (Real-life examples pointed out above).

What real-life examples? I don't see where he cited a single one.

B: All canon and official information (Doesn't contradict Darksaber, doesn't contradict ANH, doesn't contradict TESB, fits with "Asteroids were planets" theory, Doesn't contradict numerous "Terajoules of Firepower" quotes.)

Two words: Death Star.

Michael once said he'd cling to a certain power figure from Star Trek like a drowning man to flotsam if it was canon (5.1 MW phaser emitters from the _TNG TM_, but that's beside the point).

Well, the DS IS canon, and I'd cling to it with the same tenacity. It is absolutely ridiculous to propose the Empire could build a battlestation that pulverizes globes yet, the best thing they can do on the destroyer level is a few hundred terawatts of firepower/ship

What about Dodonna's words; i.e., "The Death Star has a firepower greater than half the Starfleet."

Would your friend propose that the Empire has over trillions of ships? They'd need far more than that if the entirety of their fleet hoped to shatter a planet.

And what about the good old ICS?

The only real sticking point against this is the "Megaton Compression Bomb" bit, but we have no idea what a compression bomb is or why an asteroid would mysteriously explode, which suggests some sort of shield interaction.

Shield interaction?

Well, DUH!

"...turbolaser gunners blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."

Their impact energies are what's important. Attempting to divert the issue with this red herring "definition of compression bomb" train of thought is typical but no less weak.

He also conveniently ignored the _Slave Ship_ quote about the recoil-dissipation casings withstanding "explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range." I'm positive he'd twist that into something really dumb, though, so it might be best to run with...

The _ICS_ again! Wooooo!

As we've pointed out repeatedly, using all the canon is superior to ignoring some and picking and choosing. This explanation fits all the canon and known science. It is the superior theory, since yours does not fit all the facts, contradicting Darksaber.

ROTF: Death STAR, da-da-da-DA, Death STAR, da-da...

1: ICS Hulls vs. Asteroids: We see quite clearly an asteroid wiping out a Star Destroyer. The ICS, however, describes hulls with immense strength alloyed with neutronium.

Yet another retard who doesn't understand momentum. Just like all those before him, he, too, leaps to the conclusion that a damaged bridge tower means the entire ship was destroyed

Well the AOTC:ICS is the source of this entire argument. We are arguing whether it applies as a source for firepower information for the Empire. He claims that it does not because Darksaber does not show that level of firepower.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Well the AOTC:ICS is the source of this entire argument. We are arguing whether it applies as a source for firepower information for the Empire. He claims that it does not because Darksaber does not show that level of firepower.

Ah.

So he's arguing that something that is regarded as canon(short of the films), while Darksaber falls under official which places it lower on the totem pole.

Also he is under the burden of proof that Darksaber overrides other offical products that have shown a higher firepower. Sounds alot like selective evidence for his part.

I know. But the fucking idiot thinks that its smarter to find a rationalization than just throw the official out of the window when contradicted by canon.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Well the AOTC:ICS is the source of this entire argument. We are arguing whether it applies as a source for firepower information for the Empire. He claims that it does not because Darksaber does not show that level of firepower.

The AOTC ICS is canon. It supersedes EU sources, including Darksaber

Yup, and i laid that out to him in a small addition to my last reply. Because there is absolutely no canonical evidence of technical degradation, as in its not mentioned nor hinted in any way, then one did not occur and AOTC:ICS overrides Darksaber bullshit. Im pretty sure that he will reply to it by yapping how Darksaber cant just be thrown out of the window even when all logic and evidence is against it.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Im pretty sure that he will reply to it by yapping how Darksaber cant just be thrown out of the window even when all logic and evidence is against it.

IOW, cling to Darksaber as perfectly factually accurate even though canon and other information clearly shows Darksaber has extremely low firepower for SW ships. Kind of like how people cling to the old 'point 5 past light speed' quote to try and prove slow SW FTL speds.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Okay fellas, i thought i needed to show his bullshit to you. We need another comedy hour

Oh goody, I just feel like smacking this fool who dares question my calcs with such stupidity.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:Do you realize how inherently self-contradictory your position is? You admit that lowering the pressure level lowers the temperature needed to boil, yet claim the same amount of energy is needed? How is that possible? Less heat = less energy. Even preschoolers are able to handle such a concept.

The temperature at which an object boils is not the ONLY factor in the energy required to vaporize an object. Here is the key concept you seem to be missing: HEAT AND TEMPERATURE ARE DIFFERENT. Temperature merely indicates the direction in which heat will flow (i.e. heat is always flows from higher temperature objects to lower temperature ones until they reach thermal equilibrium). Heat itself is a measure of thermal energy.

Now back to your ignorance of why these high energies are required. In order to vaporize a molecule must pay the latenet heat of evaporation. Temeprature and pressure variables merely determine WHEN (not how much) a molecule pays this price. The calcs available both at Mike's site and my own do not pay attention to the energy neccessarry to raise the object to the boiling point in 1atm. Rather they merely pay the latent heat of fusion and the latent heat of evaporation (note again to become liquid the object must pay a price as well).

