Difference between revisions of "Magestorm Allgoode"
| Line 1,468: | Line 1,468: | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
*[http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=59109 Stardestoyer.net thread about Magestorm Allgoode] | *[http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=59109 Stardestoyer.net thread about Magestorm Allgoode] | ||
[[Category:Trolls]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:52, 7 November 2007
Magestorm Allgoode is a member of the message board Hotel 23, who came to the attention of the members of Stardestroyer.net when he sent an email to Michael Wong questioning the validity of his web site.
Beginnings
On December 07 2004 a thread titled "Geek Debate: Star Wars vs. Star Trek" was started in Hotel 23's Inane Babble forum, and Magestorm began arguing in favor of Star Trek. A link to Stardestroyer.net was posted on the first page, and a few pages later it was suggested that Magestorm, after commenting on the content of Stardestroyer.net's primary versus section, email Michael Wong with his criticisms.
Email Exchange
Opening Message
From: Magestorm Allgoode
I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead.
I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source.
I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildly overstated. In specific:
AOTC section-
Slave 1 Seismic Charges Using my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.
Slave 1 midship guns
Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.
Slave 1 missiles
Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.
Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.
Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.
Little Boy specs: Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons)
Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings)
And we all know what kind of damage that caused.
Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)
A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.
Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J)
1 KG of deturium in a fusion reaction causes aproximately 2.6×10[15power] J.
Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.
If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.
Second Message: Wong's first reply
On Friday 17 December 2004 10:05 pm, you wrote:
I tried registering for your discussion board. However, due to the fact that "free" e-mail accounts have to pony up a $10 registration fee, I decided to send this via e-mail instead. I am a horror writer, and part of the Raptorman board at http://raptorman.us Recently, we had a thread about Star Trek VS Star Wars, and your website was listed as a source. I visited it, and found your measurements and estimations to be wildly overstated. In specific: AOTC section- Slave 1 Seismic Charges Using my own analysis of the footage, and simple physics, your estimate of 60-200 megatons is wildly off the mark. Because this disruption is in a planar direction, and not omnidirectional, MUCH less force would be needed to rip through asteroids in this fashion. To reach the 2km range, you'd barely even need a kiloton of force to do this kind of damage. Asteroids can be extremely friable, and a planar disruption would cause this friable rock to burst apart.
And what do you base this claim upon, other than your own authority? These rocks are clearly well-consolidated; did that occur to you? And did it occur to you that the planar nature of the charge does not mitigate the fragmentation energy since the asteroids did not merely split in two, but were shattered?
Slave 1 midship guns Again, 2 kilotons is a wild estimate. Against natural friable asteroids, you'd just need conventional sized explosions to take out an asteroid 2-3 times larger than the fighter getting shot at.
What are these "natural friable asteroids" made of? According to NASA, there are many classes of asteroids, and light-coloured hard-consolidated ones such as those we saw are not of the easily crumbled variety. Why should I believe you over NASA?
Slave 1 missiles Estimated at 190 megatons. Doubtful in the least. Looking over the explosion and the damage from this, I would put the explosion no larger than 1 KT, and that is overestmation. Remember, as these rocks are usually fragile and friable, it doesn't take a horrendous ammount of force to shatter one if put in the right place.
See above. This "all asteroids crumble like Oreo cookies" mantra of yours is getting rather repetitive, and it is not supported by any real source other than your own say-so.
Also of note is Joules and Watts getting mixed around, and directed energy weapons getting classified as megaton and gigaton class weapons, when all energy weapons are measured in watts, not megatons.
Megatons and gigatons are units of energy, dumb-ass.
Consider the Real life physics, and apply them to the matters at hand here.
I have, unlike you.
Little Boy specs: Yield-13KT (Yes, Kilotons) Blast overpressure: 12PSI (greater than 5PSI overpressure from an explosion is sufficient to topple buildings) And we all know what kind of damage that caused.
You DO realize that blast overpressure is a phenomenon which is entirely caused by atmospheric interaction with the radiation produced by the nuke, don't you? And that this would not apply to an energy weapon in space? For someone who says "consider the real life physics", you don't appear to know any.
Modern nuke missiles have a range from 100 KT to 1.5 MT. The largest weaopon ever tested was a 50 megaton weapon. The 50 MT bomb was powerful enough to give 3rd degree burns at 100KM (60 miles aprox) and was felt and seen from 1000KM (600 miles aprox)
See above.
A GIGATON nuke would not only be horrendously huge, it would devistate an entire planet with one shot.
Bullshit. Numerous volcano eruptions in the past have exceeded the gigaton level, and the so-called "dino killer" asteroid was estimated at roughly 100 million megatons, ie- 1E5 gigatons.
Now, we know that a megaton is the equivalant of 4.18x10[15th power] Joules (J) 1 KG of deturium in a fusion reaction causes aproximately 2.6×10[15power] J. Therefore, a fusion warhead from a 1 gigaton nuke would be horrednously huge, as it takes 6.25 KG to cause 1 Megaton of explosion. at 1,000 megatons, that is aproximately a warhead holding 6,250 KG of deteurium. Not only would the warhead itself be massive, but the engine for this would have to be equally massive.
The fact that these are NOT fusion bombs does not occur to you?
If you are going off of the Incredible Cross section books, I would seriously review their ratings against actual science, and see that they are merely throwing wild estimates, not actual reproduceable figures.
And you base this statement on ... what? Your personal say-so? The personal authority of someone ignorant enough to think that it's somehow unscientific to rate energy weapons using a unit of energy, who thinks that blast overpressure should apply in space, and who thinks that a 1 gigaton explosion [will devastate] an entire planet? Why should I take any of your claims seriously, when they are backed up with nothing but the aforementioned flimsy personal authority?
Third Message: Magestorm's first reply
Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.
To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle. As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC.
Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.
Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space, there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.
A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.
A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.
The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis.
So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merely that the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim. Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site are extremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts and figures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actual science.
Last Message: Wong's second reply
Actually, I am basing this off of physics. Sources include NASA, JPL, Wikipedia, and the CERN websites.
