Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

[Who is like God arbour]

I'm not sure if I really want to participate in this exchange of insults. But I want to add my two cents.

I know, that according to our theories about the structure of Earth, it would be impossible to drill a hole 3.000 km into the mantle of a planet. In the mantle, temperatures range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at the boundary with the core. Although the higher temperatures far exceed the melting points of the mantle rocks at the surface (about 1200 °C for representative peridotite), the mantle is almost exclusively solid. The enormous lithostatic pressure exerted on the mantle prevents melting, because the temperature at which melting begins (the solidus) increases with pressure. Drilling a hole into the mantle would release that pressure at that point which would result in the melting of the over their melting point heated rocks.

But the problem is not really solved by assuming, that they have "only" drilled 20 km into the crust of Atrea. Because, again referring to models of Earth, the crust is between 5 km (oceanic crust) and 50 km (continental crust) thick. Insofar it could be possible to drill a 20 km deep hole into the crust of a planet without reaching the mantle. But the temperature increases by as much as 30°C (about 50°F) for every kilometer locally in the upper part of the crust. That means, that at 20 km depth, the temperature would be round about 600 °C high. No Starfleet officer in its pyjama could survive even a short stay in a cave which walls, bottom and ceiling are 600 °C hot.

What does this mean? Has the episode not happened because it is not possible? Or do we have to tread it another way?



To Serafina: Maybe you could answer the question, how you would analyse and interpret »A Journey to the Center of the Earth« It is a classic 1864 science fiction novel by Jules Verne. There are many cinematic adoptions of that novel. What is the qualitative difference between »Star Trek«, »Star Wars« and »A Journey to the Center of the Earth« regarding its ability to get analysed and interpreted as you are analysing and interpreting »Star Trek« and »Star Wars«? How are your mathematical and physical skills and knowledges helping you to analyse and interpret »A Journey to the Center of the Earth«? What would be your result if you have to analyse and interpret one of the cinematic adaptions applying the same scientific standards from your analyses and interpretations of »Star Trek« and »Star Wars«?

If you are not able to get satisfying results using your method, please consider, if your method could be flawed.

I think it borders on patheticness to apply too much science in the analyses and interpretation of science fiction, where the shown technology seems to violate mankind's current understanding of the world. If a in a science fiction show portrayed fraction has technology which is able to do things that can only be described as magic, it is inconsequent to assume that this fraction wouldn't use it's magical technology consequent. It is e.g. inconsequent to admit that their drive-technology has to be such magic technology because it enables - without liberating cosmic amounts of energy - their ship to go faster than light, but to insist that their weapons have to work without utilizing such magic technology.

Beside that, one could speculate that in the TNG episode » Inheritance « the modified phaser beam has changed the structure of the mantle through which it has drilled. Maybe it has somehow crystallized the rocks or has done something else, which ensures that the shaft holds under the pressure it should be under. Or maybe they have erected forcefields from generators on the surface of the planet which are holding the shafts open. Or maybe they have adapted their SIF technology to prevent the collapse of the shaft or the melting of the rocks. But it is only a technobabble speculation. There are many different technobabble solutions conceivable. None of them is explainable with your mathematical and physical skills and knowledges. But that does not change the fact, that they could be possible in the universe of »Star Trek«.

Batman would now object that we haven't seen it and that there is no poof for it. That is correct. But we know that there are things that have happened off-screen. And it is stupid to pretend that is not the case. And if, with what we have seen on-screen, something is not possible, it is more plausible to assume that they have made it possible with something they have done off-screen than to disqualify the whole event because assumed impossibility.

[Who is like God arbour]

Furthermore I'd like to invite you to come over here. For you it is easy to join this board while it is impossible for some of us to join SDN. And don't be scared, but you are already debating with us. That's no shame. So do us the honour and join this board for this debate. After that, nobody will force you to stay here and to continue to debate with us. It also shouldn't be detrimental to your membership at SDN. Quite the contrary: You can rightful state that you have come into close contact with the barbarians of SFJ and have made first hand experiences with their stupidity and impersuadableness.

[Mr. Oragahn]

A more accurate comparison would be between the VS portion of SDN and SFJ, since SDN has more numerous forums on things outside of the VS debate.
How has SDN's VS portion grown, or stagnated, compared to SFJ, over the last 2 or 3 years?

That's the real question.

If I'm not greatly mistaken on the numbers, SDN's Star Trek vs Star Wars has similar levels of posting activity to our Trek/Wars section. We also generally have active Star Trek vs Star Wars related threads elsewhere (e.g., in this section and in the Reviews/Critiques section), so you could say that with respect specifically to ST/SW, we have more posting activity. We might have a little more VS posting activity.

On the other hand, SDN logs quite a few more views per post. They do a much better job of promoting their website externally, and would appear to have many more lurkers as a result.

Mike's entire website is still a form of nexus of plenty of stuff a fraction of nerdom may end on one day or another.
He has countless essays, calculators and other things which outside of his own opinions about Trek and Wars, are interesting to read. He did pour a lot of efforts into this structure. It's understandable how some people may be drawn to their boards. Besides it also allows more people to remember and think about certain threads and link to them from other boards, for all sorts of topics, versus debates or not. The "gravity" draws in more stuff, although it's getting into its slow growth stage.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

My personal oppionion happens to match professional politics and strategies (since i am, you know, learning).

Your personal opinion is:

Bollocks.

Not only because it is about contemporary politics but also because you think it over rides canon material.

They can cause stars that are about to go supernova soon (couple of millions years or even much less) to do it know.

Really?, so after our sun goes through its "red giant" stage you claim its gonna go supernova soon?......oh dear and this from the person who needed to reinterpret most of my posts just to make coments on learning science, geology ect ect.

Your actual incapability to comprehend simple scientific concepts or to use any calculations is proof enough.

Look up......LOLOLOL.

Science is a tool.

And sometimes it is effective at explaining sci-fi material and sometimes it is not.

Unless we can NOT reconcile observations with known science, it is the preferrable, better explanation

This is not about when we cannot observations with known science this instance is about ignoringmore than one canon visual and verbal materials for one personal perspective on a single visual.

Oh, and how nice of you to snip the complete rest of this explanation

Because i took the point you were trying to make and pointed out the flaw, after that addressing the entire long winded rant was pointless.

You did not point out any errors in either my calculations or my methodology. Claiming that you did is simply a lie.

Your method of gaining the base figures for roid speed and size seemed fine, the math calculating the roids KE seemed fine.

Your conclusions were vague in regards to how much light would be generated if any at all, your explanation for the flaming roids were overly simplistic representations of certain effects in conditions and unrealistic in regards to the reality of the situation. Oh and you failed to explain the explosions at all.

The visual reference happens to be a diagram. I explained earlier why a diagram is not, in fact, a reliable source of information.

It is a visual referance and claiming it is invalid is the same as claiming that the scematic of the DS in the movie is invalid when you cannot get much more canon than that.

Further, your interpretation of the diagram happens to be based on dialogue - from the visuals alone, we can easily conclude that he points to the area they want to affect.

That is a misleading perspective as the visuals AND the dialog run together as they are shown and he clearly indicates the drilling path by moving his finger down while saying where he is drilling to.

You perspective is very dishonest under the circumstances.

Since no method is mentioned, or that they do it, the most obvious explanation is that it will cool itself. Which would not happen at the depths you propose.

No mention is made on how turbo lasers, warp drive, hyperspace engines and virtually every thing or effect we see in every franchise is cooled but we both know the laws of thermodynamics say they must have a FREAKING AWSOME METHOD of doing so.

