"hewhoknowsall" registered on Oct 26th, 2008. I indicated that, in order to have been him, I would have had to have been less than 13 when I supposedly registered, which would put 17 at the upper limit of my age. I suppose now, you're going to think that I'm "showing off" to you, because I know how to do simple arithmetic.
Actually, more than half of the plot holes listed in the aforementioned thread weren't present in RLM's reviews, so IDK why you're attempting to pseudo-psycho-analyze me here. As usual, these "every action you make has a secret motive that reveals your deepest worries and self esteem issues" hypotheses are founded on conveniently forgetting facts.
It's interesting that you so adamantly write monotonous paragraphs where you jam-pack as many ad hominems and generalized declarations of victory as you can, but fail to devote any effort to actually addressing the arguments. That is, in our exchange regarding EU Force feats, you pretentiously evaded your obvious factual errors ("newton's laws don't exist in Star Wars"), and instead resorted to responding to every rebuttal by vaguely restating your position and whining that I didn't understand it, with the same reasoning that I had just addressed in the previous post!
BTW, exactly what the **** do you think your rant about psychopaths and pseudo-philosophic distinctions between "empathy" and "sympathy" were, but ego stroking? How about your own ****ery here? Do you think you're the first person to ironically try accusing another person of ego-stroking to satisfy his own erection?
But, since most posters around here have complimented my work, with you being one of the only ones to indicate otherwise...yeah, it looks like you've made an imaginary enemy out of me based on your issues with another poster.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Your point was to talk a lot of nonsense disguised as knowledge and intelligent and then be an ass. Just as before.
More of "you don't know what frequency means!" ranting. Get over yourself already. Making sock after sock to rehash the same failed arguments.
Star Wars doesn't get into the technical bits nearly as much as Star Trek. But if you want to insist that an energy field doesn't have a frequency because someone didn't say "its frequency goes to 11", fair enough. Then there is nothing for the Enterprise to overcome and it can simply be bypassed via the transporter.
If you wish to prove me wrong, go ahead and find a single example in Star Wars lore where shields resisted a transporter.
Um, what? You start your post off by complaining that my rebuttal was meaningless, and then suddenly concede the point? That sort of suggests that my response was anything but.
And understand burden of proof; the burden of proof is on you to establish that a star destroyer's shields would have a property that is antithetical and meaningless in relevance to said shields. Just because Star Trek has it, doesn't mean every other sci-fi universe has to follow down the same path.
That the shields don't have frequencies doesn't mean that they don't perform the function of acting as physical barriers. Since transporters are routinely stopped by random natural phenomena and even the slightest level of jamming...
And what would it do, anyway, if we assume that transporters would magically work through SW shields, but not ST shields, because of magical frequencies (when they have been disrupted by objects with no such property)?
A single medium turbolaser can vaporize the Enterprise.
^examples of power generation capabilities that a star destroyer can siphon to its engines; now, logically, a warship would be able to divert at least 1% of its power to its main guns, which is already in excess of the highest estimations of the Enterprise's shield strength.
2. Asteroid vaporization calculations.
3. We know from the RotS novelization that even light turbolasers (they were firing at starfighters, so they can't be heavy) can vaporize small towns, ie., megaton range.
4. Base delta zeroes - various sources agree that a star destroyer can turn the surface of a planet into molten slag and even blow away its atmosphere within hours.
5. Scaling from the Death Star's superlaser.
--------------
...thus, the Enterprise will die in a fiery ball long before it can get its transporters running, mobilize a boarding crew, lock onto the star destroyer, figure out where they can safely transport the men/bomb/whatever, and then commence the operation.
And even if they managed to get men on board, the boarding crew would:
1. Be heavily outnumbered
2. Be in foreign territory and have no defenses against ray shields or other traps
3. Have no idea where the **** they're going.
Wrong. It's conceding to your specific logic to flip it back on you and show its faults.
You still don't like it when your own logic is directed back at you. Burden of proof is on you. If it's for me to prove that an energy barrier would have a frequency because it was never specifically stated, then the burden of proof on frequency-lacking ST shields stopping a transporter is on YOU. So get to it.
Yeah, yeah, everyone's that debated SW Vs ST has seen the Stardestroyer.net and the like calculations before. Rehashing them again and again proves nothing, just as before. We've done the "too powerful" and "single shot destroys all of Star Trek" go-around before.
Um, no. The Enterprise can function while at warp speeds and interact with objects in normal space time. A Star Destroyer would have one option when trying to deal with an Enterprise D at warp, jumping to hyper and fleeing. All this time and you still don't know the basics of ST.
BTW a photon torpedo(you call them bombs) transported directly onboard would be devastating to a SD. Your dismissive approach of this is telling of your deep Star Wars bias.
Why the conditional? It's no less obvious than it being on you if you were to claim that energy shields run on energizer bunnies, which makes just as much sense. That Star Trek inexplicably fails at middle school Science doesn't mean we have to as well.