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:If your engineer friend told you such a contradictory thing, he is either lying about being an engineer, or simply lying about the facts.

At vacuum, water boils at it?s melting point. Take a cup of water at room temperature and lower the pressure on it enough, and it will boil from the heat your forehead gives off. Your forehead is not producing heat of fusion. At below the Triple Point of pressure (which varies from substance to substance) anything will sublimate directly from solid to gas, and at a lower temperature than

Yup it boils but do you know why it doesn't instantly boil? That's because you have to continue to apply heat until the latent heat of evaporation is paid. Let me make an example that you can actually test.

Take a cup of water and put it in a pan
Place the pan on a stove
Begin heating the water
Stick a thermometer in there

You'll notice that as the temperature approaches 100 C / 212 F the water will begin to boil. (funny it happens even before the average temperature reaches the boiling point)

You will ALSO notice that when the water reaches 100 C (well actually a little above thanks to mineral content) it doesn't all boil at once. You have to continue to add heat to the system in order to boil all that water. Now you aren't changing the temperature any (check your thermometer it won't do much more than budge aboce boiling) but you are still heating the system. THAT is the latent heat of evaporation: the energy you must pay in order to cross state boundaries. The energy is the same regardless of temperature and pressure requirements.

What's really funy is I did this shit in feyarking High School physics so I must guess your ignorance of such principles means either:
a) You are some little middle schooler who barely understands math let alone physics OR
b) You only passed physics by copying notes of the kids who aced the AP Physics test.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:Sure, and your scaling is done by who? The engineer who claims heat of fusion is needed in space?

Actually I've done scaling on my own and a 40m spherical asteroid is actually small for some of the asteroids we see vaped. Several others have performed similair scaling and the results fall within a consistent range.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:And that means what? Idiot, you tried to claim that somehow the luminosity of the asteroids somehow contradicts them having a vacuous internal structure. Now you try to weasel out of it?

I won't pretend to understand this whole debate but I'll make the point of albedo very clear:
It tells us what kind of asteroids we are dealing with.

Now from our own studies of asteroids (and by our I mean the Earth's scientific community) we have managed to garner evidence on everything from composition relative to color spectrum to density estimates and the like. Now in the case of the asteroid in question we have the additional benifit that there is an observer in this asteroid field (Dengar in Tales of The Bounty Hunters). he specifically states that the asteroids are, largely at least, nickel-iron. This generally classification limits us to certain composition and density constraints. If you have ever researched the subject you'll note that asteroids such as these (formed in high energy planetary collisions) are the cooling results of the liquid elements sitting around after such a collision. Such asteroids tend towards greater density as well as significantly higher heavy metal composition (which are themselves very dense).

This combined evidence has led to the clear idea that these asteroids are likely very dense (Nickel-Iron asteroids are made of one of two mineral compositions both of which are roughly 7900kg/m^3). Basically if you want to say these asteroids are lower in composition you better study the asteroids in question (not the super continent sized chunk the Falcon flew into as the two are dissimilair in too many ways to count).

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:Ah, your memory is so fleeting, and your brain so ineffective. I did mention that, although most of the planet is molten and the majority of it would have such a foamy internal structure, major chunks of the crust would not be molten at the time of impact and thus would retain the solid nature.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:What does that have to do with what I just said you idiot? Notice my quote, I?m talking about real-live volcanic rocks and how a pressure change causes gas to bubble. Then you mumble something about iron mixing in as if that?s relevant. Idiot, the iron is already mixed in with it, and even if it was how does this affect the basic argument?

1) I don't understand why you are trying to explain a cosmic collision with allusion to minor geological events on our little planet. If two planets were to collide the energies would be immense and a huge amount of material (and not just the molten core of many terrestrial worlds) would be heated into vapor or liquid form. The further evidence provided by official observation (TOTBH) and examination of the available evidence (TESB and TESB:SE) indicate compositionand density figures, see above.

2) I really hope your first quote wasn't as ignorant as it looked.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:In vacuum, water flash-boils at it?s melting point, not it?s boiling point. Idiot, of course you have to pay energy for every gram vaporized. The thing is, the lower the pressure, the less energy you have to actually pay. Even you?ve managed to agree that less heat is needed in lower pressure, how you can possibly say that and then claim that the same amount of energy is needed is beyond me.

Your ignorance is available in bounds. See above but I'll repeat for sheer fun:
1) Energy need to reach boiling/melting point is near zero
2) energy needed to pay latent heat of fusion / latenet heat of evaporation DOES NOT CHANGE.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:Oh, and you claim that stone requires more energy to vaporize than iron. Most interesting, obviously whoever this Mike Wong is disagrees, I notice he has an asteroid calculator on his site designed to show how much energy is required to destroy them. Let?s see, 40 meter asteroid:
Granite:
Melt: 49.3 kilotons
Vaporize: 245.9 kilotons
Iron:
Melt: 80.4 kilotons
Vaporize: 479.1 kilotons
At this point the level of dishonesty you?ve displayed is nothing short of amazing. You lie about everything in order to get your way, don?t you?

