{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/6/2015 8:06:33 PM
1
[i]That's all well and good, but the Halo Array covers a much, much larger area than the Death Star. The results are what matter, not the numbers. The Death Star destroys a planet, but Halo wipes away all life larger than a millimeter within 25,000 light-years, triggering the activation all other Halos within its range.
Furthermore, there have been exactly two Death Stars. The first one took twenty years to build, the second one took three years.
Halos are built in a matter of a few months. It's pretty obvious which civilization has a better industry. [/i]
English
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 9/7/2015 3:27:12 AMYes the halos COVER larger area: 9.117x10^16 LIGHT YEARS (if there are 17 halos in the array network) The galaxy is only 4.98 x10^10 light years So yea larger AREA The biomass of the FULL galaxy (life forms larger than 1millimeter) DOESNT exceed 6.39x10^20 METRIC TONS (mass of MARS) There fore LESS energy is NEEDED to cover the LARGER AREA regarding the HALO NETWORK because LESS MASS IS DESTROYED BY THE REACTION! Its like a SPOT LIGHT vs a HIGH ENERGY LASER of the SAME POWER. The spotlight blankets LARGER AREA [b][i][u]EXPONENTIALLY[/u][/i][/b] vs laser pointer. YET they both use the SAME amount of power. WITH Halo vs Death Star; THE DEATH STAR annihilates MORE MASS with the reaction produced from the super laser Vs HALO NETWORK wiping out ALL LIFE. E= mc^2 [b][i][u]THE MORE MASS YOU DESTROY THE MORE ENERGY YOU REQUIRE PERIOD![/u][/i][/b] And this is because in galaxies LIFE FORMS are the least abundant form of mass and THE LEAST DENSE (lowest density)
-
[i]First off, calm down with the all-caps thing. I understand the point you're making. Second, I'm not going to argue numbers with you, because the numbers don't matter. Results > Numbers The fact is that the Halo Array is a vastly more advanced and powerful weapon system than either of the Death Stars. A Death Star kills a planet. Big deal. Halos kill all complex lifeforms in the galaxy. The Death Stars are little more than giant metal paperweights floating through space if there's no one alive to operate and maintain them. Which brings me to my next point. Each Halo Installation is entirely self-sufficient and self-repairing. They've been around for more than 100,000 years, and they're still just as effective as the day they were completed. How well do you think the Death Stars would fair through 100,000 years with no operation or maintenance?[/i]
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 9/7/2015 4:12:36 AMK results ARE numbers lol (sorry the all caps bit is easier to read on highlighting but yea) And second: Self repair and sustaining [b]is[/b] maintenance and repair. The death star is manned by a self contained crew that repairs and maintains themselves and the station. The death star [b]is[/b] incredibly shielded. Not saying the halos [b]arent[/b] more effective weapons, just that the reaction which kills its targets [b]produces less[/b] energy than the reaction used to destroy a planet. Numbers aside e=mc^2 is [b]still [/b] true! Biomass greater than 1mm in whole galaxy is [b]still[/b] less mass than an entire rocky planet. There fore the reaction wiping [b]all[/b] life in the galaxy out [b]is less powerful[/b] than the reaction required to destroy a rocky planet. As far as the rest go; Even that [b]more powerful reaction[/b] is [b]nothing[/b] compared to the force. But yea; halos [b]were built[/b] by a more advanced race. [b]of course they are more high tech[/b]. Which also is further confirmed by them as a more [b]effective[/b] weapon. How ever by [b]sheer power[/b] the death star beats it flat out with the reaction it's super laser produces. (I use caps instead of bolds mostly due to tiny phone vs huge hands)
-
Honestly, 1500 sentinels would obliterate both Death Stars. Their concentrated fire would cut through shields like butter. And that's only 1500 of them. Imagine trillions of them conjoined and effectively [b]destroying[/b] everything Star Wars has down to the atom.
-
Um u see return of the jedi? A SUPER STAR DESTROYER ran into a death star UNDER CONSTRUCTION an other than MINOR surface damage an tremors IT DID NOTHING.
-
Read ghost of onyx? Like twenty of them conjoined and destroyed 2 Covenant capital ships then crippled more. I'm 100 % sure 100 of them would reduce the Death Star into a molten slag in space.
-
Do i actually have to calculate the impacting mass + explosion of a super star destroyer vs the force of a conjoined concentrated sentinel firing by method you explained? Cuz i will an i almost guarantee you the super star destroyer has more force and penetration! (If i do have to the math will post tomorrow)
-
Doubt it. If want want fire power bring it on. Keep in mind sentinel fire power is exponential. Lol there are trillions of them... It didn't take much for them to cause onyx to implode.
-
[i]You don't need to emphasize your points so much, is what I'm getting at. I fully understand what you're saying. It just makes you come off as overly aggressive. As I said, I'm not arguing the numbers behind it all. Yes, it does take more power to wipe out a single planet than it does to wipe all life from the galaxy. That's not the point. If anything, it only proves that the Halo Array accomplishes more than the Death Star with less energy required, meaning more efficiency. I should have been clearer on my point regarding maintenance. What I meant was, the Halos have been around for 100,000 years without any outside influence. Nothing but the Rings' own systems to maintain themselves. The Death Stars require living crews to maintain and repair them. What I'm saying is, how would either of the Death Stars fair after 100,000 years with no crew to maintain, like the Halos have endured? I'm not even going to acknowledge the Force here, because it's unquantifiable space magic. I don't see the Force protecting anyone from a Forerunner-induced supernova. [/i]
-
Right i get the halos are a more effective and efficient weapon. (Dont mean to be so aggressive on the forums; by product of dealing with the flood questioning [b][i][u]every single post ive made on validity[/u][/i][/b]) But that wasnt my point or argument. All i was saying IS the death star IS more powerful and with the math's ive posted i HAVE proven it. I KNOW the halos are more efficient and effective at their designed purpose. The death star's shielding and contained computer regulated environment WOULD ALSO keep it operational [b][i][u]indefinitely[/u][/i][/b] so long as nothing aboard broke. The Halo systems do have a crew; AI and nano tech for self repair. Does the SAME purpose as a manned crew. I do get the halos are more efficient but im not questioning, arguing, debating, or bashing that idea. Just saying the death star is more powerful and thats it.
