Tulak Hord vs Yoda

Originally posted by Illustrious
No shit. I already said that if you took the same guy and put him in a marathon of just swinging a weapon, the lightsaber would win. In combat, it's not true.

But unless your arguing that Ragnos would have difficulty swinging a sword, your point is moot.

And guess what? You didn't address any of my points, you just went back to going "no I'm right, you're wrong."

What a hypocrite.

It's not wrong. Rotational mechanics. The torque is greater with the mass centered further from the axis of rotation. More torque = more force, more force means it takes more force to STOP. Got it? It's not up to me to break it down into laymen's terms so you can understand.

You know about as much physics as my dog. Don't bother arguing with that point.

That use of Science simple doesn't work in this case because the lightsaber completely goes against science. There is no material on Earth that is similar to the beam of the lightsaber. You need to think deeper into the subject Illustrious. Why is the torque greater when the mass is further away from the pivot? It is all to do with power. The lightsaber may be lacking weight and the centre of mass might be in the hilt, but the power of the lightsaber is all stored up in the blade. The lightsaber is basically the perfect weapon. The centre of mass is close to the pivot, enabling faster swings and yet the power is focused in the blade. The reason that the reasoning you used works for the sith sword is because the power in the sword comes from the mass of the sword and so it is logical that if the centre of mass is further away from the pivot, the greater the torque is but in a lightsaber, the power comes from the energy beam which weighs nothing so though the centre of mass is

Yes but they are linked

Pointless. The force empowers dark side users too. So you're still missing the point.

Didn't leia strangle a Hutt to death.

Wow, and you talk about selectively quoting 🙄.

Did you not read what Janus said? a Hutt's skin is so tough that blasters are pretty much ineffective against it. Did you see the chain go through Jabba's neck? No. Moot point.

QED. Sit down.

closer to the pivot, the source of the power is in the blade, ergo the source of power is furthur from the pivot, and so the torque is furthur increased. Sorry about the multiple posts BTW. I think these 5 posts cover the issue. This scientifically proves you wrong you big dummy.

That use of Science simple doesn't work in this case because the lightsaber completely goes against science. There is no material on Earth that is similar to the beam of the lightsaber.

Ever heard of theoretical physics? Just because there is no object on earth like a lightsaber doesn't mean we can't calculate the power generated.

We don't have a 100% efficiency steam engine either, but we can mathematically deduce that output of that engine.

You need to think deeper into the subject Illustrious. Why is the torque greater when the mass is further away from the pivot? It is all to do with power. The lightsaber may be lacking weight and the centre of mass might be in the hilt, but the power of the lightsaber is all stored up in the blade.

Power = work/time.

That's it. Do you not understand? Power has nothing to do with lightsaber blades. The blade has no mass. Therefore there is no additional torque generated because the center of mass is in the hilt.

You don't even know what power means beyond "Power" Rangers.

The lightsaber may be lacking weight and the centre of mass might be in the hilt, but the power of the lightsaber is all stored up in the blade. The lightsaber is basically the perfect weapon. The centre of mass is close to the pivot, enabling faster swings and yet the power is focused in the blade.

No it doesn't. Because it has little momentum because of light mass, it is EASY to stop.

Momentum represents how difficult an object is to stop. A sith sword has more momentum, and takes more force to stop than a lightsaber.

The reason that the reasoning you used works for the sith sword is because the power in the sword comes from the blade and so it is logical that if the centre of mass is further away from the pivot, the greater the torque is but in a lightsaber, the power comes from the energy beam which weighs nothing so though the centre of mass is

Which means the center of mass is in the hilt!

The hilt is what? 0 cm's from the pivot? 1 cm at best if your hilt is funny looking?

So let's say you swing with all your might, you apply 500 Newtons of force.

Torque = 500 N * .01 meters = 5 N/m.

Now let's say you have a damn sith sword which has its center of mass .5 meters from the end of the blade. The same 500 Newtons then results in:

Torque = 500N * .5 meters = 250 N/m.

250 N/m as compared to 5. Who has the advantage again? that's a royal pwning.

You don't even know what power is.

This is the definition of power.

In physics, work is defined as a force acting upon an object to cause a displacement. There are three key words in this definition - force, displacement, and cause. In order for a force to qualify as having done work on an object, there must be a displacement and the force must cause the displacement.

Time = 9192631770 cycles of a Cesium-133 atom.

Work/Time = Power.

k?

