Validity of the ICS

[Kane Starkiller]

TO add some points.
How do you people know what is the observed firepower of the Seismic charge in the film? We have no information about it's range only that even after half a minute or so it is still able to shred a 100m asteroid without slowing down or loosing it's intensity relative to the other parts of the shockwave. What is the total range? You don't know so how can you say 12Gt is incorrect?

I'll address a point directly, if you like. That is to say, the seismic charge being in the gigaton range.

Now then, a gigaton is 1,000 megatons, or 71,450 Hiroshima bombs give or take a few... This means if Bobafett where to fire this weapon at say Lemont PA the damage would reach DC and Toronto.

This example above is for one gigaton (give or take a few hundred kilotons), and it is, supposedly, the capability of ONE bounty hunter.

Now tell me, do you honestly see ANYWHERE in ANY MOVIE, with the EXCEPTION of the death star, a blast that reached some 350 miles? No? Good.

What exactly is your point here? So the seismic mine is powerful. So what? So we never saw it being used against ground targets. So what?

(That said, it can get MORE bogus. Lets take that ever famous 200 gigaton shots... 200 gigatons... Lets see here... were dealing with somewhere around... 2,797,200 Hiroshima bombs... carry the 2... or... hmm.. The end of about 1% of all life on earth.)

... On second thought. Think about that in detail. The end of one percent of all of the life on earth. That's a lot of life. The blast energy would go around the earth about 2.7 times. This puts it near the level of small asteroid impacts, no KT event obviously, but one that people on the other side of the planet are sure going to feel. Now then, presented with those numbers... presented with those figures... and since I'm fairly certain I didn't see an earth shattering kaboom except from the death star, I can't help but laugh when someone says they are supported by the movies.

It's funny how you dismiss the Death Star so you can "laugh" at the notion that a mere 200 Gt is supported by the movies. It is of course the standard modus operandi for ICS detractors.
Furthermore do you realize that ICS is part of EU? EU as in Expanded Universe? As in, it EXPANDS upon the films? So why are you so surprised to find information not directly found in the films. What exactly would be the point of EU if it doesn't bring new information and stories?

[Who is like God arbour]

• • deleted

[Mr. Oragahn]

Most pointless post ever. You don't even try.

So you're unable to notice that for example, there's a link that leads to a thread where the LAAT & geonosian firepower is directly adressed.

Which directly contradict the ICS firepower figures-how?

If you had read the thread in question, you'd know.
If you think you can debunk it, then post in the thread of question, or concede.

When we mention the kids stories, you dismiss them as pure nonsense, nevermind if it makes no sense to have them totally resolve around the idea that fusion is the be and end all of power generation in SW, if it was precisely not the case.
Ask yourself why these stories do not say that annihilation is what powers everything in SW.

Because they're kids stories? Seriously, are you saying we should ignore canon sources because of dialogue that is the in-universe equivalent of FAIRY TALES?
SNIPPY because basically you want us to accept fairy tales over the observed feats of the SW forces because it happens to suit your point.

The "observed feats" are just your completely flawed interpretations.

As for the Fairy Tales, when we say that sylvians and elves live in trees, does it mean trees don't exist, and that they live in buildings?

Yes, as you realize - I hope - even tales have a ground in reality.

You also completely dismiss the simple fact that there would be no point for kids to know that fusion powered almost everything in SW, if not just plain everything, if it was precisely not the case.

Why they would even know about fusion?

Tell me, why don't they talk about dragons which live in annhilating cores?

Oh, yes, I know. You won't bother, because you precisely know you can't get around that fact.

And none of those sources mention NUCLEAR fusion as we understand it and ALL of them are overridden by the movies.

Please. No matter if you think someone has to spell NUCLEAR fusion for you, it's still fusion, not annihilation, contrary to Saxton's claims.

Which show the DS1 blowing Alderaan to smithereens...

A much exotic mechanism that the likes of you simply brush away.

ship accelleration utterly IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with fusion power

Nothing directly observable in Star Wars has suggested accelerations requiring that much power.
Besides, Sarli had a very good suggestion about mass lighting tech.

and those sources are STILL overridden by the ICSes.

Ah, the same compelling grandiose logic!
We keep hearing that times and times again.

Get your facts straight. The ICSes override nothing of the other EU material.
It's on the same level, and Chee was crystal clear on that.
It's not hard to understand what he says.

The fact that ICSes contain bits of G canon in them just means that, they borrow stuff from G canon. Doesn't make the rest of the expanded material they introduce of a higher level than any feat attributed to Han Solo in any EU book.

You know, for example, Han Solo is from G canon. However, all that happens to him in the EU is precisely EU stuff. Added stuff. Same for the ICS. Added stuff.
All the intricate parts we see on the cross sections and which don't appear in the film are just EU stuff, added by EU authors.