He's most likely refering to some of the likely rocky compositions of the asteroid which will include amouns of silicon. Now lets see how silicon staks up against Iron for thermal data:

Silicon: Si
Weight: 28.08 g/mol
Melting Point: 1687 K
Specific Heat: 18.81 J/K*mol
Latent Heat of Fusion: 50200 J/mol
Latenet Heat of Evaporation: 359000 J/mol

Iron: Fe
Weight: 55.84 g/mol
Melting Point: 1811 K
Specific Heat: 25.1 J/K*mol
Latent Heat of Fusion : 13800 J/mol
Latent Heat of Evaporation : 347000 J/mol

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:Let's take a good look here. Do you see any liquid phase past the triple point? Of course not, because as I've said over and over, as pressure lowers the boiling and melting points become the same and matter goes directly from solid to gas. I don?t know how many times I?ve had to point this out now, obviously your stupidity extends well beyond your lack of science, or else you?re just using a wall of ignorance. At the Heat of Fusion Temperature (Actually well below that in vacuum) the material directly sublimates from solid to gas. As I?ve said over and over, stupid. And although you would want to put more than heat-of-fusion energies into something to make sure it doesn't recool into a largely solid mass, you also don't even need heat of fusion to actually melt it in low pressure, making even heat-of-fusion a generous estimate.

You really don't understand latent heat of fusion and latent heat of evaporation do you? See the kitchen stove example again.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:1: Asteroid Density:
We already know, thanks to Righteous Fist of Heaven, that the asteroid field was made up of two colliding planets.
What do we know about planets? They tend to have a solid crust with a molten interior. The interior is under vast pressure from the surface pushing down on it.
What happens to a liquid under pressure when the pressure is suddenly released? Dissolved gasses in the liquid bubble out violently. This holds true for everything from a suddenly-opened champagne bottle to a diver who gets the bends when he rised from the depths too quickly (Dissolved gas in his blood bubbles) to hot lava, which bubbles and usually winds up freezing as foamy rock like scoria or pumice which actually floats on water. Certain volcanic stones, notably Obsidian and Basalt, have few bubbles, but they typically are from long-standing flows in which the gas has had time to escape before the lava cooled.

We know from volcanoes alone that underground magma has loads of such dissolved gas in it, typically sulphurous fumes. Upon shattering in the impact, the core and the mantle of the planet would go from unholy amounts of pressure to almost none, while simultaneously being exposed to such low pressure that they would exceed their boiling point. As the gasses turn the liquids into froth, they boil with their own vapors and freeze at the same time from evaporative cooling. The net result is quite likely to be asteroids that are almost entirely vacuum or diffuse gas with little solid material, asteroids, in short, with density lower than water. The crust would, of course, be mainly solid fragments so you'd wind up with a few of those mixed in the batch.

I won't pretend I'm not laughing at this. You actually believe that when two FUCKING PLANETS collide that they will not release ungodly amounts of energy? With the energies involved you are going to get huge volumes of liquified planet that will bear little if any semblence to their former state of affairs. The resultant asteroids, as they cool, will still form mineral formations jsut as they did to form our world in the first place. What does this mean?

1) If you are foolish enough to believe that the low energy events (relatively) like lava boiling out of the ground at all resembles the collision of two planets well then...shite I can't even find words to describe how stupid you would be for still thinking that.

2) Until you learn a little about asteroid formation, identification, and composition I'd ask you to refrain from pretending you understand what is going on.

3) Your continued ignorance of basic thermodynamic principles, laws, and terminology is so laughable I question how you can oeprate a computer safely with that little brain power.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:The result for our debate? The TESB Asteroid shot could easily have been against a very lightweight asteroid with a density lower than styrofoam. This fits:
A: Scientific and observed facts (Real-life examples pointed out above).

Before you say real-life examples please chose some that actually apply to asteroids formed by the collision of two planets as oppossed to volcanic rocks.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:B: All canon and official information (Doesn't contradict Darksaber, doesn't contradict ANH, doesn't contradict TESB, fits with "Asteroids were planets" theory, Doesn't contradict numerous "Terajoules of Firepower" quotes.) The only real sticking point against this is the "Megaton Compression Bomb" bit, but we have no idea what a compression bomb is or why an asteroid would mysteriously explode, which suggests some sort of shield interaction.

I hope you aren't daft enough to think you have miraculously overrulled ANH's half a starfleet quote. I will further hope you just ignored ROTJ's "thermonuclear explosions" quote. After that I hope you just forgot about the amount of energy neccessary to move the Falcon off axis in TESB (which suggest anti-fighter firepower in excess of the numbers suggested here).

Beyond all this I'm sure that you realize a low-density asteroid by itself SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY contradicts Dengar's statement from Tales of The Bounty Hunters.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:As we've pointed out repeatedly, using all the canon is superior to ignoring some and picking and choosing. This explanation fits all the canon and known science. It is the superior theory, since yours does not fit all the facts, contradicting Darksaber.

Huh? See above you crack smoking donkey fucker.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote:1: ICS Hulls vs. Asteroids: We see quite clearly an asteroid wiping out a Star Destroyer.

