Comments on "Vaporizing a Small Town" page

[Jedi Master Spock]

Mange the Swe . . . er, I mean, Oragahn...

Ah, already getting personnal. You just can't help.

Please do focus on the arguments, not the people, 2046.

For the record, I won't be handing out any private information except as outlined under our privacy policy.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well I don't think we'll convince each other but one thing I had to point out:

You know what's most amusing? If we really go by your and RSA's interpretation of shiny and elongated, that is, anything that emits a certain amount of light (which is very low in our case), and that is elongated without stretching over meters and meters, then, when you look at the canon, the film, you see that the starfighters' bolts are just as shiny and elongated as the rest.

Exactly! That is the whole problem with vague and subjective terms. People can declare just about anything to be "shiny" and "elongated". Shiny polished car. Elongated car. Elongated finger. Whatever.
This is why your attempts to assign certain strict properties to "shiny hairlines" are futile.

Please.
The metaphors are certainly not vague.

A shiny car is ought to reflect sun to such an extent that it will blind you if you stare at the specular point of reflection, or at least create strong retina persistense.
When they talk about elongated, the author precisely says that they're elongated enough to appear like they're bridging ships.

They're not in both cases. They don't shine much, they're already invisible a few kilometers away, and they are not elongated enough to appear like they're bridging ships.

Oops. I did it again. :)

[Kane Starkiller]

Please.
The metaphors are certainly not vague.

This is the root of the problem: metaphors most certainly ARE vague.
He ran like the wind. He was a bolt of lightning running up the stairs.

Do you expect the man have ANY properties of a lightning bolt based on the above sentence? Speed? Shape? Electric charge?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Please.
The metaphors are certainly not vague.

This is the root of the problem: metaphors most certainly ARE vague.
He ran like the wind. He was a bolt of lightning running up the stairs.

Do you expect the man have ANY properties of a lightning bolt based on the above sentence? Speed? Shape? Electric charge?

Please, there are various forms of metaphors, so those examples are very bad analogies.
Using a metaphor doesn't mean it will be correctly chosen, just as much as there are many forms of metaphors.

All of those used in the book, except the turbolaser ones, are not far fetched. For example, though I've already cited it once, but nevermind... the planetoid, once again, refers to a size which perfectly matches that of the capships. A planetoid can exactly be capship sized.

So I expected the same level of accuracy for the other ones. If there's not such an accuracy for the TL related metaphor, then let's just drop it and not even pretend that it could be technically correct to be used for further arguments.

Thus far, gnats and planetoids were correct, in relation to the comparison of sizes they were meant to represent, for someone seeing them from the surface.

The one for the TLs is poor, and can't be used to argue that it's all about the heaviest TLs.

Or if you do, you have to present evidence that it does.
I have seen none that stands (chains of bolts which do not exist in the film), and I have tried to provide side explanations, like the earlier description idea, and charged weapons, for example.

Reading too much? Ha. Just how much can you read in a metaphor, really?

My point is simple. If you don't think the metaphor is too vague, if you think you can use it as a proof that the author is talking about heavier turbolasers, then you're not thinking straight, for two simple reasons that I'll restate:

- There are no "shiny hairlines that interlock" ships. You can spin it as much as you want, the metaphor is at worse incorrect, at best largely unappripriate.
- If you think there's no contradiction, then you better acknowledge the fact that starfighter bolts are just as easy to see and proportionally elongated than the more powerful ones.

[Kane Starkiller]

My point is simple. If you don't think the metaphor is too vague, if you think you can use it as a proof that the author is talking about heavier turbolasers, then you're not thinking straight, for two simple reasons that I'll restate:

Never have I claimed that author is talking about the heaviest turbolasers. My position always was that there are NO USEFUL INFORMATION to be derived about the nature of weapons based on those metaphors.

- There are no "shiny hairlines that interlock" ships. You can spin it as much as you want, the metaphor is at worse incorrect, at best largely unappripriate.

This has gone far enough: provide evidence of what is the length to width ration of a "hairline", provide numbers for luminosity of a "shiny" object. Otherwise admit that you have absolutely no basis for declaring any kind of contradictions.

- If you think there's no contradiction, then you better acknowledge the fact that starfighter bolts are just as easy to see and proportionally elongated than the more powerful ones.

As before provide information just what is the ratio of width to length of an "elongated" object and then prove starfighter bolts and turbolaser bolts seen in the films are not in fact "elongated".
You are in no position to declare any contradictions until you provide specific and precise mathematical and physical definitions of "elongated", "shiny" and "hairline".

[l33telboi]

This has gone far enough: provide evidence of what is the length to width ration of a "hairline"

I think the point he was making was that these things are supposed to interlock ships, which they don't. The length to width ratio is trivial in this case.