Complaining about an argument being "rehashed" against another set of debaters isn't a valid response unto itself (I can do the same against your whole transporters gig). I'm so sorry if you're too lazy to do so, but you actually have to posit an intelligible argument to support your claim. I provided you with various evidence and had even taken up the trouble of mathematically calculating engine power from specific examples. All you have to do is explain why these figures don't lead to the obvious conclusion.
1. Show me a single instance of the Enterprise engaging, from warp speed, and firing on a target that is not at warp speed. The Picard Maneuver is effectively precisely because "warp strafing" is apocryphal.
2. The maths shows that the Enterprise's photon torpedos won't even scratch a star destroyer's hull. Go ahead and actually address the numbers, if you wish.
And in the meanwhile, I'll throw out another one: the Death Star's shields tank Alderaan's e38 joule explosion without any apparent harm (its namesake novel confirms that the battle station did not jump to hyperspace to evade the debris, but rather that its shields registered impacts the size of mountain fragments).
A quick calculation leads to the conclusion that the Death Star, which destroyed Alderaan from six planetary diameters, must have absorbed at least e30 joules. Scaling reactor sizes to a star destroyer implies that an ISD can absorb levels of energy comparable to the power output of a small star.
In comparison, the Enterprise is seriously threatened by a 20th century nuke.
Stating the obvious is stating the obvious, you're a sock rehashing the same failed arguments yet again. Still with the "you're not smart" rhetoric trying to once again turn this into a shit-fling. It was old 2 years ago, chap.
Still trying to take credit for calculations others have done. Listen, no one (even the SW wins people) are impressed with your eIntelligence peacocking.
The Enterprise can fire weapons at warp, just deal with it. Your "it can only fire at other at warp objects" is a sad attempt at downplaying. Hint: hitting a slower moving object is generally not harder than hitting a faster moving object.
You're still cherry-picking and going with lowest possible showings for ST, cos it fits your silly bias. Voyager destroyed a massive asteroid and the yield of the torpedo was calculated at 100 megatons. ST-v-SW.net, iirc.
The Death Star isn't in this and it's considerably more powerful than a SD.
Kirk's Enterprise (TOS) took hits from a planet busting entity, that's a 23rd century exploration ship.
Why are you accusing me of reducing this to a shit-fling, when you fail and refuse to even give the pretense of addressing my primary contention without a substance-less ad hominem?
“1. Robtard”, please kindly explain to me how the star destroyers in RotJ circumnavigate Endor in under a minute to encircle the Rebel fleet without each using power comparable to a small star, as basic mathematics would tell us.
2. Kindly explain how the X wings circumnavigate Yavin Prime in under 6 minutes, and then decelerate to match speeds with the Death Star moving in the opposite direction, without possessing truly astronomical power.
3.“just deal with it” =/= proof.
Wow, hypocrisy at work here?
You accuse me of leeching off former contentions (impossible to avoid in a topic this old), but at least I calculate it originally and post links. You just vaguely wave at another person’s work.
Read. My. Post. More. Carefully. I mentioned scaling.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the doomsday device, which destroyed planets via chain reaction, not via violently mass scattering a planet using the reactor’s own output, Death-Star style.
Last edited by Master Han on Aug 24th, 2013 at 02:31 AM
Now comes you pretending you didn't open up with insults to start yet another shit-fling as you did years ago. Good one?
Film science/mechanics. But I do like that a Star Destroyers and X-Wings now have the output of a sun. Back to the same old tired "Star Wars is just too powerful for Star Trek to do anything".
And yes, just deal that Star Trek ships can fight while in warp. It's been what, 2, going on 3 years now you can't deal with that?
Still don't know what hypocrisy is. I named my source, I didn't post it and try to pass it off as original work.
Nah, basically the same as before, already done it and I barely care to again.
Obviously, since we've done this before and I linked you to the episode.
You know, I had a pretty hefty rebuttal typed up to your utterly devoid of substance reply, but after rereading this sentence fragment...
"film science/mechanics" isn't an intelligible rebuttal. The math is there, the science is there, you can't dismiss it on grounds of "it's just fiction" because you conceded the validity of such scientific approaches when you cited darkstar's site, which assumes the same validity of basic physical principles as my own calculations do. So unless if you wish to be a blatant hypocrite and use vaporization calcs (100 megatons) while refusing to accept my own, actually post a comprehensive reply, or this debate is over.
And while your "you copied your shit!" smokescreen is both in bad sport and a blatant ad hominem fallacy, it warrants a reply for the sake of truthfulness: I whipped out a calculator and performed all the permutations myself. I watched the videos and timed incidents personally. I've also posted findings on a joint account on spacebattles.com.
It's obvious from your reply that you have no capacity to actually understand or rebute any of my calculations, and so must resort to:
1. Vaguely declaring that someone else has already done so, and that they are therefore "old" and "rehashed".
2. Ad hominems and sophistic rhetoric with little real substance.
Take, for example, your obsession with warp strafing. I've asked you, what - 3 times now, to provide a single example of a ship in warp strafing a target in realspace, and you haven't even produced an episode name! If this is such a devastating and potent tactic, you'd expect it to be regularly used on planets and space stations...oh, wait, it isn't.
