So, in other words, Phasers are more efficient then Turbolasers, and they make ST stronger because they get a big bang for a small buck...Oh, and - if it is a chain reaction, that would actually make Wars stronger! Just like the NDF-reaction is usefull - it allows you to get a lot of bang for the buck! If a fast chain reaction allows to destroy something with only a small amount of energy, it is clearly much better than having to do so via DET.
Ah yes the first resort of a wongite in a corner, still considering the size of the post i should consider only 4 insults and 3 of them the same word almost polite considering the source.dipshit, dipshit, disphit wankers
TRANSLATION:Ah, the fine difference between vaporizing and fracturing - not to mention "explosions", which tend to be other things and clearly distinguishable.
TRANSLATION:Yes - yes it is! You are absolutely right in you basic premise!
That's why we establish firepower not from ship-to-ship combat - because in order for that to be meaningfull, we would have to know what kind of punishment the ships can take.
Hence, we use objects of know characteristica, such as human flesh or naturally occuring things like rocks.
Meaning the WMD's/tech exists as it is in many of the series episodes and movies.Trek canon policy is very simple: Series and movies count, everything else doesn't.
Wrong the glow was part/the begining of the chain reaction that eventually encircled the planet.If it had been a chain reaction, the side of the planet that started glowing first would have gone off first
The two explosions are inconsistant with a DET effect and consistant with a chain reaction.the planet went boom as a whole.
You point out how powerful you feel chain reaction weapons are by claiming the DS using such a method would make it more powerful...."more bang for buck".Wow - another non sequitur!
You reall should have read the post above before saying that because the guy admits to being the person garat has been kicking the crap out of on another forum.......so he does have a name its "Azron_Stoma".Suuure, a buddy. Someone with no name, but who is somehow representative of Star Wars debaters
Little lieing (insert usual wongite insult)
Every post you do makes me a little happier and proves my points about you ignoring trek canon in preferance to your opinion on politics as well as usingspeculation on really a single dubious event to base all your calcs on.It's good to know that i pleased you - everyone deserves a little pleasure every now and then
Yo.Praeothmin wrote:So, in other words, Phasers are more efficient then Turbolasers, and they make ST stronger because they get a big bang for a small buck...Oh, and - if it is a chain reaction, that would actually make Wars stronger! Just like the NDF-reaction is usefull - it allows you to get a lot of bang for the buck! If a fast chain reaction allows to destroy something with only a small amount of energy, it is clearly much better than having to do so via DET.
Wow, thanks for boosting ST over SW... :)
1. A very small piece of rock slowly lands inside the crater of a much bigger asteroid (roughly 4 times the Millennium Falcon's width I'd say), and produces a red flash."I have no explanation". Well, neither do you. Which is hardly suprising, given that you do not even graps high-school phyiscs. However, it can easily be explained by kinetic energy, given that these asteroids do not get vaporized.
Furthermore, your claim of "explosion" is flat-out wrong.
WMD's and tech capable of destroying suns and causing novas is well documented and available to the federation and is canon, in fact in some cases the ability has been refined so much that the reactions can now be controlled to the point the federation can reignite dead stars or dying stars if they wish to instead of causing them to explode...this ability is also canon.WMDs?
Oh, yes, certainly. Just nothing very impressive - megatons at best. We can do better than that today - and it's not even close to turbolasers.
Oh, and of course my oppionons do not count. Neither do yours.
We see the planet engulfed slowly from the point of contact in the chain reaction effect, this effect builds to its critical point and then the planet explodes, the visuals support this but are totally inconsistant with a DET effect.If it was a chain reaction and started on one side, that side would blow up first. Even if it is delayed - say, you have a buildup of 2-3 seconds and then it blows up - the side that was illuminate fist should blow up first.
Yet, we do not see such a thing. Rather, the whole planet blows up at once.
Your claim that Trek does not have the tech to cause novas and or destroy planets is in direct contradiction to canon evidence in several episodes and at least one movie if not 2 movies.Point to a single sentence where i ignored Trek canon.
Oh and i understand time stamps i just enjoyed pointing out that your claim of me lying was a false as the rest of your rubbish and that the idoit was in fact the OP.Hey, because you do it all the time, too:
Translation:
I, Kor_Dahar_Master, am too dumb to understand timestamps.