-
Edited by UnboundRelyks: 9/7/2015 4:45:33 AM[quote]The death star's shielding and contained computer regulated environment WOULD ALSO keep it operational [b][i][u]indefinitely[/u][/i][/b][/quote] [i]Do you have anything to support or substantiate that claim?[/i] [quote]The Halo systems do have a crew; AI and nano tech for self repair. Does the SAME purpose as a manned crew.[/quote] [i]That's all a part of the Halo's system, though. No outside forces required. It's all automated. The Death Stars require living crews to maintain them and repair any damage sustained. What I'm asking is, if Halo fired and wiped out all life, which one do you believe would stand the test of time longer? A Halo or a Death Star?[/i]
-
The death stars crew is part of the death stars designed on board systems; Death star requires organic manned crew Halo requires automated crew They both require something to care for it The death star's reactor outputs the the power equal to a small STAR. If it just sits around doing nothing it can be maintained indefinitely.
-
Edited by UnboundRelyks: 9/7/2015 5:05:26 AM[i]The Death Star's crew is not a part of the Death Star. The Halos actually make their own Sentinels and whatnot for repairs. Are you suggesting that the Death Star is capable of actively churning out its own biological crew under its own power? Also, there's this:[/i] [quote][i]if Halo fired and wiped out all life, which one do you believe would stand the test of time longer?A Halo or a Death Star?[/i][/quote] [i]You seem to have skipped over that part. [/i]
-
death star's reactor outputs the the power equal to a small STAR. If it just sits around doing nothing it can be maintained indefinitely So no i did not miss what would happen if the crew vanished. 1/3 the crew are droids on death star built on death star. Storm troopers and imp officers ARE MOSTLY clones. No they are not produced on death star; They are produced to manage and run the death star though. The death star has life support; barracks; mess halls; and food production and waste management ; IT WAS designed to support a manned crew and depend on it.
-
[i]I'm not worried about its power supply. I'm talking about how long it will take before it falls apart. A closed system will always fall into a state of entropy. If my memory is worth a damn, that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Death Star is very much a closed system under the scenario I've suggested, where all life is eradicated from the galaxy. It's a question of whether a Halo or a Death Star can last longer without biological influence. [/i]
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 9/7/2015 6:36:22 AMTrue but; as long as its shields/blast armor is up and it is in a safe portion of space (in a star system where not much is happening so its "safe" from cosmic rays and massive celestial impactors) It should not corrode or fall apart. Its powersupply and shields WOULD eventually run out; For the alloys it is made of to degrade tho we are talking millions to billions of years. (Space is vast; its not largely empty but EVERYTHING in it is extremely FAR apart. They have estimated the voyager 1&2 space probes WILL last 1-3 BILLION YEARS before they fall apart and they ARE NOT SHIELDED OR ARMORED)
-
[i]They're also much smaller and much less likely to collide with another celestial body. That's another advantage Halo has towards its longevity over the Death Star; they're not free-floating, they're in stable obits around gas giants. The first Death Star was free to roam, and the second one likely would have been as well upon completion. [/i]
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 9/7/2015 6:45:39 AMHalos diameter is larger than the death stars Orbits can decay by push or pull by a more massive gravitation force passing by the star system by the way and gas giant's gravity is soo immense that if you drop a titanium box 1km into it's atmosphere it will be crushed by its own weight.
-
Edited by UnboundRelyks: 9/7/2015 6:52:42 AM[i]Halos are also rings, while Death Stars are spherical. While a Halo is 10,000 kilometers in diameter, it is only about 318 kilometers wide and 22.3 kilometers thick. Any given section of the ring is a smaller target than the Death Stars. Furthermore, Halos have defense mechanisms against hazardous collisions, and orbit is maintained by the Monitor. [/i]
-
Edited by DarthBrando: 9/7/2015 6:55:15 AMYea i get its got defenses an what not but also: A hollow large object is MORE fragile than a solid one. A sphere is the strongest geometric shape. If the halo's orbit decays an the gravity of the gas giant it is orbiting applies torsion in just the right way; the ring can snap Halo is 2/3 the diameter of EARTH death star is smaller than earths moon Halo is far more susceptible to torsion and torque the death star isnt.
-
[i]But the orbit won't decay, as it's maintained by the Monitor/Sentinels. The point is moot. [/i]
-
Really? So a passing by neutron star or depleted core of a neutron star that could rip it in two and into the gas giant even if it passes by from 2 billion miles away ur sayin that jus wont happen? Cuz it could and thats how strong the gravity on those things are. Doesnt have to be something THAT extreme tho; there are a couple dozen thousand cosmic objects that can vastly change orbits with their own gravity extremely quickly.
-
[i]Worst-case scenario, Halos are capable of entering Slipspace. If a great enough threat proves to be otherwise unavoidable, the Halos can literally leave reality as we perceive it. [/i]
-
Ok that does work then for the scenario i mentioned. Death star has hyper drive tho and droids so even devoid of humans on it, it can do something similar.
-
[i]Are the Death Stars' droids intelligent enough to pilot the station, though? I was under the impression that they were little more than janitorial equipment. [/i]
