Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

[Mike DiCenso]

That is a terrible comparison and not only that but he was corrected instantly and oh yea it was essential plot material. It was used just like hans comment regarding the empires inability to pop a planet even though we had already seen them do so.

In fairness to Captain Solo, he was correct in the context that the entire starfleet could not destroy a planet. It is an important point that up until the conception and construction of the Death Star, no such capability existed, nor could even an experianced spacer (and former Imperial Navy officer according to the EU) like Han could conceive of a battlestation of that size and power being built in the first place.
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

It is similar to the intermix balance.

Only in theory is the ONLY workable M/AM ratio 1:1.

In an intermix chamber not all matter particles will meet anti-matter particles.

If one wants to ensure that each anti-matter particle meets a matter particle, one has to increase the matter particles in the intermix chamber in relation to the anti-matter particles.

That's not something that can be done always because the intermix chamber would overflow with matter in the long run. But it is a sound method to increase the energy output for a certain duration of time.

And by increasing the influx of anti-matter in relation to the influx of matter from time to time, one can ensure that the surplus of matter is annihilated.

Insofar, changing the matter - anti-matter ratio is a sensible thing to do.

But I do not want and will not argue that point further. It was only an attempt to show, that fast conclusions are not always the best conclusions. It is a thing no scientist or intelligent person would do.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

So, you are either not capable or willing to put up a coherent summary of your arguments,

I did that at least as well as the arguments on this site are done if not better.

nor to provide any calculations proving your points.

I am discussing the events that the calculations are based on....stop trying to put the cart before the horse.

That's not neck breaking speed - the falcon is easily capable of speeds a thousand times faster. Indeed, it's a crawl for the Falcon.

Its all relative, they were going "fast" or "slow" considering the circumstances.

"they are getting closer" before entering the field. How should that be possible, if not because the Star Destroyer has a higher sublight speed than the Falcon? In ANH, Han also states that he can outrun them IF he makes the jump past lightspeed - implying that he can NOT do so at sublight speeds.

They were being chased by several SSD's that came from differing angles (some nearly crashed lol, and id expect the Ties are likely to be faster than the falcon at SL and that was what she was refering too, the TIES keep up easily after all.

Already addressed, you clearly do not understand how to avoid getting hit.

I used to box in my youth and you move forwards and back at least as much as you do lr/ and u/d.

Leaning back as a punch is thrown (essentially slowing down or even reversing to let a incoming moving object pass...in this case a fist) is a undeniable tactic.

You are attacking the same point over and over again, with identical arguments, to maintain the illusion that there is any actual discussion.

Actually you attack my asnswers over and over again with the same questions that have been answered to give the illusion that they have not.

Nice illustration of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaQHTWT_ZI

Nice vid lol, i love how they instantly STOP moving forwards as soon as they hear shot and move sideways to take cover and then BACK....

My point remains: Their missions are extremely dangerous, putting civilians on board is just reckless.

A interesting perspective...

Personally i never saw the families and civillians on board any starfleet ship dragged abourd in shackles but if you have proof of this il alter my opinion. If not il go with the father obvious "they chose to be there and accept the risk" option as it is also supported by canon material....unlike your opinion YET AGAIN..

A lie. The ships are clearly INSIDE the asteroid field when he says "asteroids do not concern me". Which means that he followed them INSIDE before that.

A fact.

ADMIRAL: "our ships have SIGHTED the falcon my lord it, but

IT

has entered a asteroid field and we cannot risk fol...(interupted by vader).

VADER: "asteroids do not concern me admiral i want that ship not excuses".

Either way, hours are a minimum, unless you have proof that they can repair the hyperdrive within minutes.

Well han left the helm while getting shot at by multiple star destroyers AND ties to fix it...so i doubt he thought it woould take hours.

Doesn't explain why he is so shocked by it.

Id be shocked if i found a nuke while on holiday.

We see that this rag-tag scumbag has gold (or protomatter) - would you conclude that gold is therefore not rare or valuable?

Of course not gold is rare and valuable.

So with your analogy in mind we can say that that nelix and a rag-tag scumbag would not be able to construct sun popping torps at all or at least in any quantity....

But a federation of planets has much many more ppl, ships ect ect to use so can.

Most of the site is backed up by hard evidence. Again, you subscribe to a "silver bullet" mentality, just like Creationists - find one weakness in your enemies argument, and it all topples down.
It does not work that way. If separate pieces of evidence are presented, they have to be disproved separately.

Truth, my theory/s are based in on the same material in the same way with LESS leaps and using more canon material.

We judged the RELATIVE speed of the Falcon by using the asteroids seen from it's side window.

If you are going to judge the falcons relative speed during that impact use the roids that we see during the impact....

The reason you want the speed is to judge the distance speed and size of the roids in question, so instead of using outside material use what you are trying to judge lol...but then it is likely you already have and dislike the results so are looking for a excuse not to use it...

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use any piece of either visual or verbal evidence without interpretation.

Wut?.

The pockets are near the molten core, they need to drill to the pockets, we hear them discuss drilling through the mantle towards the pockets.

I do not need to do any real twister style interpreting or re-interpreting, noe do i need to ignore any of it base my conclusion on.

But they NEVER use it, they NEVER demonstrate that capability. Neither before nor after that episode, in none of the shows.

