Star Wars vs Star Trek

[Apocalypse2001]

Ok, well after doing some more research, unfortunately I found something where I no longer need my big wall o text

I was going to analyze to the two sides, create a battle scene and have fun with it, but alas I found this...

www .wonderday.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/r2d2startrek600.jpg
(unfortunately I can't post links yet so you will have to take out the space after the 3 Ws when pasting URL in browser)

irrefutable Star Trek Canon (cause it is in the movie after all) showing that the complete destruction of a Star Trek starship didn't even damage, or scratch, one little astromech droid from Star Wars.
And you can't argue its not from Star Wars because JJ Adams even said it was R2 from Star wars.
It's not proof, it's square logic, and genetic fallacy. You know very well, the appearance of an astro-droid was an easter-egg of sorts. It was not there to prove ANYTHING. The screen shot is proof of it being an easter egg - the directors/producers said it in an interview while on tour promoting the film. Not of it being proof of what you said; which was pure fallacy; had nothing to do with Star Trek or anything else for that matter. It was just inserted there, because they KNOW trekkies are very eager to freeze frame every episode, every film, etc that's been created, so they can find things that the production team inserted as either gags, or easter-eggs for the notoriously detailed-oriented geeks out there.


Anyhow..lol...all kidding aside, I will respond seriously to Apacalypse and Saquist on Monday, as I need to work on my book this weekend.

Well it's not really a joke when you're using quantificational fallacies with which to prove something that was not there.

[Quantum_Dragon]

First and foremost, this is my first post here, so hello everyone. Second I am actually excited to see this scene challenged as I use it as point maker a lot for shield strength benefiting Star Wars. Plus considering how often Star Trek has a tendancy to contradict itself sometimes in the shows, and what people say, its nice to see an actual popularly used shield strength scene challenged.

Hello. --- Star Trek doesn't contradict itself, In one of my previous posts...

"A good example for Star Trek is the fact that the ships are easily capable of acceleration that would dam near liquify solid metal, (zero to full impulse). Yet when two ships are sitting in front of each other (not moving), shields fully up, and one fires, and the other ship gets slightly jostled from the impact, the entire crew get flown across the bridge, bulkheads (made out of some super strong metal) falling from the ceiling, and sometimes a random roll of a warp core breach, all the while the shields are still up. It doesn't make sense; they can handle the insane Gs of that acceleration, but not the Gs of a little "shake" from a weapons impact - which the shake is so small you dont see it from any scenes outside the ships."

This same also occurs to ships that are moving around in and out of battle, (so if you say some anti G field is on or something when its normally off they aren't moving) those ships shake as well. Please don't use "Dramatic Effect" because then I can just argue half the stuff in Star Wars thats used to prove Star Trek is stronger, is dramatic effect

the writers, who are only human, could not possibly, short of not having a bridge between their two brain hemispheres, remember everything they had written. I agree totally with that, thus the reason for "retcons". However that applies to both universes.

I myself stared at the screenshots and disbelief, but thought, "why did so many people (Some Star Trek fans I know included) get the insinuation that the bridge was still there?"

wrong use of the word 'insinuation'. You got me, my bad, I was thinking "implication", thanks for the correction. Some Trekkies said that, because it was an art direction issue. Remember, the production team are not Gods. They can make mistakes just as you and I can. But those statement made about the bridge were done by disregarding artistic leeway, for the most part. . .

So I have a few challenges to the arguments that the bridge is destroyed scene.

First is the interpretation of the script.

"the commander of a ship that
has just exploded"

How do we know it is that ship in particular that has exploded? In the scene, the asteroid (or appears to have been the asteroid) exploded, not the ship. On top of that, the rest of the ship is still moving along, implying the ship itself has not "exploded" as I interpret "ship that has just exploded" as the entirety of a ship exploding...kinda like how ST ships and Deathstars have a tendancy to do
Second is somewhat based off of and supports my first argument of the asteroid exploding. In the scene it appears to me as if the asteroid is exploding and not the bridge. This is based on a few things. If indeed the asteroid impacted and destroyed the bridge as well as itself, I do not believe it would have exploded in such manner, it would have smashed into the bridge (rock hitting a pop can effect), tore through it, or tore it off.

again the production team made a mistake, just like the production team forgot to remove the background characters watches in a scene from Ben Hur. I don't know "Ben Hur". However I don't believe that it is valid for you to declare that "the production team made a mistake" (unless they themselves have admitted to it), otherwise I can just take any examples you give of either show and say "production team made a mistake" to turn the tide in my favor. I feel however that the fact that the script never says which ship is destroyed is still valid.


The explosion (based on the fact that the bridge tower doesn't house massive quantities of unstable material near where the asteroid collided...which I find highly likely) you think would originate from the asteroid impact, and from a 3D perspective (given intended optical illusion of 2d) the depth of where the asteroid hit as well. Now if you look at the screenshot that labeled "post impact" on ST v SW net (can't post links yet) the explosion looks to be outside the asteroid (which if it was, the asteroid would not have "shattered" because it would be like a "firecracker in the palm of your hand" like explained on the movie armageddon.) Yes you can argue that explosion caused the asteroid to break up, but this is space, pure vacuum, and an explosion outside of a solid rock wouldn't cause it to explode and shatter unless it was made out of a fragile material, in which case, how did it damage the solid metal (or SW term for really hard metal) bridge?
Even though analyzing it frame by frame such as those screenshots, in the post impact screen shot, yes the explosion looks like it takes place outside the asteroid. (Which, rock on metal doesnt create giant explosions like that on minimal first contact) On top of that, the explosion doesnt even seem centered on the impact point in the first place, so this all could be limitation of special effects, which analyzing any movie frame by frame - especially before computer based special effects, your going to find inconsistancies (aka stardestroyers and the old enterprise don't need fishing line from God to move through space) To me, looking at the scene in its entirety, this explosion looks to emmanate from the asteroid, not the bridge.

again, limitations of the production technology of the time.

Given that in a perfect collision there is no loss of Kinetic energy (massive assumption; no proof; no such thing as perfect collision) You got me on that, shoddy research on my part with a copy and paste... However, "in any collision momentum is conserved." Still Stands If the shields were taken down and the bridge indeed was destroyed and the asteroid dissappears, momentum should have transfered into the ship and the part that keeps drifting along should have some sort of spin (otherwise how would the bridge be destroyed if it did not take any kinetic energy?). Buts since the asteroid explodes (and if you look closely - seems to explode slightly faster than when it collided, which very speculatively could be the momentum of the asteroid combined with the momentum of the ship), this would go so far to prove that the shields did not fail, or the bridge was not destroyed.