Wrong, the outline of the bridge tower is CLEARLY visible, in other words the asteroid hit the bridge (which was unshielded) as didn't manage to do anything other than damage the communications and make an officer cower in fear.

Some foolish Disciple of Darkstar wrote: The ICS, however, describes hulls with immense strength alloyed with neutronium. Even with the shields down, such armor should laugh at asteroids. Yet it clearly does not. This is conclusive proof that either: The ICS is contradicted and should be ignored (I dislike this option on principle, I like using all the canon) or else the ICS refers to ships far more powerful than the Empire's best weapons (The most reasonable explanation that doesn't contradict any canon.)

Alternatively you just didn't look at the evidence properly and assumed. Thus making an ass out of you (but not me I know better). Damn you really deserve the title you now have you crack smoking donkey fucker (TM)

Fixed Quotation Formatting ~ Crown

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Yup, and i laid that out to him in a small addition to my last reply. Because there is absolutely no canonical evidence of technical degradation, as in its not mentioned nor hinted in any way, then one did not occur and AOTC:ICS overrides Darksaber bullshit. Im pretty sure that he will reply to it by yapping how Darksaber cant just be thrown out of the window even when all logic and evidence is against it.

Have you ever pointed out Daala had troops on the planet and thus that full-powered shots would likely have killed them along with the Jedi? (and had they wished to simply kill them off, Pellaeon could have BDZ'ed the moon and forgone landing troops?)

Jesus christ, what is it with people not getting basic materials science. Not every metal has to be strong. Neutronium is technically a fluid, so it would add nothing to overall strength. It would be great because it would serve as an outstanding heatsink. Overlay the hull (and layered in the armor) with a layer of a superconductor, and pump that energy straight into the neutronium. It would do fuck all agaisnt the momentum of a fast moving asteroid.

The benefit of neutronium isn't that it is strong, it's that it is tough. And yes, WRT materials those mena two totally different things.

I swear, next essay up on this site should educate about entry level materials science. Hell, I'd kick it in, just type up summaries from my textbooks.

Excellent commentary, Wilkens. To just add to your point:

Improper representer of the EU wrote: All canon and official information (Doesn't contradict Darksaber, doesn't contradict ANH, doesn't contradict TESB, fits with "Asteroids were planets" theory, Doesn't contradict numerous "Terajoules of Firepower" quotes.) The only real sticking point against this is the "Megaton Compression Bomb" bit, but we have no idea what a compression bomb is or why an asteroid would mysteriously explode, which suggests some sort of shield interaction.

Well, what he refers to with the "terajoules of firepower", the instances he is mentioning (that I am aware of - he is, interestingly neough, not specific enough as to what he's claiming.) come from "Isard's Revenge."

pg. 7 "Two New Republic Assault Frigates, the Tyrant's Bane and Liberty Star, cruised in toward the Golan station. Though each ship was less than a third as long as the station, they bristled with fifty laser cannons and poured terajoules of coherent light into the Golan."
pg. 111 "Moonshadow was coming up and turning to port, its port-side batteries firing Direption's aft shields. Red and blue laser and ion cannon fire pumped terajoules of energy into the shields, but somehow they stayed up."

Notice a few interesting points:

1. ) both quotes refer to "laser cannons" or in the second lasers and ion cannons, not turbolasers.

2.) In the second example, we should note that the "laser cannons" are coherent light weapons.

2.) No mention of rate of fire is mentioned (laser cannons, of course, have VERY high rates of fire, much higher than turbolasers.)


Darksaber, as mentioned before, is not an example of "high end" firepower quite simply becauise Daala had had troops and fighters landed on the planet. Quite obviously they had not intended to BDZ it (otherwise they could have done that in lieu of a ground battle.)

By that same logic, we would assume the Lusankya was going "all out" with its guns in "Rebel Dream" when it bombarded Borleias to destroy the Vong ground forces.... but tis is of course ludicrous, since the Rebels wouldn't want to harm their own people. Of course, low-yield, high precision orbital weapons fire designed to support ground forces would be perfectly consistent with both incidents.


A nd on top of this, this person should be asked to explain Slave-1's "Seismic charges" in AOTC (clearly multi-gigaton - of course he'd probably do the same thing he tried to do with "compression bombs".)

A question for you Wilkens: now that you are back and will probably have more free time, will we be seeing "AOTC Asteroid Analysis mark 1" anytime in the relative future?

Thanks Wilkens, your best regards have been relayed to our beloved dumbass

Connor: Yes i pointed out to him the fact that there were Remnant troops on the planet and the part how she wanted the bodies layed out all over the moon. But that is pretty much meaningless because of the "full strength" line that Daala said when the Nights Hammer opened fire.

I also pointed out to him the laser cannons part when he used that one terajoule quote. He dropped that argument right there.

But with the Lusankya we dont have a troublesome "turbolasers to full strength" or something similar. There was no mention of what firepower setting was used and since we know that the area had friendly troops, it wouldnt be smart to use full powered blasts. Atleast the jackass has had enough intelligence not to use the Lusankya example.