[Kane Starkiller]

I think the point he was making was that these things are supposed to interlock ships, which they don't. The length to width ratio is trivial in this case.

Actually they are supposed to interlock "planetoids". And just like you can't figure out size or shape of the ships from "planetoid" you can hardly claim to know specifically how "interlocking" looks like or claim contradictions when film doesn't deliver the image formed in your head: a purely subjective image that is.

[2046]

Mange the Swe . . . er, I mean, Oragahn...

Ah, already getting personnal. You just can't help.

Please do focus on the arguments, not the people, 2046.

Actually, if you re-read the first page of the thread, you'll note my change in tone from general confusion as to what got Oragahn so miffed to irritation after having my position referred to as being dishono(u)rable.

One's arguments can be absurd, wrong, based on flawed reasoning, and so on, but to suggest that a position is dishonorable requires nefarious intent on the part of the person propagating it.

Of course, the irony here is that the comment that drew the response above was a supposed-to-come-out-as-jocular comment on the style and pattern of reasoning in this thread, though I can see how one might view it as insulting depending on one's views of the Swede . . . some might even find it extremely insulting. I therefore apologize for the comment on that basis.

For the record, I won't be handing out any private information except as outlined under our privacy policy.

Regarding personal information, if Oragahn actually were Mange the Swede you could color me surprised.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, already getting personnal. You just can't help.

Please do focus on the arguments, not the people, 2046.

Actually, if you re-read the first page of the thread, you'll note my change in tone from general confusion as to what got Oragahn so miffed to irritation after having my position referred to as being dishono(u)rable.

One's arguments can be absurd, wrong, based on flawed reasoning, and so on, but to suggest that a position is dishonorable requires nefarious intent on the part of the person propagating it.

Of course, the irony here is that the comment that drew the response above was a supposed-to-come-out-as-jocular comment on the style and pattern of reasoning in this thread, though I can see how one might view it as insulting depending on one's views of the Swede . . . some might even find it extremely insulting. I therefore apologize for the comment on that basis.

For the record, I won't be handing out any private information except as outlined under our privacy policy.

Regarding personal information, if Oragahn actually were Mange the Swede you could color me surprised.

You're just taking things too personally.

The sentence was:

"Basically, the only argument, which is a honourable one, to argue that he's talking about the heavier TLs, is because we would be looking for a conservative figure here. Thus a low end.
There is no other reason to support the idea that TL = HTL. "

My point precisely being that it's honourable to be looking for a low end. No more no less.

[2046]

A sense of honesty would require the formulation of explanation as to why the Falcon's effective range was apparently so limited, and why Han couldn't simply take pot shots at a ship flying merely 100 m in front of his, encompassing the target in a barrage of quick and lethal bolts.

Wrong.

If the Falcon example were the only example we had, one could seek assorted potential workarounds (read: evasions) of the statement's clear meaning, and the interior and exterior visuals.

(As it stands, I myself engage in a minor workaround inasmuch as I assume that Han's "range" refers to effective range, and not maximum range, giving SW the benefit of the doubt.)

However, we have numerous similar-range examples from SW (e.g. the atrocious AotC asteroid field chase, or innumerable short-range shots from RotJ and RotS), and no known counterexamples.

Therefore, it is perfectly valid to make use of this very specific statement for what it says . . . no failing of "a sense of honesty" required.

That's a point you refuse to adress, because it's just more easier and sneaky to sit on a rather absurd range of 100 m... while you just know that it is absurd.

I've never called it 100m, though I guess it was "easier and [more] sneaky" to give an incorrect value there. My actual conclusion on this example is here.

Is it absurd for a spacefaring civilization to have such paltry ranges? Of course. But that's not our problem. We're here to discuss Star Wars as shown, not Star Wars as we wish it would be. And in the Star Wars canon, the TIE was out of the Falcon's (presumed-)effective range.

The Falcon is an old ship that barely holds together, needs to be smacked to function, and Han tried to shoot down a target while flying in the Alderaan field, which would screw sensors.

The turret motors could have problems to align theri firing arc in front of the ship, etc.

If that's your stance, then I'm sure you have a catalog of examples of the Falcon and similar vessels firing at greater ranges.

But I know what you're going to say on that, so don't bother, let's just disagree.

Oh no sir, you don't get off that easy. You've now directly stated that I'm dishonest regarding SW ranges, so you'd best start defending your claim. Find clear examples of multi-kilometer shots from small- and fighter-size vessels against same, or else acknowledge that your position on SW ranges is merely wishful thinking on your part.

IB. It is invalided by the film. The books says that docking bays are gouge pits, by definition vulgar dirt holes, primitive looking excavations. The film shows nothing of the sort.

Why do you insist on misquotation and contradictions? The presence of a wall does not invalidate the canon fact that the docking bay consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil.