Does this idiot really believe that shit? I mean Seriously? If we need proof that these weapons at some point will be used, just look at TDiC (large-scale planetary bombardment intented to wipe out the Founders by destroying their world down to the core), the more than 40 billion dead in the Klingon-Federation war of the alternate timeline seen in "Yesterday's Enterpise", and the estimated 900 billion Federation casulaties of "Statistical Probabilities". These are entire planetary populations being wiped out here. So how could they not have superweapons in use? Let's also add that the Dominion was willing to use a trilithium-protomatter weapon on the Bajoran sun that would have resulted in a supernova that would have wiped out Bajor and DS9 along possibly with the allied fleet there in "By Inferno's Light". And the Son'a had little qualms about using banned subspace weapons in "Insurrection" against the E-E, nor did Nero hold back on using red matter on Vulcan in ST 2009. The list goes on."they do not use them all the time during conflicts/wars so they do not have them"
The drivel is yours the speed in real time is nowhere near enough for iron and the other materials your calculations claim the roids are made of to achieve the effects we see.Since all that drivel basically says the same thing:
Those are not explosions. They are collisions.
Your GIFs are extemely slowed down. If you look at them in real time, you'll see that those asteroids move at significant speeds.
Collsions between objects of significant mass tend to, you know, release quite a lot of energy, especially at such speeds.
Guess what - some of that energy was released as heat. Not enough to cause vaporization, but enough for a short flash.
We only see the bombers bombing in craters, the craters are caused by collisions that ignited the local materials leaving none for the bombs to ignite.Furthermore, the asteroids can not be made from burning or volatile material - we see TIE-Bombers bombing large asteroids. If they were volatile/inflammable material, they would have burned/exploded in that case - which was clearly NOT the case.
Yout alternative explanation ignores the real time speed of the asteroids during the collisions and the fact that IF they consisted on the materials you claim they do in your firepower figures they would not react or explode/flash the way they do.They are neither inconsistent, nor have you presented a viable alternate model, as i explained above.
Your personal opinion of the stategies during the dominion war is directly in contradiction to canon federation policies on such use.Novas?
Yes, we actually see that once or twice. But it clearly doesn't exist as a common technology, due to not being used in the Dominion war by either side.
Furthermore, it might have depened on specific conditions inside suns, but it doesn't really matter.
Ah so you have seen it?...Consession acceptedSlowly?
You have to go trough it frame by frame to see it.
Long is a relative term considering the time of the entire event and the planet explodes way to many frames AFTER the beam hits for it to be a DET effect.It is simply a lie that it occurs "long after" the beam hit.
OH cool a False Dilemma fallacy coupled with a no limit fallacy as well i think, i recognise False Dilemma as its a favorite of certain warsies who try to focus attenting on "the math" instead of what instances the math is derived from (like the splodingasteroids).So, you can have it one of two ways:
-they have the ability, but they never use it even in times of desperate war (against the Dominion). Which makes them stupid. Furthermore, they would not use it against the GE either.
-they don't have that ability, or can not apply it reliably.
The prime directive, The Kitomer accords, The omega directive, Several "general orders" mentioned during the movies and series ESPECIALLY General Order 24...you really should pay more attention to what you are discussing.The federation doesn't have canon policies
I did mention i got the info second hand and i never claimed or argued that the quote"the heat of a nuke focused in a small area, causing a fireball" i posted was perfectly accurate.You evidently still do not understand that i was typing a post before that other user said that you misquoted him.
Saxons prior bias is well documented on this forum and others.accusing Saxton from participating in SWvsST debates makes you a liar (there is no instance of him doing so - otherwise, find one) and you lied again above.
Keep telling yourself that im sure its a salve for your inability to ban the truth away like you normally do.Oh, i am merely toying with you and i do not want you to run away like a crybaby, lest that might spoil my fun.
Not when the Borg do it.The Dude wrote:Well to be perfectly honest, orbital bombardment is a super-weapon.
im replying to safrina on SDN.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Not when the Borg do it.The Dude wrote:Well to be perfectly honest, orbital bombardment is a super-weapon.