Ah, good point on the Slave-1, as a matter of fact i did ask him to explain it. However he said that it was Old Republic era tech and thus so called "lost tech", and that Boba Fett has lightyears more advanced weapons in his ship at the time of the Empire. I replied once to this incredible pile of donkey shit and after that he dropped the issue without saying anything else.

Ender wrote:A question for you Wilkens: now that you are back and will probably have more free time, will we be seeing "AOTC Asteroid Analysis mark 1" anytime in the relative future?

Unlikely in the near future as my sister stole my AOTC disc and is currently away at college where I can't regain it. IOW it will be at least December before I could really start. Furthermore if there are other idiots out there applying the "technical degradation" bullshit this guy threw out I feel like working on the Classic-era since AOTC:ICS pretty much settled the issue of firepower in the pre-Imperial era.

That said I've been doing more reading (over the sumer I got some time to hit a library) on asteroids and hopefully I'll be able to post version 2.3 of the asteroid calcs in the not so distant future.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote: Ah, good point on the Slave-1, as a matter of fact i did ask him to explain it. However he said that it was Old Republic era tech and thus so called "lost tech", and that Boba Fett has lightyears more advanced weapons in his ship at the time of the Empire. I replied once to this incredible pile of donkey shit and after that he dropped the issue without saying anything else.

This is really puzzling to me.

Didn't you tell me that this guy thinks the Jedi Archives had something to do with this lost technology?

Yes: Well he bases this by claiming that since the emperor took over and purged the Jedi, the Jedi library obviously was erased. I asked him what the fuck does erasing the Jedi library have to do with how to build weapons. Did erasing the Jedi Library stuff somehow erase the tech databases at Taim & Bak too? He also states that since the Emperor was a dictator and dictators dont often give too much funds to research and stuff, it is no wonder that the Tech is so bad.


What he told you is beyond just stupidity; I think it's nothing short of insane. It's so stupid I don't even know where to begin!

What's probably most amusing is the guy's claim that Palpatine wouldn't go along with much R&D; therefore, the technology back-slid by over a billion or so times in a matter of 30 years. Or, at the very least, Palpatine didn't help stop this wild technological slide toward oblivion.

Gee...I wonder how one reconciles that with his R&D-hating, dictator Palpatine commissioning those two gigantic battlestations--stations which are very easily the pinnacle of observed Wars technology. I've got their name on the tip of my tongue...Death somethings?

It's too bad the guy went quiet on you. In addition to everything else he totally flubbed, that last bit would've been just too fun to shoot down again and again and again.

And once more for good measure

Such is the nature of a troll like the fella you crushed. He'll probably be back in some form or another in time, trying to throw his weight around. You might want to document your exchange with him in that event; it'd be time-consuming, but really funny to answer his future posts by quoting your own replies from past exchanges.

Connor: Yes i pointed out to him the fact that there were Remnant troops on the planet and the part how she wanted the bodies layed out all over the moon. But that is pretty much meaningless because of the "full strength" line that Daala said when the Nights Hammer opened fire.

Turbolaser turrets have capacitors. Full strength to the turbolasers could involve keeping the capacitors charged (turbolaser power can also vary according to number of shots. They could be going for a large number of lower-powered shots, after all.)

In any case he's still completely approaching his sources ass-backwards. The AOTC:ICS SUPERSEDES whatever Darksaber may imply in terms of both firepower and capability, thus the Darksaber interpretation is the subordinate resource (We should also note its rather ambiguous - probably the reason he wants to hold onto it so much.) Thus, we can reinforce the allegation that "full strength" has another meaning other than the power of the shot.

I also pointed out to him the laser cannons part when he used that one terajoule quote. He dropped that argument right there.

Figures.

But with the Lusankya we dont have a troublesome "turbolasers to full strength" or something similar. There was no mention of what firepower setting was used and since we know that the area had friendly troops, it wouldnt be smart to use full powered blasts. Atleast the jackass has had enough intelligence not to use the Lusankya example.

It won't matter. Both the Lusankya and Knight Hammer examples are subordinate to canon. Ask him if he understands what Lucasfilm's "formal imprimatur of canon." means.

You might want to point out to this assclown that the Lusankya also carried thousands of TIE fighters, when the regular loadout is supposed to be something like 144 TIEs.

Ah, good point on the Slave-1, as a matter of fact i did ask him to explain it. However he said that it was Old Republic era tech and thus so called "lost tech", and that Boba Fett has lightyears more advanced weapons in his ship at the time of the Empire. I replied once to this incredible pile of donkey shit and after that he dropped the issue without saying anything else.

Bullshit. He expects the technological base of the entire SW universe to have fallen by MANY orders of magnitude in under a century? Everything inexplicably lost? Every person able to build/research the technology somehow mysteriously vanished or killed? Palpatine would be unable to maintain access or control to the technology? Does he realize how utterly fucking ludicrous that sounds? He's basically proposing that within a few decades, Star Wars technology (and everyone and everything related to building or maintaining it) completely disappeared on a universal scale.

