Star Wars vs Star Trek shields

[Praeothmin]

Getting 450 GT based on TESB asteroid scene is pure BS.
While the book says "multi MT mines", the movies show us an entirely different scenario, SWST.

Where in the world are you getting that from, Praeo? The TESB novelization does not have a statement like that at all.
-Mike

Oh, that's what I understood from SWST's post...
Doesn't really matter anyways because visuals contradict this... :)

[Praeothmin]

Even still, what Wong is trying to dance around there is that the energy output from this star, along with it's color identify it as something bigger and more powerful than a G-type star like our own Sun. A metal or other material only starts to glow signficantly when it is reaching it's thermal refractivity limits. Given other facts, such as SIF fields that reinforce the hull, and you can see why it wouldn't be glowing much.

There is also the fact that the hulls of Galaxy class ships are Tritanium and Duranium so there is no reason to assume fictional metals will even weaken at a "low" temperature like 12,000 degrees C .

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the writers even realized the extremes they planed to put the ships through would be to much for normal materials.

See Mr. Oraghan and I's discussion concerning the unusual nature of the "Descent" star and it's energy output in the "ST vs Eldar & Tau" thread. The star in question might be a K-type giant given it's color and temperature.
-Mike

I posted in that thread.

And it's soooo funny to see MW try to use "real science" to try and discredit ST, but then throws it right out the windows when discussing SW...
Totally not biased... :)

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I see that many of you are discounting MW's work on the basis of...him being MW, and you guys hating him. In fact, Mike, how do you justify Breentai saying this:

it's from Wong that automatically invalidates it

Which is quite literally a textbook example of an ad hominem.

Breentai is claiming that, because it's from Wong, the calculations are by default incorrect, even if they use hard math and generous assumptions. You guys have to provide evidence for why something is "invalid" before you assume invalidity just because it was from X person.

By Breentai's logic, if Mike Wong is to say that 1 plus 1 equals 2, it, as he says, is "automatically" invalid. This is, again, a TEXTBOOK example of an ad hominem.


Breentai repeats his habit of using textbook examples of ad hominems that he doesn't even bother to disguise:

using non canon bullshit siting a guy known for being massively biased and a guy from SB and a bunch of other crap

You see? Instead of, as a fair debater would do, point to WHERE the calculations show bias, he simply says that they're "known" for being bias and that therefore their calculations are by default bias.

[Admiral Breetai]

I see that many of you are discounting MW's work on the basis of...him being MW, and you guys hating him. In fact, Mike, how do you justify Breentai saying this:

because every poster here not a fanatic defender of SDN knows he is extremely hostile anti semetic and massively biased

[

Breentai is claiming that, because it's from Wong, the calculations are by default incorrect, even if they use hard math and generous assumptions. You guys have to provide evidence for why something is "invalid" before you assume invalidity just because it was from X person.

it'd be an ad hominem if it was in fact wrong..it isn't

By Breentai's logic, if Mike Wong is to say that 1 plus 1 equals 2, it, as he says, is "automatically" invalid. This is, again, a TEXTBOOK example of an ad hominem.

theres a huge difference between two plus two and "giganton fire power that is not remotely supported by anything canon but my math"

Breentai repeats his habit of using textbook examples of ad hominems that he doesn't even bother to disguise:

I'm a very direct poster you wont see me beat around the push if I feel a person is being biased...I wouldn't bother to disguise an attack on the mans credibility because it's simply put a much deserved attack

You see? Instead of, as a fair debater would do, point to WHERE the calculations show bias, he simply says that they're "known" for being bias and that therefore their calculations are by default bias.

you were siting the ICS I pointed out that it's nonsense...as for wong this site and many others are littered with people and sources that have debunked the guy

[StarWarsStarTrek]

theres a huge difference between two plus two and "giganton fire power that is not remotely supported by anything canon but my math"

And "his math" is only subject to interpretation in the variables that he defines. It is difficult to find error in his raw math calculations; Mike is an engineer, and there are no errors in his actual math.

Therefore, you would have to find error in his estimations for the Enterprise's exposure, his interpretation of the dialogue, etc.

Can you find any? What errors did Mike make that invalidates his calculations?

[mojo]

swst, you realize you are using the death star novel here as evidence, when in another CURRENTLY ACTIVE thread, you shot it down as an invalid source. are you aware this makes you look like even more of a warsie tool? who does that?

[Admiral Breetai]

And "his math" is only subject to interpretation in the variables that he defines. It is difficult to find error in his raw math calculations; Mike is an engineer, and there are no errors in his actual math.