The seismic mine is adressed in that post, and leads to calcs which clearly demonstrate how bollocks Saxton's claims are.

No it doesn't. Because, you see, unlike you people Saxton actually knows what he's talking about. Why don't you demonstrate how Saxton's calculations are bollocks HERE.

Well, what a pathetic counterclaim.
The bollockness of Saxton's claim is precisely adresed and demonstrated on the link I provided. With sensible calcs.

As a matter of facts, no one has access to Saxton's calcs, so claiming they're better, like if anyone could check them, is bullshit.

The lightspeed argument? Doesn't even need to be adressed. Any dumbfuck twit who looks at the movie sees that 100% of bolts don't move at lightspeed, and 99.99999% of them deal damage when the visible bolt hits.

And your explanation for the remainder is...?

Remainder what? You have one blooper which is only revealed when going frame by frame, and this necesssites a convoluted and flawed theory that does not fit with the canon evidence?

Wait, they're not really bloopers. They're just VFX conveniences. Effects which obey the good enough mentality when looked at normal speed.

You make me laugh. Have you, ever once, spent time going frame by frame, over certain key battles in the OT?
Be it gunfights, lightsabre fights, or dogfights?

If so, the likes of you would be pulling their hairs off their heads with stupid theories. I assure you that there are many pireceless bloopers I'd love to see you try to rationalize.

Besides, you still don't get it. No weapon in Star Wars, not even in Death Star superlaser, reach their target at lightspeed or even near c.

And that the idea that light is made spinning... is the most stupid theory ever. It's a shame that it comes from someone such as Saxton.

Only some moron who wants to wank this up, and thus favour momentum calculations based on kinetic displacement from photon impacts will try to defend this ridiculous notion at all costs.

Only a moron who has no clue what he is talking about but is desperate to sound like hew does would post something like THAT. You DO realize that was complete garbage.

It is not. You simply don't even have a clue what we're dealing with, as simple as that, and it's clearly frustrating to see that you don't seem able to grasp the required basics to engage into that kind of debate.

You may want to check Wong's calcs about the power of SW's weapons, based on the Millenium Falcon being rocked because of photon related momentum.

Simply reading his page reveals why it is so important for them to insist on damage done by photons, and denying the extremely strong factual existence of flak bursts.

The super armor? ROTS shows low yield shots going through armour.

Lie. Your evidence that those shots were low yield or ever went through the armour in the first place is?

Please fucking update your knowledge. It's been shown that some of the small bolts exchanged between the Invisible Hand and a Venator did go through the hull.
Yet, they weren't even worth a ton of TNT.

TESB shows a low kiloton impact literally ripping the whole tower of a star destroyer.

Lie. Demonstrate the asteroid impact was low kiloton and did ANYTHING to the Stardestroyer other than interrupting its holographic communications.

...

I'll assume you are extremely new to the debate.

And I already provided the link that makes the evidence clear.

For your safety, remember that power is very important here. The yield is low, but it also matter to see how fast the impact occured.

Slave-I missiles thread. Another one you can't be arsed to read, or even acknowledge?

If your behaviour in this thread is anything to go by yes.

Concession accepted.

As for the pages from Robert, stop dismissing them with claims about bias. You don't even have to read what Robert wrote, but just look at the pictures for pet's sake!
The one who's biased is the one who looks at the asteroids in AOTC and says that the Slave-I was completely destroying them, or even more, vaporizing them.

A pity we don't, then.

Concession accepted then.

The one who's bisaed is the one who considers that SW's weapon ranges rate in light minutes, while ALL the movies show that they're worth of a few thousand kilometers.

When there is CANON EVIDENCE FOR LIGHTHOUR RANGES IN THE EU. Yeah, I'm the biased one. Show me the movie scene that actively CONTRADICTS THIS brother.

You're getting mixed up. You're asking me for canon evidence, from the EU, of lighthour ranges, when I say that the films even dispute lightminute ranges.

I gave a link. Robert - yes, the awful Robert - made calcs to check the ranges at which all ships fired. As far as we see, the best one is the Trade Federation ship trying to shoot down the Naboo yatch from something like 100 km away.

The higher range we have is actually from the ROTS novelisation, which mentions capships exchanging fire at hundreds of kilometers.

Check this one for example.

Which proves that capships can only engage at greater ranges (hundreds of kms) against bigger targets, not small profiles such as the Naboo yatch or the Millenium Falcon.

As I said, even Vector Prime fits with this. The best example from the movies has to be the Trade Federation blockade. They started shooting at the Naboo yatch at a range of 100 km more or less.
The ROTS book mentions fire exchanged between capital ships at hundreds of kms. The simple fact that the ships need to be so close to each other should tell enough about ranges as well.