(Shields can fluctuate; Correction -Star Trek shields can fluctuate- remember "Star Wars is Fantasy". You can't apply Star Trek technology rules onto Star Wars, in the movies and canon, the shields (full strength, or weakened) basically act as a "wall". Just because a pebble make ripples in the water, does not mean the surface will immediately freeze.Unless Star Trek plot demands an energy field be created that can stop the movement of all molecules inside, thereby freezing the whole thing at once...lol sorry couldn't help it. Anything/everything that uses energy is constantly in motion.No Argument on that, however The impact of something like that, on a ship like that, probably DID have the effect you mentioned. Just because our eyes couldn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't affected "Just because our eyes couldn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't effected." Not a valid argument, otherwise I could use that same argument on any scene on either universe to benefit my arguments as well, and turn this into a ridiculous nit pick contest of doom as I go over every scene of each movie and show from both universes using that to benefit my point of view.


Since the asteroid is more dense (no overly sized spaces for people to walk through) it would have "smashed into the bridge" not exploded with the bridge. Think of throwing a rock at a full popcan, sure there would be an explosion, but asteroid wouldn't explode into tiny peices, unless it hit something "harder" (due to shields) than itself and lost.

an accurate rating of the composition of that body is unknown. For instance in Stargate, the asteroid that was mainly composed of naquada, which was purposefully set on a collision course with earth, could have hit a battle-cruiser's shields, in the ST universe, and not explode. Yes, but they would have bounced away from each other (like pool balls) or when hit battlecruisers shields destoyed the ship, unless battlecruisers shield as a giant pillow. I believe conservation of energy comes into effect, but ehh I can't say for sure (There has to be something there that will be a catalyst for the naquada to explode). That asteroid could have contained something that ignited with enough kinetic energy.And at that point if the asteroid is taking enough of the kinetic energy to ignite something within, then the shield held. However, we see other scenes in the asteroid field where tie fighters flew into asteroids and explode, but the asteroids did not ignite, and I highly doubt that the production team, and Lucas himself would have a "single specialized explosive asteroid" out of the whole field hit the star destroyer at that precise moment.


Now my third argument could go either way to say the bridge was or was not destroyed, and that would be limitation of special effects technology.

One could say to generate the look of the asteroid exploding they had to somehow overlay the explosion (with blank background) over the ship. This is supported by the fact that the scene immediatley switches as the explosion is just finishing (to prevent the obvious magically missing bridge from being seen), and the fact you dont see "destroyed sections of ship" behind the explosion.

yes, artistic leeway; human mistakes, etc; what I said before.And that can be for or against the bridge being destroyed

On the other hand, you could say the reason why you dont see the asteroid "smashing" into the bridge, or tearing through it, is due to limitation of special effects and they decided to just "make an explosion"
You could say "they meant for how the audience took it" but that depends on how the audience takes it (which will be biased), and without direct word word from the guys who did the movie, we will never know on the visual part of the scene if: the bridge is gone due to an effect limitation, or the explosion was used to cover an effect limitation.

(see above)Ditto

In conclusion based on the science of the explosion (all the kinetic energy seemingly remains with the asteroid), and how the script can be interpreted either way (they don't even say its a star destroyer that just exploded even) and how we will really never know on the special effect side of things (if the bridge was actually meant to be seen missing) I would say the bridge is still there.

ummm what science?. "in any collision momentum is conserved." Not much of science, but a little bit..lol... you contradicted yourself, and didn't provided any 'science' concerning the impact. Just misguided contradictions I was offering up both sides of argument trying to lead to the fact that in the end we don't know either way whether if the bridge on that particular ship was supposed to be destroyed or not, thereby removing its usage for shield strength or shield weackness from any further use in this thread.

Unless you can show me footage of the explosion being completley over, and the bridge still missing, or have the special effect guys saying "yea, it was suppose to destroy the bridge." I feel the ship was meant to survive the impact. So we can argue this all day long, but will never truly have an absolute answer. Canon however, says the ship survived, and even if it was, canon also says that Star Destroyers, (of any clas s) can easily withstand much more punishment than just an asteroid.

only the large ships can take a beating, And their shields are basically cigarette paper. The Millenium Falcon was able to fly super close to a nuetron star I believe, and not suffer any damage, so thats some effin strong cigarette paper!
Also you are asking for the impossible. It's a FILM, don't get ahead of yourself

Exactly so I would like to formally request that the use of this scene (impact of asteroid on Star Destroyer) as any form of representation of shield strength, whether for or against, no longer be used. Since it can not be proved beyond a doubt one way, or the other. (Unless the production team themselves say so.)

This is not to say that other ships werent destroyed, or even if the ship did lose its bridge, if it wasn't already hit several times by other large asteroids.

again, those things could have happened on-screen. Lucas concerned himself mainly with the story. That's why he never really focused on the technology. It's FANTASY.

Agreed that Lucas was more concerned with story than scientfic explanations on everything. And I yes its fantasy.

Anyhow, I gotta go for now, I will respond to Saquist later, cya guys till then.

[Quantum_Dragon]

Ok I know I said I was gonna go, but this I just couldn't help myself on...

Originally Posted by Quantum_Dragon
Ok, well after doing some more research, unfortunately I found something where I no longer need my big wall o text

I was going to analyze to the two sides, create a battle scene and have fun with it, but alas I found this...

www .wonderday.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/r2d2startrek600.jpg
(unfortunately I can't post links yet so you will have to take out the space after the 3 Ws when pasting URL in browser)

irrefutable Star Trek Canon (cause it is in the movie after all) showing that the complete destruction of a Star Trek starship didn't even damage, or scratch, one little astromech droid from Star Wars.
And you can't argue its not from Star Wars because JJ Adams even said it was R2 from Star wars.
It's not proof, it's square logic, and genetic fallacy. You know very well, the appearance of an astro-droid was an easter-egg of sorts. It was not there to prove ANYTHING. The screen shot is proof of it being an easter egg - the directors/producers said it in an interview while on tour promoting the film. Not of it being proof of what you said; which was pure fallacy; had nothing to do with Star Trek or anything else for that matter. It was just inserted there, because they KNOW trekkies are very eager to freeze frame every episode, every film, etc that's been created, so they can find things that the production team inserted as either gags, or easter-eggs for the notoriously detailed-oriented geeks out there.

Anyhow..lol...all kidding aside, I will respond seriously to Apacalypse and Saquist on Monday, as I need to work on my book this weekend.”

Well it's not really a joke when you're using quantificational fallacies with which to prove something that was not there.

I was joking, seriously joking...And I am not going to debate too heavily on that fact, (seriously?) but if it will help, as you said here:

You know very well, the appearance of an astro-droid was an easter-egg of sorts.

Yes, I did know it was an easter egg...lol.

I feel like I am Kirk talking to Spock (and your picture doesn't help...lol -take that as a compliment on your debating skills).
However, keeping in Kirk tradition though :

The last thousand or so pages have been arguing about how "everything" in the movies is canon, not "everything excluding easter eggs", easter eggs weren't stated to be dismissed in this thread, and thus in this thread that scene is valid canon.