I don't give a shit what he does He's not Robert fucking openheimer and even if he calculated the yield of an ISD's weapons I'd challenge him..

what part of "only feats " matter don't you get?

Therefore, you would have to find error in his estimations for the Enterprise's exposure, his interpretation of the dialogue, etc.

I will continue to do what I have always done here refuse to acknowledge the math of any one from that site..or any of it's apologists

Can you find any? What errors did Mike make that invalidates his calculations?

in the past on rumbles I have we have both his and any other little templar from the holy seed of wars.. ..I have no such desire to do so again and refuse to even waste my time indulging the calculations of any one..who defends that site and follow their credence and will continue to do so...you want to debate me? do your own damn home work..and stop parroting them...earn your chops

as it stands your a useless puppet who isn't even capable of formulating ideas of his own when it comes to wars and trek..you have potential I have seen it but you need to move away from them for me to really treat you with the respect I show others

[User1618]

"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose. This is one of the most disturbingly blunt ad hominem statements I have ever seen. Mike Wong also says that E = MC^2: but it is invalid because he said it.

Oh yeah, Wong made that calculation-- sorry charlie I believe someone named Einstein did, but that wouldn't stop you from making a bogus claim like all the others.

Math is factual by nature; the only room for bias is the figures used, but you need to prove bias on Mike's estimations.

If you're too lame to see the obvious, like his E+38 claim for Alderaan's explosion, which precludes the Alderaan Graveyard by a factor of about a billion... as well as his overall wanked equation for planetary destruction which is simply whacked as well.

I postulate that you do not understand any of his calculations,

Arbitrarily since you have no proof or evidence, you just assume Wong's right therefore all who counter him are wrong.

so you do not bother to examine them, instead literally saying the very model of an ad hominem statement.

Or maybe the voice of experience that Wong's a pragmatic wonk who can't think outside his element enough to even wipe his mouth with toilet-paper.

I am not exaggerating when I say that a website on logical fallacies could use it as an example of an ad hominem.

Unless it happens to be the truth.

No supporting evidence, nothing. If my claim is bullshit you have to prove it. If YOU find it obvious you still have to prove it or back it up.

You're the one claiming that he doesn't understand Wong's equations.

For example, consider Wong's page on calculating binding energy of a planet-- which he does at full planetary mass for all gradations of the radius! In other words, the dipshit can't even figure out that the initial explosion STRIPS AWAY the outer mass long before it can apply to binding the inner!
So given M=5.97E24 kg then the planet's binding energy obviously cannot be greater than 7E+28J, and in fact would be closer to 4 since it tapers to zero with each successive layer.

Wong can't dazzle with brilliance so he baffles with bullshit-- which only fools those who can't tell the difference (like YOU).

[User1618]

"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose. This is one of the most disturbingly blunt ad hominem statements I have ever seen. Mike Wong also says that E = MC^2: but it is invalid because he said it.

The question was Wong's calculations. Oh yeah, Wong made that calculation-- sorry charlie I believe someone named Einstein did, but that wouldn't stop you from making a bogus claim like all the others.

Math is factual by nature; the only room for bias is the figures used, but you need to prove bias on Mike's estimations.

If you're too lame to see the obvious, like his E+38 claim for Alderaan's explosion, which precludes the Alderaan Graveyard by a factor of about a billion... as well as his overall wanked equation for planetary destruction which is simply whacked as well.

I postulate that you do not understand any of his calculations,

Arbitrarily, since you have no proof or evidence, you just assume Wong's right therefore all who counter him are wrong. That's a buttboy argument.

so you do not bother to examine them, instead literally saying the very model of an ad hominem statement.

Or maybe the voice of experience that Wong's a pragmatic wonk who can't think outside his element enough to even wipe his mouth with toilet-paper.

I am not exaggerating when I say that a website on logical fallacies could use it as an example of an ad hominem.

Unless it happens to be the truth.

No supporting evidence, nothing. If my claim is bullshit you have to prove it. If YOU find it obvious you still have to prove it or back it up.

You're the one claiming that he doesn't understand Wong's equations.

For example, consider Wong's page on calculating binding energy of a planet-- which he does at full planetary mass for all gradations of the radius! In other words, the dipshit can't even figure out that the initial calculation STRIPS AWAY the outer mass long before it can apply to binding the inner!
So given M=5.97E24 kg then the planet's binding energy obviously cannot be greater than 7E+28J, and in fact would be closer to 4 since it tapers to zero with each successive layer.
And nevermind the drop in thermal energy by a mostly-liquid planet being BLASTED into solid fragments, thus suggesting some sort of energy-scattering beam rather than DET, while chain-reaction is impossible due to residue and lack of fuel.

