17 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Um neutrons have neutral charge, so reversing the polarity of a neutron flow means do nothing but somehow get neutrons to flow in the opposite direction anyway.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

Um neutrons have neutral charge, so reversing the polarity of a neutron flow means do nothing but somehow get neutrons to flow in the opposite direction anyway.

Why are you applying science to sci-fi shows?

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

Why are you applying science to sci-fi shows?

The sci in scifi stands for science right? It's either that or secret compartmentalized information in which case someone has some serious explaining to do about why it's on broadcast tv/the internet.

The other part is sci-fiction, meaning the science can be fiction. I wouldn't be surprised if it was secret compartmentalized something.

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Um neutrons have neutral charge,  so reversing the polarity of a neutron flow means do nothing but somehow get neutrons to flow in the opposite direction anyway.

That's so human, thinking you know more about physics than a Time Lord.

7 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You could squeeze in 1 more than usual if it's end of episode 1 anakin, he was a little kid then.

Don't forget it also depends on species. Seems like Wookiee fur is great for insulation despite the fact that they're from a temperate forest world that doesn't seem to have much in terms of cold snowy winters. Talz or Gigoran padawans would probably be the optimal choice since they're both from snow-planets and would have fur similar to reindeer for great insulation. And if you remove the skin from the padawan then you can fit in more fur.

*Slaps roof of van* This bad boy can fit so many padawan skins in it. Vaders vehicle of choice.

7 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Um neutrons have neutral charge, so reversing the polarity of a neutron flow means do nothing but somehow get neutrons to flow in the opposite direction anyway.

And is charge their only property? A flow wouldn't be caused by charge anyway.

47 minutes ago, Darzil said:

And is charge their only property? A flow wouldn't be caused by charge anyway.

I Am Not A Particle Physicist, but my understand was that the flow of electrons is caused by their charge. I would imagine that this could be applied to protons too. In this sense, it couldn't really apply to neutrons.

I am not a particle physicist either BUT I do know enough to understand that an electrical flow occurs when electrons are shifted form one atom to an adjacent atom.

Electrons are sufficiently loose that they can do that kind of thing. And as an added bonus the speed of an electron moving down a chain of atoms could be as high as 1 centimeter per second. (One Mississippi . . .) However since electrons shift through metal in a conga chain line, the effect is at light speed.

Shifting PROTONS like that is not possible because they are locked in the nuclear core of an atom with the neutrons. You'd need to split the atom apart to break a proton off.

And to clarify the "charge" bit, we've decided that electrons have an attribute that we call a "negative charge" and that attribute allows us to manipulate electrons because of how they react to Positive & Negative charges applied to them.

However, electrons "move" and Proton's don't because of the relative mass of the two. Protons are locked in with other Protons & Neutrons which are "heavy" and single electrons are of much lower mass. "Relatively" speaking.

I honestly don't know what I walked into the middle of but . . . SCIENCE!

25 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

I am not a particle physicist either BUT I do know enough to understand that an electrical flow occurs when electrons are shifted form one atom to an adjacent atom.

Electrons are sufficiently loose that they can do that kind of thing. And as an added bonus the speed of an electron moving down a chain of atoms could be as high as 1 centimeter per second. (One Mississippi . . .) However since electrons shift through metal in a conga chain line, the effect is at light speed.

Shifting PROTONS like that is not possible because they are locked in the nuclear core of an atom with the neutrons. You'd need to split the atom apart to break a proton off.

And to clarify the "charge" bit, we've decided that electrons have an attribute that we call a "negative charge" and that attribute allows us to manipulate electrons because of how they react to Positive & Negative charges applied to them.

However, electrons "move" and Proton's don't because of the relative mass of the two. Protons are locked in with other Protons & Neutrons which are "heavy" and single electrons are of much lower mass. "Relatively" speaking.

I honestly don't know what I walked into the middle of but . . . SCIENCE!