I notice a distinct lack of "my own professional qualifications in physics" in that list. I guess I'm dealing with another "self-taught through Google" science expert. You clowns are a dime a dozen, do you know that?
To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle.
LOL! You think that a piece of iron will undergo a "secondary thermonuclear reaction"? Where did you learn science? Sesame street? A thermonuclear reaction is caused by a fission explosion interacting with fusion fuels, dumb-ass. You can't make any arbitrary object undergo a thermonuclear reaction by setting off a large blast in it.
As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC.
"Circular logic" fallacy. Try again.
Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.
Wrong. Megatons are a measurement in energy, moron. And any directed energy weapon with a defined pulse length CAN be measured in terms of energy; you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you realize that energy is just power multiplied by time? Or did your grade 8 teacher not explain that to you yet? Maybe you should ask him on Monday when you show up for class.
Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space, there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.
Wrong. Blast overpressure is an ATMOSPHERIC phemonenon, moron. What do you think the blast wave is composed of? Oh yeah, it's AIR.
A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.
Not in vacuum.
A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.
LOL! You don't even know how scaling laws work, do you? You honestly think that a nuclear weapon which is twice as powerful will create a blast radius twice as large? Do you understand that blast effects follow non-linear scaling laws? Or that the volume and area of a sphere grow at the cube and square of its radius, respectively? I see that we can add simple geometry to the list of things you don't understand, never mind the fact that blast effects will not exist in vacuum and a 5psi overpressure is utterly inadequate to shatter a well-consolidated piece of rock.
The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis.
"Style over substance" fallacy. I have explained in some detail what is wrong with every one of your claims, and you respond by simply repeating yourself and pretending that my comments on your obvious ignorance of the subject matter somehow give you an excuse to ignore my rebuttal.
So, if that is how you truely are going to behave, then that is fine. I never once made any comment about you or your intelligence, merely that the figures simply did not hold up to proven scientific theorim.
A statement which was wrong, and whose flaws were pointed out, to which you had no response other than to repeat yourself. Your lack of intelligence is not just an insult; it is clearly a fact. No intelligent person responds to a rebuttal of his claim by simply repeating it.
Personally, I feel that the estimates you have on your site are extremely over what they are observable. I am basing my facts and figures from my personal observations of the movie, as well as actual science.
No, you are not. You repeatedly invoke the word "science" as if it is a magic talisman, when you have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever of it. I would be surprised if you have even graduated high school, given that you performed an incredibly simple-minded linear scaling of nuclear blast effects. You are a classic example of what is wrong with so many sci-fi fans; you actually seem to think you are qualified to discuss matters of real science because you've watched a lot of movies and surfed the Internet, when it is clear that you actually haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Thread at Hotel 23
During the course of the thread, several members of Stardestroyer.net went there to participate in the debate. Magestorm banned three of them and deleted all their posts. These posts are reproduced here.
Darth Servo
Rottedfreak wrote: Their all crazy Star wars has no real science behind it's weapons
Neither does Trek. They are BOTH pure fantasy.
lasers, proton torpedo's and Deflector shields just don't sound as powerful as Star Treks photon torpedoes, quantum torpedoes, Borg/Delta flyers photonic missiles, phasers and multiphasic shields.
According to that "logic", a personal Bose speaker with "acoustamass technology" is louder than a large amp at a rock concert.
The name of a given piece of technology has nothing to do with how powerful it is.
In TNG, DS9 and Voyager apperantly all ships have deflector shields constantly running to avoid debris collisions and in the TNG episode 'The Outragous Okona' when the Enterprise threatened with by a vastly inferior race Riker comments "Their lasers won't even cut through normal deflector shields.".
And all lasers are as powerful as the lasers of that primitive society in that ONE episode?
Guess what? In "Loud as a Whisper" Picard explicitly avoided entering a war zone contested with "laseer weaponry" so as not to endanger the E-D. In "Suddenly Human", the Picard was terrified of going to war with a society armed with lasers.
We know that Federation ships can only survive for a limited time near stars so they obviously ARE damaged by ordinary light if its intense enough.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Try signing up for the forum using a hotmail, yahoo, or google acount. it will throw up an error, stating that because of problems they have had from users of free e-mail, they could only accept either an e-mail address from an ISP, or they need a $10 "donation" to complete your registration to their site.
Its totally free to sign up with a corporate or school email. If you're out of school, and have half the knowledge you claim, you should already have a non-anomymous email so you should be able to sign up for free.
And ONE e-mail? Nononono!!!!! This was 5 go rounds. He simply got nastier and nastier about it,
He says straight out on his 'send email page' that stupidity WILL be flamed. You obviously chose to ignore that warning, just like you ignored his rebuttals and focused instead on the insults. Your tactic was a textbook ad homenim fallacy--focusing on the man instead of the arguments.
instead of rationally going over why he felt I was wrong.
Except he DID address each point you brought up and why it was wrong. Yuu ignored those rebuttals and instead simply repeated your original claims without alteration. Thats enough to get any intelligent person mad. And don't try to deny it. He has posted the first two emails from you on his board already.
Therefore, I totally discount him, his website, and the source material his site uses (Incredible Cross Sections).
1) As far as logic is concerned, it doesn't matter how rude, mean or even evil someone is.
Consider the following analogy:
Person A politely declares that 2+2=5 Person B calls person A an idiot and tells him it really equals 4 Person A says person B can't be right because he was insulting.
2) The rudeness of a supporter of a given document has even less to do with the validity of that document, since said supporter didn't write it.
3) The Incredible cross sections book has been officially approved by Lucasfilm and received canon status. If I tried to get a particular Trek episode thrown out because one of its fans was a jerk, you would laugh in my face. Why should I not do the same to you?
While I don't have a degree, I DID happen to pay attention in school
Obviously not very well since you think a 20x bigger explosion means a 20x larger blast radius which is completely false. In reality a 20x bigger blast means a 20x bigger VOLUME of the explosion which ould only be about a 2.7 increase in radius. This is basic geometry.
and even now continue learning on my own.
Google is no match or a real college education. There is a reason college takes years to get through.