To one as desperately trying to ignore reality as you perhaps. SHOW ME THE DIRECT CONTRADICTION DICKHEAD.

How am I ignoring reality? I pointing to evidence directly from the movies and the books.

It is not my problem if you can't assimilate that, and feel that you've been pigeonholed.
Next time, you'll think twice, this will prevent yourself from getting stuck in an embarassing position.

At this point, it's just a question of being honest. If you're dishonest enough to dismiss those simple facts,

None of which show the ICS to be wrong, but you'll no doubt continue to deny that.

Yeah yeah. Oh, well... whatever.

[Who is like God arbour]

OK, here is an example from higher canon than the ICS that clearly contradict the ICS:

• • From the Star Wars - Episode 3 novelization:
    Strike Group Five had deployed in a triangle around Mas Ramdar, maintaining a higher orbit to pin Invisible Hand deep Coruscant's gravity well. Turbolasers blasted against Invisible Hand's faltering shields, but the flagship was giving as good as it got: Mas Ramdar had sustained so much damage already that it was little more than a target to absorb the Hand's return fire, and Indomitable was only a shell, most of its crew dead or evacuated, being run remotely by its commander and bridge crew; it swung unsteadily through the Hand's vector cone of escape routes to block any attempt to run up toward jump.
    
    As its shields finally failed, Invisible Hand began to roll whirling like a bullet from a rifled slugthrower, trailing spiral jets of crystallizing gas that gushed from multiple hull ruptures. The rolling picked up speed, breaking the targeting locks of the ship's Republic adversaries. Unable to pound the same point again and again, their turbolasers weren't powerful enough to breach the Hand's heavy armor directly; their tracking points became rings that circled the ship, chewing gradually into the hull in tightening garrotes of fire.

How is it possible that all these ships without shields weren't vaporized?

That is exactly what should happen if one shoot at them with weapons in the gigaton range and they aren't protected by shields.

Why couldn't the Invisible Hand simply fly through the Mas Ramdar or the Indomitable when her shields were still up?

If the shields are able to withstand gigaton barrage, they should easily be able to withstand the kinetic energy of the collision with the Indomitable, which was only a shell.

And please don't say that allone their hull was able to absorb so much energy.

General Grievos has shown how tough the hull really was.

• • Large image changed to link. - JMS

And the re-entry has shown how much energy the hull can absorb.

• • 
    
    
    
    

How can it be that an armour that is allegedly able to withstand the energy of several ten-thousands atomic bombs (200 gigatons would be equal to 48'000 ZAR atomic bombs or a TNT volume of 142 billion m³ and weight of about 235 quadrillion kilogram.) is affected so much only by aerodynamic heating?

At the re-entry of space capsules in the atmosphere were temperatures at the surface up to 2'400 degree Celsius measured. At the expolsion of hydrogen bombs temperatures are created from 200 to 300 million degree Celsius (that is much hotter than the core of the sun).

The re-entry shouldn't have affected the hull of the Invisible Hand at all, if it would be able to withstand only one single atomic bomb.

[Trinoya]

What exactly is your point here? So the seismic mine is powerful. So what? So we never saw it being used against ground targets. So what?

See, this is why I like Kane, Kane will ask a question about the part he disagrees with and provide me a reason why he disagrees. *thanks kane*


That said, in theory, yes, Bobafett could have some zero point energy weapon that spreads out on a plane and manages to impart that much energy to objects it encounters.

However, we see no weapon like this in use anywhere else, ever again, and if it imparts it on a plane with the energy being evenly distributed, such a weapon could be extremely powerful in fighter vs capital ship combat, as it would allow you to 'direct' gigaton level energy... yet we don't see that.

That said, the demonstrated effects on the asteroids doesn't even come close to a gigaton. Upon impact with the meteor, unless there is some extremely unusual technobable at work that no one, including Saxton, tries to explain, the energy imparted does not demonstrate the heating, instant vaporization, and subsequently force effects that would come from a normal gigaton, more so because this one is apparently focusing it on a plane. The effects seen simply do not show what we know, from simple physics, we should be seeing. I'll be honest, the effects we see at Hoths shield generator are more impressive.


In regards to discounting the death star in this particular argument: It is specifically built, regardless of chain reaction or DET theories, to impart energy to destroy a planet, if people were truly firing gigaton level shots around it would only take a single bounty hunter to slag a surface. Base Delta Zero in the hands of any guy who can afford about 60 of those weapons.

[Mr. Oragahn]

TO add some points.
How do you people know what is the observed firepower of the Seismic charge in the film?

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. Example 2. 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.

Furthermore do you realize that ICS is part of EU? EU as in Expanded Universe? As in, it EXPANDS upon the films? So why are you so surprised to find information not directly found in the films. What exactly would be the point of EU if it doesn't bring new information and stories?