In Q-who we see them blast 700m wide and god knows how deep craters with single shots into a ship designed to assimilate entire species and cultures. Now the ship they did that to has to take on the military of the species it is going to assimilate so it is hardly going to be paper thin and made from crappy materials.

Furthermore - weren't YOU the one who claimed that if we see something which doesn't have to be 100% accurate or inclusive (such as a diagram), we have to conclude that everything that is not shown is not there?

In regards to the SW canon policy it is essential (blame the greed), film G canon (and now T), trump books.

Trek does not have such a policy and apart from that the dialog and visuals are both in the episode so plot wins.

It clearly shows that dialogue is NOT reliable.

Wrong all the two comment do is show that the DS was new and solo was unaware of it and that chekov was also unaware of the planet issue.

You canot apply those to a dialog and plot event that is described in detail including drilling through mantle ect ect.

And that's the exact scene I was talking about.

Look the resaon why we want the falcons speed is so we can tell the size ect of the two roids that collide destroy one and the other catches fire...so the best material to show the falcons speed at that instant/few seconds ARE THE VERY ROIDS THEMSELVES.

Using others is not only pointless but is always going to be less accurate, so why insist on doing so?..................

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You are exactly like a creationist - you think that you can support your own argument by destoying your opponents.

No i am not and i think no such thing, proving you wrong does not prove me right.

I am just taking things step by step.

They had only ONE SSD in the region - several SDs, but only one Executor.

AH i hit a S instead of a I, my bad.

Besides, they were not chased by TIEs in ANH and they still had to go to hyperspeed to escape. My point stands.

You claim the ISD's and SSD was in the nelt before the falcon entered the cave and the beastie. The dude contacts Vader IN PERSON and says the falcon has entered a asteroid belt and they cannot risk folowing (at least he gets fol out).....then vader interupts him.

3.28 onwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkpCAXV ... re=related

Your point is debunked again.

We are talking about something quite different here, your comparison fails.

Rubbsish, even in your viseo as soon as the shot was fired they STOPPED, took cover the retreated.

LOL.

I destroy your so-called answers. You are supposed to provide solid ones.

You have destroyed nothing but your own credability.

Actual military tactic.

Stopping and then retreating?...but you said it proved the falcon kept going forwards at the same speed?..

It was me who said the falcon would slow or stop ect..

Consession accepted, grats on kicking your own ass.

A decent military would not ALLOW them on board, much less build a large number of huge quarters for them in advance.

So you are saying that doing so does support the fact they are not warships but ships of exploration?..

WOW 2 self inflicted ass kickings in a row.

Your quoted dialogue does nothing, since it conveniently ignores that at the same time, they are already hit by asteroids!

WHAAATT???.

How about some evidence?

NO PROBLEM.

WE SEE THEY ARE NOT IN THE BELT.

3 MINS 28 SECONDS.....ONWARDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkpCAXV ... re=related

Do you see any roids?....

We see the ships in clear spece then it cuts to vader is putting his hat on, the dude enters, he says the dialog about the falcon entering the belt and says they cannot risk following but gets cut off by "asteroids do not concern me blah blah".

If something occurs naturally, it is totally possible for someone to stumble over it due to sheer luck. That has nothing to do with the rarity of the metal. You have no proof that Protomatter is common, you even act like it is not on your own.

The fact that your rag-tag man had a container specifically designed to contain it when he nearly crapped a loaf over a tub of water would say it is hardly rare just difficult to control and use effectivly as we see on WOK ect.

All your theories require a large amount of unseen or even contradicted capabilities.

Actually that describes youe mr "my opinion > canon.

Measurements of that hole?

Given the size of the cube some were roughly 700m in diameter and the only depth we can see if from a hit where a lot of the phaser energy passed through. The holes that were from central hits were too deep to see the bottom so we cannot judge the depth.

Ah, so you now accuse the producers of Star Wars of bias.

Oh shut up i did no such thing, they had to devide canon, if not a lot of it would have been considered totally unofficial and likely not sold as well.

Which shows...that dialogue is unreliable.

No limit fallacy.

Your argument obviously fails. You try to derive the amount of an unknown variable from...the variable itself.

LOL..

YOU: "Hey lets find out how fast and big those roids are and how fast the relative speed is regarding them and the falcon".

ME: "What shall we use to do that".

ME: "How about using the visuals of the roids themselves as that would mean our figures are very accurate"..

YOU: "That is a stupid idea".

ME: "WUT????"..

Challenge for Kor_Dahak_Master:

Already done multiple times.....well apart from the math as i am establishing what it is going to be based on.

It is not like i have not mentioned that before but you continue to ignore it and try to force me to do things i never agreed to do in this discussion.

-claim that he has done it.

I see you left the truth until last.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Not that I really want to argue that point. But there are people who are saying that Data has made a mistake in the TNG episode »The Outrageous Okona« regarding the taxonomy of fishes and amphibians.

But that is not the only conclusion one could draw out of the dialogue.

Let us look at the dialogue:

• • • DATA:
    Mister Comic, I wish to know what is funny.

• • • COMIC:
    Funny? I don't know. It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Tip O'Neill in a dress? Some people say words that end with a K are funny. A briefcase that looks like a fish. Personally I find that hysterical.

• • • DATA:
    Tip O'Neill. Accessing. Twentieth century male, politician, overweight, wearing female clothing, carrying a valise that looks like a fish. So, the juxtaposition of gender and an amphibian briefcase is funny.