If you look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1o5jGOT ... re=related) at around 1.55-2.00, you will see it looks like a blue sky.

It looks like light and the colour of the light is actually white it is only at the edges where the tunnel wall mingles with the pixels that it looks blue, if you do not believe me take a screenie and focus in on it.

The centre is just white the upeer left and top where the light meets the shaft wall looks grey as it darkens the tunnel wall and light in the bottom right show blue.

So the vague blue you see (and now so do i) is actually at the bottom right and not from the light source but instead part of the tunnel wall reflecting the white light that it hitting it.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

The fact that the cave is not crushed by the pressure that would surround it is.

The fact is that they refer to the pockets to be within KM of the molten core and they are a natural phenomenon of this planet.

The fact that the cave could cool on it's own and did not reheat is.

They never say the pocket is to cool on its own and as i mention above both franchises MUST have rather effective methods of dealing with excess heat but never go into detail about them.

The fact that they had seismic activity is.

Explained in the episode as a effect of the outer core cooling.

The fact that they see the sky is.

Debunked it is not a blue light, the blue is reflected light.

No verbal reference for the depth of the cave is given. One ambigous visual that you interpretate with dialogue is easily trumped by half a dozen visuals.

The existance of the naturally occuring pockets and location of the pockets is given and confirmed and a considerable drilling depth towards the molten core is shown as data slides his finger down the image of the planet while referancing drilling to the pockets.

Look at it. It does not illuminate the shaft itself (as an artificial light would)

Actually it does if you focus right in and as i have told you the blue at the lower left is from the reflected white light hitting the walls.

I mentioned several visuals, which you are ignoring.

I am not ignoring anything it is you who is ignoring a entire plot line, verbal comments, visual referances and interpreting a few things (that admitedly without the other main plot canon material would give you a argument) to base your argument on.

Newtonian mechanics would not change. The collapse of that cave would be driven by nothing else.

So you are saying that nothing in the known universe or a sci-fi one could cause a void in a planets mantle even though that planets are clearly mentioned to be there?.

Thermodynamics would not change. The heat in that cave would be regulated by it.

Unless artificcially cooled by a race that would require awsome cooling tech like both ST and SW have.

We KNOW all these things. We understand them now. "This ain't rocket science" - we are not talking about negative space wedgies, subspace, warp drives or anything like that. We are talking about things that people understood perfectly well more than a centruy ago.

No you are talking about things that people understood perfectly well more than a centruy ago, the episode is talking about things that happen on a alien planet that has voids in its mantle.

You are again trying to justify what you want to believe and ignoring the canon material in the episode and the tech available to the federation.

Endor planetary shielding is (novel) G canon, contradicted by visuals in rotj.

(Built after Phantom Menace) Naboo planetary shields are (novel) G canon.

Rubbish.

Alderaan planetary shields ARE G canon.

Never even mentioned and wishful thinking doth not G canon make.

Furthermore, C canon IS canon unless it directly contradicts G canon. No such contradiction exists.

You mean like the visuals in ROTJ?.

Simple high-density M/AM storages

Simple?, i quintillion tons per shot?, good luck with dealing with all that mass.

It would not be sufficient, yes. However, if you also explained the radiation emmited from the uranium, i would accept that it can be used as a reactor fuel.

2 seperate explanations for 2 seperate things, that yes are used together.

I am not saying that it does not require time to recharge - but you apparently choose to ignore the part where i explained that a mechanism to move energy can also be crudely used to store it.

I did not ignore it because it had nothing to really discuss because we have no idea how they moved it apart from seeing the single beam internally when it fired and as we see the internal beam start it was obviously not being used for storage already was it?.

Wait...so i explain why it does NOT have to do that (refill), and you demand a source where it DOES do that?

Well we know it would have had to fill (not refill) at least once......

Don't you understand the concept of super-dense matter?

Yes i do and you cannot ignore mass.

All these caluclations that show that the DS would have to annihilate more than it itself weights to fire it's superlaser once assume that it is about as dense as a modern naval ship.

I never assumed that because i never mentioned the DS would have to annihilate more than it itself weights to fire it's superlaser, i just pointed out how much m/am it would need to turn to energy for the DET theory to work.

We do not know the weight of the Death Star. It could easily contain thousands of solar masses in the form of collapsed (black hole like) matter.

Easily is not the word i would use.

Il need to add a few more complications to the DET theory if thats what your gonna go with though, still it maybe better than claiming it stores its matter and anti-matter by turning them into Neutrino's then turning them back on demand in planet popping portions to anhialate each other and blow stuff up.

So your claim is based entirely on an unknown person who uses no sources whatsoever. Great
You moron.
You just admitted that you have no sources for this. In other words: You made it up!

Well somebody else made some of it up (the fusion in any material bit), i just read through it and adopted the idea as a very reasonable and less complicated DS laser theory than the DET one.

Nice - no comment then on the fact that you either have a faulty memory or tried an incredilby cheap personal attack.

Other than when referancing your dubious methodoligy amoung other things have a resorted to any real abusive insults apart from the jokingly done spelling one?.

You have my word it was a error and not a intended one for what ever that is worth, and a apology if you did feel insulted by the error.

If there was any growth, it would not be of emotional nature (since it would have nothing to do with, you know, emotions).
Oh, and nice going there stating what i just said. Nice going there snipping that out to make it appear like you said it yourself.

The post is there for all to see if you feel i was trying to do what you say, il not edit it.

I corrected and admitted my flaw in my post as soon as you pointed it out but i conceed you officially said it first....yay you.

So - they did except it to stop.

That was kind of the point of the episode dude, the issue was not the heating up but the stabilising of it.

They must have based that expectation on something.

Not wanting to try it on their own sun first and wipe out his entire race would be my guess....

The sun must have had different properties than expected, hence their calculations were wrong (or they were morons, your choice).

Well it was explained bit im betting it will just upset you if i post what they say:-

"A rise the the hydrogen alpha emmisions caused by neutron migration"....heh.

Wrong, sir, wrong!
Shortly after my calculation, bz249 SHOWED how it would generate the light, and how much it would be. Simple black body radiation, a basic physics concept.

I do not remember him saying exactly how bright the flash it would be.

There is still no explosion. I mentioned that about half a dozen times now.
Further - explain why my explanation is "laughable". Start to actually back up what you say, kid!

You say it but we see it after the flash, expanding burning gasses ect ect..

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

To Serafina: Maybe you could answer the question, how you would analyse and interpret »A Journey to the Center of the Earth« It is a classic 1864 science fiction novel by Jules Verne. There are many cinematic adoptions of that novel. What is the qualitative difference between »Star Trek«, »Star Wars« and »A Journey to the Center of the Earth« regarding its ability to get analysed and interpreted as you are analysing and interpreting »Star Trek« and »Star Wars«? How are your mathematical and physical skills and knowledges helping you to analyse and interpret »A Journey to the Center of the Earth«? What would be your result if you have to analyse and interpret one of the cinematic adaptions applying the same scientific standards from your analyses and interpretations of »Star Trek« and »Star Wars«?

The only option in the case of jules verne A Journey to the Center of the Earth is to assume that it is a alternate reality or another planet and that the core is differant some how and MOVE ON.

The amusing thing is WE KNOW that it is another planet in "Inheritance" but regardless that is ignored by those who wish to serve their own ends.


This pretty much sums up the flaw in using science to disregard canon material (and not just canon material but main plot material) as well as existing/known tech instead of using science and existing/known tech to explain the anomolies.