Had I gone on, I'd most likely would have becoma an actual doctor,
News flash. The author of the Incredible Cross Sections book IS an actual doctor. Curtis Saxton holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics which makes him far more qualified to discuss what amount of energy is required for a given event than you.
instead of someone living off the dole here. But, because my knowledge was not taught at a college, I can't simply test out on what I do know, and go on to the things I don't.
And there is a very good reason why you can't. Universities must get accredited and hold up to certain standards. Google has no such regulations.
Makes it to where you have an educated group unable to use this knowledge. Sad we have gone to that.
Given the (lack of) knowledge you demonstrated in your emails to Mike Wong, I'd say thats a very good thing. You obviously have no idea what a real education is like.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Personally, I could give a rat's ass. If anyone wanted to read the entire thing, I would have happily posted it. However, because of his insults, and not even bothering to explain WHY I was wrong, jusr assuming I was some know-nothing asshat, I find his arguments to be hollow and void of any and all redeming qualities.
1) Another ad-homenim fallacy. Attacking the man rather than the argument.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
2) You are not even telling the truth. He DID explain why you were wrong and you either ignored it or couldn't understand it.
In other words, he's full of shit, and I refuse to take one word of his seriously, untill he can sit down and calmly, without resorting to personal attacks, where I am wrong, and the physics behind it.
His usualy response to crap like this is. "I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter."
Mike invites you to view the thread in question and according to him, you only sent him 2 emails, not 5.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=59109&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
American wrote: Stormtroopers vs Starfleet personell: Stormtroops would lose. Their armor may be thick, but on Star Trek, there are times they use phasers as cutting tools.
And it usually takes several minutes to cut through anything ans seen in "Naked Time"
Furthermore, Federation hand phasers can be rendered useless by just about anything from mild radiation to certain minerals to a really big solar flare. Imperial weapons have never had such problems.
Versatility is no match for raw power. Leave the swiss army knives for the boy scouts. I'd rather have the more power weapon with longer range (Clone troopers were engaging the droid armies at ranges of several km in AOTC).
Jedi vs Borg: Tossup
How can you say that?
Jedi can run faster than olympic sprinters (seen in the Trade Fed ship in TPM) while borg drones are slower than zombies.
Jedi have super fast reflexes due to seeing something before it happens while drones have none at all.
The borg have never demonstrated the ability to adapt to physical impacts. Only frequency dependent weapons like phasers.
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Several things here, and more calls of bullshit WHERE are you getting you numbers? a megaton for a photon torpedo? GIGATON turbolasers? Sorry, the science simply does NOT add up!
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Beam2.html
Turbolaser Analysis wrote: There are 12 heavy turbolasers and roughly 120 light turbolasers on an ISD1 (ref. SWICS). The heavy turbolasers are roughly 125 times bigger than the light turbolasers (which were seen vaporizing asteroids in TESB). If firepower is proportional to size (an unsubstantiated but not unreasonable postulate) then the sustainable power outputs of the heavy and light guns work out to 47 million TW and 375,000 TW respectively. Refire rates seem to be roughly 1 shot per 2 seconds, so the energy level of each individual blast would have to be 94 million TJ (22 gigatons of TNT) for heavy turbolasers and 750,000 TJ ( 179 megatons) for light turbolasers.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Torpedoes/Torpedo1.html
Federation Torpedoes Analysis wrote: The overall impact of a photon torpedo on its target is therefore an amount of energy, in the form of superheated matter, gamma radiation, thermal radiation, and highly energetic subatomic particles, which is less than or equal to 32 megatons in quantity for a direct impact, and as little as 10 megatons in quantity for a medium-proximity blast (decreasing with increasing distance, based on the radius beyond which charged pions decay into useless neutrinos). If we use the 74% efficiency estimate derived from the DS9 TM, we can determine that a photon torpedo should deliver roughly 24 megatons for a direct impact and as little as 7 megatons for a medium-proximity blast.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: From what I read from ST and SW websites and books, SW seems to have seriously OVERESTIMATED their wepons capabilities.
From what I saw from SW movies, I don't think their firepower, particularly as demonstrated in TESB, not to mention the ability of destroying a planet in a single shot, suffers from overestimation.
Unless, of course, we can make up a scientific excuses that SW asteroids and planets were made up of nitroglycerine while furiously pleasuring ourselves. Sandpaper, anyone?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: ST, on the other hand, has much of it's facts and figures rooted in science. Michael Onzuka wrote 2 tech manuals, and a blueprint set. One manual was about the Movie Enterprise class vessel, which brought up the troop carriers and other vessels. The other was The Next Generation tech manual, which focused itself on the Enterprise D.
Ah, I see... so because the TM is written by Michael Onzuka, including a nifty blue print set, it must be "rooted in science". What a shock.
Next time I find "Neelix's Cooking Book" written by someone with Onzuka in his name, I could safely assume it "rooted in science", eh? That's actually relieving, now I can make my own scientific Pizza!!
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Because these were based on research and technical notes used BY the writers, producers, and directors, these ARE CANNON.
It seeems your proposal for CANON policy changes has not been replied by Paramout. Relax, they're probably still figuring out what CANNON actually means in the context of their continuity policy.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: The Star Wars tech manuals out there, unless SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN BY Lucas and company, are NOT cannon. Most of what I was able to lay my hands on for this debate was websites, much of which either used guesswork. You say the proton torpedos of SW are a gigaton weapon? REEEEAAAAAAALLLYY?
Of course, we can conveniently confuse turbolasers with proton torpedoes for the sake of defending The Holy Star Trek.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Also, lasers are not measured in megatons, gigatons, or any tons. they are measured in the ammount of power delivered in WATTS. As stated in the ST:NG tech manual, the matter/antimatter engines of a Galaxy class vessel is aproximately 15 terrawatts. The Phaser arrays onboard the Enterpprise D are rated at aproximately 3 terrawatts each. using 5 banks would drain most power, but deliver a whopping 15 terrawats of power to a small target.