The ground surface itself shows no cavity whatsoever, and appears, on the contrary, particularily flat. It's dusty, as expected on a world where sand storms are frequent

First off, no crater-esque cavity is required . . . though I note how once again, as with the RotS quote, you're assuming a very specific visualization not supported by the text. You seem to be thinking of a strip-mining complex or something.

Second, I am completely amused by the fact that you expect a crater bowl while also noting that the planet is dusty and frequently stricken by sandstorms.

Think about it.

You're a funny lad. You talk about gouge pit, and the second later, you precisely admit the existence of a man made vertical wall.

Of course I do. It's part of the SW canon.

IC. "shining hairlines" = turbolaser bolts, in the book.
"Shining hairlines" are non existent in the film. As simple as that. So the equation doesn't work anymore.

No, your personal interpretation of the "shining hairlines" concept is flawed. That's all.

II. What you're point out is that just basically, everybody disagrees on the definition and scope of villages, towns and cities.
Therefore there's no point arguing on this and trying to form an argument, since no one has the same definition of even a low standard for each type of somehow urban agglomeration.

Concession accepted, then.

IIA. What's the size of Anchorhead?
We don't know.

We know it to be smaller than Mos Eisley. Both are canonically identified as towns.

IIIA. You still get it wrong. I say that in town shots show the existence of other tall buildings, not far from the two sister towers, yet they're no where to be seen on the wide shot.
Contradiction.

Other buildings of similar height to the two towers of the wide shot (ignoring for the moment the suggestion that those are the two towers of the crane shot) are visible in the wide shot at various locations. Barring specific examples and specific reference points, then, you cannot claim contradiction. It would also be helpful if you could show that Mos Eisley is completely flat, though of course that won't be possible even given the entry CGI shot.

IIIB. There's no such a wide area where it should be. You're free to precisely point it out if you wish, to prove me wrong. Thus far, you stand corrected.

Look at the right-most portion of your circle. Just above that, your circle follows the road, assuming the two towers are the same. Just below that is wide open space. I can't tell if you reject the existence of that area or just that it could be the same one you're so on about, but either way your rejection confuses me.

IIIC. I reject is because it does not match the in town shots.

Only by your standard of contradiction, which is perilously low. I mean, seriously, do you wig out when TNG shows stock footage of the original ILM model and the "Bulldog" model in the same show, and declare those totally different Enterprises? Or do you simply completely reject the scenes showing one or the other because it is inaccurate compared to the other, in your view? Or better yet, when "Chain of Command" showed a Type-7 shuttle exterior and a Type-6 shuttle interior, how do you seek to handle that? Do you reject the exterior shots in their entirety, so that we cannot make any claims about the density of the soup they were flying through?

I'm just askin', man, 'cause either your method of analysis on this is heavily compartmentalized from how you analyze other stuff, or else you're such an FX consistency nazi (and I say that lovingly) that I can't imagine why you even try to pay attention to sci-fi. I mean, how likely is it that the star patterns behind ships are always the same? They must never move! It's all a lie!

Do you see what I'm saying, here?

IV. That blackdrop enhancement argument is reasonable. You just have to look at the film to get plenty of shots stacked upon blackdrop

Those are few and far between, inasmuch as the true black of space is concerned. You can see, in the pic of mine you use as reference for the idea that we can't see bolts mere kilometers distant, that the black ain't so black.

I do not reject the idea that, in theory, the heavier turbolaser would probably be the only one your average Joe could spot from the surface.

Then why all the squabble? We are directly told that folks could see bolts or collections of bolts between ships. Ergo, they can, and so if you agree that only the larger bolts would be visible then you have just agreed with me, and so your complaints are nullified.

[2046]

Why use simple geometric scaling when empirical formulas are readily available.

Because, as I already stated, the "empirical formula" (besides being a ballpark estimate even of what it is specifically to represent) is empirical only inasmuch as it refers to a phenomenon to which we are not . . . i.e. nuclear weapons.

So a 500 kiloton bomb by the general version comes out to 12.8km, whereas the more specific version gives us 8.6 kilometers.

Did you mean to not reply to that?

Kane then argues that intensity will be proportional to yield at a given distance, and thus affixes a multiplier onto the formula for human vaporization. In other words, in criticizing my so-called "simple geometric scaling which disregards atmospheric effects", Kane derives new figures by employing . . . simple geometric scaling which disregards atmospheric effects.