Ah, if only you could help our batman friend understand this. You seem to have much more sense that him.

[Batman]

I take it I won't have to deal with the garbage posted by this Trinoya moron.

[Batman]

Most pointless post ever. You don't even try.

So you're unable to notice that for example, there's a link that leads to a thread where the LAAT & geonosian firepower is directly adressed.

Which directly contradict the ICS firepower figures-how?

If you had read the thread in question, you'd know.
If you think you can debunk it, then post in the thread of question, or concede.

IF you think you can SUPPORT it post in this here thread or concede. There is NOTHING in the movies directly contradicting the ICSes.

When we mention the kids stories, you dismiss them as pure nonsense, nevermind if it makes no sense to have them totally resolve around the idea that fusion is the be and end all of power generation in SW, if it was precisely not the case.
Ask yourself why these stories do not say that annihilation is what powers everything in SW.

Because they're kids stories? Seriously, are you saying we should ignore canon sources because of dialogue that is the in-universe equivalent of FAIRY TALES?
SNIPPY because basically you want us to accept fairy tales over the observed feats of the SW forces because it happens to suit your point.

The "observed feats" are just your completely flawed interpretations.

You're right, my bad. Alderaan totally didn't blow up. Sorry.

As for the Fairy Tales, when we say that sylvians and elves live in trees, does it mean trees don't exist, and that they live in buildings?
Yes, as you realize - I hope - even tales have a ground in reality.

Do you seriously think this qualifies as a point? By that reasoning, Superman is real. Afterall Superman comics involve air, and since air really exists...

You also completely dismiss the simple fact that there would be no point for kids to know that fusion powered almost everything in SW, if not just plain everything, if it was precisely not the case.

There's no point for kids to now about Hansel and Gretel. Next.
There's an abundance of CANON ACHIEVEMENTS that are impossible to do via nuclear fusion. There's CHILDREN'S TALES saying it's done via fusion (which, I must add, don't say NUCLEAR fusion). I repeat-you are asking me to take fairy tales over displayed capabilities.

Tell me, why don't they talk about dragons which live in annhilating cores?
Oh, yes, I know. You won't bother, because you precisely know you can't get around that fact.

That'd be the point where I don't have to fucktard. We have plenty of evidence for fusion-defying power generation (and, incidentally, M/AM-defying power generation too). All YOU have is the in-universe equivalent of Little Red Riding Hood.

And none of those sources mention NUCLEAR fusion as we understand it and ALL of them are overridden by the movies.

Please. No matter if you think someone has to spell NUCLEAR fusion for you, it's still fusion,

Because-you say so. I must have missed the massive explosion when AOL fused with Time Warner.

not annihilation, contrary to Saxton's claims.

Given that M/AM annihilation can't power the stuff Wars use EITHER... Wars has the power generation depicted in the movies and elaborated on in the ICSes. Learn to live with it.

Which show the DS1 blowing Alderaan to smithereens...

A much exotic mechanism that the likes of you simply brush away.

On account of it being completely in line with DET and NO SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR IT NOT BEING existing.

ship accelleration utterly IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with fusion power

Nothing directly observable in Star Wars has suggested accelerations requiring that much power.

4-figure G accelerations in ROTJ. Mere seconds from surface to escape velocity. Have fun trying to do that with fusion. Repeatedly. On something the size of an X-wing.

Besides, Sarli had a very good suggestion about mass lighting tech.

I'll worry about that once Sarli's ravings are rated higher canon than the rest of the Wars universe. Or canon to begin with.

and those sources are STILL overridden by the ICSes.

Ah, the same compelling grandiose logic!
We keep hearing that times and times again.
Get your facts straight. The ICSes override nothing of the other EU material.[/quoe]
They override ALL of it as per the official LFL canon policy, fuckhead.

It's on the same level, and Chee was crystal clear on that.
It's not hard to understand what he says.

One wonders then how you completely fail to do so.

No it doesn't. Because, you see, unlike you people Saxton actually knows what he's talking about. Why don't you demonstrate how Saxton's calculations are bollocks HERE.

Well, what a pathetic counterclaim.
The bollockness of Saxton's claim is precisely adresed and demonstrated on the link I provided. With sensible calcs.

No it isn't.

As a matter of facts, no one has access to Saxton's calcs, so claiming they're better, like if anyone could check them, is reasonable.

I quite agree. They are and you can. Thank you.

And your explanation for the remainder is...?

Remainder what? You have one blooper which is only revealed when going frame by frame, and this necesssites a convoluted and flawed theory that does not fit with the canon evidence?