WE KNOW that it is another planet.
WE KNOW that the core is cooling.
WE KNOW that its core has also begun to solidify.
WE KNOW that it does have pockets/voids near its molten core.
WE KNOW that they are at a significant depth into the planets mantle due to the visual referance made along with the verbal one.
WE KNOW that they drill down to them.
WE KNOW that the phaser blast lasted roughly 19 seconds to do so.
WE KNOW that they wanted to adjust the particle beam while drilling to minimize the seismic stress.
WE KNOW that the pockets need to cool after the drilling process.
WE KNOW that if they had stopped drilling before reaching a pocket they could not start again in the same shaft.
WE KNOW that looking up the shaft, we could see light.
WE KNOW that that it is in fact not blue light and that the blue is from reflections off the shaft walls.


WE DO NOT KNOW how the pockets exist due to the pressure.
WE DO NOT KNOW the diameter of the planet.
WE DO NOT KNOW the exact depth of the shaft due to not knowing the diameter of the planet.
WE DO NOT KNOW how the pockets are cooled and kept cool.
WE DO NOT KNOW the source of the light in the pocket or the shaft.
WE DO NOT KNOW the diameter of the shaft due to not knowing how high the ceiling is.

So lets use the fact we are on another planet, science and available tech to explain things we do not know instead of disregarding the canon material and the main plot:

The pockets exist on this planet becauseit has a material in its mantle that can resist the pressure at those depths.
The planet seems to be M-type in its diameter as per the visuals of the E-D in orbit, but im willing to hear other theories.
The exact depth os still unknown but all indications that do not contradict the plot or canon material are that it is well into the mantle making it 2500km or more if a typical M-class is accepted.
The pockets are cooled by some kind of Fed tech as the ability to VERY effectivly cool things is essential to a advanced space faring civilisation.
The light is artificial just like the light created in the pocket.

Job done and we did not need to disregard plot or canon material....

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Of course, he is trying to imply that HE understands enough "math, science and suspension of disbelief" to point out that i misuse them.

I do or you would have sown irrefutable proof instead of vague hand waves towards implausable, seperate and highly unique instances.

He also NEVER used any calculations

Considering i am discussing the events the calculations are based on the later math is not THE or A issue in that regard.

Of course, i know that his style of debating won't shape up.

Dear god a comment like this from the person who thinks her opinion over rides canon material...

Essentially, i am trying to tire him out - watching as the level of bullshit increases and his arguments get worse and worse.

Essentially i am showing that your dishonest tactics of using:

1. Personal opinion instead of canon material.
2. Using math in a false cause type fallacy (by misinterpreting events the math based off and then shifting the focus to the accuracy of the math alone).
3. Mentioning seperate events that could scientificaly happen under certain very specific circumstances and claiming they would work under totally differant circumstances, pretty much abusing the scientific method for personal bias.
4. Ignoring "suspension of disbelief" as and when it serves your bias in favor of points one, two or three.

And my posts are not getting shorter now are they?......

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Now, i am not actually a rude person - but i had often encountered people who "respect all oppinions" - regardless on wether they are shit or not. Calling a bullshiter or an idiot such is not rude

Actually you are a very rude person, i find it very easy to point oyt your disgraceful abuse of science to serve your bias without resorting to foul abuse.

And considering you either do know enough science to abuse or know somebody who is helping you do so you are far worse than somebody who is answering from ignorance.

Yeah, right - guess what, kid - politics follow the dicate of reality.

And in sci-fi debates canon events dictate reality.

Wrong. You can always use the scientic method. Sometimes, you have to declare something unknown

Declaring something unknown is fine as it clearly shows that relying purely on science can fail when debating sci-fi, some times you just need to accept that something happened, you cannot explain it satisfactorly and MOVE ON.

I did not ignore it. I analyzed it. It is clearly contradictionary to other observations (read: canon visuals). We have to explain this somehow.

Then explain them using what we know the federation has available and that they are on a alien world, disregarding canon material is a unacceptable method.

Sooo...you admit that the calculation is correct?

I am willing to accept the speed and size calculations unless better ones are shown or i find a flaw in them.

Wrong. I (with a bit help) showed how much light would be generated.

No you did not.

The "flaming asteroids" (you seem to have an odd fascination with that word :P ) can be explained by basic chemistry.

Actually basic chemistry can show circumstances where iron will burn, however the circumstance required are not available to see the burning we see.

It could simply refer to the region they want to affect - not the one they are going to drill to.

On its own that would be a big leap, coupled with the fact the drilling is descriped in detail as his finger is sliding down through the sections of the planet the canon evidence would have to be disregarded to support such a leap.

Dialogue is falliable.

Everthing is fallable, laser blasts that take the same time to cross a room and hit somebody as they do to cross miles upon miles of space or ground. The DS super laser taken from the perspective as it hits the planet shows that it some how expanded to 100's of miles in diameter or we would never see it from the distance we are supposedly at.

I could go on but the fact is that their comes a point where canon over rides all visual and verbal limits placed on what we see and hear because of the limitations placed upon it by the mechanics of movie making, that is one of the defining reasons we need to use suspension of disbelief because it allows us to disregard these errors the limitations force on us.

Except, not. We actually have several instances of cooling mechanisms for starships in Star Wars.

I do not remember any being mentioned in any of the movies so i guess your ships cannot exist if we follow your rule of thumb.

Apparently, you also fail at simple optics.
But hey, proove me wrong - perform calculations, make a diagram. Should be quite simple, assuming that you passed high school.

The light is white when you focus in on it, the blue is a reflection off the walls, i do not need to calculate anything to describe what my eyes clearly see.

Explain how this would happen. Simple newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics.

Our currant level of newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics is not EXPANDED enough to currantly do so.

So they put up a blue light that can illuminate a 2000 km long shaft, which no one actually uses.
Did they also put wallpapers in that shaft?

Nobody has claimed that the light source is at the top of the shaft near the surface.

Didn't the activty INCREASE after they heated it? So...ah, screw this, everyone can see the contradiction here.

Nope the activity was already a issue and did not begin heating until after they left the tunnel, they activated the plasma infusers from orbit. The drilling did increase the local siesmic activity and that is mentioned and dealt with by adjusting phaser power.

Provide evidence that such pockets can and do exist under such pressure.

Our currant level of newtonian mechanics, alien worlds, exotic/undecovered materials, and thermodynamics is not EXPANDED enough to currantly do so.

However the fact they exist is canon so accept it using the suspension of disbelief and MOVE ON.

And no, "The Core" is not valid evidence - and even that movie was more scientificall accurate than you are.

I like that movie and found it very entertaining.....however in regards to suspension of disbelief and canon, plot over riding scientific method and even your abuse of it for personal bias id say its a perfect example of evidence just not in the way you want.

I was actually watching it yesterday to give my brain a break from your stupidity.

Another lie to allow a insult (maybe regarding the fact you watched it at all but cetainly in regards to giving your brain a rest).

The plot?....The B-plot....

Dear god you do nitpick.

The B-plot was about injecting plasma INTO the molten iron core of a planet from pockets a few KM from it.

In a sci-fi universe? Sure - but we see nothing in Star Trek that permits this.

LOL talk about entertainment, ignoring the fact that i have not check to see if there have been instances where such a material exists in trek the fact is:-

WE HAVE NOW SEEN A EXAMPLE IN TREK THAT A MATERIAL CAN DO SO.

It is now canon that a un named or explained material that can do so exists in trek...how do you think canon material is created anyway?......oh thats right from examples of it or its effects in the series lol.....

All canon material had a "first" in regards to when its effects were was shown or mentioned if you dismissed them because of that then nothing ever exists in any franchise.....