[Saquist]

Quantum Dragon, I honestly think the Q element is a bit irrelevant in the vs debate. At best Q stands just as much chance doing nothing as doing something in favor of Star Trek or Star Wars. He also stands a better chance of getting disciplined for those actions event though we've never seen him actually stopped by the continuum. And he doesn't make for an interesting battle.

Wars vs Trek is about tech and races and I really think it should be kept on that level.

[NMSquirrel]

Quantum Dragon, I honestly think the Q element is a bit irrelevant in the vs debate. At best Q stands just as much chance doing nothing as doing something in favor of Star Trek or Star Wars. He also stands a better chance of getting disciplined for those actions event though we've never seen him actually stopped by the continuum. And he doesn't make for an interesting battle.

lol..in an upcoming episode Q transports Data back in time to the Republics universe and into the role of Darth Vader, how would he handle that role?

Wars vs Trek is about tech and races and I really think it should be kept on that level.

because only a few ST vs SW fans are that technically enabled..

[ricrery]

You can't possible scold anyone on accurate post representation, sir.
I never said the Skin of Evil explosion was GIGA-anything. I said it was a megaton range and higher.

Except it isn't. An orbital explosion that lasts less than one second cannot be in megaton range. You provide ACTUAL proof that it was in the megaton range with science or GTFO.

Yes, I ignore the absurd notion that the FX are attempting to illustrate real science. Logic reigns here not your petulant expectations for fiction and fantasy.

Oh, so now you should concede that the instances in SW are just FX visuals and don't count, and instead just give up and make ICS prime canon. No, doubtless that your board cares little for how actual debating works, but I won't accept your opinion on this matter. You use science, or GTFO.

Ah yes...classic avoidance. Can't defend you logic for the Star Destroyer can you?

Speak English.

Baseless accusations. I've never labeled anything other than visual evidence

Is that why you were doing the exact opposite right now?

script

Which you have to prove is canon.

or novelization

Which is why you don't acknowledge once it is shown to you?

You're lying.

WAAAH I CONSIDER MY OPINION FACT WAAAH! /Saquist

You don't even know what "proof" is and you use the word recklessly with out understanding or intelligent capacity.

Is that why you, several times already, have shown not to be able to fulfill your burden of proof?

Since logic has no meaning to you then there is no way for you to win the debate.

No, because of your "logic", there is no way for you to win the debate. All you do is lie and make positive claims without proof because of logic. You aren't a debater, you are a waste of time, and this is confirmed since you don't even dare go on other boards, due to being scared of being humiliated in all the debates that you are in.

Logic is first and foremost.

No, suspension of disbelief is first and foremost. Evidence > Logic

Your Red Herring is painfully transparent, Ricery.

... But you still use fallacies, despite failing burden of proof in every post you make.

You have no intentions of proving that Star Destroyer's shields were down because you can't prove it.

I actually can. You can't prove they were down. Let me make it simple so even you could understand. Shields > Hull. Hull survives large asteroid impacting it with no damage. Shields survives what destroys hull thousands of times over. Now it's your turn to provide evidence.

You can't even appropriately support you claim within context.

I didn't make the claim (but doubtless that the mods here don't understand the difference... or how to debate), you did, so you back it up.

Your logic is a house of cards.

I don't use "logic" because of the likes of retards like yourself

You're biased. You've made a fragile tower of assumptions as a reference plucking them from your list and precious few of them are properly supported by the actual greater whole.

And you can't provide a single shred of evidence, use faulty physics, and hide on this board in fear of showing what a idiot you are to the Internet

You then created a strawman argument that you find more to your liking. One that is easier to defeat. You provide evidence that the Scimitar shields were down as though someone bearing my name contradicted you. How...proud you must feel to have won a battle of one, a battle with no opponent. You've attacked your scarecrow but it can't fight back, Ricery. Would you like to actually confront my argument? Or is this string of fallacies the best I can ever hope for from you?

Correction. I'm attacking a brick wall (you) that talks. It just won't budge.

No, I'm afraid not, sir.

Yes, you understand neither.

How can you judge what is and is not rational when you denounce logic?

I denounce logic because it has NO reason for being in the debating world. I follow suspension of disbelief and proof, because those are actually a requirement (oh no, guess you're out ) of debating.

That must be bliss because you just ignored his argument. But ridicule does not a reply make

His posts, like yours, are utter nonsense I don't want to receive brain damage from by responding to with an argument.

It's not about belief. It's about logic and deduction. You dismissed logic. You therefore lost the debate.

No, I dismissed it because it evades burden of proof (coincidence how it happened here because of your "logic"? I think not). You WILL provide evidence (it'll be your first), or GTFO/

Concerning your Canon Evidence of Hearsay
First: When the Millennium Falcon flew toward the Avenger both ships had emerged from the Asteroid Field. The Asteroids which were a threat were no longer a factor. This is exemplified not only visually but by Han's attempt to go to light speed once the asteroids cleared. This addresses all sources. This does not support your claims.

Then how about your prove that they removed shields while in orbit? Come on, you won't accept evidence when it goes against what your irrational mind wants, but you have to fulfill your burden of proof once in your life.

Not a bit of evidence to back that statement up.

The whole ISD bridge and Skins of Evil arguments aren't evidence already?

If that's true at least his comments aren't nearly all personal attacks. He has done his fair share at supporting his assertions and he's all gone head to head with you on the personal attacks. You're calling the kettle black but all I see is a big black pot.

I start attacking when someone fails to debate properly after several posts, which is why I'm attacking you.

He almost never concedes.
You have never conceded. You defy logic. That's why you've never conceded.

Then I guess he's better than you.

But who are you to judge, who has been banned twice now.

I've only been banned because the mods don't care about debating, since they aren't debaters. No, they aren't, but you know what they are? Care bears. When someone starts beings mean, they will drop the banhammer on them, despite that person having the best debating skills and arguments thus far. You can ask James R. all about that.

Apparently you have been wasting your post with personal attacks and misdirection.

While providing evidence and making decent arguments, unlike you.

Then show your formula and your work and prove that you're "better"

Basic stuff. kE=.5mv2, although I'm surprised why you didn't take the time to look it up yourself.

A calculator is no proof of debating prowess.

Using a calculator for a debate is proof of actually trying to debate appropriately.

Logic is the only determining factor of debate.

No, logic is the faith of the debating world. Faith is nonsense the real world, as is logic in the debating world.

I am incredulous do to the source of this "calculator".

Why is that? Because it doesn't get you want and it's made by someone who's been mean to you?

I sourced the MIT students Project Icarus as a counter. That article stipulates the use of 6-100 megaton bombs launched by 6 Apollo Rockets to merely perturb Icarus course.

Please note that 1566 Icarus is 1.4km across, has an orbital velocity of 22 km/s and weighs in at a whopping 3-4 billion metric tons.

So no, a 600 megaton warhead will not obliterate such an asteroid, or even reduce the inertial mass of the remains.

