Re: Death Star or Star Forge?

by Nihil Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:59 am

deathstar pwns doesn't it^^

by **Silvarus** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:01 am

I say DS win.

Death Star or Star Forge? - Page 2 808754

SF

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:24 am

Dray The Fingerless wrote:
Champion wrote:Thats got to be the gayest looking ship I ever saw Dray.

And the size of a starship? Where is the energy source that destroys an entire solar system? Not even a regular blackhole has that much energy IIRC.

It has 11 resonance torpedoes in it, that when fired, dig into the star's core, detonating, distabilizing its gravity well, causing it to colapse into a supernova.

and yes, it looks gay. but i didnt make it. so dont blame me

This makes no fucking sense scientifically, any material thrown into a star would be destroyed by the extreme temperatures, gravity and other hostile things. Even if it got to the center of the star, the escape velocity and pressure would be so great it would be crushed and fused like any other particle. Lastly, wtf does "destabilizing its gravity well" mean? That makes no fucking sense. Gravity is a bend in space/time, not something you can destabilize.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:26 am

Champion wrote:
Dray The Fingerless wrote:
Champion wrote:Thats got to be the gayest looking ship I ever saw Dray.

And the size of a starship? Where is the energy source that destroys an entire solar system? Not even a regular blackhole has that much energy IIRC.

It has 11 resonance torpedoes in it, that when fired, dig into the star's core, detonating, distabilizing its gravity well, causing it to colapse into a supernova.

and yes, it looks gay. but i didnt make it. so dont blame me

This makes no fucking sense scientifically, any material thrown into a star would be destroyed by the extreme temperatures, gravity and other hostile things. Even if it got to the center of the star, the escape velocity and pressure would be so great it would be crushed and fused like any other particle. Lastly, wtf does "destabilizing its gravity well" mean? That makes no fucking sense. Gravity is a bend in space/time, not something you can destabilize.

Death Star or Star Forge? - Page 2 ThatiswhyyoufailYoda

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:26 am

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:28 am

Its star wars....people can levitate things with their mind, fight with laser swords(even thou a laser that hot would burn their hands from proximity), and break hundreds of physical laws(Death Star breaks a whole bunch of them just by its existence).

by Nihil Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:29 am

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:30 am

No OT pls....

why lies?

by Nihil Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:31 am

because, the governator does not like it when you break the laws...

OF PHYSICS!!!!!

those need to hold true in the starwars universe, at least relativity kinds

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:33 am

nihil, Sci Fi consists of the ILLUSION to the common public that they are actually seeing futuristic realistic technology, but almost ENTIRELY evth is breaking a law of Science somewhere.

by Nihil Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:34 am

maybe, but that doesn't mean that 2+2=5 in SW

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:35 am

Nihil wrote:maybe, but that doesn't mean that 2+2=5 in SW

actually, if it was a complicated equation unknown to the public, it would.

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:35 am

Dray then it becomes FICTION, not SCIENCE fiction.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:42 am

Champion wrote:Dray then it becomes FICTION, not SCIENCE fiction.

Science fiction is giving the illusion that what you are watching is scientifical in some way. it can be completely wrong, but if it gives you that idea, then it is Sci Fi. dude, i hate teh sun crusher, i think its a stupid invention. but you cant pull the scientifical aspect to denegrate it. not when your in a fantasy universe.

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:52 am

Wrong. Science fiction is based in science fact Its something plausible. Otherwise its just fiction (never plausible)

by **Aardvark** Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:58 am

OK let me define categories since people seem to be having trouble.

Fiction is based in either the past or present and represents real-world conditions in a slightly altered state. Splinter Cell is a good example, it's based in the present, and the technology is very attainable if we work at it, but it's not what's really happening, just a possibility.

Science Fiction is based in a future time, using futuristic weapons and equipment that work in theoretical physics. Basically as far as we know it's possible, but we're far from developing it.

Fantasy is based in a completely different world with completely a completely different timeline, and it uses things that we cannot do, and as far as we know are impossible to do.

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:08 am

Aardvark wrote:OK let me define categories since people seem to be having trouble.

Fiction is based in either the past or present and represents real-world conditions in a slightly altered state. Splinter Cell is a good example, it's based in the present, and the technology is very attainable if we work at it, but it's not what's really happening, just a possibility.

Science Fiction is based in a future time, using futuristic weapons and equipment that work in theoretical physics. Basically as far as we know it's possible, but we're far from developing it.

Fantasy is based in a completely different world with completely a completely different timeline, and it uses things that we cannot do, and as far as we know are impossible to do.

That is partially false. I think you are forgetting the opening lines of star wars:

A LONG LONG TIME AGO

Here is a definition from wikipedia:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically-established or scientifically-postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

by **Aardvark** Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:17 am

Yeah I ignore that line considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the story. That and Star Wars is considered Science Fiction/Fantasy, meaning it incorporates elements of both.

by **Champion** Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:16 pm

Aardvark wrote:Yeah I ignore that line considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the story. That and Star Wars is considered Science Fiction/Fantasy, meaning it incorporates elements of both.

I think George Lucas wanted to convey that this was a story which already unfolded, sorta retelling the past.

by DarthShadow Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:35 am

i say death star.

by **KOTOR** Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:16 am

I SAY BE A KING BUILD BOTH! UR UNSTOPABLE!

U BLOW UP PLANETS AND HAVE MILLIONS OF SHIPS BUILT I SAY BUILD THEM ALL FOR THE GREAT CUBIN CIGAR LOVING A-HOLE WE KNOW AS OUR BELOVED CHAMPION!!!

by **Jacen** Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:27 pm

Definitely Star Forge...It could make enough fighters to destroy DS....

by **Dray The Fingerless** Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:08 pm

^Fighters cant destroy DS. a Super Star Destroyer crashed into a NON complete Death Star and didnt do anth.

by **Dawn_Twilight** Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:48 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:^Fighters cant destroy DS. a Super Star Destroyer crashed into a NON complete Death Star and didnt do anth.

gotta love super star destroyers. Although I wonder what the mileage is on those things? Razz

I would also like to point out Razz

That some well placed C4 would destroy both of them o_o

Although if you could overhaul the Star Forge and make it produce Sun Crushers..then thats another story Death Star or Star Forge? - Page 2 520818

Death Star or Star Forge? - Page 2 520818

by **Stamp-dc** Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:40 pm

death star -_-..... it has more than anugh fleets to destroy that thing.

by Sponsored content

Which Space Station