You ARE aware that the canon (the HIGHEST canon) INCLUDES that, yes? And UNLIKE your theory the lightspeed weapon with tracer explanation covers ALL of it, and is supported by the EU, as much as you like to ignore it.

Wait, they're not really bloopers. They're just VFX conveniences. Effects which obey the good enough mentality when looked at normal speed.

They're canon. The lightspeed weapon with a tracer explanation covers it. The EU supports it. SHOW THAT THEORY IS WRONG DICKHEAD.

Besides, you still don't get it. No weapon in Star Wars, not even in Death Star superlaser, reach their target at lightspeed or even near c.

The EU disagrees. The movies don't contradict. How abysmally stupid are you?

Lie. Your evidence that those shots were low yield or ever went through the armour in the first place is?

Please fucking update your knowledge. It's been shown that some of the small bolts exchanged between the Invisible Hand and a Venator did go through the hull.
Yet, they weren't even worth a ton of TNT.

As evidenced by...you saying so. When I very much doubt you'd be able to determine the yield OF A DET WEAPON IN A VACUUM to begin with.

Lie. Demonstrate the asteroid impact was low kiloton and did ANYTHING to the Stardestroyer other than interrupting its holographic communications.

...
I'll assume you are extremely new to the debate.
And I already provided the link that makes the evidence clear.

No, that makes it clear you are either stupid beyond belief or straight out lying. And I suspect the latter. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Star Destroyer was damaged in any way shape or form.

For your safety, remember that power is very important here. The yield is low, but it also matter to see how fast the impact occured.

Given that no damage apart from disrupting communications was apparently done, so Valendamned what?

If your behaviour in this thread is anything to go by yes.

Concession accepted.

A pity we don't, then.

Concession accepted then.

Likewise.

When there is CANON EVIDENCE FOR LIGHTHOUR RANGES IN THE EU. Yeah, I'm the biased one. Show me the movie scene that actively CONTRADICTS THIS brother.

You're getting mixed up. You're asking me for canon evidence, from the EU, of lighthour ranges, when I say that the films even dispute lightminute ranges.

Which particular part of HAVE TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT are you too stupid to understand? I mean by now I assume your IQ is approximately negative nine billion but really.

I gave a link. Robert - yes, the awful Robert - made calcs to check the ranges at which all ships fired. As far as we see, the best one is the Trade Federation ship trying to shoot down the Naboo yatch from something like 100 km away.
The higher range we have is actually from the ROTS novelisation, which mentions capships exchanging fire at hundreds of kilometers.
Check this one for example.
Which proves that capships can only engage at greater ranges (hundreds of kms) against bigger targets, not small profiles such as the Naboo yatch or the Millenium Falcon.

No it doesn't. It proves that they DIDN't, not that they CAN't. Of course you believe Dorkmoron knows what he's talking about so...

You will now show me the part of ROTS that shows they CAN'T engage at ranges exceeding that. When the evidence from the movies utterly fails to CONTRADICT the evidence from the EU or the ICSes, which as per LFL canon policy it is required to.

Again, likewise. There IS ZERO evidence in the movies OR the movie novelisations to prove the ICSes wrong and that's the ONLY evidence that would override them.

[2046]

I take it I won't have to deal with the garbage posted by this Trinoya moron.

What part of "polite and reasoned" did you miss in the forum description? When the trash is taken out, posts like yours will be the first to go.

I'm no mod, but as a friendly suggestion, don't do that again.

[Who is like God arbour]

Mr. Batman,

as I see, you have choosen to ignore my post, which would have given you an answer to your qestions:

• I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

  I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

  I find your claimed perception to be mistaken.

  There is evidence from the movies showing that full-power Acclamator MTL blasts AREN'T 200GT? There is evidence the Venators DON'T have the firepower attributed to them ? SHOW ME!

  There is evidence from the movies showing that full-power Acclamator MTL blasts AREN'T 200GT? There is evidence the Venators DON'T have the firepower attributed to them ?

  Yes and yes. And those are not the only numbers from the ICS which have, in my judgement, been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be false. This has been shown here, at ST-v-SW.net, and countless other locations online.

  Oh they definitely CLAIM the numbers are wrong. They just completely fail to show to do so.

  I have yet to see you adress a single one of them other than claiming you have done so and linking to sw-vs-st.net. DO tell me that site is unbiased with a straight face.

  • So you're unable to notice that for example, there's a link that leads to a thread where the LAAT & geonosian firepower is directly adressed.

  Which directly contradict the ICS firepower figures-how?

  To one as desperately trying to ignore reality as you perhaps. SHOW ME THE DIRECT CONTRADICTION DICKHEAD.

  None of which show the ICS to be wrong, but you'll no doubt continue to deny that.

[/list]You always demand an specific example in the movies that shows that they haven't weapons in the gigaton range.

I have given you such a very specific example.