Yet your "calculator" says that a minimum of 13 megatons is necessary to blast out a crater of depth equal to the radius of the asteroid. Can you explain to me, thee who is better at math than I, why MIT students are projecting the equivalent Firepower of 46 times the "calculator" you are using just to nudge it's orbit?

They are wrong here. At 150 K, 600 MT will vaporize 3.29E^11 kg (even if some of the energy is wasted), or 329 million tons of nickel iron. Icarus has an average density of 2,000 kg/m^3, so it definitely isn't a mostly nickel iron asteroid. It's not inert, either (as I've said before)

(Once again literal scientific requirements can't no be logically used as the FX's purpose is not for the purpose of scientific scrutiny.)

Oh, I don't give a shit about your opinion on this. I will take the scientific method for explosions, whether you are too much of fanboy to acknowledge this or not.

A Time Lapse: The script confirms this.
The script also confirms the vessel was destroyed.

You prove this both. The visuals show that the ISD is still alright, with only the bridge affected. You will also prove the script is canon.

False:
Quotes can't determine the size and velocity of a asteroids unless specifically stated. Nothing you've posted adheres to any equivalent of those parameters.

Except we know that it exploded off the hull, and we also know that the ISD is not inert either.

False I did not say Nuclear Explosion

Learn some physics then. There is no such thing as a persistent explosion in space. An explosion would dissipate in less than a second while in space.

[Kittamaru]

No it wouldn't ricrery... an example being, say, a supernova. that's an explosion, and it lasts a fair bit longer than "less than a second"...

Your fallacious arguments are falling flat on their face...

[Saquist]

Except it isn't. An orbital explosion that lasts less than one second cannot be in megaton range. You provide ACTUAL proof that it was in the megaton range with science or GTFO.

Except it is.
It's not an orbital explosion.
An orbital explosion would contradict the plot and the logic of firing on the surface. You can't make up evidence and present it as valid that defies all logic. Sorry this is just a blindingly ignorant statement.

Oh, so now you should concede that the instances in SW are just FX visuals and don't count, and instead just give up and make ICS prime canon. No, doubtless that your board cares little for how actual debating works, but I won't accept your opinion on this matter. You use science, or GTFO.

Stawman
I never said that it doesn't count.

Speak English.

You're being evasive.
You're focusing on Strawman
You haven't given supporting facts to your claims...etc.

Is that why you were doing the exact opposite right now?

The exact opposite of what?

Which you have to prove is canon.

(sigh) What is wrong with you?
Why are you wasting my time?
You should know the answer to that already.

Which is why you don't acknowledge once it is shown to you?

You showed nothing.
No source no reference, just your word for it.
Sorry..that's not good enough and you're clearly not familiar with sourcing your information properly.

WAAAH I CONSIDER MY OPINION FACT WAAAH! /Saquist

Strawman Fallacy
I never said my opinion was fact.

s that why you, several times already, have shown not to be able to fulfill your burden of proof?

Red Herring
Logically your reckless use of the word proof has no association with my logic

No, because of your "logic", there is no way for you to win the debate.

Originally Posted by Ricery
"I will take evidence over logic any day."
You don't understand debate is all about logic.
If you want to defeat another person's "logic" you use logic against them.
You identify the flaw and error in their logic.
Instead you've flamed...followed by an avalanche of logical fallacies.
(shrug)
You can't use evidence properly if you don't have logic. You put the cart before the horse.

No, suspension of disbelief is first and foremost. Evidence > Logic

Not in debate
nor any where else in science.

... But you still use fallacies, despite failing burden of proof in every post you make.

This is just another baseless accusation.
No proof, no justification.

I actually can. You can't prove they were down. Let me make it simple so even you could understand. Shields > Hull. Hull survives large asteroid impacting it with no damage. Shields survives what destroys hull thousands of times over. Now it's your turn to provide evidence.

Is this your house of cards logic by which you use multiple unverified scenes to support your claims of the scene in question? I can't tell, because there is no point of reference..so again you've not given a direct reply.

I didn't make the claim (but doubtless that the mods here don't understand the difference... or how to debate), you did, so you back it up.

And what claim was that?

I don't use "logic" because of the likes of retards like yourself

Ad hominem
You use Logical Fallacies because you can't use logic. (that's my theory)

And you can't provide a single shred of evidence, use faulty physics, and hide on this board in fear of showing what a idiot you are to the Internet

False Statement
A more or less complete list of visual evidence was referenced made by yours truly.

Correction. I'm attacking a brick wall (you) that talks. It just won't budge.

A personal attack is a personal attack no matter the metaphor.

Yes, you understand neither.

Just the opposite, sir.

I denounce logic

Clearly...

His posts, like yours, are utter nonsense I don't want to receive brain damage from by responding to with an argument.

I'm not the one that denounced logic.

No,

Yes, You denounced logic. By definition you lost the debate.
Originally posted by Ricery: I denounce logic...

Then how about your prove that they removed shields while in orbit? Come on, you won't accept evidence when it goes against what your irrational mind wants, but you have to fulfill your burden of proof once in your life.

In orbit of what.

The whole ISD bridge and Skins of Evil arguments aren't evidence already?

That has nothing to do with the context of my post.

I start attacking when someone fails to debate properly after several posts, which is why I'm attacking you.

Since you denouce logic...
Originally posted by Ricery: I denounce logic...
Does that mean you attack yourself because logic is the center of all debate.

Then I guess he's better than you.

???
Relevance, none.

I've only been banned because the mods don't care about debating, since they aren't debaters. No, they aren't, but you know what they are? Care bears. When someone starts beings mean, they will drop the banhammer on them, despite that person having the best debating skills and arguments thus far. You can ask James R. all about that.

Right....
You were warned and banned before.
You didn't have good reason for your actions.
You couldn't follow the rules or direction...that's why you were banned.

While providing evidence and making decent arguments, unlike you.

Not in abundance....sorry.

Basic stuff. kE=.5mv2, although I'm surprised why you didn't take the time to look it up yourself.

And you're using this formula to solve for the amount of equivalent TNT to destroy asteroids?

Using a calculator for a debate is proof of actually trying to debate appropriately.

A calculator is not proof of anything concerning a debate.

No, logic is the faith of the debating world. Faith is nonsense the real world, as is logic in the debating world.

False Statement.
Logic: A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved.

Why is that? Because it doesn't get you want and it's made by someone who's been mean to you?

The Source has been proven wrong before.
Superfluid Gas Eruptions induced by Fusion are not Coronal Mass Ejections.

Please note that 1566 Icarus is 1.4km across, has an orbital velocity of 22 km/s and weighs in at a whopping 3-4 billion metric tons.

Wrong. It's a 2.9 Billion metric tonnes
Wongs site (if my SN is correct) says that Asteroid should be 11 Billion Metric Tonnes assuming a perfect sphere (I believe) at 1.4 km across. And it says it only takes 13 megatons to crater it. WHY?

So no, a 600 megaton warhead will not obliterate such an asteroid, or even reduce the inertial mass of the remains.