I can think of two interpretations in which Data hasn't made a mistake.

1. Data has not referred to the mentioned briefcase but its underlying concept and has tried to develop it further - maybe assuming that the form of e.g. a frog is more funny than a fish [O].
   That is an usual method of learning: the further development from something known to see if it still works. If it works, it is probable that you have understood the underlying concept and are now able to apply it.
2. Another possibility is that in the 24th century they have changed the taxonomy and what we would classify as a fish is now considered an amphibian. The discovery of new planets and on them new lifeforms can not happen without adjustments to the biological taxonomy. Maybe they have found on the majority of other planets fishs that are more like the Coelacanth on Earth.

Yes, that is only a speculation. But in the end, the assumption that Data has made a mistake is also only a speculation because the deciding informations are missing.

The question is, which consequences of which assumption are more compatible with the rest of the Star Trek universe.

But I do not want and will not argue that point further. It was only an attempt to show, how a change in an interpretation or the introduction of an assumption can result in a more compatible explanation.

And that is one very important qualification for an explanation: Not to have as least assumptions as possible but to have it fit into the available data.

No scientist would propose an explanation that is not compatible with the available data.

The fact is that at best it is a crappy example, even if data had a glitch or in fact some how managed to have a file in the wrong place and had "fish" filed under |"amphibian" it does not matter a crap.

Mostly because it would mean that both the scientists and all the other ppl on the planet were wrong, the ships sensors were wrong, geordie and all the others were wrong, they were wrong WHILE hey were drilling, and WHILE they were fixing the infuser ect ect.......but never mentioned it?.

A individual making a single comment ect can sometimes make a error.

But for all those errors to be ignored, not corrected or mentioned over and over by all those ppl?, only somebody who did NOT want to believe because of personal bias would make that assumption or try to support it.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I guess you never debated one, or listened to a debate with one.

Why bother?.

first, try to disprove your opponent by putting up an "alternate theory".

That is wrong as i disproved you using canon material.

Then, when he responds to this with the right theory, attack his responses - using fallacies is always an option.

You have yet to respond with a correct theory so i cannot have done that.

Never actually put up a coherent, actual theory that explains anything - just claim that your "theory" explains it all.

I am discussing the material my theory is constructed from, until we find consensus why move forwards?.

Oh, that scene.
Too bad you were referring to another one earlier.

I quoted dialog from the scene i was refering too, if you lack the ability to recognise where that dialog was in the movie i suggest you try checking before starting screaming im wrong.

Yeah, but to reduce the chance of getting hit by shots, you move out of the way of it. The best way to do so is by moving FAST. The fastest way to do so is moving FORWARD.

Even if that is true and it is not.

In your clip, they first stopped moving forwards, then moved side ways and took cover and then moved backwards/retreated....

Yes, that was a mistake - but everyone with half a brain would have know that i was asking for PICTURES.

Yup, you totally did not try to do that

No i did not and never will and i say clearly right now i do not think they are and never have........just in case you "decide" that i did and make a "look what he thinks" list, to try and take focus away from kicking your ass.

a "no limit fallacy" applies to NUMBERS and QUANTITIES!
Since when is "unreliable" a measurable, numerically expressible quantity?

You mean like your claim that the entire QUANTITY of verbal canon material is SW is "unreliable"......

Yes, because you can plot pretty much every number you want into that, since there is no frame of reference.
You can make them nearly arbitrarily fast and big, or vice versa.

Really?.

As the distance between them and the flamingroid closes is does not get marledly larger...thus it could not have been very far away when it first appears.

The only way its size could have remained so visually constant is if it was travelling at the perfect angle and speed to remain so and the sheer odds of that are beyond the bounds of reason.

Ah, so you choose option number four: Claiming that you have already done it.

I always choose the truth if i know it.

This would be a very simple format, here is an example:

Phaser drilling theory:............

I have done that on more than one occasion, in fact some of what you ask for is in the title of the thread lol.

Again: Present your OWN THEORY.

My theory is in development as i have said over and over and well over.

They drill to a old magma chamber located above a hot spot. Since a hot spot with molten magma is close, this fits the criteria "molten core" if we assume that they misspoke or use the word "core" differently.

So if we ignore several canon referances before after and during drilling?...

Then, they inject the plasma into that hot spot - the plasma must obviously be capable of moving fast trough dense liquids, or it would be useless when injected into the core as well. It will travel to the core due to gravity.

But if as you say the plasma is moving through the "dense" liquid magma why would it go to the core when less dense stuff tends to sit on top of dense stuff?....

Not only that but the magma is there because of pressure pushing it up...

My theory only requires that they use the word core differently.

And mantle, and crust and ALL of them on several occasions that are also all canon including a visual represeantation in front of several ppl.

Now, present your own theory that explains:

I do not require a "theory" as i am follwing plot and canon and not trying to ignore them and misrepresent the rest.

My discussion on this was about working out the power required to do so with a DET weapon (as that can be quantified) so we could make a comparison for the feds NDF weapon in regards to how much material was disintigrated.

Oh and the material contained in a 50m wide hole 3000km deep (not including very high densities) would require 10-19 gigatons per second of DET energy (ignoring the out gassing issues with a DET weapon obviously) to vaporise it all.