Even if you cool something, thermodynamics still apply. That's another big, damn FAIL for you.
Hey, did you know that a refrigerator (or air condition) doesn't actuall eleminate heat? It just moves it.
Likewise, they have to move the heat somewhere - so where did it go?

The FAIL is in your question and assumption.

You mean where did it go when they only had a entire planetary mass to distribute it over?........what a silly question.

The laws of physics are universal across the universe. They do not spontaneously change because you are on another planet.

Covered this above in regards to canon material.

I am not ignoring, i am explaining. Ignorance would indicate that i do not adress canonic things - instead, i did just that.

No you chose to re-interpret a limited section in such a way that it is in direct conflict with other direct canon material, as such your theory fails.

"The Death Star orbits a planet (moon). From this planet, it's protected by a powerfull shield. We take out the shield, then we blow it up."

If that dialog is correct then he clearly says the DS is protected by a powerful shield from the planet/moon, he does not say the planet is shielded, this is reinforced by the visual of the shield coming out from the endor but not covering the moon/planet.

By your logic, this also disprooves the existance of an imperial fleet (they clearly knew that they had some ships there, they were not surpised when the strike team saw the Executor), since it was not shown on that diagram either.

The diagram was ALL about 3 things the PLANET, the DS and the SHIELD to claim they left out the fact it covered the planet when the ground mission was essential and required to get through it is absurd.

Alderaans shield is SEEN. That's more than enough.

Personal and biased interpretations doth not canon make.

Explain the contradiciton?
Oh, you mean the diagram? Gee, how many times do i have to explain this to you?

Quality over quantity...no matter how many times you talk rubbish its still rubbish dude.

Mass-lightening, anyone? They clearly have anti-gravity technology - they can even use it on cheap two-person transports!

So you see a floating car in SW and you throw Newton's laws of motion and at least some of the conservation laws out of the window, but A CAVE UNDERGROUND IN ST MUST CONFORM!!!!!...

Provide evidence for this assertion.

That the fact the DS needed fuel so it had to be fueled at least once?.......and considering that it cannot hold a INFINITE amount of fuell then id say it would eventually need refueling....

Trek can. Star Wars can. Who was it again that was complaining about science to ignore canon?

Can i consider this a consession regarding your above comments then?.

A lot.

At one quintillion tons per shot id say you just won the understatment award.

Which could be stored as compressed matter.

Perhaps but it does add a few more levels of complications to the DET theory.

Problem solved, no contradiction here. Figuring out that they need a lot of energy is hardly a great feat.

The DET theory requires it in spades and because of that we have many layers of complications that cannot be solved using our "UNEXPANDED" physics knowledge.

Neutrinos? You are aware that Neutrinos are electrically neutral, and thus would be extremely different to store?

Yes i am, in fact i pointed it out to yet another one of you warsies who was making the assertion that:

"It stores its matter and anti-matter by turning them into Neutrino's then LATER turning them back into M/AM on demand in planet popping portions to anhialate each other and generate the energy to blow stuff up".

Now that i told you that it was yet another warie idea im sure you will find some way to defend it however........

I will accept this as an apology.

It was if my error actually offended you but i doubt it considering the much more abusive insults you throw around.

This does not adress my point. They expected it to stabilize. They failed. This indicates that something was wrong.

With the process thet used to try and stabilse it not the one they used to heat it.

Yes, that was the reason for choosing another star.
Now, what was the reason for choosing a similar star?
Getting the answer to that one should be easy, given that i already gave it to you.

Because it was simular to the one they wanted to fix, the answer is in the question.

Posting evidence is supposed to upset me?
Of course, that snippet is not actually evidence for them to try to stabilize it actively. It's merely pointless technobabble. I suggest quoting longer and/or more relevant dialogue.

I mentioned it would up set you because of what they said, but regardless that is the reason they gave for the process not stabilising.

Look here: I gave you the energy. He gave us the light that would be emitted. I gave you a size estaminate for the asteroid.
Simply calculate how long the energy could sustain the necessary temperatures for emitting visible light.

But you calculations assume a direct collision rather than i indirect one and that all the KE from it is used to create heat and light.

When the fact is one roid is clearly deflected by 90 degrees, the other seemed to get shattered i all directions, the flash of light is so bright it fills the entire view, and we see afterwards a explosion of expanding burning gas/material from witch emerges the deflected asteroid that is also on fire.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/alb ... ids_E1.gif

Which doesn't necessiate an explosion. You still do not know what an explosion actuall is.

It looks exactlu like a explosion to be, however if you wish to enlighten me go ahead.

Star Trek has observed instances of all the law we need. Such a planet would be impossible in Star Trek - indeed, we never see one.

This has been dealt with above, all canon material had a first ocurrance and while this may or may not be the first time we have seen material capable of withstanding such pressures the fact we now HAVE seen it means that it does exist in the trek verse.

No, we are just TOLD that these pockets exist at these depths. Dialogue is not a reliable source of information.

It is supported by visual material.

No, we do NOT know that it is a reflection of anything.

Closer examination of the light confirms the source is not blue.

We know that such a thing would be impossible.

On earth with our currand understanding yes, in trek it is not inpossable.

We know that is has earth-like gravity and composition, therefore the diameter can not be that different.

That mearly confirms the mass is simular not the composition.

We do not know how they are kept cool. Additional information has to be invented out of thin air in order to explain the supposed depth.

Cooling is rarely if ever mentioned in any franchise and it is essential to them all.

We do not know the source of light. The sky would make sense, a lmapf would not.

Not at the canon depths, hense it is likely artificial.


We DO know the diameter of the shaft, since we do know the height of the ceiling (it can be seen before and after that scene, and indeed even during the scene).

We DO know the diameter of the shaft, since we do know the height of the ceiling.

The height of the ceiling is impossable to judge from the perspective we have.

Merely being on another planet doesn't invaldiate all, or indeed any, laws of physics.

Like ignoring mass?....we have covered this.

Such a material does not exist.

Canon says it does, move on.

It has earth-like gravity and compositon. Therefore, it IS earth like

Superficially, it has the same mass and atmosphere but to claim identical composition is wrong unless earth has voids near its liquid core as well.

You know what? Finally provide a quote that they even say it's 2500 km deep.

Your assertions regarding some simularities regarding size and math coupled with canon visuals and verbal material confirm 2500km as a bare minmum.

We do, however, NOT see that they are capable of moving enormous quantities of heat from thousands of kilometers away.

What we do not see is irelavant, they must have the capability to cool the cave as they do, MOVE ON.

Why would they put a light up there?

It is there, we see it, it is not blue therefore good or bad they had a reason, MOVE ON.

Oh, and a quick note: Due to needing sleep, i am not carefully checking formattin or spelling on this. Be warned.

OMFG YOU DO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..

Asking me to forgive spelling errors when im not even likely to notice them and tell you have spelled summat wrong in the first place...ROFLMAO.

But your style of debating is still horribly creationist like, regardless of how bad mine might be.

Not really, i just start my arguments at the begining and not at the point you wish. You want to leap str8 to the math, meaning it will be based a lot of the time on your perceptions and opinions, i prefer to debate the initial perceptions. Now i do not ignore math or say it is irelavant but what the math is based on is like the foundation of a house and as i am in the ground work and landscaping business i know that if you build on a flaw it just gets larger as you get higher.

Nope, never did that. I am using logic and science - if i did it wrong, you could attack that instead of the method.

Actually you use canon, science and logic......the problem is that you use them like weapons instead of tools to get the truth. If logic shows a result you do not like you use science and if science does the same you refer to canon or visa versa, you sometimes even mix them up but all in all as i said they are not tools for the truth in your hands they are weapons that you use to serve your bias.