Also, he fails to utterly account for the Death Star (either one) How is it the Empire can build moon sized, planet-destroying battlestations (indeed, how can they make a more *POWERFUL* station in the form of the second Death sTar) if their technology has declined? How does one explain the Executor, for that matter?

And of course, there is the question of how Boba Fett could maintain Slave-1 for decades if the technology that builds it is "lost tech." Further, how does he explain the fact that distinctly "Old Republic" ships like the Dreadnaught heavy cruiser or Victory-class Star Destroyer are not only still in use, but also distinctly weaker than the Imperators and other modern vessels?

Dang, Sean got to the essence of the argument before I did Bastard!

Connor, guess five times did i point out the fact that Turbolasers have capacitors to him and full-strength could as well meant full power to those. Yes i did and i pointed out to him why the hell would anyone use strength when speaking about firepower? Is it so hard to say "maximum firepower" âla General Veers? However he thought this was unnecessary semantics that had no real relevance, so instead of trying to continue arguing that full-strength does not automatically mean what he wants it to mean, i decided to beat him on simpler terms.

And yeah, i know how utterly insane his entire Technical Degradation argument is and his Slave-1 bullshit just adds to that. I've pointed out to him all the problems with the whole argument, like how utterly impossible for starters it would be for all technology to just magically lose their power in such relatively low timeframe. I also pointed out to him the Death Star problem, to that he answered by comparing the Death Star to an SSD and saying that it would be odd if the Death Star wouldnt have more firepower with that much internal volume. Well i did a quick calculation and pointed out to him that even with calculations favoring the SSD, the superlaser still has over 50,000 times more firepower even if the SSD was compared on equal volume basis. Again he dropped that issue right there.

Ah that Victory SD and Dreadnaught part is a very good point. I havent even tought of that. I gotta punch it down his throat on my next reply.

Ok fellas, our dear moron has replied. Wilkens, you are going to like this.

You are, as usual, a liar. Temperature does indeed measure how heat will flow, in the sense that heat flows from areas of high temperature to low temperature.

This was in reference to your first point of thermal dynamics Wilkens.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Sorry but as usual, you're my bitch when real science is used.

AAAHAAAHAHAHA I think the quote tells everything necessary

If you take a cup of water at any liquid temperature and throw it into space, it will boil instantly into gas. This is not guesswork, this is not mathematic theory, this is proven fact observed in both space and vacuum-chambers here on earth many many times. It is incontestable (I suppose you could contest it, but you’re a liar) So, Mr. 140 IQ, where did the energy come from that boiled that water? Please, explain. Did magical elves come and add heat-of-vaporization to that cup of water? Maybe leprechauns? It came from the Aethyra? Of course not, you need less energy and thus it vaporizes even though the energy isn’t added in.

This was in reference to the water example.

Wait a minute, what do you mean why does it not boil instantly? It does boil instantly fool.

www.straightdope.com/clas...1_127.html
Crap, the last line says liquids boil almost instantly in space. Too bad for the idiot who thinks he knows the basics of science.

www.chem.selu.edu/elbers/...zation.htm
What do you know? A chemistry experiment that explains how heat of vaporization is dependent on external pressure. Idiot.

www.chem.selu.edu/elbers/...zation.htm
Well I’ll be, a chart listing how the temperature at which water boils drops as pressure goes down. Notice that at very low pressures water will boil at negative fifty Farenheit! That’s over 80 degrees below it’s freezing point at sea level.
This makes even allowing you heat-of-fusion very generous, since, as I’ve said, in vacuum things will sublimate into a gas at far lower than even their melting point in air.

You knothead, that experiment relies on the fact that the stove is inefficient and conducts heat away from the water into the air, and through convection. It has nothing to do with the actual energy involved in space, where there is no air to conduct or convect heat away, just on misconceptions and misuses of technology.


Let's draw a far more realistic experiment up. Take a cake of ice and heat it to exactly the boiling point of water. In order to accomplish this properly you’ll need a stove which delivers all of it’s energy to the water with no losses due to convection or conduction (That’s theoretically impossible). You’ve just added both the heat of fusion and the heat of vaporization, and all the water will boil into steam.

Now go up with your stove to the top of a high mountain range. Rather than 100C you’ll only have to heat your water up to perhaps 80C. You have spent much less energy increasing the energy in your water, yet it still turns into steam just as before.

Go up in a hot air balloon and try it, and heat your water to 50C and watch as it boils away.

Go into space and heat it to 0C and it will turn directly from a solid into a gas, and you’ve spent only heat of fusion.

Wait a minute here, in your previous post you claimed, and I quote: “The resultant asteroids, as they cool, will still form mineral formations just as they did to form our world in the first place.” So basically you’re saying that the processes will be fairly similar to what happens on earth when minerals cool (In fact, since they’ll have far less pressure on them without an atmosphere, the process will be similar but different). Here, of course, you claim something completely different will happen, contradicting what you typed not one minute ago. The fact that you can contradict yourself in two paragraphs and try to call me foolish at the same time is amazing.

In reference to the point regarding the asteroid formations.

Then there was some canonicity bullshit but it was waay too idiotic to even bother posting here.

