Star Wars vs Star Trek

[Believe]

[QUOTE=George1;2673650]wrong. as the hypermatter is accelerated to infinite speed, it is annihilate, which gives the name of the reactor. it annihilates AN EQUIVALENT of 40,000 tones of matter in the form of hypermatter. it dose not burn it, and it is not a antimater reaction.

(annihilate is burning otherwise they wouldn't use this word)

wrong again. the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years.

(this makes your argument worse not better. One shot of this would require 1.69 x 10^17 TONS or the entire deathstar to be made of hyper matter and annihilated FOR JUST ONE SHOT)

which it obviously partially true. i don't know what do you mean when you refer to the output of our sun, but the DS hypermatter reactor takes a large portion of the DS interior.

(energy output of the sun = our sun is a main sequence star like they refer to. They are not saying it is the same thing or that it works in the same way or that it's that same size. What they are saying is that it produces that same amount of raw energy or about 3.846×10^26 watts per second. The places I read actually said it was equivient to several of them to I arbitrarily chose three)

it has to produces enough energy to power the superlaser, the output of the sun in 8,000 years, and power the other systems, including its hyperdrive. so yes, it DOSE produces the output of a star, when it fires the superlaser. there would be no use for that energy otherwise; it would be just wasted.
no, cuz the DS dose not have a fuel tank in the traditional sense. it has some for small reactors that power other parts in case on emergency, but the Main Reactor takes the hypermatter DIRECTLY from hyperspace. no hollow death star, where the fuck did you got that?

( you also need to do research they say that the death star has STORAGE TANKS for the hypermatter. This means that is is not created instantly. They may pull it from hyperspace but they can only pull so much at a time. The amount of hypermatter needed for one shot accouding to their own numbers would exceed the volume of the deathstar making it impossible.)

QUOTE]

Again starwars = troll science

[Believe]

Anyway you miss the point entirely. Their numbers are BS so you can't quote them to try to prove your point. The writers of these books obviously didn't bother to actually calculate out what they were implying.

[Believe]

However, hyper is more efficient than anti matter. It takes one helping of hypermatter to do the work of one helping of anti matter AND one helping of matter making it twice as effective.

[George1]

(annihilate is burning otherwise they wouldn't use this word)

annihilation is a complete different process than burning.
Burn or Combustion is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
while Annihilation is defined as "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object, in this case the total conversion of hypermatte into energy. they are two DIFFERENT processes.

(this makes your argument worse not better. One shot of this would require 1.69 x 10^17 TONS or the entire deathstar to be made of hyper matter and annihilated FOR JUST ONE SHOT)

wrong. it obviously isn't, and the reactor obviuosly DOSE produces the energy. and again, the reactor takes the a large portion of the interior, and obviously dose annihilates that mass, otherwise it wound's destroy Alderaan. that is a fact.

(energy output of the sun = our sun is a main sequence star like they refer to. They are not saying it is the same thing or that it works in the same way or that it's that same size. What they are saying is that it produces that same amount of raw energy or about 3.846×10^26 watts per second. The places I read actually said it was equivient to several of them to I arbitrarily chose three)

and your point here is? i already said what it actually says, so what do you mean?

( you also need to do research they say that the death star has STORAGE TANKS for the hypermatter. This means that is is not created instantly. They may pull it from hyperspace but they can only pull so much at a time. The amount of hypermatter needed for one shot accouding to their own numbers would exceed the volume of the deathstar making it impossible.)

no, it is not impossible, because these STORAGE TANKS aren't mentioned anywhere. where did you got that? i'd like to be proven wrong, so show me the proof for these STORAGE TANKS. and again, it obviously DOSE pulls that hypermatter required, so you just on your own assumptions withouth considering the true facts.

Again starwars = troll science

listed dude, you proved NOTHING and absolutely nothing. so called troll science is your easy way to just throw that which you don't like away by claiming its bullshit, despite the fact that it is supported. you also jump to conclusion without considering the facts: you had no idea of hypermatter, you had no proof they use antimatter, and i have yet to see the STORAGE TANKS proof. case closed bud.