That's great and all, but the creators/writers of a lot of scifi, Doctor Who especially, know **** All about science, and just handwave away stuff, sometimes literally by having the doctor wave his magic wand, sorry I mean Sonic Screwdriver at something, to fix the plot problem. So trying to bend their anti-logic into a logical shape will do several things:

1. Cause your brain to likely hemorrhage from the effort to make it fit actual science

2. Create a temporal/space distortion so powerful it would collapse the universe into itself and kill us all (please don't do that, I like living here)

3. Accomplish nothing constructive when it comes to making the show any better/worse, so why waste the personal energy when you could be doing something more constructive, like cleaning out belly button lint.

You do get free neutrons outside of an atomic nucleus. They cause radiation. So reversing the flow of those away from you might be a good idea.

14 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Um neutrons have neutral charge, so reversing the polarity of a neutron flow means do nothing but somehow get neutrons to flow in the opposite direction anyway.

Oh please. Are you a Time Lord? No? Then I'll defer to the Doctor, thank you very much.

9 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Oh please. Are you a Time Lord? No? Then I'll defer to the Doctor, thank you very much.

Depends on the Doctor tho. Baker? Sure. Tenent? **** yeah. Smith? Ugh go away.

1 minute ago, SithArissa said:

Depends on the Doctor tho. Baker? Sure. Tenent? **** yeah. Smith? Ugh go away.

Collin Baker or GTFO!

1 minute ago, Desslok said:

Collin Baker or GTFO!

David Tennant or you're a Silurian.

On 8/7/2018 at 12:38 AM, EliasWindrider said:

1) You are confusing the definitions of standard and standardized. A standardized test means that the test is the same, not that everyone performs the same on the test. Go learn English better then come back and we'll talk, in the meantime you're just wrong.

2) Anakin as a PADAWAN was the standard/model for jedi KNIGHTS to live up to or not in terms of capabilites. That is not by any stretch of the imagination saying that all jedi knights had to measure up to Anakin as a jedi knight. That you claim it is means you are either delusional or a liar.

Wrong on both counts. As in the example I gave for US Army marksmanship. 23 out of 40 is the standard a solider must meet to pass M-16 marksmanship. It is the benchmark, the criteria necessary. That, by definition, is the standard . The standard for a Jedi is the benchmark requirement in skill, Force powers, and talents necessary to pass the Trials to become a fully trained Jedi. Anakin, as a padawan, is not the benchmark a Jedi needs to become a Jedi Knight. He might have the raw power , but he also lacks several other key factors, including self-discipline and emotional control.

On 8/7/2018 at 1:38 PM, Eoen said:

There's no Jar'kai class at the academy it's not a Jedi discipline, some old guy teaches that down the street. She may use Shien Jar'kai but she learned that from the dude down the street.

According to her entry in Canon Niman tab she is, she must have learned saber staff there.

They're not canon you lost that argument. According to legends Niman is also the combat style associated with the use of twin blades. The art of wielding a sword in each hand is broadly known as Jar’Kai, after the Yovshin Swordsmen. Form VI acts as a foundation for this challenging practice. -Jedi Path

Wrong again. Jar'Kai was a formal practice taught in the Jedi Temple. Also, Ahsoka didn't learn Jar'Kai from some dude down the street either. She was learning it from Yoda at the Temple. This is shown in Clone Wars .

Form VI acts as a foundation for Jar'Kai simply because it is easier to learn . This is explicitly said in those articles. It is not because the two styles are related. They are not. The book, Jedi Path only gives a brief summary of the different forms. It is not the end-all-be-all of information on them. Note the wording you are so fond of quoting:

Quote

Niman is also the combat style associated with the use of twin blades.

There are two combat styles associated with using two blades. One is Niman, the other is Jar'Kai. Niman is the simpler style, hence most (but not all) Jar'Kai users often learn Niman first. But it is not required, nor does that mean that Jar'Kai is derived from, or a subset of, Niman. It isn't. Modern Niman is actually partly derived from Jar'Kai , as well as ancient Niman, Ataru, Shien, Shii-Cho, and Soresu.