What you said is "The Fanboy Science!"

closer to the pivot, the source of the power is in the blade, ergo the source of power is furthur from the pivot, and so the torque is furthur increased. Sorry about the multiple posts BTW. I think these 5 posts cover the issue. This scientifically proves you wrong you big dummy.

What science?

"We can't compare because physics don't apply to lightsabers!"

"Lightsaber blades have more power. I haven't proven they have more power with physics. But they just do!"

WTF? You don't even know the meaning of Power and you proved it, right? Hahaha.

Originally posted by Numan
"Then you see them easily shank a Hutt."

Didn't leia strangle a Hutt to death.

She later on killed Beldorian the Great with a Lightsaber.

He was a "Jedi Hutt."

Numan = WTFpwned.

QED, kid. You've been trampled.

Ok, Numan.

Allow me to introduce you to basic argumentation skills.

Call it argument 101...lol

There are 2 types of standard argument, Inductive argument and Deductive argument. Inductive argument asserts that the conclusion follows, not necessarily, but only probably from the truth of the premises. For example:

This man is mortal. That man is mortal. A third man is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.

Inductive reasoning is what science uses to infer upon basic 'truths' based on constant evidence or rather a repeated result. Such as all natural water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Why do we ‘know’ water does this? Because we can take water, and over and over again we can conclude that since all the water is freezing at 0 degrees Celsius, that all water probably freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

The next form of reasoning is Deductive reasoning. Deductive argument asserts that the conclusion follows necessarily from the truth of the premises. For example:

All men are mortal.
Joe is a man.
Therefore Joe is mortal.

If the first two statements are true, then the conclusion must be true. (Necessary)

Now, let me explain why you are under such heat from the people here. You are, in all your posts (arguments) giving either a) just the conclusion or b) premises and a conclusion, however the premises are not true. In argument, one can never prove a conclusion wrong, one can only prove the premises wrong, for if the premises fail then the conclusion is not valid. Or rather, if even a single premise can be proven untrue, then the argument crumbles. For example:

All men are mortal
Joe is an alien
Therefore Joe is mortal

Can you see the logical flaw? Since premise B is not true (necessarily true) then the conclusion is not valid.

Now, why the other members are getting mad at you is because either you are just giving a conclusion, which without premises is just an opinion and means nothing in argument. (i.e. Joe is mortal. Without the premises this is just a statement of opinion). This is in fact what you are doing in many cases. Saying “Lightsabers are more powerful”. Why are they? You MUST state premises, which you are not in many cases. And in the situations where you do in fact state premises, they can be proven untrue, and have been proven untrue using REAL argument. You must provide true premises with a following conclusion or it means nothing at all. The members are getting mad because we are providing set arguments with valid conclusions and for you to argue against them you must find something wrong with one of the premises, which you have not done, EVER, in any of your posts thus far.

Oh and on a side not. You need some basic teaching in fundamental physics, because seriously man, you have no idea what your talking about.

I’d give an argument but since you’ve answered NONE of the other member’s arguments at all, I won’t bother. They win, because you cannot refute them logically.

Thus ends my lesson Numan. I hope you enjoyed it. And I hope it allows you to understand how one must argue. Otherwise your just gonna get WTFpwned like you just did. Repeatedly...lol

👆

And he's still going to say we are all immature idiots and that he is right...

"Ever heard of theoretical physics? Just because there is no object on earth like a lightsaber doesn't mean we can't calculate the power generated."

Yes but the lightsaber beam goes against science as there is nothing scientific that gives it its power.

Originally posted by Illustrious
What science?

"We can't compare because physics don't apply to lightsabers!"

"Lightsaber blades have more power. I haven't proven they have more power with physics. But they just do!"

WTF? You don't even know the meaning of Power and you proved it, right? Hahaha.

I have proven that the lightsaber is more powerful already. If you are too lazy to read back to my earlier posts, you will see that and I am not going to reapeat it if you are too lazy to do so. There is no way that the power of a lightsaber can be proven by physics. Scientifically there are no reasons to explain this power, but the power is still evident. There are many things in star wars that science cannot explain and one of them is the power that a lightsaber can produce.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Ok, Numan.

Allow me to introduce you to basic argumentation skills.

Call it argument 101...lol

There are 2 types of standard argument, Inductive argument and Deductive argument. Inductive argument asserts that the conclusion follows, not necessarily, but only probably from the truth of the premises. For example:

This man is mortal. That man is mortal. A third man is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.