Simple geometric scaling? I'm afraid you don't understand the mathemathics involved.
Let me see if I can clear it up for you:
Nuclear FAQ empirical formula:
r=Y^0.41 where Y is a multiplier of 2.5kt
My formula when accounting the fact that we need to vaporize a human:
r=(1/690*Y)^0.41
Your formula:
r=Y^0.5 where Y is yield in joules
Obviously my formula incorporates atmospheric effects (hence 0.41 exponent as opposed to your 0.5) not to mention Y that is a 2.5 kiloton multiplier. The only thing I change is the multiplier since, as you can read in the nuclear FAQ, the intensity at certain spot will be proportional to yield but THE ENTIRE THING STILL DROPS WITH ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS ACCOUNTED FOR.

I'm afraid the mathematical misunderstanding is yours.

If you note the section including the part I quoted with the more specific yield calcs (link), you'll see that there are different exponents at different skin damage levels, and so you're using the exponent for third degree burns with no changes. You claim that this merely incorporates atmospheric effects, but it isn't like the atmosphere changes depending on burn severity. Ergo your claim is false.

The constant of 1 in your general version also differs in the specific version across different burn severity markers.

In short, I think you would need to understand the origin of the formulae before trying to modify them with simple multiplication.

Finally, in your initial post, you stated that you needed 690 times greater intensity piled on to Sublette's general nuclear-origin third degree burn radius formula, and thus said you merely needed to make the bombs 690 times more powerful. This ignores the different effects a bomb which releases 700 times more energy will have compared to the smaller one, especially over such short ranges, in regards to issues like blast and early fireball mechanics.

Whereas I am not operating under the theory that a bolt is a nuke and hence have no need of such an issue, your nuke-based reasoning requires consistency with nukes.

All of this means that I don't think your estimates of vaporization, based on a formula for ballpark estimates of third degree burns from a radiation-producing warhead, are particularly useful or relevant.

(And of course, he used my human vaporization figure that's some 50 times higher than what would cause flesh to flash into steam, in the usual given-an-inch-take-a-mile mentality of my opponents.)

Give an inch take a mile Darkstar? How is using vaporization figures for vaporization take a mile?

Because you're aware that my value, based on heating the water content of a person to boil into steam, is 50 times greater than what will do so to exposed body areas in your primary source, Sublette. Maybe such an increase is correct, but you don't bother to even note the concept.

Flashing flesh to bone means nothing. Is it burning through stomach to reveal the spine or burning through forhead to reveal the skull? Not exactly same energy wouldn't you say.

What would one expect to be exposed body areas? I would presume arms, legs, and head, unless there were belly dancers in operation.

It is especially jarring when we compare your "generosity" with Rise in which you take vaporize to mean vaporize and call that "I bent over backwards limit".

There is no contradiction there. The definition of vaporization is confirmed given the tiny size of the few possible escapee pieces of the asteroid (i.e. 1cm or less). Besides which, whereas 'vaporization' of a city has a specific connotation in common parlance, I would imagine few would apply that concept to an asteroid. There's nothing there to flatten.

Second, we're not dealing with nukes.

The gamma rays from the weapon's nuclear reactions (often produced via various isotope decays and neutron radiation) are the origin of the initial layer of "smog", formed by the ionization of the atmosphere around the bomb. As Sublette notes, "thus the apparent surface brightness at a distance, and the output power (total brightness) is not nearly as intense as the fourth-power law [i.e. "simple geometric scaling"] would indicate."

Given the temperature of a nuclear detonation, you won't get gamma rays except via the reactions. Assuming a turbolaser bolt detonation will feature similar temperatures, then, we are only talking about X-rays. Therefore, as we are not discussing nuclear weapons and their penetrating gamma radiation, it hardly seemed logical to rely on a calculation which relied on a nuclear weapons origin, as Kane's one-of-three formula does.

In other words, for the initial radiant pulse of the detonation, I have assumed no smog, which entails almost perfect energy transport through the atmosphere for the initial pulse. That still implies high-energy photons, but in the form of much-easier-for-any-high-energy-explosion-to-produce X-rays. At this stage, then, the turbolaser detonation is much more efficient at thermal effects than a nuclear weapon.

Not quite:

Most of the energy being radiated is in the x-ray and far ultraviolet range to which air is not transparent. Even at the wavelengths of the near ultraviolet and visible light, the "smog" layer absorbs much of the energy.Then too, at this stage the fireball is only a few meters across. Thus the apparent surface brightness at a distance, and the output power (total brightness) is not nearly as intense as the fourth-power law would indicate.

As the author clearly states MOST of the energy is radiated in X-ray and FAR ultraviolet for which the AIR IS NOT TRANSPARENT thus the smog has no influence.

Wrong. X-ray-based radiative energy transport (i.e. what produces the isothermal sphere carrying energy away from the bomb materials) is largely blocked off from the outside world by the gamma-produced smog layer. The smog is referred to as being a tens-of-meters deep mass of ozone, along with nitric oxides and nitrous oxides.