Due to the NDF being kinda funky we can however only say they can easily achieve the equivalant "effect" of 10-19 gigatons per second would have (if the tunnel was 50m wide).

[Jedi Master Spock]

Not that I really want to argue that point. But there are people who are saying that Data has made a mistake in the TNG episode »The Outrageous Okona« regarding the taxonomy of fishes and amphibians.

But that is not the only conclusion one could draw out of the dialogue.

Let us look at the dialogue:

• • • DATA:
    Mister Comic, I wish to know what is funny.

• • • COMIC:
    Funny? I don't know. It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Tip O'Neill in a dress? Some people say words that end with a K are funny. A briefcase that looks like a fish. Personally I find that hysterical.

• • • DATA:
    Tip O'Neill. Accessing. Twentieth century male, politician, overweight, wearing female clothing, carrying a valise that looks like a fish. So, the juxtaposition of gender and an amphibian briefcase is funny.

I can think of two interpretations in which Data hasn't made a mistake.

1. Data has not referred to the mentioned briefcase but its underlying concept and has tried to develop it further - maybe assuming that the form of e.g. a frog is more funny than a fish [O].
   That is an usual method of learning: the further development from something known to see if it still works. If it works, it is probable that you have understood the underlying concept and are now able to apply it.
2. Another possibility is that in the 24th century they have changed the taxonomy and what we would classify as a fish is now considered an amphibian. The discovery of new planets and on them new lifeforms can not happen without adjustments to the biological taxonomy. Maybe they have found on the majority of other planets fishs that are more like the Coelacanth on Earth.

Yes, that is only a speculation. But in the end, the assumption that Data has made a mistake is also only a speculation because the deciding informations are missing.

The question is, which consequences of which assumption are more compatible with the rest of the Star Trek universe.

But I do not want and will not argue that point further. It was only an attempt to show, how a change in an interpretation or the introduction of an assumption can result in a more compatible explanation.

And that is one very important qualification for an explanation: Not to have as least assumptions as possible but to have it fit into the available data.

No scientist would propose an explanation that is not compatible with the available data.

The fact is that at best it is a crappy example, even if data had a glitch or in fact some how managed to have a file in the wrong place and had "fish" filed under |"amphibian" it does not matter a crap.

Mostly because it would mean that both the scientists and all the other ppl on the planet were wrong, the ships sensors were wrong, geordie and all the others were wrong, they were wrong WHILE hey were drilling, and WHILE they were fixing the infuser ect ect.......but never mentioned it?.

A individual making a single comment ect can sometimes make a error.

But for all those errors to be ignored, not corrected or mentioned over and over by all those ppl?, only somebody who did NOT want to believe because of personal bias would make that assumption or try to support it.

Actually, there are multiple meanings of the word "amphibian." One is to a specific class of animals; the other is a more general meaning, meaning something that can be taken into or used inside the water. We usually say amphibious, but it's there:

am·phib·i·an
 /æmˈfɪbiən/ Show Spelled[am-fib-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.any cold-blooded vertebrate of the class Amphibia, comprising frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, and caecilians, the larvae being typically aquatic, breathing by gills, and the adults being typically semiterrestrial, breathing by lungs and through the moist, glandular skin.
2. an amphibious plant.
3. an airplane designed for taking off from and landing on both land and water.
4. Also called amtrac. a flat-bottomed, armed, military vehicle, equipped with both tracks and a rudder, that can travel either on land or in water, used chiefly for landing assault troops.
–adjective
5. belonging or pertaining to the Amphibia.
6. amphibious ( def. 2 ) .

A briefcase that looks like a fish may well be designed to be carried easily underwater, and thus be literally amphibian.

SDN is very creative in coming up with explanations for how the ICS can be interpreted as correct, but not especially creative in explaining why Data says what he says.

[Who is like God arbour]

 



Thank you Jedi Master Spock for that support. It is appreciated.

[Who is like God arbour]

To Serafina:

• Now you are becoming impertinent:
  • You claim my posted information were irrelevant. But if you had read and understood them you would know that your theory is not possible.
  • You claim that you learned all the posted information in school, but it seems that you do not know anything about the structure of Earth.
  • You are claiming that it is completely viable to inject the plasma trough the plastic mantle because it is not solid. You are referring to "magma shafts" that are essentially liquid throughout the mantle. But that is wrong.
    
    Only the asthenosphere is not solid. And the asthenosphere is only 200 km thick. And "magma shafts" are not going deeper than the asthenosphere. That means that there are still round about 2.800 km of solid mantle rock between he asthenosphere and the core.
    
    How is the plasma supposed to go through that 2.800 km of solid mantle rock that underlies a pressure strong enough to prevent melting?
    
    »This plasma must obviously be capable of quickly moving through molten, high pressure metal (otherwise it would not affect the core), hence it can probably sink quickly through less-pressurized molten stone.« is no explanation at all – regardless that the mantle is almost exclusively solid and plasma usually has a lesser density than even molten mantle rocks and would therefore afloat above the latter (Buoyancy) and escape through the porous crust (something that cannot happen if plasma is injected into the core because the solid mantle prevents its escape to the surface of the planet).
  • Furthermore you accuse me of constructing a strawman out of your argument. That is not true either.
    Your theory was:
    

    • • • • My theory:
            -The cave is slightly beneath the surface. This is supported by this:

            DATA:
            The beam has penetrated eight kilometers beneath the surface...
            