Gents;

This Darksaber argument I had with Scooter should be all the ammo you need.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Connor, guess five times did i point out the fact that Turbolasers have capacitors to him and full-strength could as well meant full power to those. Yes i did and i pointed out to him why the hell would anyone use strength when speaking about firepower? Is it so hard to say "maximum firepower" âla General Veers? However he thought this was unnecessary semantics that had no real relevance, so instead of trying to continue arguing that full-strength does not automatically mean what he wants it to mean, i decided to beat him on simpler terms.

His argument relies on ignoring several important facts:

1.) He's attempting to put a lower-order source above a higher one (darksaber over the ICS). In short, he is flouting established canon policy.

2.) He's attempting to utilize an incident with a very ambiguous set of circumstances to invalidate a more specific incident (Rather than attempting to use the fact that the darksaber incident has a number of ambiguities that can be reconciled with the far more explicit AOTC ICS incident.)

3.) He is attempting to "ignore" material rather than reconciling the supposed "conflict". Nor does he explain why Darksaber and the AOTC ICS are irreconcilable in any fashion.

The very fact his intention seems to be to generate as many "contradictions" as he can to somehow justify his contention that we must ignore the AOTC ICS is perhaps teh saddest part. As if it weren't substantiated in any number of other sources (Slave Ship, various BDZ incidents, AOTC, Hutt Gambit, Showdown at Centerpoint, the various guides and such that repeat the "half the imperial starfleet" dodonna quote, etc.)

I also pointed out to him the Death Star problem, to that he answered by comparing the Death Star to an SSD and saying that it would be odd if the Death Star wouldnt have more firepower with that much internal volume. Well i did a quick calculation and pointed out to him that even with calculations favoring the SSD, the superlaser still has over 50,000 times more firepower even if the SSD was compared on equal volume basis. Again he dropped that issue right there.

Anytime he mentions "technical degradation" in the OT era, simply mention the Death STar. If they have the ability to simply "scale up" their existing tech base to build it, they can easily apply the same technical expertise to build other warships.

Also of course, we know Old Republic-era warships are still in use in the OT era. Ask him to explain why these warships, if they are orders of magnitude more powerful, do not dominate the SW battlefield. (For that matter, have him explain how Thrawn's possession of 180+ Katana-fleet Dreadnaughts did not give him an invincible armada. Or why on two separate occasions, in Dark Force Rising, it requires three Dreadnaught cruisers to even barely match an ISD.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Ok fellas, our dear moron has replied. Wilkens, you are going to like this.

I'm sure I will, let's get started.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:You are, as usual, a liar. Temperature does indeed measure how heat will flow, in the sense that heat flows from areas of high temperature to low temperature.

Amazing you just repeated something I already said, much like your entire argument is a repeat of shit Darkstar has already gotten shot down.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Sorry but as usual, you're my bitch when real science is used.

WTF are you talking about? 1st off the references to the difference between heat and temeprature re exactly as I already described them to you. 2nd did you even read the entry to realize that the person entering it didn't even know if he was right, he questioned himself IN THE ENTRY. Try something a bit more authoritative.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:If you take a cup of water at any liquid temperature and throw it into space, it will boil instantly into gas. This is not guesswork, this is not mathematic theory, this is proven fact observed in both space and vacuum-chambers here on earth many many times. It is incontestable (I suppose you could contest it, but you?re a liar) So, Mr. 140 IQ, where did the energy come from that boiled that water? Please, explain. Did magical elves come and add heat-of-vaporization to that cup of water? Maybe leprechauns? It came from the Aethyra? Of course not, you need less energy and thus it vaporizes even though the energy isn?t added in.

Energy doesn't NEED to be added. Zero thermal energy is only acheived when an object is at o Kelvin. Our earth here (and the spaceships in which the water is stored) are operating at somewhere just shy of 300 K. Thus we have all the heat energy ALREADY IN THE WATER in order to pay the latent heat of evaporation. Every bit of energy above that which is nccessary to leave the water in thermal equilibrium with its new environment (roughly 150 K) is usable to pay the latent heat of evaporation.

Perhaps one of these days you'll actually try to understand the physics as oppossed to quoting Darkstar's ideas and your own half baked theories.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:Wait a minute, what do you mean why does it not boil instantly? It does boil instantly fool.

So you're saying you've performed the experiment yourself? You took water and injected it (already in thermal equilibrium with the internal environment) into a vacuum sealed container on top of your head. Then the water boiled instantly? That's a rather big claim. Now onto the rest of your gobbledygook comebacks:

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:www.straightdope.com/clas...1_127.html
Crap, the last line says liquids boil almost instantly in space. Too bad for the idiot who thinks he knows the basics of science.

You do know there is a difference between instantly and almost instantly right? Almost instantly allows for the fact that it takes time while the water pays the latent heat of evaporation. ou'll notice the writer is obviously much smarter than you as he understands that there is no magical phase switch and it takes time. On the oppossite side we have you who seems to think that sending the water into a low pressure environment magically transforms it into vapor with no price paid.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:www.chem.selu.edu/elbers/...zation.htm
What do you know? A chemistry experiment that explains how heat of vaporization is dependent on external pressure. Idiot.