Our atmosphere's ozone layer is many kilometers deep, but features extremely low concentrations of ozone. Nonetheless it blocks much of the UV and x-ray radiation from the sun. The gamma smog, meanwhile, would be expected to represent a far higher concentration.

V-B. Similarly, Kane rejects canon facts . . . e.g. flak bursts . . . and claims that only a ground-striking shot could occur, with all the energy apparently being released at the point of impact, arguing that objects on the ground will increase yield requirements based on the number of objects. This also represents a very poor understanding of what is involved.

I saw no evidence for turbolaser being settable to "flak".

Let's look at just the novels for a moment . . .

"It was all he could do to avoid the barrage of flak bursts rocketing toward the Falcon from the Imperial ship. The freighter bobbed and weaved as Han, still heading directly for the Star Destroyer, steered to avoid the bolts."
- TESB ch. 10

Flak bursts come from bolts.

"Ackbar looked around him. A huge charge of flak rumbled the ship, painting a brief, waxen light over the window."
- RotJ ch. 8

Flak comes from enemy ISDs.

"In the Millennium Falcon, Lando steered like a maniac through an obstacle course of the giant, floating Imperial Star Destroyers -trading laser bolts with them, dodging flak, outracing TIE fighters."
- RotJ ch. 8

More flak from ISDs.

"Antifighter flak flashed on all sides."
- RotS ch. 1

Cruisers dispensing flak bursts.

"Obi-Wan's starfighter streaked along the curve of the Separatist cruiser's dorsal hull. Antifighter flak burst on all sides as the cruiser's guns tried to pick him up."
- RotS ch. 1

Cruisers dispensing flak bursts.

"Silent lightning flashed and flared: the room's sole illumination came from the huge curving view wall at its far end, a storm of turbolaser blasts and flak bursts and the miniature supernovae that were the deaths of entire ships."
- RotS ch. 3

Smaller weapons:

"Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcon's engines. The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters."
- TESB ch. 6

Flak from fighter weapons.

"It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters."
- TESB ch. 7

More flak.

"Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE fighters, Princess Leia and the Wookiee pilot struggled to keep their ship skyborne."
- TESB ch. 13

Again.

"Leia took Chewbacca's seat and helped Lando as they flew the Falcon through the exploding flak."
- TESB ch. 13

Yet again.

"Luke saw the explosion of his squadron's first casualty as he looked from his cockpit window. Angrily, Luke fired his ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak."
- TESB ch. 5

Flak from an AT-AT.

" Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it about violently in the enveloping flak. Through the window he could see another walker that appeared to be unaffected by the full fire power of the Rebel attack speeders. This lumbering machine now became Luke's target as he flew, moving in a descending arc. The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak."
- TESB ch. 5

Flak from an AT-AT, and seemingly its laser bolts.

Much simpler explanation is that they simply hit asteroids to small to be seen in TESB or asteroid chase in AOTC or various ship debris during battle.

That's not what the canon indicates.

Even assuming a ground strike, even a poorly-designed ground level blast event will more than take care of most obstructions at the ranges and yields we're talking about. Further, by the time the shock front has cooled to allow the second pulse of thermal radiation (longer-lasting and releasing more of the energy from the event than the initial pulse), the isothermal sphere behind it is still cooking at 8000 degrees, the superheated wind has not just stopped, and . . . given the size of the fireball, isothermal sphere, and shock front for a megaton-size bomb . . . we're still looking at thermal radiation from hundreds of meters and more in the air. And, of course, the breakaway of the shock front's cooling isn't even going to occur before the shock front is outside town anyway. In other words, there's going to be a superheated dome of suck where Mos Eisley used to be.

That's more than sufficient to take care of pesky hiding humans.

First of all maximum thermal radiation will precede any air blast

False. "This "first pulse" contains only about 1 percent of the bomb's total emitted thermal radiation" . . . i.e. the first pulse of thermal radiation, demarcated by the initial detonation and the hydrodynamic separation (i.e. the shock wave formation). For a 20kt bomb that's ten milliseconds, with breakaway (the cooling of the shockwave toward transparency) starting at 15 milliseconds, until the peak of the second pulse at 150ms. For a 1Mt bomb, the second peak occurs at 900 milliseconds, and by 1.8 seconds 50% of the thermal radiation has been released.

Secondly how will the radiation come from hundreds of meters in the air if there was a ground burst? The radiation expands from center of impact with only miniscule reflected energy radiating from the "top" of the fireball.

Incredibly wrong. By the time of breakaway and second peak, a 1Mt bomb's blast wave and isothermal sphere are hundreds of meters in size. For instance, at the minimum value between pulses, a 20kt bomb fireball is 180 meters across.

You deny the atmospheric effects and think you can somehow "cheat" the line of sight by claiming that somehow significant radiation will come from the "top" of the fireball when it rises a few hundred meters.

