LMAO@SpaceBattles!

[Lucky]

It's very odd to see something like this:

Thread locked as per request by OP: GF loses by default.

Where, in the SB rules, does it say that moderators are supposed to decide which side wins in a debate? I think I missed that.

It's an odd way of putting it, but it looks like the thread was closed because the information for there to be a debate just does not seem to exist.

[Mike DiCenso]

I'm not sure that's entirely true as sources for the GF's capabilities were cited several times throughout the thread. However, be it as it may, it's still just a bit wrong to declare a winner like that.
-Mike

[Lucky]

I'm not sure that's entirely true as sources for the GF's capabilities were cited several times throughout the thread. However, be it as it may, it's still just a bit wrong to declare a winner like that.
-Mike

I just think we can't know enough details to draw a conclusion is all, and that you can't say there is truly a winner of the debate. It does look like Metroid has the advantage.

[Mike DiCenso]

Right, and SS4 should never have declared a winner.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

I don't think he did it seriously.
Seriously.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The taste of irony.

In current random 40K vs ST thread, the non-St side (large) has one member post data from SDN's torpedo page. Others agree.

Just a quote, from this page:

Many Federation cultists claim that the theoretical high-sublight speed of a photon torpedo can be used to calculate kinetic energy, and that this kinetic energy should be considered in any photon torpedo yield calculations. Typically, they claim that a torpedo travels at 0.9c or even higher, so it carries hundreds or perhaps even thousands of megatons of kinetic energy in addition to its warhead yield. As usual, there are numerous flaws with this line of reasoning:

1. If the high-sublight speed and kinetic energy formulas are taken to their logical conclusion, then the warhead yield is an insignificant fraction of the total energy of the torpedo. This is a ludicrous conclusion; one would have to question why the Federation would put warheads on their torpedoes at all, since they require complex and damage-prone antimatter loading and containment systems.

Macro cannons firing at .75 c and Nova cannons firing at near lightspeed, yet armed with explosive material, anyone?

:|

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

The taste of irony.

In current random 40K vs ST thread, the non-St side (large) has one member post data from SDN's torpedo page. Others agree.

Just a quote, from this page:

Many Federation cultists claim that the theoretical high-sublight speed of a photon torpedo can be used to calculate kinetic energy, and that this kinetic energy should be considered in any photon torpedo yield calculations. Typically, they claim that a torpedo travels at 0.9c or even higher, so it carries hundreds or perhaps even thousands of megatons of kinetic energy in addition to its warhead yield. As usual, there are numerous flaws with this line of reasoning:

1. If the high-sublight speed and kinetic energy formulas are taken to their logical conclusion, then the warhead yield is an insignificant fraction of the total energy of the torpedo. This is a ludicrous conclusion; one would have to question why the Federation would put warheads on their torpedoes at all, since they require complex and damage-prone antimatter loading and containment systems.

Macro cannons firing at .75 c and Nova cannons firing at near lightspeed, yet armed with explosive material, anyone?

:|

HEY its o good job you said "irony" rather than "hypocrisy" as you know you can get a slap on the wrist for doing so on SDN.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There's also a great deal of poor debaters, and imho Deadguy takes the cake here.
Aside from his glaring error regarding the meaning on orders of magnitude in conjunction with "greater" (clue: it means sueprior, not inferior), I found his reaction to the mention of terawatt beam weapons and gigawatt threat quotes from Ricrery unsurprising.

Those Terra-watt beam weapons could be the point defense lasers for all we know. :)

The Giga-watts reference could be referring to the ability of a 1 cm by 1 cm section of the ship's hull too.

I had predicted this counter to the terawatt beam bit, and if Ricrecy had been more cautious, knowing that he probably picked it from SFJN, from Mith's post (and my subsequent observations), he'd seen that there's more information that proves it's about the heavy weapons.

As for the gigawatt reference... it's precisely said that such weapons threaten the warships. Only heavy weapons can do that, and I'm pretty sure that the cross section of any other those weapons, from a Macro shell to a lance beam, is certainly not one centimeter square.

As for the Mr. 35 kg, perhaps it's not a flame, but it's certainly derogatory in a way, and a clear bait. Not to say that SS4 himself had warned against using fancy names to refer to people. Seems he forgot that one rather quickly.

Don't 40k drawings tend to be consistently out of scale? *sigh*
And that's still just one ship anyway.
Some other gems, like this one: "Also Ricrery's allusion to autocannons, bolters, lascannons, and other space fighter arguments is pointless. Said weapons are most likely as his Rogue Trader snippet states: "Terrawatt beam weapons" and the projectile weapons are likely to be relativistic due to the fact that, I don't know, the fighters are consistently shown flying alongside capital ships going at 0,75 c. In any, case this argument about bolters and whatnot is meaningless because Ricrery has not provided any discrete numbers about their performance."

Ah? Not only I'd love to see evidence that the .75c attack velocity is maintained in battle (which obviously for anyone having read some books, it's pretty clear it is not the case at all), but I also find it impressive that terawatt beam weapons are suddenly multi gigaton beam by the mere magic of being relativistic. "Terawatt beam weapon is not terawatt beam weapon" I guess?

Oh, and some badly needed boot licking. Thank you, Soulgazer.