Inductive reasoning is what science uses to infer upon basic 'truths' based on constant evidence or rather a repeated result. Such as all natural water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Why do we ‘know’ water does this? Because we can take water, and over and over again we can conclude that since all the water is freezing at 0 degrees Celsius, that all water probably freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

The next form of reasoning is Deductive reasoning. Deductive argument asserts that the conclusion follows necessarily from the truth of the premises. For example:

All men are mortal.
Joe is a man.
Therefore Joe is mortal.

If the first two statements are true, then the conclusion must be true. (Necessary)

Now, let me explain why you are under such heat from the people here. You are, in all your posts (arguments) giving either a) just the conclusion or b) premises and a conclusion, however the premises are not true. In argument, one can never prove a conclusion wrong, one can only prove the premises wrong, for if the premises fail then the conclusion is not valid. Or rather, if even a single premise can be proven untrue, then the argument crumbles. For example:

All men are mortal
Joe is an alien
Therefore Joe is mortal

Can you see the logical flaw? Since premise B is not true (necessarily true) then the conclusion is not valid.

Now, why the other members are getting mad at you is because either you are just giving a conclusion, which without premises is just an opinion and means nothing in argument. (i.e. Joe is mortal. Without the premises this is just a statement of opinion). This is in fact what you are doing in many cases. Saying “Lightsabers are more powerful”. Why are they? You MUST state premises, which you are not in many cases. And in the situations where you do in fact state premises, they can be proven untrue, and have been proven untrue using REAL argument. You must provide true premises with a following conclusion or it means nothing at all. The members are getting mad because we are providing set arguments with valid conclusions and for you to argue against them you must find something wrong with one of the premises, which you have not done, EVER, in any of your posts thus far.

Oh and on a side not. You need some basic teaching in fundamental physics, because seriously man, you have no idea what your talking about.

I’d give an argument but since you’ve answered NONE of the other member’s arguments at all, I won’t bother. They win, because you cannot refute them logically.

Thus ends my lesson Numan. I hope you enjoyed it. And I hope it allows you to understand how one must argue. Otherwise your just gonna get WTFpwned like you just did. Repeatedly...lol

👆

Thanks for that, I really appreciated that helpful lecture Professor Nodick. As you will see, when Fishy was argueing that the Sith were physically stronger, his 'premises' as you call them were unproven and invalid. This huge speech is all good and everything but you actually haven't given an example of me not having argued properly. You haven't quoted me or nothing. You won't be able to find anything and I give you my word that if you find something that I haven't explained or fully evaluated, then I will step down and admit defeat. Good luck finding something.

look at post 8 on this page

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=390677&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=4

You still haven't answered those questions.

On a unrelated note. Yoda can dance http://www.lemonzoo.com/funny_videos/639/yoda_showing_off_his_dance_moves.html#mtop

Also every single thing that I said earlier (they are at the top of this page) is scientifically correct. You can't just say that it is scientifically wrong. You need to form an argument. Now in the non geek/loser way of saying it, your argument has to consist of a point - something that you are trying to prove or convince someone of. You then need examples and evidence to back up your point. You then need an evaluation to explain how your evidence proves your point. I have done all of this in all of my arguments and they have all been logical and valid.

Originally posted by Numan
Also every single thing that I said earlier (they are at the top of this page) is scientifically correct. You can't just say that it is scientifically wrong. You need to form an argument. Now in the non geek/loser way of saying it, your argument has to consist of a point - something that you are trying to prove or convince someone of. You then need examples and evidence to back up your point. You then need an evaluation to explain how your evidence proves your point. I have done all of this in all of my arguments and they have all been logical and valid.

No they haven't been...

Your entire argument is based on an assumption, the very same assumption your trying to prove.

Its like me saying Sith are stronger then Jedi because they use the Dark Side of the force and the Dark Side is more powerful.

But then when asked why? I will just say I have already proved everything... Numan stop debating, your only making a bigger idiot out of yourself.

Give an example of me using an invalid piece of evidence. Until then don't call me a bad debator.

All your so called evidence has already been beaten. You claim the lightsaber still wins because you can't use science to prove it can't.

Well if thats the case then how could you declare the Lightsaber more powerful? Not through science.

Originally posted by Fishy
All your so called evidence has already been beaten. You claim the lightsaber still wins because you can't use science to prove it can't.

Well if thats the case then how could you declare the Lightsaber more powerful? Not through science.

I have already without the use of science proved this.

Originally posted by Numan
I have already without the use of science proved this.

No you haven't, all you did was give an oppinion. Nothing more. You haven't proven anything that hasn't been debated. And all our far more logical evidence has been countered by you saying a lightsaber pwns and science can't prove me wrong. Thats all you are doing.

Damn you're thick Numan.