How am i trying to establish a false causal connection? Because that's what a "false cause" fallacy would be.
Because we obviously SEE the asteroids interact - why do you think that two objects interacting with each other do not cause effects that affect both of them?

Actually i meant a false dilemma my mistake i was tired when i did that bit, and yes i mentioned it above how you try to force the focus to the accuracy of your math instead of your interpretation of events and what the math is based on.

No abuse here. I already explained how the rapid oxidisation of iron could happen in space - chemistry still applies in space. Given a sufficient starting energy (check - energy from the impact), free iron and oxygen (check - would seperate from ironoxide under high temperatures) and sufficent contact between the both (check - we see it happen. However, this is where you could actually try to disproove this. Do so), chemical reactions do happen.

As i said above and in my comments regarding the roid impacts higher up in my post i will not be pulled past debating perspective and into a false dilemma regarding the math your flawed perspective is based on.

Nope, i don't do that. Rather, you breach suspension of disbelief by arguing that "it's a fictional universe". Remember my "analyze it like they were documentaries"-comparision? If we want to do that (which is supsension of disbelief), you can't do that.

My argument is not essentially that it a fictionl universe because i do agree that is breaking suspebsion of disbelief, my arguments are based on canon material and acceptance that we do not understand certain abilities (like ignoring mass).

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

The asteroid collision:

However, i performed calculations that show that the collision is, in fact, sufficient to explain both.

False.

You have to refute either the calculation or the premise

The premise obviously and i have done it twice now.



But you calculations assume a direct collision rather than i indirect one and that all the KE from it is used to create heat and light.

When the fact is one roid is clearly deflected by 90 degrees, the other seemed to get shattered i all directions, the flash of light is so bright it fills the entire view, and we see afterwards a explosion of expanding burning gas/material from witch emerges the deflected asteroid that is also on fire.
[img]
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/alb ... ids_E1.gif[/img]

The planetary shield:
You claimed that there is no canonic evidence for planetary shields.
I pointed out G and C canon that refutes this point. You dismissed them without explanation, violating Star Wars canon policies.
This is pretty much an argument from voluntary ignorance. You need to refute planetary shield for your next argument - but you can't do it, so you lie instead.

ROTJ contradicts the existance of planetary shields, verbally and visually.

The chain reaction works with or without shields.

The Death Star chain reaction:

You base this on the visuals of the destruction of Alderaan. You point out three apparent inconsistencies:
-the blue glow that stops the explosion for miliseconds.
-darker and lighter spots after the explosion already started
-a second explosive shockwave

1. A lie i never mention a blue glow.
2. Correct about the dark spots although the explosion has not started it was the chain rection effect.
3. There was a later main explosion.

The first is readily explained by a planetary shield - hence your ignorance of canon.

False cause fallacy.

The second is indeed expected from an explosion - unless the exploding body is extremely uniform, it will not produce an uniform explosion. Planets are not extremely uniform. You ignored this rebuttal.

A DET hitting one spot on a planet would not give a uniform explosion even if a non existant shield has caused it to pause for a milisecond or two.

A chain reaction encirciling the planet and building up to a explosion is consistant with or without a shield.

The third is hard to explain - but a chain reaction does not explain it either.

A chain reaction explains it very well due to the fact it requires time for the effect to reach a critical point.

You never gave us an explanation how the chain reaction is supposed to work. Do so.

The beam is capable of causing the planetary matter to undergo a form of fusion, due to material densities we see the effect encircle the planet plus 2 explosions.

You also never showed us that such technology exists anywhere else in Star Wars. Do so.

Comments about the Empires ability to create a form of fusion in virtually any material are widely known, if fact it is mentioned and confirmed on this very web site im told.

You never explained how your chain reaction explains the supposed inconsistencies better than DET in the first place. Do so.

Just did.

You also made it appear like all this takes a "long time" - like the explosion takes several seconds to form. This would indeed support a chain reaction, but anyone who watches the video in real time sees that this is simply a lie.

The time between the bean hitting alderaan and expending its energy and the final explosion is in direct contradiction to the level of power the DET theory claims is being used.

You ignored that they used it on a very old star, a Red Giant.

You ignored that they choose that star specifically due to being old.

I did not, in fact it was me who mentioned it was a old star and posted the screenie of it.

You ignored that such a star is vastly different from main sequence star.

A red giant is a old main sequance star, is a old human no longer a human?.

You ignored that they expected it to stop sooner.

I did not, again i clearly pointed it out with acompanying dialog and "yay's" in grackets for humor...so much for that effort.

You never provided evidence that it would work on a normal main sequence star.

See old human comment above.

The star trek WMD stockpile
Based on the supposed existance of sun-busting torpedoes, you claim that the Federation (and presumably other ST-powers) has a vast stockpile of these weapons.

A direct lie, i clearly say there is no canon material to say they have a stockpile..

...but i also say they can modify standard weaponry so fast stockpiles are rather redundant.

You never explained why no one uses them.

They have been used, you mean why "nobody uses them in regards to my personal opinion on politcs"...well your opinion aint canon dude.

Based on the TNG-episode "Inheritance", you claim that a Federation starship phaser can drill a 2000 km deep hole within 19 seconds.

2500km-3000km actually, thanks to you confirming the size of the planet.

However, you never provided a citation from that episode that states that depth

You helped define the planets diameter canon visuals and verbal material did the rest.

You also ignored that we would not see a cave at such depths.

You also ignored that the shaft would collapse due to pressure.

We live on earth in the 21st century.

You also ignored that a cave at such depths would be extremely hot.

Its temp was mentioned and dealt with.

You tried to dismiss the visible sky as a lamp, ignoring that they have no reason to place a lamp at the top of the shaft.

It is not "blue sky" as closer examination of the material has proved.

Suspension of disbelief

Suspension of Disbelief (SoD) means that we ignore the fact that the sci-fi we see is not real, for the sake of discussion.

Correct.

We stop disbelieving it.

Correct.

This is done by analyzing it like it was a documentary. This means that science is fully applicable, until we have evidence that it is not.

Like when it bumps heads with canon.

This also means that we analyze it like we would analyze real life - which also means that dialogue is unreliable.

That can be considered subjective and a possable no limit fallacy in regards to "all dialog must be disgaurded"..

Suspension of disbelief allows us to disregard canon as evidence

dialogue can be wrong.

Many thngs CAN be wrong, see earlier comments on DS beam width as its hits alderaan or blaster phaser fire taking the same speed to cross a room or a solar system due to it actually only crossing a bit of film. Verbal and visual limitations must be accepted as part of the film making process and suspension of disbelief must recognise those limitations and make allowances.

Adress these points.
Failure to adress something (like, say, the WMD-argument) will be taken as a concession.

No consession will ever be given from a threat, and i do not normally well respond to ultimatums but as have already refuted and answered most of those points il do so again.

[Who is like God arbour]

To Serafina:
I think I understand your method. You are trying to stay as close to what you know from the real world as possible. That means that you are willing to discard parts of what you have seen.

I on the other side try to stay as close as possible at what was shown and said in a movie. While doing that, I'm ready to discard my knowledge of how it should be if it would happen in the real world and accept that the viewed world is different. With other words: I suspend my disbelief.

The problem is that you can't argue with Parsimony using your methods.

Parsimony is the use of the simplest or most frugal route of explanation available.

But you are not explaining what has happened in a movie in the simplest or most frugal route of explanation. You are changing what has happened because you think that what has happened is impossible. You are not trying to find a way to explain what has happened without ignoring some of the given facts.

When I see something that should be impossible, I either suspend my disbelief or conclude that there have to be unknown variables and that these are making possible what seems to be impossible.