- runs -
May I ask. Who is Kor replying to? And why is it taking place here?
The burden of proof is not mine its yours to explain what your theory does not.Does it? Proove it!
Furthermore - how is your explanation consistent with anything?
When your personal opinion is acknowledged as comon sense and is considered a higher canon than the series and movies please get back to me.My personal oppinions happen to be based on common sense in warfare - you use the assets you have.
That depends on how they make it go supernova, in this case they were trying to extend the suns life so essentially making it younger and as such a younger star would need less not more.Furthermore - older stars would require LESS work to make them go supernova
If you see them ask them, but making up crap that contradicts canon is pointless.Then why do neither the Federation, nor the Romulans, Klingons and Dominion use their supposedly existing superweapons?
Especially since the three latter are not held back by morality in such issues.
2 seconds or 10 it disproves the DET crap."Long" is certainly not an appropriate term for what doesn't even last two seconds.
NITPICK, is that the best you can do?.Which are not canon policies :lol:
They are policies that are canon - but not canon policies
Oh dear i am getting to you aint i, its just so hard when you do not have the i-win ban switch to get rid of all these inconvienient truths is it not?.Pay attention to what you are discussing, wanker.
This is my original comment.There is a significant difference between heat and temperature. You said temperature, thereby not only misrepresenting him but demonstrating that you do not understand what temperature is.
TRANSLATION:Proove it.
Links to reliable sources will suffice.
I understand that you ignore on or the other depending on whitch serves your bias.What i do care about, however, is scientific education and logic capability. You lack both. For that, i pity you.
Ah its so good to see that SDN never changes its tune.I hope no one minds if i go on to toy with this uneducated (and apparently only partially literate) kid.
I am pointing out a MASSIVE inconsistancy in your theory that is as per usual i direct contradiction to canon evidence, show that iron asteroids cause such flashes and explosions while colliding at such slow speeds or conceed.And you are making the extraordinary claim (whatever it may be), while i am doing no such thing
Your OPINION that "THEY SHOULD" is not canon nor is it a valid or reasonable opinion considering our own arms race and use of conventional weapons and smaller engagments during it.Either way, that's beside the point - but you still have to explain why NO ONE ever uses such weapons in warfare. I am merely pointing out that they should.
I said essentially makes the star younger. The star in questons core was cooling as it got older so they used the torps to try and restore its core temperature to the temperature it was earlier in its life, essentially making it younger.That explanation just makes no sense. Oh, and source your claim that it makes the star younger.
No YOU want a answer because you know their is no canon one and because of that you think you can make one up that serves your bias. A very interesting idea and quite inovative but it does not hold water it is not canon and it actually contradicts a considerable quantity of canon political examples.It requires explanation.
Planetary shields canon status is irrelevant (i say non canon) as the beam hits the planet the reaction starts the beam ends and the reaction still continues for a considerable time gaining momentum and power before it finally reaches the point of explosion.Planetary shields are canon. Stop ignoring canon.
A steady increase in insult and bad language says it all.Hehehe.
Just because i used a naughty word, you must be getting to me - right?
Nor did i, the comment was from your OP warsie buddy remember.No educated person would have every claimed that just because a laser has a temperature of several million degrees, it is in any way comparable to a nuke.
Maybe you should educate your pets better then.Of course, that is somewhat of an invalid argument, due to violation of SoD
My comment was consistant with the material i was shown, he may have clarified it for you but what he showed you was not what i was shown.but your comment was truly stupid and showed that you do not know what temperature actually is.
Go back to school, kid.
Done.Hey - if it is so well documented, why can't you link to a site where it IS documented?
In favor of SW making derogatory referances in regards to trek fans along with comparisons of abilities regarding tech in regards to st/sw.The site that is linked basically relies on the fact that Curtis Saxton sometimes commented on SWvsST debates.
Ah the no limit fallacy coupled with the Red Herring another traditional SDN one two and a especially common and well used one in regards to darkstar.Given that in the post i mention above, the Admin (and owner, IIRC) of that site links to Darkstars webpage...apparently they take him seriously.
Do i have to say it? Yes, i do: METAL SPINES!!!