[Kittamaru]

for you, if that's what you mean. the fact of the case is, Saxton has a degree in astrophysics. he has the knowledge of how much energy is required in different areas. and he did not just pop the numbers out of his head like you pathetically claim. He had those numbers by analysis, long before the ICS. they are not bullshis, as i will show a bit later when i'm finished a
answering back.

Appeal to Authority fallacy - a degree in astrophysics means NOTHING in a Science FICTION debate... unless you wish to provide evidence as to the material data backing the items in question (as in, provide evidence the asteroids were of a certain exacting composition, or that Alderaan was made of a certain material, or that SW Hull materials have certain thermal specifications)

UNLESS you can provide that EXACTING data, you cannot claim an "astrophysics degree" means jack shit mate.

[Kittamaru]

wrong. as the hypermatter is accelerated to infinite speed, it is annihilate, which gives the name of the reactor. it annihilates AN EQUIVALENT of 40,000 tones of matter in the form of hypermatter. it dose not burn it, and it is not a antimater reaction.
wrong again. the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years.
which it obviously partially true. i don't know what do you mean when you refer to the output of our sun, but the DS hypermatter reactor takes a large portion of the DS interior. it has to produces enough energy to power the superlaser, the output of the sun in 8,000 years, and power the other systems, including its hyperdrive. so yes, it DOSE produces the output of a star, when it fires the superlaser. there would be no use for that energy otherwise; it would be just wasted.
no, cuz the DS dose not have a fuel tank in the traditional sense. it has some for small reactors that power other parts in case on emergency, but the Main Reactor takes the hypermatter DIRECTLY from hyperspace. no hollow death star, where the fuck did you got that?

the only troll here seams to be you. your also another trekkie who takes science and applies it on thing without actually researching about them. get lost.

Does not matter George... we are given an EXACT number in terms of power AND fuel consumption - sorry, but that just kicked you in the knees... no wonder you aren't happy.

[Kittamaru]

George, he provided the proof from the EU itself - the ship produced X power using Y amount of fuel. That gave us the amount of power the fuel creates. Period. Now, unless you hypothesize the Venator class uses something other than Hypermatter... you're kind of screwed.

[George1]

Does not matter George... we are given an EXACT number in terms of power AND fuel consumption - sorry, but that just kicked you in the knees... no wonder you aren't happy.

i am very happy. it dose matter; all power and consumption given support what i said. you have no idea what was i talking about.

[George1]

Appeal to Authority fallacy - a degree in astrophysics means NOTHING in a Science FICTION debate... unless you wish to provide evidence as to the material data backing the items in question (as in, provide evidence the asteroids were of a certain exacting composition, or that Alderaan was made of a certain material, or that SW Hull materials have certain thermal specifications)

aha, well that goes the other way around and pretty much debunked everything you and the others said.

UNLESS you can provide that EXACTING data, you cannot claim an "astrophysics degree" means jack shit mate.

he did provided data, as exact as possible. having an astrophysics degree DOSE make you more credible in this debate, so stop trying to throw it way.

[George1]

George, he provided the proof from the EU itself - the ship produced X power using Y amount of fuel. That gave us the amount of power the fuel creates. Period. Now, unless you hypothesize the Venator class uses something other than Hypermatter... you're kind of screwed.

no, cuz he missed the fuel actually being use and the way it produces energy. you have absolutely nothing against it. where is the magical evidence that Venators don't use hypermatter? that the hypermatter dose not produces that lever of power output? you missed again, so get lost.

[Believe]

Where did I find this info about the storage tank? Why in the offical starwars cannon of course:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/

14th paragraph:

"The Death Star was 120 kilometers in diameter. Much of its interior space was devoted to systems required to maintain its massive superlaser and power plant. At the heart of the Death Star is a gigantic hypermatter reactor. Within this chamber burned a fusion reaction of prodigious proportions, fed by stellar fuel bottles lining its periphery."

However, what I could not find was YOUR information:

"the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years."

Also, you are just using semantics for the differance between anihilate and burn. Either way the fuel is consumed, i.e. it cannot be re-used so you need more.

So it would take 8,700,000 km^3 of hyper matter to give the power output that you claim. With a 120km diameter the death star only has an internal volume of 904,778.68 km^3. This means that you need to anihilate the volume of 9.6 death stars worth of hypermatter in one second to make this happen.

I loves math, and people that make crap up to try to prove a worthless point.