I have to agree with you this time. Of course, since the power of lasers could be measured in watts, its delivered energy could NOT be measured in any tons. Consequentially, since the length of my vital organ could be measured in centimeters, its calculated volumes could NOT be measured in centimeter cubic.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: I would hazzard a guess, based on the destructive energies on unshielded crafts that a fighter class laser would only deliver a about 50-100 killowatts of power. As even small freighters seem to have shielding enough to withstand several blasts from turbolasers, I would guess that these are capable of delivering a few megawatts at best.
Ah, and since we can conveniently left out evidence or calculation in our arguments, I would also guess that the weight of M1 Abrams tank is merely a few kilograms at best.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Looking at this, we can safely say that the Star Wars figures are pulled from someone's ass. Some figures are a bit exaggerated in Star Trek, but are mostly based on the facts.
I don't know that ass and facts have interchangeable meaning nowadays... Hmmm... gotta' check the wikipedia.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: The propulsion argument again? Stated simply, you have already stated that the SW vessels were able to make .5 to 1 factor past lightspeed. On the other hand, that is equivalent to a Federation Vessel going about Warp One. At Warp 2, these vessels travel at 4 times the speed of light. So at Warp 9, they are leaving the SW vessels in the dust.
Well, The Panthom Menace shown that it takes merely two days for Darth Maul to cross about the halfway of the galaxy (Coruscant to Tatooine), while in Star Trek: Voyager shown it takes 76 years for Janeway to go back to Alpha Quadrant. Also, typical space travels in Star Wars occur in days (movies) or weeks (novels), while in Star Trek they occur in months .
But don't worry, I'm gonna' tell *EVERY* Star Wars pilots and starship captains to slow down appropriately so Star Trek ships can "leave the SW vessels in the dust."
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Also, most traffic in SW goes via established space routes. By simply placing an Imperial Interdictor Crusier along that route, and activating the gravity generators, you effectively knock out transportation in that area. As you are flying blind, you won't realize you're sucked into the trap till it is too late, and you are already in it.
Too bad Star Trek doesn't have Interdictor Cruiser....
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: While in Star Trek, Federation Vessels can go ahead, change their course, and fly circles around SW tech. Remember, ST ships can still fight effectively in FTL, while SW ships can't even see a target, let alone take it on.
Where's the evidence that ST ship can fight effectively in FTL? Nothing? By the way, which specific "SW tech" would the Federation Vessels circle around? R2D2?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Effective strategy of ST vs SW ships: Star Wars ships would deploy their fighters as cover, and arm their turbolasers, wich have a limited range. Feds would simply be able to launch their photon torpedos at FTL velocities from a safe distance, and take out their targets without ever getting hit once. And because of their speed, the SW fighters would not even be able to target or keep up with Federation vessels to be of any real use. The Federation, with having all that extra science equipment, would be able to track the SW ships at ranges far beyond SW ships are capable of, and would be able to take them out easily. Sources: CERN JPL NASA Star Trek:Next Generation Techs and specs (Simon and Schuster) Wikpedia
Wow, very enlightening. You should tell Saddam about it; he would sure have won the Gulf War by applying your brilliant strategy.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Personally, I could give a rat's ass. If anyone wanted to read the entire thing, I would have happily posted it. However, because of his insults, and not even bothering to explain WHY I was wrong, jusr assuming I was some know-nothing asshat, I find his arguments to be hollow and void of any and all redeming qualities.
Oh REALLLLLLLYYYY??????
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: To produce a gigaton of force in a small area like you are claiming would cause a secondary thermonuclear reaction in the target vehicle.LOL! You think that a piece of iron will undergo a "secondary thermonuclear reaction"? Where did you learn science? Sesame street? A thermonuclear reaction is caused by a fission explosion interacting with fusion fuels, dumb-ass. You can't make any arbitrary object undergo a thermonuclear reaction by setting off a large blast in it.
Like he didn't bother to explain WHY you're wrong in thermonuclear reaction?
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: As far as asteroids being friable, that is shown with the pattern of the asteroids shattering in AOTC."Circular logic" fallacy. Try again.
And he didn't bother to explain your logical fallacy about, uh, *friable* asteroids?
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Megatons are a measurement in explosive force, in the equivalent of how many tons of TNT would be needed to create the same size of destruction. So, One million tons of TNT would be one megaton. So, comparing a directed energy weapon, which is measured in wattage, would NEVER be rated in megatons of damage.Wrong. Megatons are a measurement in energy, moron. And any directed energy weapon with a defined pulse length CAN be measured in terms of energy; you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you realize that energy is just power multiplied by time? Or did your grade 8 teacher not explain that to you yet? Maybe you should ask him on Monday when you show up for class.
And of course he didn't bother why you are wrong in this one; I mean, why he should bother pointing your ignorance on the basic concept of power and energy, which is actually obvious to anyone ?
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Your reasoning that the blast force would be different in space is unreasonable in the extreme. If you have an explosion, even in space, there would be a localized area of overpressure from the explosion, from the blast.Wrong. Blast overpressure is an ATMOSPHERIC phemonenon, moron. What do you think the blast wave is composed of? Oh yeah, it's AIR.
And it appears he didn't bother himself on explaining why you're wrong regarding to blast overpressure. Oh, wait....
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: A blast from a 50 megaton nuke would create a blast zone of aproximately 25 km, and have thermal effects as far as 100km.Not in vacuum.
Surely, explaining "why someone is wrong" must NEVER be done with simple words, so I guess this one doesn't count either.
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: A gigaton weapon would be 20 times that, creating a blast aproximately 500km, and cause thermal effects as far as 2000km. This would be a worldkiller event, causing worldwide effects.LOL! You don't even know how scaling laws work, do you? You honestly think that a nuclear weapon which is twice as powerful will create a blast radius twice as large? Do you understand that blast effects follow non-linear scaling laws? Or that the volume and area of a sphere grow at the cube and square of its radius, respectively? I see that we can add simple geometry to the list of things you don't understand, never mind the fact that blast effects will not exist in vacuum and a 5psi overpressure is utterly inadequate to shatter a well-consolidated piece of rock.
