-
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648393]So, an UNSOURCED Wikipedia page is your proof?[/QUOTE]
wikipedia is the 3rd largest site in the world. It's a community site. Which means regular people, not coorporate executives, write the pages. Even if something has a source, it does not make it valid. The source can be biased, wrong, or anything else. I can give you 200 pages showing that Africans evolved from gorillas, but it doesn't mean anything if most of the people who WROTE the source material had tons of mistakes.
-
[QUOTE=Stray Dog5;2648405]Okay then ricery explain the difference between contra and anti gravity[/QUOTE]
Utter non-sequitur and red herring you just threw out there. I never claimed it was not anti-grav, I stated that his source was unreliable.
-
[QUOTE=Apocalypse2001;2648407]Even if something has a source, it does not make it valid.
[/quote]
It's still better than no source at all.
[quote]
The source can be biased, wrong, or anything else.
[/quote]
Not when this source is a fictional book in which the author can create fictional things and not worry about it being wrong.
[quote]
I can give you 200 pages showing that Africans evolved from gorillas, but it doesn't mean anything if most of the people who WROTE the source material had tons of mistakes.[/QUOTE]
That material is arguing real things. Fictional material can say strange things and still not be wrong.
-
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648487]It's still better than no source at all.
Not when this source is a fictional book in which the author can create fictional things and not worry about it being wrong.
That material is arguing real things. Fictional material can say strange things and still not be wrong.[/QUOTE]
Find me a source saying it is contra-gravity, and I will concede - as it is, Wookeepedia seems to be about the only site to actually mention it at all, other than an obscure Saxton reference that mentions contra-gravity as something used by tractor beams :shrug:
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2648664]Find me a source saying it is contra-gravity, and I will concede
[/quote]
No, the burden of proof is on you. I made no claims, except that your link had no source.
-
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648900]No, the burden of proof is on you. I made no claims, except that your link had no source.[/QUOTE]
Actually, if you had read the goddamned article yourself, you would note it came from your own venerated "ICS"...
[quote]Repulsorlifts could be assembled in arrays, clusters, or vanes studded with micro-coils of gravitic "knots". These units were then mounted on a vehicle or spacecraft, usually on the underside. The many repulsorlifts needed for a large ship were typically powered by a dedicated "antigrav generator."[1]
Ships as massive as the era were only able to make planetfall with the aid of massive ventral repulsorlift suspension units. In fact, the landing legs of a Lucrehulk-class Core Ship could not support the ship's immense weight without the aid of repulsorlifts.[1] [/quote]
The [1] refers to this citation:
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections
So, no, the burden of proof is on YOU to show where it's anything but anti-gravity. Otherwise, I accept your (all too obvious) concession and await your attempt at backpedaling.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2648923]
The [1] refers to this citation:
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections
[/quote]
The same source that states that a Venator wastes tens of thousands of fuel per second ;)
[quote]
So, no, the burden of proof is on YOU to show where it's anything but anti-gravity. Otherwise, I accept your (all too obvious) concession and await your attempt at backpedaling.[/QUOTE]
Strawman. I made no such claim, but given your track record for poor reading comprehension, I shouldn't be surprised that I made such a claim. Also, should I make prove it? You also a track record for not providing proof when asked at SB.com :p
-
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648932]The same source that states that a Venator wastes tens of thousands of fuel per second[/quote]
Irrelevant, unless you wish to state that the entire ICS is incorrect (which I would be more than willing to do). In which case there is no citation for either Anti-Gravity or Contra-Gravity.
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648932]
Strawman. I made no such claim, but given your track record for poor reading comprehension, I shouldn't be surprised that I made such a claim. Also, should I make prove it? You also a track record for not providing proof when asked at SB.com [/QUOTE]
Actually, I provided all the proof that was required, and have a fair number of people both at SB.com and on another forum that (thankfully) ilk like yourself haven't infiltrated asking why it is I was banned for no apparent reason. I will say in this instance I feel a moderator was too hastily chosen, as twice already his "decisions" in regards to myself alone have been overturned by an administrator, and I do not see any reason for this to be different excepting the fact that the ban was a singled day and thus will not have time to be processed
Also, what strawman? Oh, you mean your strawman attack that I have poor reading comprehension, I get it - I accept your apology and await the signed and sealed, hand-written version to be delivered to my doorstep ;)
Oh, and btw:
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648932]
Also, should I make prove it? You also a track record for not providing proof when asked at SB.com :p[/QUOTE]
Nice basic failure of english there... I'm not even sure what it is your trying to say - my best attempt at translation into actual communication is:
Also, should I make an attempt to prove it? You also have a track record for not providing proof when asked at SB.com.
To the first - sure, go ahead - prove... whatever it is you think you need to prove (not sure what you're getting at there). As to the second, well, slander and libel are your standard fares for debate, so I'm not surprised :rolleyes:
-
guys..not to throw a monkey wrench into your discussion..
but back to OP..
[QUOTE]So if the two universes collided and had to do battle with each other (I mean like Klingons, Borg, Feds vs New Republic, Imperials, Hapes Cluster, Hutts, Jedi, you get the idea...) who would emerge victorious? This is the type of conversation we all have as little children, so enjoy! [/QUOTE]
i can respect your knowledge base when it comes to the technical side of the debate,but can you let some other fans of the universes comment without fear of retribution? (IOW not all fans are as technical as you four)
-
Okay let's reveiw anti-gravity as it is defined ins Sci-Fi.
In most sci-fi setting Anti Gravity is achieved and defined by somehow shielding an object form the effects of gravity. This tends to make items weaightless and means that unless acted by an outside force it will not 'fall' or 'climb'. It can be pushed in either direction of course.