[Believe]

This is still assuming the it has an equivilent density to uranium. However, it could 100x as dense and it would still require 87,000 km^3 of this stuff to do it.

[George1]

"The Death Star was 120 kilometers in diameter. Much of its interior space was devoted to systems required to maintain its massive superlaser and power plant. At the heart of the Death Star is a gigantic hypermatter reactor. Within this chamber burned a fusion reaction of prodigious proportions, fed by stellar fuel bottles lining its periphery."

and which one says of the tank? none.

"the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years."

yes, it dose.

Also, you are just using semantics for the differance between anihilate and burn. Either way the fuel is consumed, i.e. it cannot be re-used so you need more.

and just like that you prove your ignorance. of course it has to take more, and it dose. and as a authentic trekkie, you go around my words.

So it would take 8,700,000 km^3 of hyper matter to give the power output that you claim. With a 120km diameter the death star only has an internal volume of 904,778.68 km^3. This means that you need to anihilate the volume of 9.6 death stars worth of hypermatter in one second to make this happen.

for fuck...dude, a reactor that annihilates that kind of mass can easily take more and more fuel; as soon as the fuel is converted, more is "pumped" in just like any fucking power generator would do. and since IT DOSE get that energy, it obviously DOSE annihilate 9.6 times the mass of the DS.

I loves math, and people that make crap up to try to prove a worthless point.

unfortunately loving math didn't help you. if you know math, you know that the 8,000 years output is correct, and if you know logic and reason you know that it obviously DOSE annihilate and produces that energy, because simply the evidence from the movie supports it; it fired the laser, so what did produce that energy if not the reactor?
so get over it. you lost, stop trying to go around it.

[George1]

This is still assuming the it has an equivilent density to uranium. However, it could 100x as dense and it would still require 87,000 km^3 of this stuff to do it.

no, cuz hypermatter is not tachyonic, and as a matter that is pretty much the opposite of normal matter (it goes faster as it losses energy and can't go BELOW c) applying your math is not possible: you can't hold something that accelerates to infinite speed the second it is constrained by normal space into a tank, you have to take it directly from the source. otherwise it would produce the energy not inside the reactor, but inside the tank. and you need a basis to provide any density measure: its a fucking hyphothetical particle pretty much the opposite of normal matter.

[Believe]

@George 1: Ok, at this point I'm guessing you are about 11 years old. You obviously cannot follow simple logic, and you do not understand basic math or physics. Also, you don't know how to spell does (it's not dose). I povided you with siteable, starwars cannon from the horses mouth (starwars.com).

The last sentence of the paragraph I quoted says "Within this chamber burned a fusion reaction of prodigious proportions, fed by stellar fuel bottles lining its periphery". Stellar fuel bottles = tanks = containers of some kind silly.

Show me, where in any written starwars text that is consided to be offical that is states "the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years". Obviously not word for word but i'll you can't.

Here's where a prove my point about your math skills, in order to fire the cannon that fuel would have to be burned at the same time or at least in the same second. Are you really saying that reaction chamber INSIDE the deathstar is 9.6 times larger than the deathstar itself? Remind me not to let you build my house when you grow up.

The point is that I use numbers, site reliable sources, and use starwars cannon to make my point. Your argument is the equivilent of "yes it does, cuz i said so"

[George1]

@George 1: Ok, at this point I'm guessing you are about 11 years old. You obviously cannot follow simple logic, and you do not understand basic math or physics. Also, you don't know how to spell does (it's not dose). I povided you with siteable, starwars cannon from the horses mouth (starwars.com).

firts, im 18. second i do understand physics, but even a low math knowledge guy like me can get the idea of the numbers involved. i understand your math, but i explained why it is wrong: it simply is not integrating in the context. they obviously do have the capacity to have that matter, and give two options: they do indeed have store tanks, and in this case they need to store the fuel at an incredible pressure; second, they don't, and the fuel (hypermatter) is taken directly from the source. also, don't get on kits trails and attack my grammar, cuz it is really irrelevant.

The last sentence of the paragraph I quoted says "Within this chamber burned a fusion reaction of prodigious proportions, fed by stellar fuel bottles lining its periphery". Stellar fuel bottles = tanks = containers of some kind silly.

ok, got that. but it dose not prove what you said. if they do indeed have the tanks, then the first option which you didn't even consider in the equation.