Not that I'm supporting Ricrery, he was particularly irritating in repeating the same Star Trek list ad nauseum despite being addressed repeatedly.
He's made himself such a bad reputation that he is detrimental to any side he argues in favour of now.
Good thing that he finally has his scales straight. :)
Seems like alguLoD has assimilated Ricrery's past error and made them his.
This pretty much explains why alguLoD's arguments thus far have been quite worthless, which tells a lot considering how he petulantly flamed other people about their intelligence, knowledge and so on in several other threads before that.
There's a whole level of humility gone down the drain there.

[Admiral Breetai]

slightly off the main topic but watching leo1 and sci fi fan try to attack LOTR is absolutely hilarious...I've never seen a pair of more frustrated resentful posters in my life...

that and can any one explain to me the sites undying hatred of comic book characters for being over powered? yet willingly embrace wong style ideals on star wars and..have no problem championing some of the more broken animes?

[User1596]

Oh wow just noticed that new W40k vs ST thread rather funny all the lengths they go through to beat down people supporting trek there.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh wow just noticed that new W40k vs ST thread rather funny all the lengths they go through to beat down people supporting trek there.

The shame is the repetition of the same arguments. High ends in Trek get gleefully ignored for example, and I mean the very big ones, although I prefer to rationalize them or outright ignore them as outliers. On the other hand, Warhammer keeps getting its multi-gigatons torpedoes cited as if the only figure that exist -literally what you can see being claimed- despite lower ends existing, right in the BFG rulebook (gigawatts of death and deadly solar flares) and now Rogue Trader's terawatts, which are exactly about the heavy weapons if one is willing to actually read all the quotations and pay attention to them.
I notice that no one actually really bothers. I'm sure there are knowledgeable or intellectually honest people who could bother, but no one really does.
It's funny really how the lopsided moderation over there has really killed the debate so much that all you get is a race to be the first to post that vlad tepes picture, with these people not even realizing how wrong they are.
Spacebattles? better call it Spacesupermacy, Spacesiege or Spaceoccupation, it would be more accurate by a long range. :)
So yes, that debate is quite sad and pathetic.

[Admiral Breetai]

casually being able to pulverize a moon or rip the atmosphere of a planet off your phasers seems a bit over what Warhammer ships can do on average

[User1596]

Na I will give them that Warhammer has special technobabble weapons which can destroy planets atmosphere's or the planets themselves.

Although they are completely useless against ships which doesn't stop people on SB from trying to use that as evidence.

[Lucky]

Oh wow just noticed that new W40k vs ST thread rather funny all the lengths they go through to beat down people supporting trek there.

The shame is the repetition of the same arguments. High ends in Trek get gleefully ignored for example, and I mean the very big ones, although I prefer to rationalize them or outright ignore them as outliers. On the other hand, Warhammer keeps getting its multi-gigatons torpedoes cited as if the only figure that exist -literally what you can see being claimed- despite lower ends existing, right in the BFG rulebook (gigawatts of death and deadly solar flares) and now Rogue Trader's terawatts, which are exactly about the heavy weapons if one is willing to actually read all the quotations and pay attention to them.
I notice that no one actually really bothers. I'm sure there are knowledgeable or intellectually honest people who could bother, but no one really does.
It's funny really how the lopsided moderation over there has really killed the debate so much that all you get is a race to be the first to post that vlad tepes picture, with these people not even realizing how wrong they are.
Spacebattles? better call it Spacesupermacy, Spacesiege or Spaceoccupation, it would be more accurate by a long range. :)
So yes, that debate is quite sad and pathetic.

I was more bothered by the claim that Star Trek ships can't warp strafe because they can't fire at warp. Last time I checked things like phasers and photon torpedos were FTL weapons?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh wow just noticed that new W40k vs ST thread rather funny all the lengths they go through to beat down people supporting trek there.

The shame is the repetition of the same arguments. High ends in Trek get gleefully ignored for example, and I mean the very big ones, although I prefer to rationalize them or outright ignore them as outliers. On the other hand, Warhammer keeps getting its multi-gigatons torpedoes cited as if the only figure that exist -literally what you can see being claimed- despite lower ends existing, right in the BFG rulebook (gigawatts of death and deadly solar flares) and now Rogue Trader's terawatts, which are exactly about the heavy weapons if one is willing to actually read all the quotations and pay attention to them.
I notice that no one actually really bothers. I'm sure there are knowledgeable or intellectually honest people who could bother, but no one really does.
It's funny really how the lopsided moderation over there has really killed the debate so much that all you get is a race to be the first to post that vlad tepes picture, with these people not even realizing how wrong they are.
Spacebattles? better call it Spacesupermacy, Spacesiege or Spaceoccupation, it would be more accurate by a long range. :)
So yes, that debate is quite sad and pathetic.

I was more bothered by the claim that Star Trek ships can't warp strafe because they can't fire at warp. Last time I checked things like phasers and photon torpedos were FTL weapons?

FTL weapons? No, but at least torps can be fired at warp. In fact, it all depends what kind of warp they're talking about, because there's evidence that there can be forms of warp that don't break the c barrier. The question is what happens to a torpedo, say, that leaves the warp field of a ship using it to fly faster towards c. I suspect the torpedo would quickly revert to its normal non warp sub-c speed (*urff*).
The whole warp sustained theory is a good thing though. It has to be explored.
Plus we'd have to consider the strong possibility that has the torpedo impacts or explodes at warp, as the warp field collapses, there would be nothing relativistic about the ejecta safe for the usual load of photons fired in all directions in such situations.