            JULIANA:
            Once it's through the crust, we'll boost phaser intensity by twelve percent.
            
            WORF:
            Standing by.

            If they would drill as fast as suggested, that depth would be reached within a second or two (at most).
            The increased phaser intensity can easily be explained by a need to drill trough more dense material, the cave could be down as deep as 16 kilometers, depending on the crusts thickness.
            
            -This piece of dialogue does not refer to the actual core of the planet, but rather to the first place where molten material occurs - the mantle:

            GEORDI:
            These pockets in the magma layer -- how close are they to the molten region of the core?
            
            JULIANA:
            A few kilometers, why?
            
            GEORDI:
            You think that's close enough to try ferro-plasmic infusion?
            
            DATA:
            The procedure would involve using our ship's phasers to drill down through the planet's surface and into the pockets -- where we would set up a series of plasma infusion units.

            Hence, the targeted area is slightly above the mantle. This only requires the word "core" to be used wrongly - hardly unprecedented in Star Trek, they often confuse scientific terminology (such as Data mistaking fish as amphibians, and many more).
            
            -The same goes here:

            JULIANA:
            I see... injecting sufficient plasma directly into the core should trigger a chain reaction... and that will reliquify the magma...
            
            DATA:
            It should be possible to stabilize the core temperature at ninety-three percent of normal.
            
            PRAN:
            If it works, the core would remain molten for centuries.

            Again, core simply refers to "molten mantle".
            
            […]

    
    According to that, your theory was, that they meant the mantle and not the core when they have said core.
    
    That means that they wanted to reliquefy the mantle.
    
    My explanation dealt with that theory by showing that it is not possible by showing that most of the mantle is supposed to be solid and that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn't be a problem at all while the solidifying of the core would constitute a big problem.
    
    How is that a strawman of your theory?
    
    Or did you mean something else? Then you should have said what you meant.
    
    Nowhere in your theory is it indicated that you think they wanted to eject the plasma into the mantle and affect the core that way.
    
    That’s your new theory after I have shown that the solidifying of the asthenosphere wouldn’t be a problem at all and that it makes only sense to assume that they wanted to reliquefy the core.
  • The next accusation is that I offered no actual alternate explanation. That is not true either. You know my theory: They drilled through the crust and through the mantle until they reached the pockets in the magma layer from where they injected sufficient plasma directly into the core. There were problems but they have solved these problems.
    
    I admit that I do not know how they solved these problems. But I do not claim that it is impossible for them to solve them.
    
    This theory is compatible with all available data. And contrary to your theory, the problems of my theory can be solved with technology while your theory does not work on a physical level.
    
    The problem is only that you do not like it because it makes it necessary that the UfP has technology far superior to the current technology of mankind. But that is only to be expected of a society that is 400 years advanced.
  • All the while you are like a broken record. You are repeating again and again that it is possible that someone can use a wrong term. I do not challenge that.
    
    But you are not showing that Data a n d Geordi a n d Julianna a n d Pran a n d Picard have done this mistake in this instance. I have shown why it is not plausible. You have ignored each single argument.
    
    Now you are coming with the new theory that they have changed the meaning of the terms crust, mantle and core (as they seem to have changed the meaning of the word energy).
    
    But you are ignoring with that again the already provided argument that in the same episode they are using all three terms just fine.
    
    Or an alternative theory of yours is that they simply misspoke in the heat of a moment. Yes, that can happen. But not in one discussion with several persons several times. They had a lengthy talk and have used the term core several times to explain what they want to do. The whole discussion wouldn't made any sense if the crucial term was wrong again and again.
    
    It seems you have never spoken with scientists about a scientifical problem. It does not happen that they wouldn't ask again if one used a wrong term to clarify what was meant. And a fortiori they wouldn't continue to use the wrong term after it was used the wrong way the first time. That is not how a scientifical problem can be discussed at all.
  • I admit that you have not outright claimed that they are stupid.
    
    I have anticipated such an argument because it is used very often at SDN.
    
    And I think the anticipation was justified. If you insist on your theory that they have made a mistake when using the terms crust, mantle and core, it amounts to them being stupid because neither is it plausible that the meanings of the terms have changed nor is it plausible that all have misspoken in a lengthy but calm discussion.
  
  But I’m not surprised. To start with attacks on the person instead of the argument is a common SDN tactic.

[Who is like God arbour]

To Serafina:

• A further proof of your impertinence and ignorance is your next post concerning taxonomy.
  
  It seems that you are ignoring what I have written only to spit your vitriol.
  
  A taxonomy is nothing more than an attempt to categorize species accordingly to certain characteristics. It is arbitrarily after which characteristics the species are sorted. If you would know a minimum about the history of taxonomy, you would know how often the different systems have changed in time.
  
  Furthermore, even with a characteristic chosen, the created categories are depending on the species there are. On Earth there are many species with the characteristic fish. That’s why there is a category fish.
  
  If there are no fish like species on another planet, their taxonomy wouldn’t include a category fish.
  
  So much for the alleged universality of current taxonomies.
  
  Furthermore, a category is only created if there are enough species with the same characteristic.
  
  But there are always species that can’t be sorted into one category non-ambiguously because their characteristic does not really fit to the category.
  
  Do you know for example what a Coelacanth, a Panderichthys, an Ichthyostega, a Tiktaalik or an Eusthenopteron is? Are they still fishes or are they already amphibians?
  