The Wong caculator says 13 megatons gets you a crater as deep as the craters radius. That's pretty significant and...according to the Wong Caculator the Mass is even greater (assuming he means a sphere)....than the actual asteroid...and yet...only 13 megatons to crater it. Explain this to me. I'm not as good at math as you are.

They are wrong here.

Project Icarus is wrong?!
You know more than a class room of MIT students?! Even after they REVISED their projection from 100 to 600 megatons? That's shocking. You must be Absolutely BRILLIANT.

At 150 K, 600 MT will vaporize 3.29E^11 kg (even if some of the energy is wasted), or 329 million tons of nickel iron. Icarus has an average density of 2,000 kg/m^3, so it definitely isn't a mostly nickel iron asteroid. It's not inert, either (as I've said before)

Is that 150 K- what? Kilometer distance?
Well according to that, sir it would take 8,814 similar strikes to vaporize the asteroid. 5,288,400 Megatons to destroy this asteroid completely.

Oh, I don't give a shit about your opinion on this. I will take the scientific method for explosions, whether you are too much of fanboy to acknowledge this or not.

Neither do I care about your poor use of the scientific method. THEE who is smarter than MIT students. THEE who denounces logic but claims to know science, Thee who pretends to know the language of science but can not apply proper deduction. THEE whose argument has consisted of more than 2 dozen logical fallacies and flames...and precious little of anything else.

You prove this both. The visuals show that the ISD is still alright, with only the bridge affected. You will also prove the script is canon.

If I have to tell you the obvious then you have no business here.
You clearly haven't done your research. But what else is new?

Except we know that it exploded off the hull, and we also know that the ISD is not inert either.

Which tells us nothing.

Learn some physics then.

Maybe you can hold a class and teach me and the Project Icarus team?

There is no such thing as a persistent explosion in space. An explosion would dissipate in less than a second while in space.

It's not my fault that you use your own interpretation to misrepresent others post Ricery. That's all on you, I don't have to defend it or really even acknowledge it...That's just a courtesy.

[Quantum_Dragon]

At long last I am replying to Saquist...yay!

I entirely agree that the books were below standards. However I didn't notice it too much as I usually try and ignore that and enjoy the overall story as you did. Some of the ideas were great, some "ehh". I agree that any series of books with multiple authors is difficult, sometimes shockingly different writing styles, and sudden shift of the story sometimes made me go "wha? is this the next book in the series or did I miss one?"

I enjoyed and also hated, how the Jedi seemed cocky at times, but there was no challenge to them until the Vong really, and Skywalker being one master trying to train so many Jedi, I can see that happening.

I haven't actually finished the Vong war yet, but I have enjoyed the overall story and Vong themselves so far. The entirety of the ideas behind their race in general is pretty fascinating, right down to how their ships move.

But I didn't like how New Republic responded to the initial invasion...the bickering the stupidity I found it a bit contrived. I think there was a better way to set in motion the invasion.

True, initially I found that it made sense, considering that it was now a "republic" again, so political meddling, and cowardice was not all that surprsing. However, after a certain point of the story I totally agree it got kinda stupid; war has a tendancy to unite people when there is a common superior enemy, and even politicians would eventually realize the need for action.

The best lines out of that whole series though, are when the imperial agent is on the Falcon talking to Han and Leia at the beggining of one of the books; The agent spoke about how the Emperor would have just bypassed the political meddling, sent a fleet of star destroyers and been done with it, and tried to point out the harm of the rebellion. But then Han responded with something along the lines of "No, he would have wasted a large amount of resources building some massive over-sized super weapon called it the "The Nostril of Palpatine or something" and it would have blown up at the last moment." That made me laugh so hard.

(Ultimately the Vong Story showed that with out the tech...such as shields) The weapons of the Vong and Republic were close enough for them to be a match for each other. The New Republic never once vaporized anything from the Yuuzahn Vong

They destroyed a couple warships, and two worldships, (could be wrong on the second worldship, but I thought when Anakin did his fancy death, they destroyed the worldship they were on)

Though some of the warships destroyed were due to some very unconventional tactics. (Gravity Well generators)


I also found the republics ability to come up with technology to help the Yun Haarla campaign of Jaina's, a testament to the Star Wars technological ability. They were able to come up with some pretty advanced devices to fool Vong technology. (Granted if they just had deflector dishes they wouldn't need to have manufactured the seperate devices) but I saw it as a testament to the fact that even though in some ways they seem old and clunky, they actually can be fairly advanced if they want to be.

I honestly think the Q element is a bit irrelevant in the vs debate. At best Q stands just as much chance doing nothing as doing something in favor of Star Trek or Star Wars. He also stands a better chance of getting disciplined for those actions event though we've never seen him actually stopped by the continuum. And he doesn't make for an interesting battle.

Wars vs Trek is about tech and races and I really think it should be kept on that level.

Totally agree, thats kinda what I was getting at, though you did a lot better job at explaining the Q thing than what I was trying to. I was too busy trying to justify it at the same time.

[fedr808]

Why are we even arguing this? Its science fiction.

[Quantum_Dragon]

Alright Apacalypse, I am going to stop using colors at this point and snip some of my own originally post to prevent useless walls of text. I was going to use purple, lol, but I figured it might end up getting to crazy on the colors. If you feel I am taking anything out of context by snipping let me know.

Originally Posted by Quantum_Dragon


I don't remember rocks, and lava, I remember plasma, (not to say its not there, I just don't remember honestly) but I don't think its fair to say biological agents chewing on Star Destroyer hulls is weak when civil war era looking weapons can cause Super novas as a side effect of firing them (Q-guns). (civil war era weapons have nothing to do with supernovas). No but the Q guns "resembled" civil war era weapons. My point of the matter was "just because something looks low tech (like Star Wars) doesn't necessarily mean it is." Also, just because its one type of technology doesn't mean its weak. ok, first of all, what appeared to ORAGANICS as a physical, primitive weapon, is simply how this object appeared to THEM; it doesn't mean that's what it actually WAS.

(it's not technology; it's the meta-physical{?} manipulation of matter There's nothing artificial about it.) -Then why are their non-metaphysical side effects such as Super Novas? Also since Star Wars is "Fantasy," as you say, I COULD simply state all Star Wars technology is meta-physical...Though I admit that it is kinda funny (I mean this in a seriously hahah way) that almost everything in Star Trek has to have a serious technological break down and explanation, and yet when "magical" god-like beings appear, they throw the word "meta-physical" around and thats acceptedI was naming something that could not possibly be named. Meta-physical is the most precise term in written language at the moment. Second, you're ignoring what I said; manipulation of matter. Eevery action has an equal and opposite re-action.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if q-guns have to follow the whole "Every action has an equal and opposite re-action." They fall under some form of technology? Maybe incomprehensible technology, but still technology. As we do see Q do things that are super powerful that don't seem affected by this rule. I know you can argue, "Just because we don't see it..." but then why even bother mentioning the fact that guns have super novas as side effects then? -Anyhow, I feel we are pretty much arguing semantics at this point as Saquists has more elegantly stated why Q shouldn't be included in the ST vs SW discussion.

