A final jab at Vympel's nonsense. I may post it at SBC. I'll see, nothing's fixed yet. That said, you can have a taste of what this is.
Leo1 wrote:Apologies to third parties for the quote/reply/quote/reply format, but that's just the way this is going and there's nothing that can be done.
Here we go. Trying to look like a saint.
If there is canon evidence, aside from ICS' claim - which is in dispute - that shields can be gradient, it has to be formulated yet.
Amazing:- "If I a priori exclude canon evidence that contradicts me, then there's no evidence!"
Sad. Truly sad. When the contempt is about source A, and when the point of the whole discussion is to gauge the validity of source A with evidence outside of source A, I think it would have been quite clear that the point was
not to defend source A
with source A.
Circular reasoning. I've been, hell, pointing that several times, but it seems it still doesn't reach deep inside the cranium.
You can understand that after two threads, I really got the impression of going absolutely nowhere, and the analogy to devout christians defending the Bible with the Bible seemed perfect.
All references presented thus far fail to show the existence of gradient shields.
Your formulation of what would and wouldn't show gradient shields has nothing to do with my argument, so this is unsurprising.
It's not like there's two threads that precisely show he's been defending the theory of the gradient nature of shields. He even does it a few lines below. Or maybe he doesn't know what gradient means...
The constant reference to real life fields mechanism is limited. The ICS precisely shows that shields have different behaviours, depending of where they're projected. ie, either in atmosphere, or in vacuum.
One cannot claim that the ICS is correct on the space related portion of the definition of shields because it seems to match real life fields, when the same source describes same shield technologies which do not behave like real life fields in atmosphere.
Already been over this. Your idea that the ICS proposes zero field strength beyond a certain point in atmosphere is borne from a lack of reading comprehension:-
"Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects. Ray
shield, for example, deflect or break up energy beams, while particle
shields forcefully retard high-velocity projectiles.
Normally, shield
intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or
projector.
However, shields projected in an atmosphere tend to have a
defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still,
and mirage like affects are seen. Shields surrounding a moving airborne
vessel are less visible, but can impact aerodynamic performance."
Normally:- apparently, you think "normally" means "in space".
Defined outer surface:- somehow, this translates in the Mr Oragahn machine to "drops to zero past this point." As can be seen from the rest of the quote, it goes on to say that shield effects are less visible when surrounding a moving airborne vessel. It's talking about the effect where a shield that is left still in atmosphere tends to have a defined outer surface (due to the nature of the atmospheric interaction, whatever it is) - the word "however" isn't setting up a space/atmosphere opposition, nor does it have anything to do with shield intensities dropping to zero.
Of course, your remarkable quote interpretation abilities are no secret, so I'm sure you'll continue insisting that is the case. I leave it to the reader.
(did you consider asking Dr. Saxton?)
But, let's grant, for the moment, that your interpretation of the quote is correct
anyway, yeah?:-
I don't claim that it's the 'normally' part that translates into space or vacuum. Yes, I used both vacuum and space, in opposition to atmopshere.
It's the
whole first part of the definition that refers to non-atmosphere.
What non-atmosphere is?
Vacuum.
It's rather clear that the ICS' definition states a difference of behaviour for shields, depending on the medium they operate in.
It's clear that after first part, where it describes the shields as a whole, it then introduces the second part, starting by
'however', and explains the difference, being a matter of operating in atmosphere.
At that point, not getting this is a problem of not being able to understand mere english.
Ergo, yes, the ICS clearly says that shield technologies normally fade out over the distance in vacuum, and don't in atmosphere.
I'd probably also need to give Vympel a lecture on the meaning of
surface, I suppose, considering that it precisely means "it stops after there".
Oh, but, well, that would be pointing out a definition from a dictionary, again, yet we know the kind of mockery of honesty and objectivity we'd be paid with in return.
It's not like I've cited countless examples of shields, from the movies, clearly having a surfacic behaviour.
Or, again, the N-1:
If these aren't precisely well delimited surfaces, what is?
It's just more denial from the same bunch.
One cannot claim that the ICS is correct on the space related portion of the definition of shields because it seems to match real life fields, when the same source describes same shield technologies which do not behave like real life fields in atmosphere.
You proceed from a false assumption. I have
never claimed the ICS is correct
because of real life field effects- though, given your incessant strawmen on the issue (like your continued outright lie that I said Star Wars shields were identical to magnetic and gravitational fields) I'm sure you'll keep pretending I did - I merely referenced real life field effects as being indicative of the concept, and something one should consider if they leap to the conclusion that same is counter-intuitive based on their watching sci-fi tv.
The problem is that he precisely did, and if anything, it shows that he didn't really pay much attention to the words he typed.
Let's be clear.
He used a method of ridiculizing the debater (page 1 of the first thread) because I'd be making a mistake in thinking that real life mag or grav fields don't diminish over the distance.
The amusing point was that I never made the claim. We were talking about shields in SF, not about real life phenomenoms.