  Such species are sometimes sorted into a category although they do not really fit into it but the creation of a new category would not be appropriate because it would make the taxonomy unnecessarily difficult.
  
  It is similar with the Archaeopteryx (with which you are certainly more familiar). In some taxonomies that species is still regarded as a saurian and in other taxonomies it is already a bird – although it is neither - and other taxonomies have created a category called archosaurs that encompass modern birds and crocodilians, pterosaurs and all extinct dinosaurs, as well as several other extinct groups.
  
  If now a interstellar society decides to create a new and universal taxonomy that considers the species of all known planets, it can happen that species on a planet, who had their own category in the old, only the species of that planet considering taxonomy, are losing their category and are sorted into another category into which they do not really fit as happened with the examples above.
  
  If now on the majority of all planets no fish like species are found (with that I do not want to imply that on such planets are no animals which are living only in their oceans - but even on Earth we have many different kinds of animals living in our oceans that are no fishes) but species like Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron and even on Earth fishes are near extinction (due to overfishing and marine pollution in the 20th and 21st century), it is only plausible to not create a category fish but to sort all fish like species into a category to which they are most similar.
  
  In that case, it is possible that fishes can be regarded as primitive or underdeveloped amphibians as we are regarding the Archaeopteryx as a primitive and underdeveloped bird.
  
  That does not mean that the understanding of species or biology has changed – as you have insinuated in your fit.
  
  But you will probably not understand that seeing that you are treating taxonomy as a holy grail.
  
  Furthermore I'm refering to what Jedi Master Spock has written.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Seriously this trans-board discussion is the most tiring shit I've seen in ages.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Just a quick point here. There is no mention of a planetary shield anywhere in any of the movie novelizations, much less any of the movies themselves.


Star Wars - Episode I:

Naboo was not protected by a planetary shield. Nor is there mention that such thing exists much less a reason given as to why the Naboo do not have one.

Star Wars - Episode II:

Geonosis was not protected by a planetary shield - although there was a meeting of representatives of important members of the Confederacy of Independent Systems and a rather significant droid factory. Furthermore the Geonosians wanted to build the Ultimate Weapon, a rather ambitious project. Nevertheless Republic ships were able to land without anyone noticing anything, and certainly no shield to prevent even a local area landing.

Star Wars - Episode III:

Coruscant was not protected by a planetary shield - although there was a huge battle in low orbit and falling debris caused the death of thousands, what could have been prevented with shields. There is no mention in either the movie, nor the novelization about layered shielding as some Warsies and the EU have attempted to retcon to explain it's conspicuous absence.


Star Wars - Episode IV:

Alderaan was not protected by a planetary shield. Neither the movie nor the novel are showing a planetary shield.

Star Wars - Episode V:

Hoth was not protected by a planetary shield. Only the rebel base was protected by a theater shield of perhaps a few tens of kilometers diameter based on the speed of the Imperial Walkers.


Star Wars - Episode VI:

Endor was not protected by a planetary shield. The novel as well as the movie show that the shield was projected from the forest moon, encompassing the second Death Star, but not the moon itself.

The calculations for how much surface area the Endor-projected DS2 shield could have covered if spread out over the surface of a planet is covered in this thread here and here. In the best-case scenario it takes only 25 Endor-class shield generators to cover a planet the size of the Earth, and on the more realistic end of things over 2,300 of them.
-Mike

Aw dang. Pointing out that the second calcs were done with a small DSII (160 km wide, which is now the width of the DSI in the EU).
And the EU clearly states that Alderaan had no shield. Period (yeah, that would have been covered years ago if Warsies had the honesty to provide that quote).

[Mike DiCenso]

Seriously this trans-board discussion is the most tiring shit I've seen in ages.

Well, then stop reading the thread. At least it's not Jason-bashing like on ASVS.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Aw dang. Pointing out that the second calcs were done with a small DSII (160 km wide, which is now the width of the DSI in the EU).

That's not a problem since we can easily derive a 120 and 160 km diameter size for the Death Stars as detailed on RSA page here and Sarli's rebuttal to Saxton here. Both seperately coming to the same conclusion and tying in with Saxton's own averaging for the Death Star sizes before he arbitrarily goes the with 160km and 900 km numbers. The Death Star EU novel even stated that the differences are the result of different people using different measurements.

And the EU clearly states that Alderaan had no shield. Period (yeah, that would have been covered years ago if Warsies had the honesty to provide that quote).

Is that in the Death Star EU novel? Can you provide trhe quote?
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

To Serafina:

Now you are demonstrating not only your impertinence but also dishonesty or incompetence and a serious lack of decorum and countenance:

• Suddenly you are referring to plumes of hot magma that normally occur at hotspots. Curios that you have never mentioned these plumes of hot magma before. But I’m supposed to know that this is what you are referring to. You even accused me of lying because I didn’t know that.
• Curios that in the article about plumes of hot magma you have linked to – and that not hidden somewhere but in the very first paragraph – there is written that the heads of mantle plumes can partly melt when they reach shallow depths. That means that they are solid in not shallow depths.
  
  And by accident that is exactly what I have said the whole time. The mantle is almost exclusively solid. Only the asthenosphere is more or less liquid. And only in the asthenosphere does the plume pass over the solidus curve of the mantle. That means its temperature is then higher than the temperature at which mantle rock at the current pressure starts to melt.
  