Nah, he did NOT explain why you are wrong either regarding to your hypothetical nuclear blast. Damn, why I start to see similar patterns?
Mike Wong wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: The fact that you use personal attacks along with your argument tells me you are not even interested in facts, but are taking incorrect figures and respouting them, without any real analysis."Style over substance" fallacy. I have explained in some detail what is wrong with every one of your claims, and you respond by simply repeating yourself and pretending that my comments on your obvious ignorance of the subject matter somehow give you an excuse to ignore my rebuttal.
Ah, Mike Wong did NOT bother to explain why you're wrong in the context of debating tactics either....
Well I guess you were right, then, O Mighty Magestorm. Mike Wong didn't make a SINGLE explanation why you are wrong. Those quotes above could be ignored at your whim, in fact, they just never exist at all. I'm just probably smoking too much crack today.
WileECoyote wrote:
Jeedai wrote:
The fact is, the writers of both SW and ST are FANS OF THE STORIES! When that ST writer wrote "Lasers? That won't even scratch our navigation shields." He was one-upping his Star Wars buddies. When the writers created Incredible Cross-Sections, they were one-upping their Star Trek buddies.
"We're better than you cause we can write new and bigger cannon rules!"
Appeal to motive fallacy. I'm sure you could read ALL their minds when they wrote the books.Besides, who cares if they're fans? Lucas still approves their novels, books, etc. as canon. Plus, the canon rules have been pretty clear. There is ONE overall continuity for Star Wars EU and the movies (except for Infinities). I don't see them try and keep warping the canon policy so it will provide evidence to beat Star Trek.
What you have is two different approaches to creating cannon.Gene Roddenberry consulted with JPL, NASA, etc. and asked them "What's the reasonable next step in our technological evolution?" For as long as he was actively involved in the creation of Star Trek stories, he started from that basis and then took a few leaps for the sake of a good story. (I won't even speculate on the disaster that is the Rodman/Bergman Star Drek.)
Irrelevant. The fact that the writer consulted with various experts doesn't automatically ensure the quality and/or realism of the story itself.
Anyway, how many approach actually needed to create a CANNON???
WileECoyote wrote: George Lucas leaped straight into fantasy. His story is set "In a galaxy far, far away" and "long, long ago". All the weapons and special effects from the original trilogy were selected and created for the sole purposes of how cool they looked on the screen and how well they fit into the story.
So, since Star Wars based on Lucas' fantasy, any analysis based on the on-screen evidence suddenly become invalid? Well, what a clever way to dismiss all the facts that Star Wars tech outperform Star Trek in almost every field.
WileECoyote wrote: The technological explanations came along LATER from engineers, physicists and writers who love the movies. Lucas, being the good businessman he is, is more than happy to accept and adopt a good explanation.
I don't see why LATER should be synonymous with INVALID. Except, of course, in the view of some people who make desperate attempt to ignore any analysis and calculation based on on-screen evidence, because they cannot handle the truth that Star Wars firepower is *WAY* greater than that of Star Trek. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
WileECoyote wrote: So, do I think SW would kick ST's ass? Yup.
Concession accepted.
WileECoyote wrote: But, not because of all the pysics analyses of movie special effects,
Even though the physic analysis of the movies has shown that Star Wars outguns Star Trek by magnitudes?
WileECoyote wrote: but because the military strategies demonstrated by Star Trek are extremely limited while Star Wars has shown some impressive large scale battle strategies, such as the Imperial assault on Hoth and the Rebel attack on the 2nd Death Star. Compare that with Wolf 359 or the major battles of the Dominion War, and ST comes up short.
Ah, eventually there's something we both agree: Military strategies demonstrated by Star Trek are extremely limited. Concession accepted. Again.
WileECoyote wrote: If we leap to the baseless assumption that a phaser and a turbolaser have equal output and a photon torpedo and a proton torpedo have the same yield, and both sides had an equal number of ships, SW would win on shear strategy.
It IS a baseless assumption when on-screen evidence has clearly shown that Star Wars turbolaser is WAY more powerful than Star Trek Phasers.
aljuweind wrote:
Jeedai wrote: What the hell? Did you delete all of Servo's posts?Yep. And evidently banned him too. I wonder why..
Yeah, why? After reading your posts, it seems that you're a reasonable debater, and know what you're talking about. Pardon my bluntness but deleting post is mostly viewed as sign of cowardice; as it demonstrates inability to actually refute those posts.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: He was banned for reasons I shall not make public. No sense starting a damn war over the entire mess. To put it simply, I stated my objections to the facts and figures in the website, and asked for some clarification. Instead, I get smart assed comments, and basicly told I am an itiot because I do not see where he is getting his facts from. Never mind that I have learned much from high school. the websites I used were to simply reinforce that, and refresh some of the information in my own head. Now, had he simply stated "Well, I can see where you are coming from, but here is why I am correct," then it would have remained a simple and friendly debate, not me dealing with asshats.
And of course, deleting his post gave you much convenience to continously bashing him while completely hiding his side of the story from public. Your amount of honesty and fairness amazes me, Your Highness, not to mention your ability to handle the truth.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Energy or plasma based devices are measured in Watts or Joules, not megatons or gigatons. This is based on my own education, and holding certification in electronics from the vo-tech I went to from 90-92. Also, check any directed energy weapon specs from the military. You will see that they are Measured in Watts or Joules, not megatons.
WATTS IS A MEASUREMENT UNIT FOR POWER.
JOULES AND MEGATONS ARE MEASUREMENT UNITS FOR ENERGY.
ONE MEGATON EQUALS 4.186E+15 JOULES.
And you wonder why people calls you idiot....... :roll: :roll: :roll:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Megatons are the measurement of explosive forces. This is something I LEARNED in elementary school, when we dealt with the cold war in history class.
No, megaton is a unit of ENERGY, usually used for measuring the ENERGY of an explosion, especially a nuclear explosion. Newton is a unit of force. Masturbation is apparently what you were doing in the history class, giving you severe delusion about some particular units of measurement.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Because a nuclear device is the most destructive force made by mankind currently, they linked it to something familiar. THe best measurement they had was the explosive force of trinitrotoyuline (TNT), commonly used at the time in bombs. Using this chemical, they estimated how much TNT it would take to equal the explosive and destructive forces of a nuke. Hiroshima was estimated at aproximately 13 thousand tons of TNT, or 13 Kilotons.