In reality, Wong can't dazzle with brilliance so he baffles with bullshit-- which only fools those who can't tell the difference (like YOU).

[Mike DiCenso]

And it's soooo funny to see MW try to use "real science" to try and discredit ST, but then throws it right out the windows when discussing SW...
Totally not biased... :)

Nope, not biased at all. ;-)
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

I see that many of you are discounting MW's work on the basis of...him being MW, and you guys hating him. In fact, Mike, how do you justify Breentai saying this:

it's from Wong that automatically invalidates it

Which is quite literally a textbook example of an ad hominem.

That's not ad hominem. If is ad hominem, its circumstantial ad hominem. But I digress, as that is neither here nor there, and is up to you to convience Breetai just as it is up to him to convince you that you are wrong.

As much as I hate to say it, Breetai is perfectly in his rights to be obtuse as much as you have been so long as he does not degenerate into name calling and other poor behavior. If you have a specific problem, report it.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

theres a huge difference between two plus two and "giganton fire power that is not remotely supported by anything canon but my math"

And "his math" is only subject to interpretation in the variables that he defines. It is difficult to find error in his raw math calculations; Mike is an engineer, and there are no errors in his actual math.

Therefore, you would have to find error in his estimations for the Enterprise's exposure, his interpretation of the dialogue, etc.

Can you find any? What errors did Mike make that invalidates his calculations?

Breetai is perfectly all right as is anyone else in questioning Wong's calculations. Certainly his doing the math is not what is actually in question as much as his assumptions that he makes before doing the numbers.

For example, in the "Relics" example, Wong jumps through logical fallacy loops to reduce the energy of the G-type star the E-D was orbiting close to. He then also goes through great effort to ignore the details of the circumstances. The E-D being badly damaged, for instance, or the fact that the star was undergoing a bizarre series of fluctuations and matter-energ explusions as well as generating massive solar flares that were increasing in power over time. Thus his calculations, which presume a weak star, and a normal steady state of energy/power output over time are extremely flawed, and intended to make Star Trek technology look far weaker than it actually is.

The same thing with his calcs concering the E-D tanking energy froma star in "Descent, Part 2". See the links I provided to Oraghan and I's discussion on the unusual nature of the star. It's likely an O-type star given the temperature and color, though there is quite a bit of weirdness about it. But it is not a normal star in terms of temperature (it is far hotter than the Sun), and it's light is very intense and bright, even at the surface of the planet were the rogue Borg and Lore were based at.

So if Wong is ignoring all of this, why should Breetai or anyone else except his work?
-Mike

[Admiral Breetai]

That's not ad hominem. If is ad hominem, its circumstantial ad hominem. But I digress, as that is neither here nor there, and is up to you to convience Breetai just as it is up to him to convince you that you are wrong.
-Mike

see I don't think I'm guilty even of that as according to that definition there your claim cannot be guilty based off ones circumstances...simply put that's completely wrong and rather ridiculous as your situation or in this case biased can absolutely blind you to the truth and destroy your objectivity and there certainly is more proof supporting my assessment of his calcs and justifying his exclusion therein..I mean this site literally wouldn't exist if the guy was a bastion of wisdom and objectivity

[User1618]

And it's soooo funny to see MW try to use "real science" to try and discredit ST, but then throws it right out the windows when discussing SW...
Totally not biased... :)

Nope, not biased at all. ;-)
-Mike

Not for a 2-year old, anyway... like his claim that "In my experience, people start whining about "maturity" when they're trying to distract the audience from the fact that they're getting their asses kicked". i.e. that that the flames he posts via temper-tantrum are proof of a superior argument.
To quote Dr. Strangelove, "the man is quite obviously a psychotic."

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Mike's past calculations are not what I am arguing. Mike might be wrong on every other calculation he ever made, but that does not affect this one. I gave the link; if his calculations are flawed, you can point them out and show how. Otherwise, you are saying that his calculations are wrong, and refusing to even read them, despite them being right in front of them.

@Breentai:

Feats are all that matter? Mike's calculation was USiNG a feat!

Now anybody from here please point out any errors in THIS calculation of Mike's. Did he make bad assumptions? Misinterpreted dialogue? What did he do wrong?