Another example for which you have already gotten a link, can you find here.

Both examples are contradicting the from the ICS given weapons power directly. If they would have fired with weapons which would have such firepower, the caused damages would be far higher. And in both examples there is no reason to dial the power of the weapons down.

Now deal with these two examples before you demand again that someone should show you where exactly the movies contradict the ICS!

Because, if you can't rebut the from me given examples, that would show that the ICS is wrong - definitely and finally.

• • • And please remember: Your answer should be - at least - plausible and to a certain degree obviously. Don't forge an explanation which would retcon the whole plot of both episodes. Important facts which are relevant to the understanding of the plot would have been mentioned either in the movies or in the novelizations.

[Trinoya]

WILGA beat me to it... blast.

That said, on this page alone I counted three insults from batman, in addition to ignoring presented arguments by repeating a previous one. He is making better debaters from the pro wars side look bad and I won't stand for that. He seems bent on not engaging in a debate with me, as such his concessions are accepted and I shall no longer engage in a debate with him. He is neither worth the time, effort, or the distraction such a pointless activity would cause when frankly so many other people from the pro-wars side are willing to at least, you know... debate.

That said, Kane, I eagerly await your responses and do in fact believe you have presented some decent arguments as well. As was said before, Batman could have learned a thing or two from you.

[Kane Starkiller]

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. Example 2. 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.

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?
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.

How is it possible that all these ships without shields weren't vaporized?
That is exactly what should happen if one shoot at them with weapons in the gigaton range and they aren't protected by shields.

What "all" ships? The passage only mentions Invisible Hand's shields falling and since Supreme Chancellor was aboard they are hardly going to pound it with full power once it's shields are down now are they?

Why couldn't the Invisible Hand simply fly through the Mas Ramdar or the Indomitable when her shields were still up?

Because those ships shields were also up?

If the shields are able to withstand gigaton barrage, they should easily be able to withstand the kinetic energy of the collision with the Indomitable, which was only a shell.

What exactly does "shell" mean? Indomitable was still said to be run remotely by the bridge crew. How do you know whether it's shields are up or down? Besides kinetic impactors behave differently from energy impacts.

General Grievos has shown how tough the hull really was.

His robotic leg manages to bend something that appears to be a hatch. Stll superior to Vioyager's hull which gets ruptured by Species 8472, a biological entity.

Because, if you can't rebut the from me given examples, that would show that the ICS is wrong - definitely and finally.

Not that you have shown that ICS contains an error but I still must point out that containing an error is not the same as being wrong. Even university level science books contain errors as I witnessed myself, that does not mean they are "wrong-definitely and finally".

[Mr. Oragahn]

IF you think you can SUPPORT it post in this here thread or concede. There is NOTHING in the movies directly contradicting the ICSes.

No dude, you don't get it. I won't repeat myself and what other people have said because you keep asking for the same, to see what's already available, while I've pasted direct links several times now.
I already said there is a thread where you can directly talk about the geonosian fighter & LAAT issue. It's a fresh thread besides. No necromancy in check, if you're afraid ofthat (that would be, of course, another BS reason to weasel your way out of this situation you can't deal with).

You openly refuse to do so.

You have no excuse, and as such, you simply conceded the point.

Now it's clearly a question of definding your ego, since you're clearly not going to adress the point despite the numerous offers I made.

You're right, my bad. Alderaan totally didn't blow up. Sorry.

Nice strawman.
You're ignorant. It's not my fault.
Our views are established on this site. We don't hide them.
We recognize the full destruction of Alderaan. However, we refuse the concept that it was the sheer act of a powerful turbolaser.
Yes, there was some DET involved in that, but the secondary explosion has nothing to do with the beam at all.

Once again, there are threads about this issue. You can either search on page one, use the search button, or start your own thread.

If you refuse to defend your position, and rather limit yourself to argumentation fallacies of the worst kind, then once again, we'll understand that you simply concede the point.

Do you seriously think this qualifies as a point? By that reasoning, Superman is real. Afterall Superman comics involve air, and since air really exists...

... and since air exists... air exists.

I think you don't even understand the logic here.
The point is not to prove that the sun dragons, their cousins, the sylvians, elves or Superman exist.

It's to prove that the fusion reactors, the trees and the air do.

I'm sure you can understand that.

There's no point for kids to now about Hansel and Gretel. Next.

No next. You're particularily blindfolded and obtuse, and you use pathetic dodges to avoid answering the question honestly.

Why do all their stories involve fusion cores and no annhilation cores?

Answer this with direct logic, or concede.

That'd be the point where I don't have to brother. We have plenty of evidence for fusion-defying power generation (and, incidentally, M/AM-defying power generation too). All YOU have is the in-universe equivalent of Little Red Riding Hood.