  But you are still insisting that the whole mantle is liquid or that the plume of hot magma is liquid and that plasma can sink through it.
  
  And while it is correct that the heat that is rising from the core through such a plume might to be responsible for the creation of hotspots (that is still disputed), the article about plumes of hot magma as well as the article about hotspots, to which you have linked, are making it also clear that there is no contact (no shaft or suchlike) between such hotspots and these plumes of hot magma.
  
  The plumes are merely created by the slow creeping motion of Earth's rocky mantle caused by convection currents carrying heat from the interior of the earth to the surface. The hotspots are created by the through the plumes rising heat. Nothing more.
  
  But you are ignoring that and insist on your idea that it is possible to inject plasma from a hotspot into the liquid mantle and that it would sink through the liquid plumes of hot magma against the current through the whole liquid mantle to the core.
• Then suddenly plasma has to have a higher density than mantle rock that is under enormous pressure. I assume that you know that buoyancy depends on the density. Only if the density (mass per unit volume) of an object is lower than the density of the surrounding matter will the object experience a force buoyancy greater than its own weight. That means that the plasma to sink through your still assumed liquid mantle has to have a higher density than the mantle, even when the plasma is not compressed anymore. You have to keep in mind that, if the plasma can sink through the mantle, there is nothing that could hold it compressed. Please explain how that is supposed to be possible.
• Then you are ignoring that the problem of buoyancy wouldn’t be there if the plasma is injected directly into the core. Your problem is that you still insist on your idea of a liquid mantle through which the plasma can sink to the core. But if plasma is directly injected into the core, a solid mantle is able to hold the plasma in the core as the mantle (or inner tube) of your bicycle tyre holds compressed air in the tyre of your bicycle.
• But if you insist on your idea that the plasma can sink through the heavily compressed mantle rock and that buoyancy wouldn’t be a problem, maybe you can explain why they have drilled the shafts at all. After all, if the plasma is able to sink through the heavily compressed mantle rock, it should be able to sink through the curst as well. They could have injected the plasma into the crust and it would have sunk through the crust and the mantle to the core.
• You complain that I have made out of your argument a strawman. I have countered that I have merely anticipated that you will attack the competence of all participating persons. And you have proven me right. And in your last post you provided even more proof how right I was to assume that this will be your argument to which it boils down.
  
  Now you are trying to explain that none of the participating persons is a geologist (with the possible exception of Juliana) and that it is simply inconceivable to claim that they have that much experience. That’s why it is plausible that they have used the wrong term.
  
  I’m not sure if that is a testament for your arrogance. Maybe you really believe that someone who has not studied a certain subject has to be totally stupid in this subject.
  
  But I reveal something to you:
  • • I have not studied geology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust just fine.
    • I have neither studied biology and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms heart, lung and liver just fine.
    • I have not studied history but nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the Hundred Years' War, the French Revolution and World War Two just fine.
    • I have not studied physics and nevertheless I am able to differentiate between the terms solid, liquid and gas just fine.
      
      • • Unlike Wyrm, who seems to think that plastic is a state of matter and that, because there are convections in the mantle, it can’t be solid as if it were impossible that solid matter can be deformed. But from someone who can’t read – because if he could he would have noticed that I have explicitly said, that the asthenosphere is liquid – and the asthenosphere is part of the mantle and responsible for tectonic [O] – one probably can’t expect more.
          
          Hey, you even quoted parts of my description of the mantle [O]. But to ignore what already was said is standard SDN tactic. Insofar I really shouldn’t be surprised.
          
          Oh the irony! You are claiming to be the more intelligent debater who are knowing how to debate and who are only interested in the truth. Yes I can see how good you are at debating and how interested you are in the truth.
          
          It is also interesting that you complained that I explained this [O]. You claimed that I constructed a strawman out of your argument and tried to cover it with lot's of basic geology, you claimed to have learned back in school. But when Wyrm explained this, he gained your applause.
  You do not have to have studied geology to be able to differentiate between the terms core, mantle and crust. To insist that Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran are not able to do that means nothing more than that they are stupid because they do not even know the basics of geology.
  
  It is the same as if I would not be able to differentiate between the terms above. If that would be the case, you were right to call me stupid.
• Your insistence that they could have misspoken in an expert discussion and nobody has noticed or, if they have noticed, felt it necessary to correct them only to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, shows, that you never had an expert discussion and can't be an expert yourself. The notion that such a thing could be possible, is ludicrous. And I am an expert who knows how important it is to use the right words.
• Your argument becomes especially curios if one considers that you have claimed to have learned all that back in high school [O] and that I have to be stupid and incapable of using lexica because I – according to you – do not know plumes of hot magma or hotspots or what taxonomy is. You even questioned my age and if I have visted a higher school at all.
  
  If that is exemplary for your benchmark, how can Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran not be stupid if they are using the terms core and mantle wrong as you impute – and that not only once but every time in that episode?
  