I'm saying a small building isn't going to stop thermal radiation being emitted from a fireball hundreds of meters high from reaching anything behind the building from the perspective of the point of detonation.

This is even more true when you consider that the ultra-hot blast wave has already encompassed the town by the time of breakaway and the second peak.

[Kane Starkiller]

I see no reason to further engage in nuke specifics since you yourself claim it is not the same mechanism that turbolaser operates on and neither am I.
I claim it is a focused impact on the ground that will operate similarly to a high speed asteroid impact.

You claim that turbolasers can be "set to flak" and to back it up you provide numerous quotes that mention flak bursts. Of course not a single one actually mentions turbolasers themselves somehow exploding into flak bursts.
So the fact that ships exchange flak (among other things like lasers, missiles etc.) in no way proves that turbolasers can be set to flak bursts.
In fact some quotes make a clear distinction:

"Silent lightning flashed and flared: the room's sole illumination came from the huge curving view wall at its far end, a storm of turbolaser blasts and flak bursts and the miniature supernovae that were the deaths of entire ships."
- RotS ch. 3

Turbolaser blasts AND flak bursts. A clear distinction between various weapons. And finally Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: flak
Variant(s): also flack /'flak/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural flak also flack
Etymology: German, from Fliegerabwehrkanonen, from Flieger flyer + Abwehr defense + Kanonen cannons
1 : antiaircraft guns
2 : the bursting shells fired from flak
3 also flack : CRITICISM, OPPOSITION

As you can see flak can easily mean just antiaircraft guns and this is in fact it's original German use: flyer defense cannons.

What would one expect to be exposed body areas? I would presume arms, legs, and head, unless there were belly dancers in operation.

Which is not vaporization of a town. Vaporization of a town is turning it's every building, droid, vehicle and organic being to vapor. Your "vaporizing a lone human at 750 meters" doesn't even begin to approach this never mind your "vaporizing some flesh" never mind insisting to treat the focused turbolaser blast as omnidirectional explosion because we saw turbolasers flashing during asteroid field chases and novels mention "flak" so that automatically means that turbolasers can be set to somehow burst at certain distance.

There is no contradiction there. The definition of vaporization is confirmed given the tiny size of the few possible escapee pieces of the asteroid (i.e. 1cm or less). Besides which, whereas 'vaporization' of a city has a specific connotation in common parlance, I would imagine few would apply that concept to an asteroid. There's nothing there to flatten.

No vaporization means turn to vapor. It was stated by the objective observer as opposed to character so there is absolutely no reason to question it's reliability unless something within the books or films contradicts it. Rise statement on the other hand comes from a character and it was in fact contradicted.
I am really curious as to how you can claim that possibility of fragments actually reinforces the vaporization statement made by Chakotay who was, incidentally not a science officer. Vaporization is not the same as fragmentation so this is a clear case of contradiction.
So you still use vaporization and yet you refuse to do so for Star Wars even though there was no qualifier next to "vaporize a city" and no conflicting statements or observation. And to top it all off you claim that Star Wars numbers are "generous" with 1.5 being a "high end" while your 60% vaporization for Star Trek is "I ben't over backwards lower limit". Really.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm going to ask for this flak related off-topicness to be redirected to a new thread.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I think the point he was making was that these things are supposed to interlock ships, which they don't. The length to width ratio is trivial in this case.

Actually they are supposed to interlock "planetoids". And just like you can't figure out size or shape of the ships from "planetoid" you can hardly claim to know specifically how "interlocking" looks like or claim contradictions when film doesn't deliver the image formed in your head: a purely subjective image that is.

Please, that is very stretchy. Planetoids or not, when someone uses a metaphor doe described an element which looks it interlocks too objects, there's just no way you can spin it out of sense like you try to do.

The only way for beam weapon to look like they interlock big elements, that is, appear like the beam was holding the two elements in place relative to each other, is just like you'd use a more or less solid object to hold two pieces together, at a given distance.
Really, I don't see what's so hard to understand by interlock.

You argued that a concentrated of bolts fired on the same trajectory could look like a constant beam interlocking the ships. That was a good try, but simply looking at the film shows that there's just nothing of the sort, and, againg, past a certain distance, we don't even see the bolts anymore.

That is why the metaphor is erroneous.
Ultimately, I don't even know why you bother arguing on this, since your point has been to demonstrate the idea that the metaphor would not serve as a reliable evidence to support the idea that it was exclusive to the heavier weapons.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Wrong.

If the Falcon example were the only example we had, one could seek assorted potential workarounds (read: evasions) of the statement's clear meaning, and the interior and exterior visuals.

(As it stands, I myself engage in a minor workaround inasmuch as I assume that Han's "range" refers to effective range, and not maximum range, giving SW the benefit of the doubt.)

