TCW CGI show and The State of the Debate

[Kane Starkiller]

No we see the lower half part being turned into a white flash in the very first frame. The upper part facing us still doesn't appear to be vaporized. Are you saying that it's physically impossible for vaporization to progress in such a way that that part is the last to go? There are plenty of explanations such as that the particular part was a more dense metal with higher specific heat capacity.
What definitely is physically impossible is for an asteroid to halt it's motion in mid vacuum as you imply it did.
Of course, just like 2046, you completely ignore a much larger problem to focus on something that isn't actually a problem at all because it allows you to draw a preferred conclusion.

[2046]

No we see the lower half part being turned into a white flash in the very first frame. The upper part facing us still doesn't appear to be vaporized. Are you saying that it's physically impossible for vaporization to progress in such a way that that part is the last to go? There are plenty of explanations such as that the particular part was a more dense metal with higher specific heat capacity.

In other words, you think the asteroid was somehow evenly heated, and despite a supposed collision it did not suffer deformation of the forward striking surface?

What definitely is physically impossible is for an asteroid to halt it's motion in mid vacuum as you imply it did.

The remnant cloud continues some upward motion. If it were a collision we would expect a downward motion akin to that of the Star Destroyer itself, or a lateral motion to account for the hull angle. Upward motion is the least likely outcome.

[Kane Starkiller]

In other words, you think the asteroid was somehow evenly heated, and despite a supposed collision it did not suffer deformation of the forward striking surface?

The asteroid was too small and too slow for it's kinetic energy alone to account for vaporization. Therefore the vaporization was a result of energy transfer from the shields. The camera distance and the speed with which it was vaporized (1/24 of a second after the impact half of it was already glowing blue-white) means that there was no time to observe physical deformations.
Also I never said it was evenly heated but that asteroid might not have been completely homogeneous thus accounting for the 1/24s delay in the vaporization of the upper portion of the asteroid facing the camera.
No matter which way you slice it it's not this unsolvable problem you make it out to be.

The remnant cloud continues some upward motion. If it were a collision we would expect a downward motion akin to that of the Star Destroyer itself, or a lateral motion to account for the hull angle. Upward motion is the least likely outcome.

There is no upward motion. The asteroid strikes just as it touches the dark line on the hull behind the hangar bay. The expanding gases then block the line but as the gasses dissipate, cool off and turn orange we see that the center is still below the dark line. Therefore the mass of the asteroid did roughly move downwards with the ship.

[2046]

In other words, you think the asteroid was somehow evenly heated, and despite a supposed collision it did not suffer deformation of the forward striking surface?

The asteroid was too small and too slow for it's kinetic energy alone to account for vaporization. Therefore the vaporization was a result of energy transfer from the shields.

Okay, let me get this straight:

1. You see an asteroid destroyed and assume collision.
2. You calculate a shield lower limit based on the collision.
3. Unsatisfied, you assume vaporization of said asteroid.
4. When you're told that the kinetic energy of the asteroid is insufficient to account for vaporization, you assume a localized offensive capability for shields.
5. Thus, you basically admit that the asteroid was not destroyed by collision.

You don't see the problem here? With your admission that the asteroid was not destroyed by collision, you have stripped yourself of the underlying basis that started at #1.

That also means that you have killed your scaling of the asteroid for the most part, since you have no idea where exactly it was or where the shield boundary might be. Close to the hull is fine, but where? And would they push out some in such an environment, even if that might mean extra collisions? They might, if that's how the shields function best against impact. Pity you don't know.

The camera distance and the speed with which it was vaporized (1/24 of a second after the impact half of it was already glowing blue-white) means that there was no time to observe physical deformations.

Bull. Physical deformation is not a union job . . . it doesn't wait around to punch a clock.

But by your own admission, there was no collision, so the point is moot.

By the way, have you noticed how you keep arguing based on unobservable things? "We don't see debris, so it was vaporized!" "We don't see deformation, so it was clearly because there wasn't time!"

Why even bother claiming technological bases for any of it? Just claim "goddidit", and note that he gives your ships gazillaton weaponry, and save yourself a lot of time.

Also I never said it was evenly heated but that asteroid might not have been completely homogeneous thus accounting for the 1/24s delay in the vaporization of the upper portion of the asteroid facing the camera.

No, you're claiming roughly even heating, or a physically ridiculous asteroid. But in any case, you're now claiming that there was no impact, and instead an offensive shield grid, so all you have to do now is claim that the oddity is an effect of the shields and no one can argue otherwise.

After all, you have conceded that there was no collision.

Now we're stuck with Occam, though, and two possibilities:

1. That the asteroid makes contact or close approach with the shields, which are a revised shield system that no longer defends, but deploys offensive energies against contact.

2. That the asteroid is in the vicinity of the ship, and a small or unobserved (due to angle + distance) turbolaser bolt fired during the firing of all the other bolts.

Considering that there is no other evidence for destroyer shield behavior like #1, Occam would seem to favor #2.

The remnant cloud continues some upward motion. If it were a collision we would expect a downward motion akin to that of the Star Destroyer itself, or a lateral motion to account for the hull angle. Upward motion is the least likely outcome.

There is no upward motion. The asteroid strikes just as it touches the dark line on the hull behind the hangar bay. The expanding gases then block the line but as the gasses dissipate, cool off and turn orange we see that the center is still below the dark line.[/quote]

There is upward motion because the center of the flash/cloud can be traced up the screen. You are counting the top edge of the asteroid and then the center and making no distinction between the two so you can pretend the asteroid was stopped cold. I concur that it was slowed, but just as the other turbolaser-struck asteroids it was not stopped in place.

But why even argue for it to be stopped cold? You think the shields just zapped it somehow, don't you? Why would it need to stop, in your view?

[l33telboi]

Talking about the asteroids vaporizing has always seemed a bit funny to me. Especially in context of versus debating where visuals have to be treated as 100% accurate. I mean we saw two asteroids collide with each other at one point in the movie and they explode in a white flash, IIRC one was even visibly on fire afterwards.

These asteroids are nothing like normal asteroids if you want to go with versus debating logic.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And... what aaaabout... and what aaabooouuut... theee..... theee.... shadoooooww?.... oh my deaaarr.... oh what aaaaabouuuuuuuut.... what abouuuuut iiiit?....

[2046]

Sorry . . . I considered it such a good point I let it stand uncommented-upon, based solely on its own merit.

[Mike DiCenso]

Talking about the asteroids vaporizing has always seemed a bit funny to me. Especially in context of versus debating where visuals have to be treated as 100% accurate. I mean we saw two asteroids collide with each other at one point in the movie and they explode in a white flash, IIRC one was even visibly on fire afterwards.

These asteroids are nothing like normal asteroids if you want to go with versus debating logic.

There's little that makes sense about the TESB asteroid field when you think about it. It's too energetic with asteroids zipping about everywhere like crazy billards, or balls in a pinball machine. The collison is odd because of how closely it resembles the destruction of the asteroids when the TLs hit them. Unfortunately the camera doesn't "fly" through where the asteroids were so we can't see if there's thousands of tiny bits of debris as there was in the earlier collision scene.
-Mike