Unfortunately Star Wars never goes into overly technical detail of how or why things work like Star Trek, so it is harder to make a comparison on the two.
(again, Lucas created SW as a FANTASY. Roddenberry created ST as science-fiction.) Though I don't argue your point on Star Wars being fantasy, I do have to say ST is also Fantasy too, thus why the books can be found in bookstores under "Scifi/Fantasy". Until you can prove all those crazy "particles" they come up with are real. Even if they were real, their usage could still be considered Fantasy; For example: Me dating Kate Beckinsale, Lacy Cherbet, and Hilary Duff at the same time, even though its "possible" (though highly improbable), and I could give a very detailed technical explanation of why this is possible, its still considered a Fantasy.umm ... you're trying to use square logic to show that I meant something completely different. No. You know very well what type of distinction of was making. ..

No. I didn't know the distinction you were trying to make in all honesty (Yes I am an ignorant fool on some things). I didn't fully understand there was a Scifi/fantasy and a "scifi/scifi". Also I do not believe you should be stating what I do and do not know, as you actually don't know what I do and do not know. Just like you did not know if I was or was not joking (I said I was, you came up with I wasnt). Or know the fact of whether or not production teams have made a mistake as you say they did in above posts. (Please don't take as attack, just if you don't know for 100%, then don't say you do or make assumptions.) Now if you do know for a fact that the production teams made a mistake, then by all means..tear me to pieces..lol. -Anyhow sorry, I just felt that needed to be addressed, back to topic...

Fantasy as compared to DUNE - just so I'm more clear on what I meant.
And yes, as a Greek, i DO realize that 'fandasia' applies to ALL fictional shows. I was being more specific; perhaps I should have given examples like I did now.

Thank you for the elaboration, I think I understand it better. But just to clarify, would Babylon 5 (I know its not part of this discussion) then fall under the same science fiction as Star Trek? They have some good scientific explanations for things.

And your red herring at the bottom of this paragraph has to do with possibility and probability. Not fantasy. While at one moment it can seem like a fantasy to date all three women, it is not. Also, again it has nothing to do with the fantasy/sci-fi explanation I made previously.

So if I said "I was dating all three" it would be fantasy then right? (or delusions..lol) Any how your right, it doesn't have much to do with your explanation with the way I phrased that, I should have just kept it simple and said "unreal is unreal"

*me talking about enjoying a New Jedi order book*

again the books have nothing to do with Lucas' universe. Some, like what's his name, who created a series of SW books, was a fanatical, rabid warsie, who insisted that his books are cannon and that George Lucas, who is the creator, didn't know what he was doing.While all that is probably true (I don't follow the politics behind the universes much) I thought they created a big ol canon database for Star Wars, and that the Vong war was included. Thats not to say that particular instances in the books are not canon, as we see with any book with a huge multi author base, Authors like to spout numbers that "sound" good without actually doing any digging of how outrageous the numbers would be if it was real, or how outta line what write is when compared to another authors work.Ummm no. George Lucas is the creator, he has the final say. So, not in films=not canon. It doesn't matter what the parent studio issued. If HIS approval isn't on the product, then it has nothing to do with his work. The particular writer who wrote about the Vong, I believe, is the rabid warsie to which I was referring. What ever the case it's not in his universe.

Using that same logic, since Roddenbery died in 1991, doesn't that mean that everything after TNG is not canon, since his approval can't be on the product cause hes dead? If thats true, that kinda sucks...

Also, I thought that George Lucas himself took part in the creation of a canon database where he pretty much stated that things from EU can be listed as canon, and they are listed by canonocity (if thats even a word) where if there is contradictions, that with the higher canon ratings is the true canon.

[Quantum_Dragon]

Thinking about the shields for my Big Ol Wall of Text, I got to thinking...

Don't shields in their own way, violate the law of "Conservation of Energy?" Unless my whole percieved notion of shields is wrong:

Shields take a large amount of energy, such us always hearing about diverting energy to shields from life support, weapons, what have you. From what I understand, shields "absorb" energy...so were expelling lots of energy..to absorb energy. Where is that energy going?

Does anyone have an answer for this?

UPDATE
Is it possible this could be a law thats not "Complete"? As we see a lot of Newtonian physics challenged by Quantum physics...

[Quantum_Dragon]

Why are we even arguing this? Its science fiction.

How dare you question our arguing! BWAARGH! LOL

I don't know, I find it nice to excersize my mind a little bit with discussion on something not part of the daily grind.

[Saquist]

At long last I am replying to Saquist...yay!

I entirely agree that the books were below standards. However I didn't notice it too much as I usually try and ignore that and enjoy the overall story as you did. Some of the ideas were great, some "ehh". I agree that any series of books with multiple authors is difficult, sometimes shockingly different writing styles, and sudden shift of the story sometimes made me go "wha? is this the next book in the series or did I miss one?"

Yeah I had a similar reaction too. But I have to say that once the Imperials, the Hapes and Corran Horn got invovled....(particularly the author the writes the Horn books) The tempo picked up, the suspense deepened and the stories made more sense.

I haven't actually finished the Vong war yet, but I have enjoyed the overall story and Vong themselves so far. The entirety of the ideas behind their race in general is pretty fascinating, right down to how their ships move.

Where are you so far?

True, initially I found that it made sense, considering that it was now a "republic" again, so political meddling, and cowardice was not all that surprsing. However, after a certain point of the story I totally agree it got kinda stupid; war has a tendancy to unite people when there is a common superior enemy, and even politicians would eventually realize the need for action.

Exactly. It just took way to long. I was kinda irritated that this New Republic was turning out just like the final stages of the last republic.

The best lines out of that whole series though, are when the imperial agent is on the Falcon talking to Han and Leia at the beggining of one of the books; The agent spoke about how the Emperor would have just bypassed the political meddling, sent a fleet of star destroyers and been done with it, and tried to point out the harm of the rebellion. But then Han responded with something along the lines of "No, he would have wasted a large amount of resources building some massive over-sized super weapon called it the "The Nostril of Palpatine or something" and it would have blown up at the last moment." That made me laugh so hard.

Yes....I laughed pretty hard on that spot. It felt real for once that the characters ...especially had recognized the absurdity of those super weapons. I remember Leia was trying to be so diplomatic with the imperials.

They destroyed a couple warships, and two worldships, (could be wrong on the second worldship, but I thought when Anakin did his fancy death, they destroyed the worldship they were on)

I didn't like Anakin dying....
He was the one character that I liked aside from the standard star wars characters...but...what a way to go. What he did was find a whole new level. It was litterally like "Force Unleashed."...I want to go back and read that.