No, that's not an answer. You side track the subject of the question, by relying on pseudo-evidence that you're the only one to believe in, and yet you're never shown defending it.
Provide calcs, in a separate thread if possible.

Right now, what you're saying is that it must be right because God said so.
Huh.

Because-you say so. I must have missed the massive explosion when AOL fused with Time Warner.

Fusion, in the context of power generation, has one and single clear meaning that is relative to physics.

Given that M/AM annihilation can't power the stuff Wars use EITHER... Wars has the power generation depicted in the movies and elaborated on in the ICSes. Learn to live with it.

Given that thus far, you're flailing your hands and making unsubstanciated claims, I freely dismiss your BS.

On account of it being completely in line with DET and NO SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR IT NOT BEING existing.

Yes, planets explode on their own.

But I see that Wong's neanderthalian technique, summed as "big green laser hit planet. guh. planet boom" works wonder on certain subjects.

But what else? It's been ages we've asked you to simply watch the damn movie for one of the most glaring facts, and you lot keep missing it, or denying it.

Besides trolling, I don't know what this is supposed to be. Stupidity maybe?

4-figure G accelerations in ROTJ. Mere seconds from surface to escape velocity. Have fun trying to do that with fusion. Repeatedly. On something the size of an X-wing.

"4-figure G" means what?
You're sure you didn't mean "4 digits G figures" instead?

And provide calcs.

I'll worry about that once Sarli's ravings are rated higher canon than the rest of the Wars universe. Or canon to begin with.

They're rated as high as the observations and calculations made by fans, as a matter of fact.
The other fact is that you had a hundred occasions to post calcs. But you didn't not.

In your next post, if you don't provide detailed calculations, I'll just ignore your pointless trolling.

One wonders then how you completely fail to do so.

I don't see what I fail at. However, you're showing a glaring lack of understanding of even simple logic.

Can you refute that the ICS is not more canon than any other EU product, according to the Holocron policy?

I'm eager to see your intellectual skills in action.

Well, what a pathetic counterclaim.
The bollockness of Saxton's claim is precisely adresed and demonstrated on the link I provided. With sensible calcs.

No it isn't.

It is.

Provide calcs or shut up.

As a matter of facts, no one has access to Saxton's calcs, so claiming they're better, like if anyone could check them, is reasonable.

I quite agree. They are and you can. Thank you.

The fact that you agree with something that is fundamentally stupid is rather telling.

I meant unreasonable, for the record.

Remainder what? You have one blooper which is only revealed when going frame by frame, and this necesssites a convoluted and flawed theory that does not fit with the canon evidence?

You ARE aware that the canon (the HIGHEST canon) INCLUDES that, yes? And UNLIKE your theory the lightspeed weapon with tracer explanation covers ALL of it, and is supported by the EU, as much as you like to ignore it.

Ah yes, you mean a theory where lasers are fired in such a fashion that they loose much of their advantage, since photons are made spinning inside a pointless spiraling conundrum, as to allow a sort of tracer to travel along that "tube", nevermind if these weapons are manned by qualified technicians assisted by powerful computers?

I mean, what to choose between:

1. A cannon that fires lasers, which travel at c along a linear path straight to their target, and remain invisible to the enemy.

Or...

2. A canon that fires lasers, made spiraling within a tube, according to some overly complex mechanism, so now they take minutes to reach the same target, and are even more subject to photon scattering?

They're canon. The lightspeed weapon with a tracer explanation covers it. The EU supports it. SHOW THAT THEORY IS WRONG DICKHEAD.

That theory is insanely stupid in terms of military science.
It's ashaming that Saxton would so strongly believe in it.

The fact that you believe in it... is just normal.

Besides, you still don't get it. No weapon in Star Wars, not even in Death Star superlaser, reach their target at lightspeed or even near c.

The EU disagrees. The movies don't contradict. How abysmally stupid are you?

I don't know. I mean, you're calling me stupid, while you can't prove that even the so called invisible beams will hit their targets as they are fired directly (as in a linear fashion) and travel at c.

Provide evidence, because thus far, the movies DO not agree with that absurd idea, and only a fraction of the EU, written by some enthusiasts who've been taking "lasers" literally, seem to have seen a version of the movies that's rather peculiar, seem to fancy that idea as well.

As evidenced by...you saying so. When I very much doubt you'd be able to determine the yield OF A DET WEAPON IN A VACUUM to begin with.

Sure. We see a big round coming straight through the hull, without loosing brightness whatsoever, and generates an explosion inside the atmosphere of the ship (so much for vacuum) that is particularily non impressive.

No, that makes it clear you are either stupid beyond belief or straight out lying. And I suspect the latter. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Star Destroyer was damaged in any way shape or form.