...............*facepalm*

13 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

...............*facepalm*

GIF or it didn't happen.

Tramp responding my sarcasm is pointless, if you think I care one way or other at this point your being silly. You totally kill any real discussion with your conversation style.

Any more responses to this topic on this thread and we are just annoying everybody else.

Ummmmm Nuetrons have no polarity....

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Ummmmm Nuetrons have no polarity....

Sure they do. They flow from e-u. ?

13 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

I am not a particle physicist either BUT I do know enough to understand that an electrical flow occurs when electrons are shifted form one atom to an adjacent atom.

Electrons are sufficiently loose that they can do that kind of thing. And as an added bonus the speed of an electron moving down a chain of atoms could be as high as 1 centimeter per second. (One Mississippi . . .) However since electrons shift through metal in a conga chain line, the effect is at light speed.

Shifting PROTONS like that is not possible because they are locked in the nuclear core of an atom with the neutrons. You'd need to split the atom apart to break a proton off.

And to clarify the "charge" bit, we've decided that electrons have an attribute that we call a "negative charge" and that attribute allows us to manipulate electrons because of how they react to Positive & Negative charges applied to them.

However, electrons "move" and Proton's don't because of the relative mass of the two. Protons are locked in with other Protons & Neutrons which are "heavy" and single electrons are of much lower mass. "Relatively" speaking.

I honestly don't know what I walked into the middle of but . . . SCIENCE!

The effect is approximately 0.6 lightspeed if I remember correctly (can't remember the second significant figure)

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong on both counts. As in the example I gave for US Army marksmanship. 23 out of 40 is the standard a solider must meet to pass M-16 marksmanship. It is the benchmark, the criteria necessary. That, by definition, is the standard . The standard for a Jedi is the benchmark requirement in skill, Force powers, and talents necessary to pass the Trials to become a fully trained Jedi. Anakin, as a padawan, is not the benchmark a Jedi needs to become a Jedi Knight. He might have the raw power , but he also lacks several other key factors, including self-discipline and emotional control.

You are really failing at English here.

There is an old Appalachian proverb that goes something like,

"it's not what you don't know that makes you look foolish, it's what you know that ain't so"

On a related note Abraham Lincoln famously said " Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

unfortunately, that ship has sailed for you, but you could keep from digging yourself a deeper hole (again unfortunately I don't think that you have that much sense).

to illustrate how badly your failing at English, when you quoted the Webster's dictionary definition of benchmark you didn't even understand that it was refuting the point you were claiming it made.

first of all a baseline is a very particular type of benchmark. Standardized tests such as LINPACK are another, Google LINPACK so you can see for yourself that I'm not making this up, it's a computational linear algebra benchmark commonly used to compare the speed of high performance computers (as in big clusters/servers), all the computers run the same program and its execution is timed and the execution time is the basis for comparison with lower times indicating faster computers. The ACT and SAT are standardized tests that colleges/universities use to compare the academic aptitude of prospective students and decide who to admit and who not to.

there are other benchmarks that are standards, a standard by itself is just a reference point, it's kind of like a baseline except a baseline implies that a minimum requirement has been defined in terms of the standard.

Here's the take away. REQUIREMENTS ARE DEFINED IN TERMS OF STANDARDS BUT STANDARDS THEMSELVES ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS.

STANDARDIZATION is REQUIRING a STANDARD to be met, but for a STANDARDIZED TEST is the TEST that is required to be administered according to the STANDARD (so that test scores are comparable) not the scores of the people/computers/etc. taking the test. Now you can ALSO require the people taking the test to have a score that meets another standard, but that standard is a very different standard than the one that the TEST has to adhere to. And again, REQUIREMENTS ARE DEFINED IN TERMS OF STANDARDS BUT STANDARDS THEMSELVES ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS.

*hums under his breath*

This is the thread that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting to it not knowing what it was
And they'll never stop posting on it forever just because
This is the thread that never ends...

So, anyone wanna talk about Pada-Wons? Recipe back on Duro. Industrial waste that you deep fry. Surprisingly adequate.