Show me, where in any written starwars text that is consided to be offical that is states "the superlaser of the DS alone has to give out an output of energy equivalent to what our sun gives out in eight thousand years". Obviously not word for word but i'll you can't.

i don't have to show you that, its the mathematical and physical proof that sustained it: we saw Alderaan blown up, and that kind of explosion requires that much energy, end of story. they DID it, and that's more proof than enough.

Here's where a prove my point about your math skills, in order to fire the cannon that fuel would have to be burned at the same time or at least in the same second. Are you really saying that reaction chamber INSIDE the deathstar is 9.6 times larger than the deathstar itself? Remind me not to let you build my house when you grow up.

no, what i meant is that the reaction, the hypermatter conversion into energy, is extremely fast and can annihilate 9.6 time the DS in a matter of seconds at least. this is evidence,again, by the fact that they did it.

The point is that I use numbers, site reliable sources, and use starwars cannon to make my point. Your argument is the equivilent of "yes it does, cuz i said so"

no, it is the equivalent (see mr. perfect, its not equivilent ) of "yes it is, cuz we saw it done!".

[Believe]

Ok dude, if your going to plug your ears and close your eyes to the truth go ahead. The more you talk you sillier you seem.

"i don't have to show you that, its the mathematical and physical proof that sustained it: we saw Alderaan blown up, and that kind of explosion requires that much energy, end of story. they DID it, and that's more proof than enough."

Where does it say how much energy this requires? Did you just take this off of a forum somewhere and call it cannon? You can't show me that because it's utter crap. No one has any idea of what it would take to blow a planet apart. The cannon also gives no size and does not give the composition of the planet. This means that whoever made up that number just gave a random guess. I used quotable numbers from starwars to make my numbers.

Also, "they do indeed have store tanks, and in this case they need to store the fuel at an incredible pressure", if it was at pressure that means it is not a solid or liquid and would take up much more space then I originally gave.

"ok, got that. but it dose not prove what you said. if they do indeed have the tanks, then the first option which you didn't even consider in the equation."

what part of "stellar fuel bottles" doesn't prove what I said? Is it the fuel, or the bottles, or the stellar? Why would I consider your option, it's obviously incorrect, even according to starwars cannon.

[Saquist]

[except that without proof, it is meaningless. how did he helped, and what did he helped with?

He's been implicated by the author of the ICS, Saxton.
That's opportunity and his site establishes the motive.

id like to see this proof that states no 40 meters asteroid, trillions of more firepower and the other you claim.

We've posted the information here and you've seen it for the 40 meter asteroid. Pixel by pixel The bolt was measure against a known quantity which was then applied to the asteroid as a bolt strikes and it confirms 4 meters and likely slightly less.

The evidence for the phaser in Q Who, http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedi..._vs._Star_Wars

But Wong's errors with Trek and Star Wars estimates is a matter of record now.

[George1]

Ok dude, if your going to plug your ears and close your eyes to the truth go ahead. The more you talk you sillier you seem.

*facepalm* you dare say that, then i really have nothing to speelk to you anymore.

Where does it say how much energy this requires? Did you just take this off of a forum somewhere and call it cannon? You can't show me that because it's utter crap. No one has any idea of what it would take to blow a planet apart. The cannon also gives no size and does not give the composition of the planet. This means that whoever made up that number just gave a random guess. I used quotable numbers from starwars to make my numbers.

dose not take a genius to figure them out, genius. truth is, i toke those numbers from SD.net from Wong, who personally proved them. now in order for them to be debunked, you have to prove that they are false and can' destroy a planet. i used the K-T extinction event, a 100,000 gigatone event, as a starting point. a 100 million megatone (that's 100,000 gigatones) is not even close to destroy a planet, obviously. so numbers must be MUCH higher. MUCH. if you would bother do the calculations instead of just jumping demanding proof,which i already gave (the K-T impact), you will see that the numbers DO add up. and for the record, Wong has a a degree in applied science, and knows this kind of stuff. I also toke the numbers from Saxton, who has a degree in astrophysics. claiming No one has any idea of what it would take to blow a planet is no proof that you can't find out. so go read from them, and see the numbers directly from the source.and if you still don't believe them, then your just plain and simple ignorant and i am done with you, as i am done with Kit, who also just ignores it. and you lost, anyway.