In the TNG episode »Inheritance« they have said that

1. the molten core of Atrea was not just cooling but had begun to solidify.
2. if the cooling would had continued at this rate, Atrea was supposed to become uninhabitable within thirteen months.
3. the pockets in the magma layer were only a few kilometres away from the molten region of the core.
4. they wanted to use the ship's phasers to drill down through the planet's surface and into the pockets.
5. they wanted to monitor the density of the rock layers and adjust the strength of the particle beam as they were going because that was supposed to minimize the seismic stress they were generating while they have drilled.
6. they wanted to set up a series of plasma infusion units in the pockets in the magma layer, which should be triggered by firing a modulated energy burst down through the shafts. The injecting of sufficient plasma directly into the core was supposed to trigger a chain reaction that should have reliquefied the magma and stabilized the core temperature at ninety-three per cent of normal and kept the core molten for centuries.

This is how they described their problem and what they wanted to do to solve this problem.

If I understand you correct, you would have already a problem with this dialogue because how they were describing Atrea is not possible to our understanding of the structure of a planet. A core of a planet does not suddenly stop to "generate" heat. And even if it would suddenly stop to "generate" heat, it would need a much longer time for the in the matter stored heat to dissipate through the mantle. It would be impossible for a core to cool down so fast, that it begins to solidify and makes a planet uninhabitable within only thirteen months.

Furthermore their whole plan to reliquefy the planet can not work. At least not when they are only doing what they said they wanted to do. It is impossible to drill a stable shaft into a planet through the mantle (without doing something to stabilize it). And as I have described in my prior post, the matter in the mantle would start to melt as soon as the pressure on the matter is reduced due to the drilling (unless they have done something to prevent exactly that). Let allone that I have no clue, how the injecting of sufficient plasma directly into the core is supposed to trigger a chain reaction that reliquefies the magma and stabilizes the core temperature at ninety-three percent of normal and keeps the core molten for centuries.

I admit that all this does not makes sense.

The question now is what we do with that dialogue?

Do we disqualify it because it describes something that can't possibly happen?

Or do we suspend our disbelief and accept that this planet seems to be very peculiar where such things are possible and/or that they have found a way to make it possible?

I think that to ignore this dialogue equals watching the episode without any sounds. In both cases you would not know what happened at all in that episode. Try it! Try to watch that episode without any sounds. You wouldn't be able to understand what they are trying to do. The visuals would become meaningless because you can't interpret them out of the by the dialogue given context.

Do not mistake me. I know that not all what is said has to be true. They can be mistaken or liying. But this is something for which I have to find evidence in-universe.

There is no such evidence in the TNG episode »Inheritance«. In-universe their plan seems to be sound. Otherwise there would have been enough other people who would have objected to it. And that it has worked in the end speaks for it too. If they all were stupid, their plan couldn’t have worked. But that means that they can't have been mistaken.

And I do not think that your interpretation, that they meant only the depth they wanted to affect with their equipment and didn’t want to drill to that depth, does make sense.

1. That is not supported by their dialogue. It is clear what they have said and I do not see room for such an interpretation.
2. If we assume that they have only meant that, then there remains the question how the injected plasma was supposed to reach the core through the more or less 3.000 kilometres thick mantle.
3. Why drill at all? They wanted to affect the core by injecting sufficient plasma directly into it. By drilling only 20 km deep into the crust, they have shorten the distance to the core by 0,0016 per cent (assuming a 3.000 km mantle).

And concerning my speculations: I think you have problems with unknown variables. My position is that there are things that are not shown on-screen. Most of these things are irrelevant. But sometimes – and oftentimes only because we are asking questions – a few things become relevant. But because we have not seen, what has happened off-screen and because it was not mentioned on-screen, we can only speculate, what has happened off-screen.

It is similar to mathematic: You have a equation with a few known and a few unknown variables. Known is what I have summarized above. Unknown is, how they have solved the described problems. But it is known, that they have solved these problems. And now we can try to find a solution for the unknown variables. It is possible that there are more than only one solution.

I have proposed several in my prior post.

You have decided to ignore some of these known variables to make sense out of the equation without looking for the unknown variables.



(I hope that what I have written makes sense to you. After I read that you have the complete (German) collection of Jules Vernes work, I noticed that your location is stated to be Germany. I assume you are German or at least are able to speak German. Maybe we can try to find another way to continue that debate, a way where we could use our mother tongue.)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I already adressed that. This does nothing to invalidate my premise, but it shows that you do not understand basic physics.
(thermodynamics and newtonian mechanics).

You failed to address it.

-1

As always, you choose to look at a reprentation of the actual thing (the diagram) rather than the actual thing itself.

Either way - we SEE that they have to order a shield to be (partially) deactivated to land on the planet. If it does NOT cover the whole planet, this would not be necessary (it was not necessary on Hoth, where it was only a theater shield).
Furthermore, if the shield was projected like we see it in the diagram, they could have just dropped a bomb on the unproteced shield projector.

Representation of the REAL thing....

The shield shown in red clearly covers the generator and a large area of endor that is what was deactivated and why they could not bombard it.

-1

The first part is a blatant lie. You posted material by Robert Scott Anderson (also know as DorkStar) which clearly adressed the "blue glow".

I posted a screen shot and acompanied it with why that included a explanation...IT DID NOT include a blue glow explanation at all.

You lack of attention tom detail is a massive flaw, i suppose it is from hiding on SDN for so long.

-1...you are not doing well..

Again: Show how it is supposed to work. Explain why a chain reaction would continue after the material is violently diverted by an explosion.

Diverted to where MR laws of thermodynamics?...and yes this time it was not a error.

-1, this time with your own foolishness.

This is inconsitent with what we see.

If this would happen, there would be no asteroid remmants(since the chain reaction would compress them tight).

It is fully consistant Aand the chain reaction does not compress them tight. The DET theory is the one that is disproved.

Provide evidence. Saying "everyone knows" is not evidence".

Read the web site, after all you are the member that supports it not me.

Bullshit.

Quality rebuttal

-1

By your logic, a decomposing corpse is still a living animal.

Wrong, one is dead one is not, my logic is and 2 living humans od differing age.

-1.

Hey, dipshit: If they can turn it into solar busters within a short order, they effectively HAVE a stockpile of such weapons.

Consession accepted.

-1

You keep changing that figure. Propably because you made it up.

Your diameter + visual and verbal canon material.

Citation, please. Here is a citation that shows that they only drill about 8 km deep:

That is not conrrect dialog, and when it is devided and used in its correct order with other canon and accurate dialog we see that she adjusts phaser power to reduce stress near the pockets.

Physical laws are constant all over the universe.

Our knowledge is not nor does your opinoin over ride canon.

Provide evidence.

Eyesight and focusing in on the imahe.

Consession accepted.

-1

A lie. I said no such thing. Dialogue IS inherently unreliable, but that does not mean all dialogue is inapplicable.

Consession accepted.

Again - by your logic, a tank gun and a pistol produce projectiles of identical speed.

Wrong learn to comprehend.

I said that due to movie making a blaster bolt from a storm trooper crosses a room in the same time it could cross a solar system, or even a gaklaxy simply due to the film making process.

If you accept visual limitations, you VIOLATE SoD!

No you do not understand.

Thanks for admitting that you do not understand Suspension of Disbelief and do not use it.

It is you who does not understand what i am saying either deliberatly or because you are not able.

-1.

ME = "No consession will ever be given from a threat".

Your reply:-

Thanks for admitting that you will never conceede anything, regardless of the evidence presnted.

How sickeningly arrogant must your mind work.