However, we have numerous similar-range examples from SW (e.g. the atrocious AotC asteroid field chase, or innumerable short-range shots from RotJ and RotS), and no known counterexamples.

Therefore, it is perfectly valid to make use of this very specific statement for what it says . . . no failing of "a sense of honesty" required.

Okay, I think we could discuss about that in another thread as well. I still disagree with those ideas, but I'd like to streamline the thread back to its original topic.
I'll debate this range thing in another thread. Promise.

Why do you insist on misquotation and contradictions? The presence of a wall does not invalidate the canon fact that the docking bay consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil.

Misquotations? You should actually reread the extracts you provided, and compare that to the film!

Docking bays's floors don't appear to be below street level.

A gouge pit, by definition, points to a rough hole grossly dug in the ground, and nothing else.

A structure which shares all the elements of a correctly built patio and not a pit dug clumsily inside the ground, which comprises a very flat floor, finely delimited, which is surrounded by erected walls of good finition, and accessed by automated doors, does not fit as something as rude and raw as a gouge pit.
Above all, seen from the outside, a docking bay just exactly looks like a solid and well finished building structure. It has sharp angles, indentations, gear-like protrusions surrounding the roof's exit, pipes and all that running through the walls, etc.

But more on the rather surprising "misquotations" claim;

Let's look at the extracts you provided:

Script:

"INTERIOR: MOS EISLEY SPACEPORT -- DOCKING BAY 94

Chewbacca leads the group into a giant dirt pit that is Docking
Bay 94. Resting in the middle of the huge hole is a large,
round, beat-up, pieced-together hunk of junk that could only
loosely be called a starship."

A giant dirt pit.
Completely inaccurate description of what the docking bay is in the film.

Novel:

"Docking bay ninety-four, Luke noted, was no different in appearance from a host of other grandiosely named docking bays scattered throughout Mos Eisley. It consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil. This served as clearance radii for the effects of the simple antigrav drive which boosted all spacecraft clear of the gravitational field of the planet.
The mathematics of spacedrive were simple enough even to Luke. Antigrav could operate only when there was a sufficient gravity well to push against-like that of a planet-whereas supralight travel could only take place when a ship was clear of that same gravity. Hence the necessity for the dual-drive system on any extrasystem craft.
The pit which formed docking bay ninety-four was as shabbily cut and run-down as the majority of Mos Eisley. Its sloping sides were crumbling in places instead of being smoothly fashioned as they were on more populous worlds. Luke felt it formed the perfect setting for the spacecraft Chewbacca was leading them toward."






Obviously, "a giant dirt pit". Suer, Docking Bay 94 "consisted mostly of an entrance rampway and an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil, [...] shabbily cut and run-down as the majority of Mos Eisley," which "sloping sides were crumbling in places instead of being smoothly fashioned as they were on more populous worlds."

Note: for a city constantly beaten by sand storms and occupied by the galaxy's scums, its buildings hardly look like shabbily cut and run-down!

To sum up:

- It is not a giant dirt pit.
- It is not an enormous pit gouged from the rocky soil, shabbily cut and run-down.
- It has no sloping sides.
- It is not crumbling in pieces.
- The walls are smoothly fashioned.

We can even spot dark traces running down the walls, proving the existence of other materials within the walls, either tubes, beams or bricks. This happens even to buildings made of solid and often reinforced bricks of concrete, where such "juices" transpire through the thin layers of paint and plasters stacked upon such walls, over the years.

We obviously see that both the script's and book's descriptions, globally agreeing with each other, do clearly not correspond to the reality of the film.

What looks like a gouge pit is, for example, Owen's farm.

Ultimately, I don't even know why you brought this, but globally, this shows that there's a need for room for those buildings.

Thus this point is completely covered.

IIIA. You still get it wrong. I say that in town shots show the existence of other tall buildings, not far from the two sister towers, yet they're no where to be seen on the wide shot.
Contradiction.

Other buildings of similar height to the two towers of the wide shot (ignoring for the moment the suggestion that those are the two towers of the crane shot) are visible in the wide shot at various locations.

No, or point out their existence compared to in town shots please.

For example, try to point out:



- the whitish building seen in the distant background, on the left of the landspeeder. If you consider the the perspective lines by looking at the orientation of the TL tower's roof, the tower I'm pointing to would ought to be even significantly higher.

But let's look at more examples of particularily tall structures.

Please, look at the three buildings on this shot:



And now look at the tallest and farthest buildings on the two following shots:




See how in the first cap, the buildings are largely more blue than the tall ones seen in the last two shots, even when they are far, actually?

The explanation is simple: they're even more distant. Far more distant. Yet, they are tall and large.