Also, "they do indeed have store tanks, and in this case they need to store the fuel at an incredible pressure", if it was at pressure that means it is not a solid or liquid and would take up much more space then I originally gave.

sorry, but as we have no idea on the physical state of hypermatter, you can't just say that. fact: no idea on a matter' physical state, no proof that it would take to more space. and, as i said, the tanks would have to store it at extremely high pressures, otherwise the tanks would be immense as you said it, and obviously hey aren't as big as you say.

what part of "stellar fuel bottles" doesn't prove what I said? Is it the fuel, or the bottles, or the stellar? Why would I consider your option, it's obviously incorrect, even according to starwars cannon.

incorrect huh? well, this means you obviously are just ignorant. i gave you the proof that supports it half a dozen times, you don't get it, or you don't want to.

you really DIDN'T consider the tanks as storing the fuel at high pressure, and then you jump with moronic stuff like what i didn't understand. i understand everything: the tank is there, and stores some kind of fuel (although you didn't show it stores hypermatter, which i proved is the real fuel of the DS).

what part of "the DS is fueled by hypermatter ,that you have not proven to be in those tanks, yet you go on to claim the fuel of the DS is in those tanks" you didn't get?

look at the second DS! when they go inside it to fire on the main reactor, do you see ANY fuel tank? where is the humongous fuel tank that fuels the DS2? it obviously doesn't have them. WHERE ARE THEY IF IT HAS THEM? see, when you put aside just plain mathematics and look at the facts (I.E. no fuel tank visible) then you will finally understand your wrong.
by the way, the DS2 is bigger than the DS1, and so is its laser. so the power requirements are bigger, therefore it still needs fuel tanks at least its own size. you do the calculations, but take into consideration the huge hollow surrounding the reactor.
see? you lose. i win. the end.

[George1]

He's been implicated by the author of the ICS, Saxton.
That's opportunity and his site establishes the motive.

simply being implicated says nothing. motives? really? well, id like to see the ICS and Wong's name on it. until then, understand that simple "implication" on an subject of the book that is unknown, and simply thanking Wong is nothing. Got that.

We've posted the information here and you've seen it for the 40 meter asteroid. Pixel by pixel The bolt was measure against a known quantity which was then applied to the asteroid as a bolt strikes and it confirms 4 meters and likely slightly less.

wrong. in the beginning of ANH, a bolt strikes Leia's ship. now look at the size of the bolt: its about half the length of the ships, 75 meters. in TESB we see a bolt hitting an asteroid. now if you look at your own image, http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/3...rmdlbltna1.jpg the bolt here is pretty much coming from about the same area, and it is at least as long as the asteroid it hits. a 40 asteroid is not a flawed length. notice is did not use the Falcon, but the lengths of the objects on screen. considering the bolt as at least 50 meters long, not at all flawed (you guys never toke into consideration the size of the SD, nor the size of the bolt). you haven't show at what distance the SD is from the asteroid, nor anything else.
so please, before you jump with this bullshit again, get a hammer and bang it in your head, cuz i red every bit of info on that page, but no proof. and i am not a close minded guy as you think, my mind is very open and i get on things quick, and i got nothing from that site. the bolt is obviously big, as proof that it came from the same area it shot at the Tantive IV, and it is ridiculous to claim they shot that kind of a gun for a mere 4 meters asteroid, that would be barley noticed on their scanners. sure, they saw a 4 meters asteroid as a "threat" and just vaporized it. probably made out of antimater if such a small object would even draw their attention. see while you go with just hard science and measuring, i also take the story and the involved objects and persons. and a SD would have no worry for a 4 meters asteroid, now would they? oh, YOU WOULD..?

The evidence for the phaser in Q Who, http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedi..._vs._Star_Wars

i read it, but all i see is a relatively small radius hole, not even impressive. i thought they did a large radius hole miles deep, but if you are impressed by a 5-10 meters wide hole...the only thing impressive is the depth. that's another thing.

But Wong's errors with Trek and Star Wars estimates is a matter of record now.

well show them right here,right now.