Your insults won't change the fact that you have provided no counter evidence, no calcs, no analysis whatsoever.

So dear troll, your concession is, again, wholeheartedly accepted.

When there is CANON EVIDENCE FOR LIGHTHOUR RANGES IN THE EU. Yeah, I'm the biased one. Show me the movie scene that actively CONTRADICTS THIS brother.

You're getting mixed up. You're asking me for canon evidence, from the EU, of lighthour ranges, when I say that the films even dispute lightminute ranges.

Which particular part of HAVE TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT are you too stupid to understand? I mean by now I assume your IQ is approximately negative nine billion but really.

If they could fight at such ranges, they had plenty of occasions to demonstrate so in the movies.
They didn't.
Even the best range mentionned in the novelisation, for the sake of repeating myself, is described as hundreds of kilometers.

It's rather simple. The "DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED 11!1!11!1!" argument falls miserably flat, from the moment one uses logic. Simple. *Some* of the EU pretends that the ships have a tactical advantage in weapon range.

Nothing of the sort is ever shown.

Just one example: Alderaan's defenses are never seen firing at the Death Star, which is only sitting at a couple of planetary diameters away from the planet's surface.

Yes, Alderaan's defenses consisted of weapons. This is confirmed by the novelisation, where Vader debunks Leia's "no weapons" claim (chapter VIII):

"The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough."

No, Alderaan had no shields, which is even confirmed by the EU's Dark Empire Sourcebook, page 125 (source):

"Alderaan had no shields of any kind, so it was utterly vaporized. A shielded planet that is overcome by a superlaser may "merely" have its entire surface burned off or split into several pieces. Note that planets don't have to be destroyed to be rendered uninhabitable."

It only leaves range. This is just basically what I was saying back when I was still authorized to post on Spacebattles.com.

No it doesn't. It proves that they DIDN't, not that they CAN't. Of course you believe Dorkmoron knows what he's talking about so...

Actually, dorkmoron provides (sensical) calcs.

You do not.

So he does know what he's talking about.

And as I said, if such weapon ranges existed, we'd have seen them in action.

You will now show me the part of ROTS that shows they CAN'T engage at ranges exceeding that.

Acting like a little petulant tyrant now? :)

I'll rather provide the quotation from VP:

The Yuuzhan Vong warship just kept growing bigger and bigger as the X-wings sped toward it. The big ship’s aft end came up, allowing it to point its dorsal spines forward, along its line of travel. Golden light blossomed at their tips, then boiling gold balls of plasma shot out, arcing out toward the ships in the convoy.

The shots, taken at ranges of over five kilometers, were not terribly accurate for hitting small freighters. Even so, each of the ships in the convoy had a set flight path if it was going to escape the system. With the Yuuzhan Vong fire cutting across that flight path, a collision was inevitable.

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.







@ WILGA

I don't think the plating that Grievous' foot crushed was armour at all, but just decorative stuff. Well, yes, it's kinda stupid of put that grey "decorative" stuff on the hull of a ship that is going to be horribly grey anyway, but I doubt the armour will only be about one thumb thick.

[Kane Starkiller]

I already said there is a thread where you can directly talk about the geonosian fighter & LAAT issue.

I don't have a copy of ICS so could you tell me what numbers does ICS give for those two craft?

Why do all their stories involve fusion cores and no annhilation cores?
Answer this with direct logic, or concede.

What exactly does this, if true, prove? They don't mention annihilation reactors so what?

Provide calcs, in a separate thread if possible.

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.
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".

"4-figure G" means what?
You're sure you didn't mean "4 digits G figures" instead?

And provide calcs.

Dookus escape from Geonosis, Endor approach.

That theory is insanely stupid in terms of military science.
It's ashaming that Saxton would so strongly believe in it.

Are spinning photons more ridiculous that Death Star magically blowing up a planet without providing any power? At least Saxton gives some explanation as to the mechanism. 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 don't know. I mean, you're calling me stupid, while you can't prove that even the so called invisible beams will hit their targets as they are fired directly (as in a linear fashion) and travel at c.

Provide evidence, because thus far, the movies DO not agree with that absurd idea, and only a fraction of the EU, written by some enthusiasts who've been taking "lasers" literally, seem to have seen a version of the movies that's rather peculiar, seem to fancy that idea as well.

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?

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.

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. 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.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Please fucking update your knowledge.

Any dumbfuck twit who looks at the movie sees that 100% of bolts don't move at lightspeed

They override ALL of it as per the official LFL canon policy, fuckhead.

I take it I won't have to deal with the garbage posted by this Trinoya moron.

These - among many other statements in this thread - are decidedly impolite insults and therefore in violation of the board rules. I invite Batman in particular to read the "flaming" clause of said rules, and recommend for further reading the enforcement policy.