  Be honest at least and admit that this is to what your argument boils down: They are stupid. They do not know what they are saying. And that's why we can ignore the whole dialogue and interpret the episode how we like it.
• Furthermore shows exactly this claim that you have complained about me constructing a strawman out of your idea, that they are injecting plasma into the mantle to liquefy the mantle [O]. You still have not shown how my response [O] to your idea [O] can be a strawman. But you are accusing me again of constructing a strawman and to lie about what you have written. You should know that it is not enough to claim that an argument you do not like is a strawman. You should show that it is a strawman.
• Maybe that is the moment to give you the advice to watch the episode in question. If you think that Data and Geordi and Picard and Julianna and Pran “were quite busy at the moment” they allegedly used the word core wrongly several times or that they figured out their solution because »they obviously have access to superior databases and calculation capability« you obviously haven’t seen the episode in question at all.
  
  They had a calm discussion in the Observation lounge. Nobody was in hectic. They learned only there that the situation has worsened since they have been first contacted. And only then they figured out that a permanent solution would be to try ferro-plasmic infusion. Geordi, who has proposed this possibility, was not even sure that it is possible. He had to ask Data if he thinks that it is possible. Neither Data nor Geordi has had »access to superior databases and calculation capability« at that moment.

Concerning taxonomy:

• On Earth there are thousands if not millions of biologists who had decades if not centuries or even millennia to study the flora and fauna of Earth and their evolution and develop several taxonomies. But such taxonomies are useless for a spacefaring civilisation which explores strange new worlds, seeks out new life forms and new civilizations and boldly goes where no one has gone before. Its explorers cannot consider evolution or relationships between different species on a planet they just have discovered. They usually do not even know most of all species on a planet they only visited for a short time and in one very limited area. And a DNA analyses is only useful if you have enough data from other analyses to compare them with. To be able to categorize the found flora and fauna nevertheless, they have to have a universal taxonomy that is far simpler than a few of the more complex taxonomies used currently on Earth. It has to be possible to categorize a species without knowing much about it, its origin and its evolution.
• And I have nowhere criticized your attempt at classification. I have merely suggested that a spacefaring civilisation might have another taxonomy in which there is no category fish because there are not enough fish species in the universe to have their own category. There may be a category amphibian and because the fishes from Earth may be similar to amphibians of other planets (e.g. species like Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron) they may be sorted into this category.
• Furthermore, when I’m speaking of a category for a species, I do not mean a higher category or a description of their characteristics. To say that we already have categories for Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik or Eusthenopteron and that any of these species would be classified as chordatic animals with vertebrate characteristics with sarcopterygii limbs and early tetrapodomorpha development is no real categorizing but a description of the characteristics of a species of a higher category. Of course they are vertebrates as most of all higher animals on Earth are such. But are they fishes or are they amphibians? That is the question you have not answered.
• And by the way, these species were more modern than fishes. They are a kind of link between regular fishes and regular amphibians and – at least to my maybe out-dated knowledge – amphibians are considered the higher developed kind of animals.
• And maybe you can explain why »kind of animals« are – according to you - supposed to be creationist words and their use results in you imagining the use of a blunt object on me.
• I want to know which biology textbooks you have used in your 10th grade. Even my 13th grade biology textbooks do not contain such sophisticated taxonomy that it would be possible to take all what you have written about the taxonomy of Coelacanth, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron or Archaeopteryx out of them.
  
  My biology textbooks are:
  • • Linder Biologie - Lehrbuch für die Oberstufe - von Bayrhuber und Kull - 20. Auflage - Schroedel Schulbuchverlag - ISBN 3-507-02347-4
    • Materialien für den Sekundarbereich II - Biologie - Evolution - von Hoff und Miram - 1. Auflage – Schroedel Schulbuchverlag - ISBN 3-507-10523-3
    • Abiturtraining - Biologie 1 (Genetik, Stoffwechsel, Ökologie) - von Meinhard und Moisl - 1. Auflage - Stark Verlagsgesellschaft - ISBN 3-89449-201-5
    • Abiturtraining - Biologie 2 (Verhaltensbiologie, Evolution) - von Meinhard und Moisl - 1. Auflage - Stark Verlagsgesellschaft - ISBN 3-89449-202-5
    • Wissensspeicher Biologie - von Dietrich, Hudt, Kopprasch, Kummer, Lobek, Meincke, Stade und Theuerkauf - 6. Auflage - Verlag Volk und Wissen - ISBN 3-06-011712-8
  With none of these textbooks would it be possible to write what you have written. And these are Abitur textbooks. I’m most interested to see, what for a formidable textbook you must have had in your 10th class that it contains such information.
  
  I assume that this claim is - as all your other writings - nothing more than hot air. Not that I expect anything else from a denizen of SDN.
• By the way, as you may conclude from the list of my textbooks, I have made my Abitur. Biology was one of my two Leistungskurse and in my Abiturprüfung I got 13 points in Biology. I admit that since then more than 10 years have passed and that I didn’t really needed Biology while studying jurisprudence, but I have a superb memory. I have not forgotten what I learned 13 years ago.
• Maybe you start to grasp now, that there is a difference between real life and mankind's current understanding of the universe and the debate of science fiction, where things are possible that shouldn't be possible, where one has not all information because a movie or series usually shows one small detail of the created universe, where there are contradictions which usually wouldn't be possible if it were real life and that it is necessars to suspend disbelief and chose a method to analyse and interpret it, that no scientist would chose to analyse and interpret something in real life.
  
  Only someone who has no idea how a scientist works and how dependable a scientist is on the coherence of the universe (because otherwise he couldn't work at all), could hope to achieve any sensible results by using the same method on the analyse and interpretation of science fiction.