Thank you, Magestorm Obvious.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Now, does it make ANY sense to anyone that a laser or plasma based weapon, measured in the ammount of power delivered to the target, is being measured in explosive force? No.
Now, does NOT it make ANY sense to anyone that a laser or plasma based weapon, measured in the "ammount" of energy delivered to the target, is being measured in a unit of measurement for energy?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Also, 1 Joule does not equal 1 Watt.
Uhh... probably because Joule is measurement unit for energy, while Watt is for power?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Yet they are seen interchanged all over the place.
Unfortunately people with functional brain don't see it that way, because WATTS and JOULES are *different* units of measurement at all. Haven't you forget what the doctor told you, that excessive masturbation can make you go blind?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: The argument about explosive force in space is ridiculous at best! It simply does not matter if an explosive is in an atmosphere or not, it DOES generate blast overpressure. An explosion is an erruption of hot GASSES!!!!! The blast from a nuke, or other explosive, would STILL create this phenominon. If this is not the case, then why has NASA looked at the idea of using nukes for things from interplanetary travel to asteroid deflection?
Uh... excuse me for a moment, I have to feed my Red Herring.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: I can go on and on, but we can see from this that I have clear, concise, and logical arguments here. I have researched it to refresh it in my head. Now, if someone wishes to refute these, please do. BUT, no stupid shit! calling me an idiot just closes my ears to anything you try to say, and I will not hear an argumant. If I am wrong on something? I'll look at your argument calmly, and rationally, and acknowledge the facts. All I ask in return is the same from those I debate with.
Ah, so if someone calls you idiot while saying 2+2=4, suddenly the fabric of space-time continuum becomes severly distorted, changing the entire known reality so 2+2 magically becomes 5.
ANNOUNCEMENT; I'm keeping a copy of this post as an archive, just in case some reality handicapped Trekkie decides to apply the brilliant tactic of dishonesty by DELETING this post.
WileECoyote wrote: You should try reading the entire thread. Then you'd see that my points here have been fairly unbiased.
Including, ahem, unbiased against numbers?
WileECoyote wrote: I stated pretty early on that I would expect SW tech to be more advanced because its had a few thousand years more time to develop than ST tech.
But not as much as advanced as shown by on-screen evidence and calculations, huh?
WileECoyote wrote: And my point about stardestroyer.net was that the people from here posting about it shouldn't automatically assume everything there is correct just because someone with a degree put up a bunch of equations where all the numbers at the end added up correctly.
Thanks for your brilliant advice, Master. From now on, I wouldn't automatically assume 2+2=4 is correct just because someone with a functional brain put up the calculation where all the numbers at the end added up correctly.
WileECoyote wrote: And no, I'm not going to spend time analyzing the equations, assumptions and assertions put forth. I could spend the next few weeks consulting with the bomb blast engineers I work with to verify that your using the correct equations for the effects of an explosion of a given size on a structure. I could stay after work and model a stardestroyer hull and perform a finite elements analysis of megaton explosion on the hull. I could pull out some equations and verify that you've correctly calculated the yield point of hull plating. Or the specific heat of the material. Or your evaluation of the effects of rapid heating due to the explosion followed by the rapid cooling from the vaccuum of space. Or the effects of progressive collapse on the ships structure. Or point out that many of the equations I've seen while briefly scanning the forums only take into account a finite element of time and should probably be integrated with respect to time to take into account the total effect of the expanding explosion. But, I just don't care that much.
Actually it was quite good. Can I put it on my "Top Ten Trekkie Excuses"?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 1. Masturbation? REALLY????? Well, that would be news to me! Considering where I am, and what I have been doing, my lady friend could DEFINITELY tell you different!
Alright. Who's going tell me the difference then, your right hand or your left hand?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 2. I'm a Trekkie? Well, THAT is news to me! I happen to like BOTH Star Trek and Star Wars.
Except, of course, you cannot stand the fact that SW outguns ST by magnitudes. So you desperately tried to make up anything (including unsupported claims, debating fallacies, and LIES) to weaken the SW side.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 3. You are saying I am stating that 2+2=5? Actually, that was the same thing I was thinking about that website and their facts. And it seems, you as well.
Actually I was responding to your post, when you said that calling you an idiot will make you refuse to hear an, uh, "argumant". See below.
Me wrote:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: I can go on and on, but we can see from this that I have clear, concise, and logical arguments here. I have researched it to refresh it in my head. Now, if someone wishes to refute these, please do. BUT, no stupid shit! '''calling me an idiot just closes my ears to anything you try to say, and I will not hear an argumant.''' If I am wrong on something? I'll look at your argument calmly, and rationally, and acknowledge the facts. All I ask in return is the same from those I debate with.Ah, so if someone calls you idiot while saying 2+2=4, suddenly the fabric of space-time continuum becomes severly distorted, changing the entire known reality so 2+2 magically becomes 5.
Does the phrase "style over substance fallacy" ring a bell?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 4. Well, it seems you know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. Care to tell your friend there? He has them used interchangeably on his website.
- cough*proof?*cough*cough*evidence?*cough*cough*
Sorry, I have severe allergy to liar. Now, shall we continue?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 5. A Megaton is NOT the same as a Joule.
No shit, sherlock. A megaton is the same as 4.186E+15 joules, NOT the same as a Joule.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Joules measure power,
:BZZZZZTT!!!: Wrong. Joules measure ENERGY. Watts measure POWER.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Megatons is the equivalent of how much dynamite it takes to equal the same ammount of DESTRUCTIVE FORCE of a nuclear, or other blast. Seems someone has not done their studying in school.
Wrongo again. A Megaton is the equivalent of ENERGY released in an explosion of a megaton of TNT. What the fuck is "ammount", by the way?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: I knew that before I was even 10. Why don't you?