-----
So, I'll try one more time:
“1. Robtard”, please kindly explain to me how the star destroyers in RotJ circumnavigate Endor in under a minute to encircle the Rebel fleet without each using power comparable to a small star, as basic mathematics would tell us.
2. Kindly explain how the X wings circumnavigate Yavin Prime in under 6 minutes, and then decelerate to match speeds with the Death Star moving in the opposite direction, without possessing truly astronomical power.
Last edited by Master Han on Aug 24th, 2013 at 07:49 PM
Yet when it comes to Star Trek, you'll dismiss it as silly film science. So keep eating that bias sandwich while masturbating the "too powerful" stick, same as before. Always with the highest showings for the franchise you love and lowest for the one you dislike.
And do all the flips you like, it's obvious you're Hewhoknowsall, Rudy and who knows how many other socks you've used to come back here rehashing the same failed arguments cos you got a massive chip on your shoulder. FFS, after the mod brought the hammer down in that previous thread cos of the rampant shit-flinging, you resorting to spam PMing me the same arguments over and over.
BTW, the "my calculator" comment was funny and a nice touch.
...ok, you're not even bothering to debate the evidence of the subject matter anymore. If you have some quarrel with me, use the PM system. We're discussing "Star Destroyer vs Enterprise D".
The on-screen, G canon evidence demonstrates that a star destroyer can circumnavigate an Earth-sized planet in under a minute. The on screen, G-canon evidence demonstrates that even X wings can circumnavigate gas giants within minutes. Basic extrapolation from simplistic physics leads to the conclusion that a star destroyer can generate power comparable to a small star, a conclusion that you cannot refute with ad hominems or appeals to incredulity.
If you actually have an argument related to the subject matter to post, feel free to do so. Preferably by addressing my calculations.
Last edited by Master Han on Aug 25th, 2013 at 01:11 AM
Now back to the "you started it" when it's clear you're Hewhoknowsall back to flame-rage ST vs SW yet again and why you necroed a thread; opened up with insults and such toward me, cos of our previous history.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can repeat from other sites and use "basic extrapolation from simplistic physics" claims in some silly attempt to be the eGenius online warrior, got it; no one cares. The Vostok 3KA took just under 90 mins to circumnavigate the Earth in 1961.
I'm new to the Star Trek Universe, but on the whole, it does seem that the science of the Star Trek Universe is more credible, as has been stated in a previous post, Star Wars seems to run on magic at times, it is essentially a fantasy movie set in space. My personal preference is Star Wars though. Star Destroyers just look awesome
__________________ Then lets head down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch
Such a feat would require a fabulous mean acceleration of...
1.36 m/s^2.
It massed 2270 kilograms, so the average power would be...
10 megajoules? And this is under the erroneous assumption that the capsule circumnavigated the Earth under its own power without any usage of the Earth's gravity for centripetal force.
----
So, how does this compare to navigating a gas giant within 5 minutes again?
Not at all. Star Trek's "science" involves the main characters' finding "cracks" in event horizons and jumbling definitions of "joules" and "watts".
Not trying to explain sci-fi tech (in the limited time of the movies) is far better than literally making shit up and committing outright factual errors to try to sound smart.
Similarly, a guy who admits that he doesn't know why his car broke down is more trustworthy than a guy who makes up a story about his neighbor's sabotaging it.
I'd side with the Enterprise D. If necessary metaphasic shielding should hold up well to turbo laser fire (shielding capable of holding up to entering a star's corona; it was shown that Geordi had created a program for those shield mods and it was used by Dr. Crusher to hide in a star from the Borg that Lore had taken control of), the Enterprise is faster and more maneuverable than a Star Destroyer, the ship is far more versatile in it's offensive capabilities, and if a worse case scenario were to occur I wouldn't put it passed Picard to make a run for it (Star Destroyer can't keep up), separate the saucer section and place his crew on it, and ram the drive section of the Enterprise into the Star Destroyer at maximum warp. There's also numerous deflector dish, holographic, phase manipulation, and teleporter shenanigans for the Enterprise to pull from based on all the Swiss army knife tricks they were able to do on the show.
Being able to enter a star's corona isn't very impressive when you look at the energies required to do so, and by no means lead to being able to tank teraton, gigaton or even megaton firepower.
Furthermore, a ship significantly smaller than a star destroyer does the same in the Clone Wars series without any difficulty.
No, it isn't. The Enterprise has never demonstrated very impressive maneuverability in onscreen engagements, and star destroyers have been shown circumnavigating planets in seconds.
Is it now? In additional to the star destroyer's guns being literally orders of magnitude more powerful and having few ammunition limitations compared to the Enterprise's photon torpedos, your star destroyer would have a large complement of tie fighters, bombers, interceptors and defenders armed with thermonuclear warheads.
Unfortunately for Picard, "Swiss army knife tricks" won't consistently defeat superior shielding and firepower. Given a star destroyer's stated capacity to turn a planet's surface into molten slag in a matter of hours, there's no reasonable scenario in which the Enterprise survives long enough to try any ramming or transporter maneuvers.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 23rd, 2013 01:15 PM