Contragravity
this is the exact reverse of gravity. Instead of the objects being attracted to each other they repell each other. This means that in a ordinary gravity field a contragravity item will accelerate away form the source of gravity.
To give a clearer picture. Think of magnets
The nonmetallic item is the antigravity unit.
The same polarity magnet is contragravity
-
Okay, that's nice. Can you post any excerpts/quotes/dialogue/anything to support that?
-
Contra:
[QUOTE]con·tra (kntr)
[COLOR="Red"]prep.
In contrast or opposition to; against.[/COLOR]
adv.
In opposition to something stated or expected; to the contrary.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contra[/url]
Anti:
[QUOTE]an·ti (nt, -t)
n. pl. an·tis
A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.
adj.
Opposed: "Douglas MacArthur had a coterie of worshipers, balanced off by an equal number . . . who were vehemently anti" (Joseph C. Harsch).
[COLOR="Red"]prep.
Opposed to; against.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti[/url]
Contra = anti. :rolleyes:
-
Dywyddyr - not necessarily. Anti-Gravity in this sense would be something that nullifies gravity (and thus a ships weight and possibly even mass). Contra-gravity is, according to Scott, a repulsive force (read, thrust) that physically contradicts gravity with it's own force.
There is a difference, mainly in the fact that anti-gravity would make a ship physically lighter where as contragravity would simply bear the weight of the ship.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2649480]Dywyddyr - not necessarily. Anti-Gravity in this sense would be something that nullifies gravity (and thus a ships weight and possibly even mass). Contra-gravity is, according to Scott, a repulsive force (read, thrust) that physically contradicts gravity with it's own force.
There is a difference, mainly in the fact that anti-gravity would make a ship physically lighter where as contragravity would simply bear the weight of the ship.[/QUOTE]
Of course there is nothing to say both could not be used simultaneously. Making the ship lighter and then using your own contragravity to move you along.
The point being that Anti-gravity would not be in itself enough to move a ship. At absolute best it nullifies the weight but non of the mass which mean inertia is still an issue.
Star Wars repulsors seem to work on a contragravity basis. Basically pushing against other masses and gravity wells.
Also of note both cultures have mastered Anti gravity, Contra-gravity, and Artificial Gravity. Star Wars makes far more use of Contragravity, but that could be becuase of a societal bias.
In all reality we should be imagining what it would be like if the Federation and the New Republic shared technology and resources.
Imagine warships the size of the Imperial Star Destroyer mounting both warpdrives and hyperdrives. Using Turbophasers, HyperIon cannon, and Plasma Torpedoes (much more effective than quantums). Imagine Warp capable X-wings, Y-Wings, A-wings and B Wings. Imagine Cybot Galactica Protocol Droid that looked organic (like Data). Imagine how well Wookies and Klingons would get along. It's a scary thought. Imagine Starfleet marines with a variety of infantry weapons and armor that kept them alive form otherwise kmortal wounds. really what the two genres could do together would be outstanding. The only real way to improve from there would be adding in Robotech Veritechs and Destroids.
-
Imagine a stormtrooper with a personal shield and a weapon with an auto-aim :D
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2649853]Imagine a stormtrooper with a personal shield and a weapon with an auto-aim :D[/QUOTE]
hehe
Imagine Noghri-Klingon-Wookie-Gorn-Kzinti shock troops!!!
-
[QUOTE=ricrery;2648487]It's still better than no source at all.
[COLOR="Red"]Uh huh. Fallacy.[/COLOR]
Not when this source is a fictional book in which the author can create fictional things and not worry about it being wrong.
[COLOR="Red"]
Uh huh. Reification[/COLOR]
That material is arguing real things. Fictional material can say strange things and still not be wrong.
[COLOR="Red"]More fallacy and reification. [/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
You haven't said anything here, all talk and no Grum-bar as the Nausicans say.
I accept your somewhat off-center acknowledgement that I was absolutely correct.
-
[QUOTE=NMSquirrel;2649216]guys..not to throw a monkey wrench into your discussion..
but back to OP..
i can respect your knowledge base when it comes to the technical side of the debate, but can you let some other fans of the universes comment without fear of retribution? (IOW not all fans are as technical as you four)[/QUOTE]
If you got bullshit, like this here, then you will be called on it. This isn't kindergarten where we have to play nice. This is big boys talking. If you're too damn sensitive, as you've shown countless times since you started posting, then this is not the place for you.
We're not going to stop talking, and sit by and watch, your, riceronies, and TW Scott's [fascist] whining because they don't like that someone is disproving them.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2649853]Imagine a stormtrooper with a personal shield and a weapon with an auto-aim :D[/QUOTE]
he might actually hit something..
-
[QUOTE=Apocalypse2001;2650316]If you got bullshit, like this here, then you will be called on it. This isn't kindergarten where we have to play nice. This is big boys talking. If you're too damn sensitive, as you've shown countless times since you started posting, then this is not the place for you.
We're not going to stop talking, and sit by and watch, your, riceronies, and TW Scott's [fascist] whining because they don't like that someone is disproving them.[/QUOTE]
lol..
ok..consider me called..
that post(mine) was defiantly an emotional release..(i was tired)
i won't defend myself from your comment about me being over sensitive..i have noticed that is the case when i see someone slamming/insulting another..
and i included rice and TW in that post..(rice,TW,apoca,and kitamer is the four i referenced,there was pry more,but i was tired and not thinking clear..)
I did want to reference the OP to see what it said about debate and technical issues..it sounds like it was just supposed to be a fun thread (from the OP)..that was my original intention to try to get some fun back in it..