Well, I never Trekmasturbated when I was 10, so I cannot give you the answer. I'm sorry.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 6. Red Herring? Nope. Simply put, NASA has looked into useing the blast overpressure to push asteroids around, or propel a nuclear sail into the stars.So the claim that there is no blast overpressure in space is just plain dumb.
How about some links, references, or whatever before we accept your another wild theory about any kind of PRESSURE in VACUUM.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Now, new person. I do NOT know how you do things elsewhere, but here, we don't throw insults around. This is an official warning on the insults. They stop, or you get banned.
You call them insults?? Poor, poor boy. I haven't even started with you yet.....
You really want to know WHAT I would say if I were insulting you, kid? Fine. You Trekmasturbator, dishonest Picardfucker, lying cock-sucker. You dope-smoking, Janeway-masturbating, flame-inviting, logically challenged, mathematically challenged, and just plain lump of decaying flesh with brain capacity less than that of an amoeba. You are defending Star Trek because you think Picard bald head is sexually arousing. You will do anything to make Star Trek win over Star Wars, even when you are watching Captain Picard and Boss Nass cocksucking each other in an orgasm-delaying match up. You cannot tell the difference between energy and power because every night you masturbate with a sandpaper before the naked pic of Lwaxanna Troi until you get brain damage.
Now THAT's an insult. I, on the other hand, have been merely making fun of you all the time. Shall we continue, then?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: The deleted posts? That is a side effect of getting banned.
I see deleted posts as side effect of a liar's immense cowardice and inability to handle the truth. Do you think it's my first time on a PHPBB2 forum? Do you really believe I'm gonna' buy your shit that someone's post will magically disappear after he/she is banned?
Here's a hint: posts made by someone's already banned will STAY on the board unless deliberately deleted by some cowardly fuck who happens to have mod priviliges and cannot stand the truth.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Now, behave, and act like a civil person, and not a human animal.
"HUMAN ANIMAL", eh? Is it also a part of your official warning against insult? Sounds like pot calling kettle black to me.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: As far as WHY I am on the bandwagon for the fact that SW weapons are as advanced, I simply took into account the lens effect, which ALWAYS magnifies things. Add into it OPENING my eyes and making observations, I was able to get a better estimate of things than what is posted on that website.
Wow, so this "lens effect" actually makes SW firepower much weaker than they appears? Does this "lens effect" also exist in Star Trek? They used LENS too to make Star Trek, didn't they??
By the way, since you claimed to be able to get a better estimate of Star Trek and Star Wars firepower, then why don't you post your estimation here, O Mighty Masturbastorm Allgoode??
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Here are my points: 1. SW and ST are actually fairly evenly matched. in some areas, they differ. However, I would estimate their weapons to be about the same. Yes, I would rate the turbolasers as about 300-800 megawatts, while the Phasers are rated at 3 GW each. HOWEVER, While the Enterprise D has 6 Phaser bank arrays, a Star Destroyer has hundreds of emplacements all over the vessel. One at a time, Useless. But in a massive volley aimed at one spot, that burst would have a much greater effect than alone.
Nice to see you pulling out numbers from your ass.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 2. In a toe to toe battle, it would be more about tactics than firepower that will win the battle. I would say the simplistic tactics used in the show are more because of special effects and sake of story than anything.
By your logic, a 16 th century Spanish Galleon with better tactics can win against USS Nimitz in a toe to toe battle.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: 3. All my arguments on weapons effects and strength has been from the standpoint of getting a baseline, which I used current technology and weapons as a starting point. However, because you hardly ever see the engineering sections of SW vessels, it is more from observations than anything stated on the movies. So, I had to use whatever I had avalible to use for this. The reason why I laid out how ST could whip SW? Seemed there were plenty doing SW beating ST, so I felt the matter there was in hand.
Enough kidding now. Time to get serious.
Allgoode, you've been trying to refute Mike Wong's calculation about Star Wars firepower. Unfortunately, instead of brought up a valid argument why his calculation is wrong, you've just been suggesting ridiculous things like "turbolaser firepower cannot be measured in megatons", which actually showed your ignorance about physics. I don't think I'd need to point every single example of your stupidity regarding to the subject being discussed.
But the worst of it, YOU ARE A LIAR. You have been repeatedly accusing Mike Wong of not showing why you are wrong, where I have posted evidence saying otherwise. You are also accusing Darth Servo of making smart-ass comments after you asked for clarifications , which you conveniently use as EXCUSE to ban him. Too bad you did not let others to see the real truth, because you conveniently DELETED all his post so people couldn't see them. This act of unfairness and dishonesty makes me want to puke, not to mention that you're a mod, showing that you were abusing your power because you're afraid of your opponent's arguments. You know, people like you just makes me sick to the bone.
When someone decides to re-post Dart Servo's deleted post, I hope EVERYONE in this board will clearly see a dishonest, pathetic liar you truly are.
Again, I'm keeping a copy of this post myself, in case of some dishonest coward called Magestorm Allgoode decides to delete my post.
Winston Blake (Under the names 42 and 42 Reborn!)
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
WHY LASERS OR ENERGY WEAPONS CANNOT BE MEASURED IN MEGATONS
Lasers or other energy type weapons are rated not on destructive force. They are
measured in power consumed. Hence, you can have a 100 MEGAWATT laser, but no way can
you have a 100 MEGATON laser.
This would be like someone asking, "How many Newtons does it take to move an
object?" and getting back "1000 BTU" YES, both measure energy. However, this does not
mean you can simply interchange them back and forth.
Newtons are a unit for force, not energy. Although i don't expect you know what the difference is.
Explosives are rated on how much TNT it would take to create a similar blast. So, an
800 pound blast would mean it requires 800 pounds of TNT to create a similar explosion.
Hence, one megaton means it would take one million tons of TNT to create a similar
explosion.
Think I am being silly? Nope. Both measure energy, right? Therefore, someone
using your logic can sit there and use ANY unit of energy to answer whatever question
they wish.
