As far as I'm concerned, I wrote the two above.Please fucking update your knowledge.
Any dumbfuck twit who looks at the movie sees that 100% of bolts don't move at lightspeed
The first one is not an insult.
The second is not an insult either, and not directed at anyone.
The first calc starts on the assumption that the asteroid was 2 km away from the point of explosion.Kane Starkiller wrote:These are all lower limits. As you said based on only what we see: a 100m asteroid being shattered. How far away from the center of explosion was it? How much further did the shockwave move before disappearing?Mr. Oragahn wrote:A good question would be how Saxton knows it?
People see how much energy is needed to shatter asteroids of x meters, when hit by a disc of some sort, which the edge is the cutting system here.
Then they figure out, based on range and perimeter, how much energy the asteroid, at this distance, must have been hit with, compared to the total power. To do so, they compare the size of the asteroid, say the 100 m one, to perimeter at that distance.
They obtain a percentage of the total energy.
Then, by combining the shattering energy and the percentage, they obtain the figures.
Example 1 & 2 were provided on page 6. Both agree on one point: it's barely reaching the megaton range, from what we can estimate with what we see.
Allow one order of magnitude extra, for the fun, and you still fall incredibly short of Saxton's claim that is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher.
It is by far the best quick and reliable methods I've seen thus far, and no one claiming that the ICS were right provided anything better.
The second one starts with the assumption of a distance from point of explosion about 2.4 km.
Besides, there's the simple fact that even massive starships can't seem able to dispatch that amount of power in single salvos, with massive power cores to back them up.
It's illogical that a mini bomb could have 12 GT worth of punch.
For more details, let's see... I'm opening a new thread.
Oh no, it's not that simple. People have said countless times that the ICS numbers were right.Try to understand that you cannot contradict the numbers from ICS by using LOWER LIMITS obtained from the films. When he wrote the ICS Saxton was a writer working for Lucas and was authorised to expand upon the Star Wars universe. He doesn't need to show any calculations just like various EU authors don't need to justify their plot points before the readers accept them. All that matters is that they don't directly contradict the films. Seeing as how films showed an entire planet being blown up and previous EU sources mention planets being sterilized by Star Destroyers 12Gt seismic mine is hardly anything new.
Accepting the numbers because they come from the ICS, is one thing. Which I have gripes against considering that I'm always suspicious of EU claims.
But claiming that the numbers are correct because Saxton knows what he's talking about, then I ask to see the proof that he knew what he talked about. That is, his calcs.
You don't need the exact figures. It is said that the LAATs are shielded.Kane Starkiller wrote:I don't have a copy of ICS so could you tell me what numbers does ICS give for those two craft?Mr. Oragahn wrote:I already said there is a thread where you can directly talk about the geonosian fighter & LAAT issue.
Now think about it. If those things carry shields, they're ought to match, at least, the power of those mounted on fighters or bombers, right?
There are allthose post 2002 claims that fighters have kiloton lasers, at least. And so shields are.
However, in this thread, we show that such shields can't be so powerful.
They don't exist.What exactly does this, if true, prove? They don't mention annihilation reactors so what?Mr. Oragahn wrote:Why do all their stories involve fusion cores and no annhilation cores?
Answer this with direct logic, or concede.
Sigh.The calculation was provided a decade ago. That you still refuse to accept them calling upon some kind of "chain reaction" which you can't explain but are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE it decreases Death Star's power requirement significantly is quite frankly your problem.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Provide calcs, in a separate thread if possible.
What is funny is how you turn the scientific method on the head. You search for text snippets mentioning fusion then turn around and say "aha it is fusion therefore Death Star cannot be as powerful never mind the demonstration".
It is not the calculation that is in problem, as far as the Death Star is concerned. You understand that maths can be correct, even if they're off topic, irrelevant, and based on a flawed premise, right?
It's like saying there were two groups of three persons each, and the people on your side would say then that 2 x 40,000,000 = 80,000,000 persons. The math's good, but relies on wrong premises.
As I said, calcs please.Dookus escape from Geonosis, Endor approach.Mr. Oragahn wrote:"4-figure G" means what?
You're sure you didn't mean "4 digits G figures" instead?
And provide calcs.
Sheesh. The first, military wise, is stupid. The second is about a non fully explained mechanical feature. I can't believe you're mixing both.Are spinning photons more ridiculous that Death Star magically blowing up a planet without providing any power?Mr. Oragahn wrote:That theory is insanely stupid in terms of military science.
It's ashaming that Saxton would so strongly believe in it.
Yes he does. Doesn't make it sensical anytime, military wise.At least Saxton gives some explanation as to the mechanism.
If you wish, you can reply to this question as well:
What's better between an invisible direct beam that travels at c, and a beam that's slowed down to a poor fraction of c, to allow a visible tracer make the beam's origin and destination obvious?
The second option, which is completely stupid anyway, would only start to make a shred of sense if the gunmen could only rely on sheer sight to aim at their target.
Not having an explanation doesn't mean we have to accept a stupid one.What do you do other than wishing it to be so? And do you have a better theory for green and red lines called turbolasers? If you not then where do you get off calling Saxton's theory stupid?
I consider that these beams, if they exist - I can't check every single bit of EU - are in contradiction with the films.Mr. Oragahn wrote:So you concede that lightspeed turbolasers do appear in EU but then dismiss it as being written by "some enthusiasts"? Just who the hell do you think you are?
The worst part is that Saxton tries to plaster his fancy theory on every single beam weapon seen in SW. THAT is a problem.
I was only providing an example from the EU, to show that contrary to typical biased SDN belief, not all the EU thinks SW weapons range in lightminutes and travel at c, and that if enemies who can't shoot down cargo ships 5 km away, can still be a menace to all forces in the SW galaxy, we clearly have a good indication of how good the aiming range of the opposed forces must be as well.Mr. Oragahn wrote:I like how you always take the evidence you like and then pretend that all other are inferior. The ROTS CANON novelization itself mentions ships firing at each other from light minutes I believe.We're talking about the YV ships which, at that time of the war, were ripping new holes to both major factions in the galaxy, the Republic and the Empire remnants.
Yes, I know, and that's precisely why I said that the greater ranges (hundreds of kms) are only good against bigger ships.Secondly how big and maneuverable are those small freighters. You do realize that range is not a simple number right? It depends on the target: it's cross sectional area and maneuverability.
However, this is amusing coming from one who thinks beams travel at c.
I'm tired of that bullshit. How can you honestly pretend that the head of a beam will travel at c towards its target?
Please, for the sake of those little catgirls, provide the evidence that we apparently have all missed.