-9 out of 9....your arrogance screwed you on this one pal.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

If i show you a diagram in real life, do you assume that it is 100% accurate? Of course not, especially if it shows something that is evidently impossible.

The diagram is canon.

The problem with your method is that it precludes any analysis, if applied properly.

It actually includes analysis within ALL the canon materil, your requires that some be disgaurded.

Parsimony is the principle that out of equally descriptive explanations, the one that requires the least new models/explanations is the preferable.

Parsimony does not over ride canon.

This clearly indicates that their drilling rate is 400 meters per second, 8 kilometers in 20 seconds.

Noy only is it inaccurate dialog it ignores the fact the power was to be adjusted to reduce strss, also canon material and part of the plot.

You ignore plot and canon and use sniping comments that are not even continous.

This is precisely what's wrong with your way of thinking.
For you, suspension of disbelief means "do not question the episode".

Suspending disbelief of the impossable is not the same as not questioning the episode, it is finding explanations that are acceptable to all the canon material and plot.

Yes, this is something that is not explicable with current science.
However, that does not actualy consitute a problem for me, in the same way as warp drive does not constitute a problem for me: I can still analyze it.

And ignoring canon means your results are worthless.

But that's the beauty of (actual) suspension of disbelief: In real life, things pften do not make sense at first, too. A mere hundred years ago, light appeared to make no sense at all. It's behaviour was totally inconsistent. It was the same with plate tectonics, quantum mechanics etc.

Sci-fi is set mostly in the distant future, so accept that they have a expanded understanding and available tech and material.

If we have sufficient reason to believe that their dialogue is wrong, we discard it.

Sufficienct = not supporting my bias.

Why should i ignore it? You appear to be the one who would just "take it on faith", which is equal to ignorance to me.

Find a way to explain within the boundries it is the right way....but you only do that for SW..

A flat-out lie, since i listed the evidence.

You ingnored canon, lied about dialog and misinterpreted visual material..

I LIKE unknown things. They challenge me, they amuse me, they interest me and are a nice hobby.

They give you the chance to serve your bias through misinterpretation and ignoring canon.

Yes, it is.
However, you are someone who just makes up his variables. I am someone who hunts for additional evidence.

The only variables worth a damn are those that do not conflict with plot or canon....yours tend to do both a lot.

Further, there is nothing wrong with asssuming that one piece of data is wrong if it makes it impossible to solve the equotation.

TRANSLATION:

I ignore canon or assign canon to any material i feel like whenever it serves my bias.




Pretty much the theme of your entire debate style.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Apparently, you can not adress my posts that adress you, so you try to score points when i adress other users.

I did both liar..

Either way - if you interpretate it, you are violating your own logic.

You cannot disregaurd canon plot material..


Some throw away dialog can be disgaurdede but canon plot material?...never.

Flat-out lie.

I stated and showed several times that i do not ignore canon.

Truth.

You not only ignore it but you also think your opinion and speculation can creaste it when it suits you.

Another lie, i never stated that it did,

Your theories act like it does.

Another lie. I already presented that you can hear it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbC8-EvH ... re=related) at about 6:02

You hear the second two lines not the first and they are consistant with the canon material that points out she would be adjusting phaser str to reduce stress.

And what do you do if that is IMPOSSIBLE?

In this case it is not.

I already showed situations where this is the case - the most famous bein Han Solos statement that the Empire did not destroy Alderaan

and that the Death Star is a moon.

Try reconciling that without interpretating anything.

EASY.

We also have the fact that the DS was new and not been used before...PLOT CANON.

Solo was not looking at a cross section of the DS.....CANON.

He was instantly corrected as part of the plot in both cases, in fact one we knew was already incorrect cos we saw the planet destroyed.


So very easy..

Another lie. I do not ignore anything, while YOU ignore the aforementioned canonic dialogue - something which by your logic is heresy.

I did not ignore it, it mearly confirms earlier dialog about manually adjusting the beams str to reduce stresses.

You are just sniping out comments instead of following the canon plot.....a weak, obvious and dishonest tactic.

Why is it that you assume that i am biased?
Oh, right - because you assume that no one who is not biased can not see your HOLY TRUTH.
Did i mention that you debate like a creationist already?

You are the one hiding in your sanctuary pal not me and clinging to your fanatical rubbish.

You set your little rules up that do not allow debate on the base aspects of SW canon material.....and you ban those that do for "heresies against doctorine"...

A few hundred years ago you would likely be burning ppl for disagreeing with you instead of just banning them.

.
Provide evidence/examples for that claim.

You posts cover that, try reading them from a non biased perspective.

What, you REALLY did not watch that episode?

I did you added dialog like it was part of the conversation and ignored the fact it was part of the overall plot material.

You know, i happen to have a live outside of sci-fi debating?

So do i, i own a very successful ground work and landscaping company in the UK, i built it up myself and when im working on my PC doing quotations i also releave the boredon doing this.

At least my style is consistent.

Actually the only consistancy yours has is its bias and arrogance regarding you thinking you can create or dismiss canon material by sheer opinion.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Never did. How long are you going to keep that up?

Until you stop doing it most likely.

And you also choose to mindlessly worship your holy series, instead of thinking critically.

Actually id list my preferance as:

1. B5.

2. DS9.
3. Firefly.
4. Dr Who (im a 1970/80's tom baker years brat he was cool but i like the new ones as well).
5. TOS Trek.
6. Space: Above and Beyond
7. Some Stargate.
8. Seaquest
9. Logans run the series (i loved it as a kid and managed to find a DL link for it).
10. nBSG

So you admit that dialogue is unreliable?

Everything is unreliable, or to put it better NOTHING is totally reliable.

Apparently, you are incapable of discerning between truth and false.

Yet i see through yours instantly.

Parsimony is not a theory.

I never said it was.

So bloody what? The lines wether the mantle is resistant or not have no bearing on the argument.

The l;ines regarding reducing the power as they drilled to reduce the stresses i notice you juist left out....as i said you are doing biased sniping of comments then trying tio link them TOTALY distorting the canon plot and material.

So you admit that people can be wrong. Great. So if dialogue can be wrong, what do you base your theory on?

Everything CAN be wrong, or to put it better NOTHING is totally reliable.

Bullshit. No stress levels are mentioned.

Yes they are she says she will ajust manually as they go.

I also once argued for Trek - of course, i am actually capable of reconciling my oppinon, unlike you

You are likely a second account of a long term warsie playing the convert.... "I SAW THE LIGHT OF TRUTH IN THE LORD OUR SAVIOUS NAME" (how apt was it blue?).

Can't you be specific?

The biased ones.

Ah, so you are a succesfull bussinessman who can't even spell properly?

Well i suppose that is one way of putting it thanks but i suppose i could also be described as a sucessful ground worker and gardener with several employees..........who can't even spell properly.

You do not get a lot of spelling contests pricing up jobs and organising materials ect.

and also has no bearing on any arguments.

Nor does your... "i has life" but you included it.

You are a sexist, dishonest, unintelligent piece of shit.

I am not sexist, i do not lie, i have a high IQ although i am lacking somewhat in a educaton....but then im 39 and my lfe is good plus i have no need to use foul abuse when things do not go my way.

Oh, and don't try to use this for an attempt for censoring you for your arguments - your personal attacks just went too low, which should not be allowed on any forum with any sense of morality at all.

My personal attacks?...wtf are you on?, all you have done is fling foul abuse when things did not go your way.

My critiuqes have all been light sarcasm or regarding your bias and arrogant attitude towards debating and within the debate. But then i suppose with your arrogance pointing out your flaws is what you would considser a heracy and harsh personal attack...lol.