Let me explain: energy is the capacity to do work, work is force x distance. That is, applying a certain force to an object causing it to move a certain distance requires a certain amount of energy. There are many different forms of energy, e.g. a bullet has kinetic energy, gasoline has chemical potential energy, an axe in mid swing has gravitational potential energy. The SI unit for energy is the joule. All those things can be measured in joules. However, when it comes to big explosions, it's conventional to use the non-SI unit of tons. An explosion is just a rapid release of energy, usually in the form of heat. Tons are just another unit which is used to measure of energy. A megaton is defined to be 4.18 petajoules. It's derivation from the specific combustion energy of TNT (4.184 MJ/kg) does not mean it's not just a unit of energy like joules. Yes, anyone can sit there and use any unit of energy to answer a question resulting in energy, you can 'interchange them back and forth'.
And as far as the Watt/Joule argument, they are more like converting Imperial Measurements (US scale) to Metric. We ALL know that a Kilogram is NOT the same as a Pound. A Kilometer is NOT the same as a Mile. A Liter is NOT the same as a Gallon.
No, because watts and joules aren't just different units of the same quantity. You can measure distance using either kilometers or miles, but you can't use kilograms. Miles measure distance, kilograms measure mass. Watts measure power, joules measure energy. Power = Energy / Time.
Picture water flowing from a tap into a bucket. There might be 10 milliliters flowing into the bucket for every 1 second that passes. Run the tap for 100 seconds, and you have a liter of water in the bucket. I will now christen the unit of 'Flow' to be the Allgoode. I define the Allgoode to be 5 milliliters per second. That tap has a flow of 0.2 Allgoodes. For a duration of 100 seconds, that tap gives a volume of 1 liter. The Watt was defined to be 1 joule per second. For a pulse duration of 100 seconds, a laser with a power of 1 watt gives an energy of 100 joules. Get it now?
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
Ok. Seems you still are not getting it there.
Newtons DO measure energy. They measure KINETIC energy.
No, they do not. You're obviously just pretending to know what you're talking about. I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. Kinetic energy is measured in joules, just like every other kind of energy. E.g. a 1kg rock moving at 10 metres per second has a kinetic energy of 50 joules. It's extremely basic: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Anyone who has ever taken any kind of physics knows this stuff.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=newton&r=67 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton
YES, there are formulas that can convert the energy released in an explosion from Joules to megatons. However, that is not the entire use of the Megaton. A Megaton measures the entire blast force in ammount of dynamite. Please reread the science books and websites, or look at sites dealing with nukes.
No, megatons don't measure 'the entire blast force in ammount of dynamite', they measure the energy released by the explosion based on the energy density of TNT. You can't even get the chemical right: dynamite is stabilised nitro, TNT is completely different.
Don't assume I do not understand P=I*E at all. I KNOW what these things are. However, Michael Wong's website used the Watt and Joule interchangeably. Maybe the science lesson is better suited to him then.
No, for electrical currents, P=VI. Potential difference is not the same thing as energy. The most common expression for power is P = E/t, and it's measured in units of joules per second, also known as watts. This is simple stuff, you have to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Magestorm Allgoode wrote:
Reread the AOTC section closely, and you will see what I am talking about.
The Watt / Joules thing is a simple matter that while you CAN convert between the
2, you can't simply use them interchangeably. A kilometer and a mile both measure
distance, but you can't state that 300KM is the same as 300Miles, or vice-versa.
Simply a nono.
No, you couldn't be more wrong. Yes, miles and kilometers both measure distance, and one is from the metric system and the other is imperial. Watts and joules are NOT from two different metrological systems, measuring the same quantity. They are both SI units, and watts measure power while joules measure energy. Just look at the equation: P=E/t.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=watt&r=67 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joule
What you're saying is analogous to claiming that velocity and distance are the same thing, and then trying to prove this by saying that pounds and kilograms both measure mass.
Velocity = Distance / Time. Power = Energy / Time. You = Are / Wrong.
Note: The following post is not taken directly from the thread at Hotel 23 as the others are as it was deleted before being saved; it was reconstructed from memory by Winston Blake in this post
Miklos wrote: example: [snip] Innapropriate argument. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newtons are a unit for force, not energy. Although i don't expect you know what the difference is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tsk tsk. In the honored tradition of debate the occasionaly light hearted shot for humor is welcome and will get you points. But on the inter net the only way to indicate that it is lighthearted is with a =P which detracts from the argument.... so lets just refrain from taking jabs at eachother mmmkay?
My statement is true. Magestorm does not know the difference between force and energy, as he's repeatedly shown:
Magestorm Allgoode wrote: Newtons DO measure energy. They measure KINETIC energy.
There's nothing personal or vindictive about proving someone wrong, and concluding that they didn't understand what they were talking about.
Is it the policy of this board to censor the truth just because it annoys authority figures?
Note: The following post was made under the name 42 Reborn! after the username 42 was banned.
I had never heard of this board until it was brought up in a Stardestroyer.net thread, and I have a variable IP. Therefore, Magestorm Allgoode lied.
Over there i'm known as Winston Blake. You can see my posts that were deleted in this thread:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1394400#1394400
You can see that there's no objectionable material either, i simply proved him wrong.
Magestorm, you've shown yourself to be a coward and sore loser. Feel free to ban this account; i won't be coming back again to this sorry corner of internet... you've given your board a bad name.
My disgust with your administrative conduct is currently flowing at 42 megaAllgoodes (read that thread to see what this means).
Aftermath
On January 04 2005 the owner of Hotel 23, raptorman, returned from an absence and spoke on the situation:
"Darth servo, 42 and all the other shunned ones.
I have recently been made savvy to the situation, and would like to say that I have no ill will toward any of you or magestorm.
Mage and I have PM'd back and forth about what happened and I would like to say that we have agreed that things could be changed a little about when to ban people.
I can't believe this community is as thriving as it is in the first place. I considered shutting it down when all the political arguments were going on, but I changed my mind. "
According to SDN member Vohu Manah, after this incident Magestorm Allgoode "lost his authority to ban without consultation."
Some time in early 2005, Hotel 23 suffered a failure of some sort and all previous threads, including this one, were lost.