I also found the republics ability to come up with technology to help the Yun Haarla campaign of Jaina's, a testament to the Star Wars technological ability. They were able to come up with some pretty advanced devices to fool Vong technology. (Granted if they just had deflector dishes they wouldn't need to have manufactured the seperate devices) but I saw it as a testament to the fact that even though in some ways they seem old and clunky, they actually can be fairly advanced if they want to be.

AND when they figured out "stutter fire" from the lasers confused the Dovin Basils and overloaded them. I don't remember if they ever figured a way how to stop the grutchin though.

[Apocalypse2001]

Except it isn't. An orbital explosion that lasts less than one second cannot be in megaton range. You provide ACTUAL proof that it was in the megaton range with science or GTFO.

Here is you: 'ooo, ooo, everything has oxygen! ooo, ooo everything has atmosphere! Brief explosions cannot be big in space!
Go learn the basic before making idiotic comments.
What a moron. He continues to act like a petulant child saying the same bullshit over and over and over and over and over....and then he complains TO US that we don't know any science. Idiot.

Oh, so now you should concede that the instances in SW are just FX visuals and don't count, and instead just give up and make ICS prime canon. No, doubtless that your board cares little for how actual debating works, but I won't accept your opinion on this matter. You use science, or GTFO.

Again more personal attacks. More fallacies. More denial. And more childish behavior because he's not as smart as others.

Speak English.
We do. You don't. That's already been proven.



Is that why you were doing the exact opposite right now?

More personal attacks by using misdirection to avoid his explanation.

Which you have to prove is canon.

We've already stated what's cannon. Lucas has, and Majel has. So shut up.

Which is why you don't acknowledge once it is shown to you?
appeal to emotion - you never have, and everyone has proven that. Go home.


WAAAH I CONSIDER MY OPINION FACT WAAAH! /Saquist
That's exactly what YOU do. I've never ONCE read Saquist as whining. He's only gotten slightly angry when you repeat the same fallacies and bullshit lies over and over, instead of educating yourself.
WOW, now wouldn't that be something?! ricerony actually opening a science book!


Is that why you, several times already, have shown not to be able to fulfill your burden of proof?
Wow, those bullies really did do a number on you. Either that or your mother dropped you on your or or you seriously need heavy bifocals.
Here's ricerony: 'herp derp, pages before my posts don't exist! herp derp, only my posts exist!'


No, because of your "logic", there is no way for you to win the debate. All you do is lie and make positive claims without proof because of logic. You aren't a debater, you are a waste of time, and this is confirmed since you don't even dare go on other boards, due to being scared of being humiliated in all the debates that you are in.

And you run TOWARD the big wall with broken glass. Again you make personal attacks about things YOU YOURSELF HAVE NEVER DONE.

No, suspension of disbelief is first and foremost. Evidence > Logic
red herrings and historians fallacies (which you mainly use): uh huh...that has nothing to do with what he said. And you make more attempts to avoid what's being said.


... But you still use fallacies, despite failing burden of proof in every post you make.
oh yeah, sure. Use terms that others have used to PROVE that what you say is bullshit in an attempt to distract others because you have never been capable of addressing a response with logic.

I actually can. You can't prove they were down. Let me make it simple so even you could understand. Shields > Hull. Hull survives large asteroid impacting it with no damage. Shields survives what destroys hull thousands of times over. Now it's your turn to provide evidence.

you just said 'he can't prove shields are down' and then you you go on 'prove' that something impacted the shields as if they were there!!! Did those bullies hit you on the head too many times?! I guess they did.
HERP DERP SHIELDS CAN SURVIVE BIG BANGS. HERP DERP MY RIDICULOUS NUMBERS ARE PROOF. HERP DERP, I NEVER SAY IDIOTIC THINGS!


I didn't make the claim (but doubtless that the mods here don't understand the difference... or how to debate), you did, so you back it up.

Yes you did. Continuously......ad infinitum etc. But of course, you never say bullshit because you're God; you never sound like an idiot!

I don't use "logic" because of the likes of retards like yourself
Wow....if you added 'me' instead of 'your' that would be the first perfect comment you've ever made! lol


And you can't provide a single shred of evidence, use faulty physics, and hide on this board in fear of showing what a idiot you are to the Internet

more personal attacks. You should open your own S&M club since you love being abused.

Correction. I'm attacking a brick wall (you) that talks. It just won't budge.

wow, even HERE if you changed 'you' to 'me' it would be your first accurate statement! but alas, you'll never be able to do that.


Yes, you understand neither.
And this is proof, once again, that you do not recognize proper english.


I denounce logic because it has NO reason for being in the debating world. I follow suspension of disbelief and proof, because those are actually a requirement (oh no, guess you're out ) of debating.

Or really?! So everyone should start talking like you? There ARE many stupid people in the world, but not that many.


His posts, like yours, are utter nonsense I don't want to receive brain damage from by responding to with an argument.

You already have sever brain-damage. You've proven that with your denial-ridden childish comments.


No, I dismissed it because it evades burden of proof (coincidence how it happened here because of your "logic"? I think not). You WILL provide evidence (it'll be your first), or GTFO/

More whining. YOU NEVER HAVE PROVIDED PROOF.


Then how about your prove that they removed shields while in orbit? Come on, you won't accept evidence when it goes against what your irrational mind wants, but you have to fulfill your burden of proof once in your life.

ummm grammar much? and then you call OTHER people stupid??

The whole ISD bridge and Skins of Evil arguments aren't evidence already?

attempt at distraction. Avoiding the issue.

I start attacking when someone fails to debate properly after several posts, which is why I'm attacking you.

no you attack because they don't lower themselves to your level and act like they overdosed on crack.

I've only been banned because the mods don't care about debating, since they aren't debaters. No, they aren't, but you know what they are? Care bears. When someone starts beings mean, they will drop the banhammer on them, despite that person having the best debating skills and arguments thus far. You can ask James R. all about that.

More denial here. Buts that's no surprise. And more whining. More distracting to avoid the argument.....


While providing evidence and making decent arguments, unlike you.

more denial, more childish behavior.

Basic stuff. kE=.5mv2, although I'm surprised why you didn't take the time to look it up yourself.

red herring. Distracting someone like him with something unrelated to the post won't work. Go find someone beneath you on the mental ladder.

Using a calculator for a debate is proof of actually trying to debate appropriately.

Which you have never done. Others have. But it's no surprise that you won't quote him, since you can never be on his level. And don't pretend you don't know of whom I speak.


No, logic is the faith of the debating world. Faith is nonsense the real world, as is logic in the debating world.

oh! so now you're contradicting yourself again..!
He's going to try and prove that that didn't happen! Waaaaait for it...!!


Why is that? Because it doesn't get you want and it's made by someone who's been mean to you?

appeal to emotion, red herring. See how fun it is poking holes in your bullshit? lol making personal attacks again.

Please note that 1566 Icarus is 1.4km across, has an orbital velocity of 22 km/s and weighs in at a whopping 3-4 billion metric tons.