Your posts consist entirely of circular claims.

Wrong my posts are consistant with the truth and canon.

You did not post a single piece of evidence, not even a bit of dialogue (except some pretty pictures who you interpretate freely).

That applies to you not me.

You do not back up your argument, you nitpick whenever possible, you lie about evidence,

Agin that is you proven multiple times.

you have no understanding of science, logic or suspension of disbelief, you ignore canon

I understand enough and you rewrite canon or think your opinion over rides it at liberty...you are a joke.

you are incapable of performing even the simples calculations and you lie whenever it suits you.

I am discussing the foundations the calculations are based on, i will not be dragged into a warsie math false dillema.

Which IS annoying.

Well at least you got that right even if its actually exposing your tripe while posting the truth that really gets to you....poor baby with no ban hammer i-win button a mod can press for you to chase away the nasty man ...heh.










.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Ah.
So you lie as long as we are having this "discussion". Good to know.

Actually il will be pointing out your lies until you stop telling them.

Good to know that DS 9 is your second-most favorite show.

Damn str8, its number one sometimes depending on my mood, but B5 is more consistanlty number one.

Aaah, typical moron-philosophy.


Concession accepted.

A anyalitical and open minded philosophy actually.

No Concession given.

Learn to use proper english then. Mine is apparently better, and i'm a young uneducated (well...no high education at least) german woman.

I am way to old to re-educate my self on summat i do not care about just to keep the occasional grammar nazi i come accross in my forum discussions happy.

As i said, child-level pseudo-philosophy.

If you say so but i like the idea of no absolutes.

IN RELATION TO THE DRILLING SPEED.

TO REDUCE THE SIESMIC STRESSES AROUND THE POCKETS ECT...HENSE SLOWER DRILLING NEAR THEM..

No, i was just pointing out that you do not get banned on SD.Net for arguing in favor of Star Trek.

Yes you do.

How about actually quoting anything

Been doing so for a day or two now.........

Yeah, right - non-existant spelling capabilites sure are no hurdle when trying to get a job

I discuss the job with the customer, i price it up then send them a writted price or give it them verbally depending on thecircumstances, its ground work and gardening/landscaping im doing for them not a novel.

So, you are thirty-nine, know absolutely nothing about science...oh bloody hell, i truly pity you.

Nothing is a ovestatment but im sure il make it to 40 or even older with what i know about science................

And knowingly trying to use inproper pronouns IS an attempt to belittle me for my gender - the very definition of being sexist.

Toyal nitpick, i did it one time by mistake and the second after multiple insults......and im not sure you even are female to be honest you do not post like one and you ae way too sensitive in regards to gender.

Id say a long term rabid warsie male playing the converted to SW "i saw the light" trekkie female.

I posted videos, dialogue, citations and calculations.

You abuse the terms you claim to hold dear, its a disgrace.

You did not show where the foundations for my calculations are flawed.

I do and i pointed them out.

Your claim of a "high IQ" is simply laughable

143 although that was when i last got it checked in 2006 and that has been a pretty consistant score give or take a bit since 1990.

It supprised me the first time i got it checked and the resuts were explained as i was a bit of a hooligan from the age of 14 who did not care a jot about anything but alcohol and other unpleasant behaviour.

Still i grew out of it and here i am annoying a MR i abuse logic, science and truth...LOL, just think one day you may grow out of your need to pretend to be female, a converted trekkie, and to use foul abuse.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You know - how about actually quoting where i lie?

Oh, you can't? Perhaps there have been no lies from this side of the fence?

Done that multiple times over the last few days inc examples.

STR8? You know, that's hardly the right way to compensate for your atrocious spelling.

Remember earlier when you complained i was not addressing all your points?.....and i said its cos i ignored the irelavant crap?...

Bollocks. If my 87-year old grandfather can learn another language, you can damn well learn your own.

You are right i CAN, i just aint gonna....

Proper spelling is about politeness

Well looking at these samples below id say your spelling is ok but im not sure these and the many other comments you make could be considered polite just cos you spelled em correctly.

Bollocks, Wanker, little shit head, fuck off...

expecting other people to correct (ly read) your mistakes is just outright rude.

I do not expect nor did i ask you to correct my spelling, however i have corrected you silly ideas on how your opinion over rides canon or can create it along with other mistakes.

Say, did you ever actually take any courses in philosophy?

I grew up so life took care of that.

Say, did you ever actually take any courses in philosophy? Name three philosophy books you have read (or better yet, own).

It has been a long time since i read them but i do own:

Beyond Good and Evil
The Dawn of Day
On the Genealogy of Morality

I do have a few others but like i said i have not read even my favorite (Beyond Good and Evil) for nearly 10 years.

So they had to reduce their speed of drilling by three orders of magnitude? That would indicate that their faster drilling caused AT LEAST three orders of magniture more stress - you know what that would cause? Earthquakes. On a populated planet.

Perhaps but then perhaps not so much considering the relative densities at the lower points compared to the higher. For somebiody who has whined because of the pressure and densities ect at those depths you do tend to ignore them when it suits you..........but them i am

Still i would be interested once again how you can go from a canon quote and visual of her adjusting the str to REDUCE the stresses to claiming in your opinion canon says they caused global armageddon....

Then again, Starfleet never cares all that much about civilian lives.[/quote]

Thank you for that ray of sunshine MR happy, and your personal trek canon comment regarding them not caring about saving ppl......im sure you will have some really interesting perspectives on treks inhumanity toward man.

Yes, because you would be utterly incapable of anything else, evidently.

Not really i do it cos that is all that is needed, i do have a few guides for aftercare i wrote myself but cos they are paying customers and not foul mouthed, lying rabid warsies i used word spell checker before i saved them.

And the difference between my insults and yours is that i attack you for what you DO, while you attack me for who i AM.

I actally attack your silly theories basis and your lies and arrogance, i do now enjoy calling you a dude though as you do post like one...a immature and emotional one but still a dude.

-how the test was called
-what kind of answers were asked
-where the test was performed
-how much it did cost you

Is was a test done at a locally run education centre, i cannot remember how much it cost but it was not a lot and my wife paid for it anyway as it was her idea for me to do it in the first place, it may have even been free.

I do not know what the tests official name was and i do not recall any of the specific questions tbut i do remember that they were not about actual knowledge like "who was the king of spain in 1352AD" as i remember saying that that i did not have much of a education.

"pretend to be female"?

That's it - i award you the Federal Medal of Sexism. You are truly an pure, unfiltered piece of toxic shit.

How is thinking that you are lying about your gender sexism?.

For somebody who claims to be analyitical and educated you really should know the differance between a sexist comment and a comment regarding simple honesty.

In fact i just pointed this out to a female i know and she agrees that you are very likely a guy just from the stupid sexism comment alone.

At this point, any decent admin would have at least a rough talk with you.

Doubtful but then you being tucked away on SDN gives you no real experiance with "decent admins" who know fool well that many "female" posters are actually males... and thinking such about somebody is hardly sexist or a crime.

But then again - your forum propably has no female members. Which would not surprise me the least.

I do not care enough either way to ask as its not particularly important in regards to the discussion topics, at least not as far as im concered or them if there are any as they have never made a big thing out of a MR/MRS error.

Unlike you.................lol.

You are truly an pure, unfiltered piece of toxic shit.

I am still not getting how spelling all that correctly some how makes you a polite...

Oh and it is pretty obvious who the one filled with toxin is as it keeps spilling over in your posts..........is it from a single traumatic event or has your young life been a constant barrage of inadequacy and humiliation?, how about you tell me where the bad man touched you?.