Either I got a bad link or you are halucinating. The link i got sent me to an experiment which shows that you can lower the boiling point by reducing pressure. Amazingly I've already admitted this. The experiment says NOTHING about latent heat of evaporation. Your continued ignorance of the basic laws of thermodynamics continues.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:www.chem.selu.edu/elbers/...zation.htm
Well I?ll be, a chart listing how the temperature at which water boils drops as pressure goes down. Notice that at very low pressures water will boil at negative fifty Farenheit! That?s over 80 degrees below it?s freezing point at sea level.
This makes even allowing you heat-of-fusion very generous, since, as I?ve said, in vacuum things will sublimate into a gas at far lower than even their melting point in air.

See above. Notice that I again am not paying heat to get to or from the temepratures at which fusion, sublimation, and vaporization occur. That would be specific heat, a totally different concept. I am talking about the latent heat of fusion and the latent heat of evaporation. Try these definitions so you can understand:

"The specific latent heat of fusion of a substance is the amount of heat required to convert unit mass of the solid into the liquid without a change in temperature." from www.physchem.co.za

"The specific latent heat of vaporization is the amount of heat required to convert unit mass of a liquid into the vapour without a change in temperature." from www.physchem.co.za

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:You knothead, that experiment relies on the fact that the stove is inefficient and conducts heat away from the water into the air, and through convection. It has nothing to do with the actual energy involved in space, where there is no air to conduct or convect heat away, just on misconceptions and misuses of technology.

Or maybe you do't understand the concept, try THIS out:
http://www.physchem.co.za/Heat/Graphics/Heat42.gif
"The diagram on the left shows the uptake of heat by 1 kg of water, as it passes from ice at -50 ºC to steam at temperatures above 100 ºC, affects the temperature of the sample.

A: Rise in temperature as ice absorbs heat.
B: Absorption of latent heat of fusion.
C: Rise in temperature as liquid water absorbs heat.
D: Water boils and absorbs latent heat of vaporization.
E: Steam absorbs heat and thus increases its temperature."

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:Let's draw a far more realistic experiment up. Take a cake of ice and heat it to exactly the boiling point of water. In order to accomplish this properly you?ll need a stove which delivers all of it?s energy to the water with no losses due to convection or conduction (That?s theoretically impossible). You?ve just added both the heat of fusion and the heat of vaporization, and all the water will boil into steam.

Now go up with your stove to the top of a high mountain range. Rather than 100C you?ll only have to heat your water up to perhaps 80C. You have spent much less energy increasing the energy in your water, yet it still turns into steam just as before.<snip>

You idiot in all of the above examples you have added heat to change the temerpature which is NOT the latent heat of evaporation. Rather you are taking about the specific heat of the water which is a concept I haven't even discussed. Until you understand the difference between:

Specific Heat : The quantity of heat necessary to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance 1 degree C.

and

Latent Heat: The amount of heat required to convert unit mass of the solid(or liquid) into the liquid(or gas) without a change in temperature.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:Wait a minute here, in your previous post you claimed, and I quote: ?The resultant asteroids, as they cool, will still form mineral formations just as they did to form our world in the first place.? So basically you?re saying that the processes will be fairly similar to what happens on earth when minerals cool (In fact, since they?ll have far less pressure on them without an atmosphere, the process will be similar but different). Here, of course, you claim something completely different will happen, contradicting what you typed not one minute ago. The fact that you can contradict yourself in two paragraphs and try to call me foolish at the same time is amazing.

Your example does not involve minerals formed as the result of two colliding planets but rather the expelling of material from the interior of the planet. While mineral formaitons will be similair to those found on earth (in the case of asteroids) there are many differences. For starters the process of formation in space is not suffused with the many problems of cooling in an atmosphere of diffuse but largely homogenous gases. In fact the lack of an atmosphere tends to make the mineral formations stronger and purer. Until you actually understand a little more about asteroid formation, composition, and identification I'll ask you to remain silent.

Darkstar's latest dicksucker wrote:Then there was some canonicity bullshit but it was waay too idiotic to even bother posting here.

Failure to address my points understoo9d and your concession is accepted.

Furthermore your still continuing ignorance of all thermodynamic principles, laws, and terms is acknowledged and mocked.

Actually, the last part, the canonicity point was by me. He babbled something like how AOTC:ICS is not real canon and yada yada yada, and he actually contradicted himself when arguing that LucasFilm canon is only official and at the same time one of his quotes included that LucasFilm canon includes films, when a quote he gave rather clearly said that the films are the utmost canon. The fucktard is so amazingly stupid that he succeeds in contradicting himself with quotes he things will back up his argument.

Goddamn, i never hadnt met a real Disciple of Dorkstar yet but now i have and im both equally frightened and amused.

http://pub28.ezboard.com/ftigerclawssci ... 61&stop=67

Found it, and totally on accident too. If that is Razor from SCN, then yes this is one of bobby's followers and not some little dumb punk.

Ah you know him? I suspectecd this, a persistant little troll who is also at the same time a disciple of Dorkstar must be known amongs the larger community.