So no, a 600 megaton warhead will not obliterate such an asteroid, or even reduce the inertial mass of the remains.

wow....gibberish much? You used terms in completely the wrong manner.

They are wrong here. At 150 K, 600 MT will vaporize 3.29E^11 kg (even if some of the energy is wasted), or 329 million tons of nickel iron. Icarus has an average density of 2,000 kg/m^3, so it definitely isn't a mostly nickel iron asteroid. It's not inert, either (as I've said before)

you use numbers out of context, and THEN you try and make it seem like it's relevant. *sigh*

Oh, I don't give a shit about your opinion on this. I will take the scientific method for explosions, whether you are too much of fanboy to acknowledge this or not.

oh so there's one method??! LMAO hey lets see Stephen Hawing admit you are more knowledgeable than him.... hell let's get the entire astronomy community to read what you just said. LOL

You prove this both. The visuals show that the ISD is still alright, with only the bridge affected. You will also prove the script is canon.

I WANT BULLSHIT PROOF. I WANT YOU TO ACCEPT MY BULLSHIT. YOUR BULLSHIT ISN'T AS GOOD AS MY BULLSHIT.
That's you in a nut-shell.

Except we know that it exploded off the hull, and we also know that the ISD is not inert either.

Oh you do, do you? Uh...can you show me your production credit? I didn't you part of the crew. lol


Learn some physics then. There is no such thing as a persistent explosion in space. An explosion would dissipate in less than a second while in space.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND here you go again. by contradicting youself, very blatently IN THE SAME POST AGAIN

Wow i think it's record for ricerony to have have contradicted himself so many times. AND IN ONE POST! lol

[Apocalypse2001]

Alright Apacalypse, I am going to stop using colors at this point and snip some of my own originally post to prevent useless walls of text. I was going to use purple, lol, but I figured it might end up getting to crazy on the colors. If you feel I am taking anything out of context by snipping let me know.

I'm fine. You SHOULD use a different color so I can see what paragraph you were responding to....

Doesn't it stand to reason that if q-guns have to follow the whole "Every action has an equal and opposite re-action." They fall under some form of technology? Maybe incomprehensible technology, but still technology. As we do see Q do things that are super powerful that don't seem affected by this rule. I know you can argue, "Just because we don't see it..." but then why even bother mentioning the fact that guns have super novas as side effects then? -Anyhow, I feel we are pretty much arguing semantics at this point as Saquists has more elegantly stated why Q shouldn't be included in the ST vs SW discussion.

Ok, what you stated here, is unrelated to what I said. You missed my point. What appeared to us may look like regular technology, just like the Q appear as human to us. Obviously they are not human.
And, everything, no matter how fantastic it might seem to us, still effect OTHER things. While I DO admit the reactions may very well not be equal every time, they are still reactions.

No. I didn't know the distinction you were trying to make in all honesty (Yes I am an ignorant fool on some things). I didn't fully understand there was a Scifi/fantasy and a "scifi/scifi". Also I do not believe you should be stating what I do and do not know, as you actually don't know what I do and do not know. Just like you did not know if I was or was not joking (I said I was, you came up with I wasnt). Or know the fact of whether or not production teams have made a mistake as you say they did in above posts. (Please don't take as attack, just if you don't know for 100%, then don't say you do or make assumptions.) Now if you do know for a fact that the production teams made a mistake, then by all means..tear me to pieces..lol. -Anyhow sorry, I just felt that needed to be addressed, back to topic...

umm ok....more appeal to emotion fallacies from you. Don't try and make it seem as if I can't talk about anything THAT YOU HAVE SAID. I can, and I will. Making it seem like I'm nit picking YOU instead of what was SAID, is a sure sign of a complex.

Thank you for the elaboration, I think I understand it better. But just to clarify, would Babylon 5 (I know its not part of this discussion) then fall under the same science fiction as Star Trek? They have some good scientific explanations for things.

Babylon 5 is more fantasy than anything. Just because they disperse a bit of tech/medical talk here and there doesn't mean SCIENCE fiction; because the scripts have never stated any science-related material as far as stations, ships, communications etc are concerned. If ANYTHING, Babylon 5 is the space version of "SeaQuest DSV"


So if I said "I was dating all three" it would be fantasy then right? (or delusions..lol) Any how your right, it doesn't have much to do with your explanation with the way I phrased that, I should have just kept it simple and said "unreal is unreal"

Umm maybe you should stick to what you really meant instead of changing you 'meanings' constantly Just so I know what you want to finally say instead of jumping around and changing what you said all the time.


Using that same logic, since Roddenbery died in 1991, doesn't that mean that everything after TNG is not canon, since his approval can't be on the product cause hes dead? If thats true, that kinda sucks...

I've already stated that Majel had power of attorney, and basically approved everything that's been made after his death. Obviously not including the alternate time-line Star Trek film.

Also, I thought that George Lucas himself took part in the creation of a canon database where he pretty much stated that things from EU can be listed as canon, and they are listed by canonocity (if thats even a word) where if there is contradictions, that with the higher canon ratings is the true canon.

His statements were pretty clear. I'm too lazy, at the moment, to write them down....AGAIN.

[Kittamaru]

I think, in all honesty, that Ricrery should be shipped off to Boot Camp... that ought to instill some discipline and basic courtesy into him...

[ricrery]

No it wouldn't ricrery...

Oh, and what source says that? It's an obvious fact (not an opinion at all) that a persistent explosion is the side effect of an atmosphere (clearly Saquist thinks that the Tsar Bomb detonating in space would match its visual appearance when it detonated on Earth ). Here's even a link for you.

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad12.html

Visually the effect would be of a very brief, brilliant flash in a region only a little bigger than the actual extent of the explosive material. Of course there would be no billowing swirling smoke, and any fragments would almost certainly be moving too fast to be visible. The effect would probably be something like that of a big flashbulb.

You see that? The explosion would be very brief, not persistent like Saquist seems so inclined to believe.

an example being, say, a supernova. that's an explosion, and it lasts a fair bit longer than "less than a second"...

Oh, but did you forget the difference between the shockwave and the explosion?

[NMSquirrel]

AAAAAAAAAAAAND here you go again. by contradicting youself, very blatently IN THE SAME POST AGAIN

Wow i think it's record for ricerony to have have contradicted himself so many times. AND IN ONE POST! lol

it would help if you don't highlight his whole post in red..just the contradictions..

[Saquist]

Oh, and what source says that? It's an obvious fact (not an opinion at all) that a persistent explosion is the side effect of an atmosphere (clearly Saquist thinks that the Tsar Bomb detonating in space would match its visual appearance when it detonated on Earth ). Here's even a link for you.


You see that? The explosion would be very brief, not persistent like Saquist seems so inclined to believe.

Strawman Fallacy
My argument is that the realistic effects are irrelevant to on screen special effects that were not designed to depict reality.