These are examples of taller buildings.
They would not be hard to spot at all on this picture:

Barring specific examples and specific reference points, then, you cannot claim contradiction. It would also be helpful if you could show that Mos Eisley is completely flat, though of course that won't be possible even given the entry CGI shot.

Solely based on this, this and this shots, we can largely see that Mos Eisley is globally flat.

IIIB. There's no such a wide area where it should be. You're free to precisely point it out if you wish, to prove me wrong. Thus far, you stand corrected.

Look at the right-most portion of your circle. Just above that, your circle follows the road, assuming the two towers are the same. Just below that is wide open space. I can't tell if you reject the existence of that area or just that it could be the same one you're so on about, but either way your rejection confuses me.

What's to be confused about? My point was rather clear. The wide shot is inaccurate regarding the in town shots, and there's no way to know the size of the sort of structures seen on the wide shot besides looking for the size of towers in the in town shots.
Then, with those measures, you return to the wide shot angle, while it's vastly inaccurate regarding the in town shots. But that's not a bugger to you, you still go on and assume that your 25-30m tall structure corresponds to the taller structure seen on the wide shot.
Obviously, using a measurement from a set of in town shots, to a wide shot picture with proportions being different, and lacking several structures, is wrong.

It's like measuring the size of an ISD by measuring the size of a globe when the camera zooms on it while a starfighters passes by, which helps you define the globe's size. Then you use that measurement on a shot of the whole ISD where there's only one globe, and the supposedly same globe is half as big as the ISD. :/



As for the "road", it's another one of those funny artefacts to be seen I guess.
If you look at the TL tower in the in wide shot zoomed in, you can see that the shadowed side is roughly as large as the one receiving light. So the corner edge is kinda facing us.
The "road" is going down at a 300° angle on the picture, passing between the two towers.

Compared to the picture just above, we can see that the orientation of the so "called road" is inconsistent. If it had been correctly represented, that road, on the wide shot, would have been going down at a 190-200° angle, from a point between the two towers.

IIIC. I reject is because it does not match the in town shots.

Only by your standard of contradiction, which is perilously low.

No. It's actually heavily documented, as you can see above.

I mean, seriously, do you wig out when TNG shows stock footage of the original ILM model and the "Bulldog" model in the same show, and declare those totally different Enterprises? Or do you simply completely reject the scenes showing one or the other because it is inaccurate compared to the other, in your view? Or better yet, when "Chain of Command" showed a Type-7 shuttle exterior and a Type-6 shuttle interior, how do you seek to handle that? Do you reject the exterior shots in their entirety, so that we cannot make any claims about the density of the soup they were flying through?

If you were going to make a measurement from one version of an object, and transpose that measurement to another variant of this "same" and glaringly wrong object, your whole measurement would not stand.

Like... measure the size of a bridge's window on a close shot, and then use that size window's size on another wide shot, which shows the bridge and the whole ship, yet a shot which has been proven contradictory towards the former close shot you used, saying for example that the "bridge size/window size" was largely different, this would be flawed and unreliable.

See the ISD globe example.

No, your personal interpretation of the "shining hairlines" concept is flawed. That's all.

Of course, because it just makes much more sense to actually point to something that's not shiny, and not hairline looking, and would not be seen from the surface, despite your claims.
Right.

II. What you're point out is that just basically, everybody disagrees on the definition and scope of villages, towns and cities.
Therefore there's no point arguing on this and trying to form an argument, since no one has the same definition of even a low standard for each type of somehow urban agglomeration.

Concession accepted, then.

If you want to consider that a concession, then fine. It's just as much a concession on both sides then, since you precisely point to the evidence that villages and towns can be of any sizes, constitutions and dimensions, but you consider that you can decide which is fine and which is not to define a town.

IV. That blackdrop enhancement argument is reasonable. You just have to look at the film to get plenty of shots stacked upon blackdrop

Those are few and far between, inasmuch as the true black of space is concerned. You can see, in the pic of mine you use as reference for the idea that we can't see bolts mere kilometers distant, that the black ain't so black.

We have shots where the camera is looking at the stars, with the planet out of screen, and often below the camera.
Even then, the bolts are barely visible.
People on the ground have zero chance to spot those bolts.

I do not reject the idea that, in theory, the heavier turbolaser would probably be the only one your average Joe could spot from the surface.

Then why all the squabble? We are directly told that folks could see bolts or collections of bolts between ships. Ergo, they can, and so if you agree that only the larger bolts would be visible then you have just agreed with me, and so your complaints are nullified.

I reject it because you can barely see even the heavier shots, and they become too faint to be seen a very few km away, and they're certainly not bright enough to pose a glossy metal plates reflecting enough sunlight so that someone on the surface would seem them through the polluted atmoshpere, clouds and citylight perturbation.

We should drop that point. We're obviously never going to agree on that either, so meh.