Of course, him using real life phenomenoms for evidence was priceless. The fact that he didn't get the dichotomy of the ICS definition pretty much explains why he's just completely lost.
But still, you can get the initial text that started this:
And indeed, your notions of how a shield works are in any event, canonically wrong:-
E2ICS wrote:
Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects....Normally, shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shield projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen."
It's a gradual diminishment of intensity. Not an abrupt end. And, bonus, the range of force-field effects handily defeats your attempts to generalize. Especially on the brief appearance of a shield in atmosphere.
Or maybe you'd like this?
Rogue Squadron wrote:The X-wing pilot hit a switch and shifted all shield power to the aft shields.
The deflector shield materialized as a demisphere approximately twenty meters
behind the X-wing. Designed to dissipate both energy and kinetic weapons, it
had no trouble protecting the fighter from the bomber's twin laser blasts
Oh, sorry. That vast bulk of evidence in Star Wars to which you referred to in your first post is solely what you've read third-hand on starfleetjedi.net and Darkstar's website. My mistake.
Oh, and aside from being canonically wrong, in real life, force field effects diminish outwards (magnetic fields, gravitational fields). They don't magically drop to zero at some predefined wall. So who's being nonsensical? Please don't substitute sci-fi brainbugs for real life in the future.
Notice the orange part, used to show that it would be stupid to argue that the shields would suddenly stop after a certain distance.
So apparently, he believes that he didn't use the working of real life gravitational and magnetic fields as an additional element of evidence to support the gradient shield theory (which apparently, he doesn't defend either - yeah, the consistency is pretty much appaling at this point). While he pretty much did.
Of course, you can always nitpick that a surfacic shield is not a perfect science, and that shields do fade out a bit, like how vapour forms above a lake, but it's even more insignificant, because we pretty much
see that they
stop.
Sure, like if repeating "angling deflector shields" would solve any problem your theory is plagued with!
You associate terms such as angling and vector, without even showing how they make sense or support your point.
I did, actually. We know from evidence (ANH) that shields are angled to provide protection. Combined with gradually diminishing intensities of shields, the variable geometry (which we know to occur) can result in a bolt interacting with a "strong" (for lack of a better term) part of the shield (due to angling) even when one would normally expect it to pass 'unmolested'. Obviously, the approach of the incoming bolt will also play apart in determining if an interaction will take place.
He's at it, again, completely
failing and
refusing to explain anything about how angling really affects the interception ratios.
He mixes term from various degrees of canon like he thought he had an argument: angling + diminishing + variable geometry.
- Angling: Never adressed like it should be. He never explained why angling shields would suddenly explain the completely unpredicable nature of bolt interception.
When you try to get some explanation, he throws the word 'vector', and that's it. If I look at the films, here's the observation. When the vector is not directly pointing at the ship, the bolt will be intercepted at a random distance. When the vector does point at the ship, it will hit.
While this would be perfectly logical in case of flak bursts and hull hugging shields, it makes zero sense with angling shields that would fail to sufficiently stop the bolts that really need to be stopped. And yes, the word sufficient is important here, as you'll see later on.
Of course, when you want some explanation as to the absurdity of such a logic, he dodges this by refering to the other characteristics, so anytime you try to get an explanation for one aspect of the shield, he'll refer to the two other ones. How convenient!
Thus, you find yourself having to play devil's advocate, because the devil is obviously not arsed to give any explantion.
Safe that I won't either. It's rather obvious that in his mind, the point is conceded, and he just kept talking and talking.
- Diminishing: The gradient nature of shields. One that he defends, but does not defend, but defends, without defending it. Because he believes in it. No, wait. He doesn't. I think... err.
- Variable geometry: Completely irrelevant. The problem was not that the shields could be set to be hull hugging, or look like a sphere, a cube or a poney. He kept arguing in this to have a point where there was no disagreement. However, what he misses is that it does not explain why bolts would explode at totally random distances.
He also completely missed that the EU quotes he formulated for evidence of shaped shields just served to prove that these same shields would be surfacic as well.
Just a pointless waste of time.
It's even more futile considering that the cases that were studied, like the pursuit in AOTC, the blockade running in TPM, or the Hoth battle in TESB, featured bolts all fired by the same sources repeatedly. So much for the [different] vectors, like if it would explain anything anyway.
Sure, so long as you pretend that the target, the bolts, and the craft firing the bolts were all in an identical position with each bolt, which is obviously completely stupid and I can't believe you proposed it, as anyone can watch the scenes and realize.
See?
The point is that bolts come from the same sources, so a variance of coordinates would often be minimal. Yet, apparently, it would explain why bolts can either explode 42 meters behind a ship, 50 meters ahead of a ship (after barely missing the ship), 24 meters behind a ship while not being fired on any particularily different vector, or 12 meters ahead of a ship, or ten meters above or below, on the left, right, etc. etc. etc.
Fact: you provide no explanation, and make vague references to words hoping people's intelligence would be abused by such blank statements.
Angle or not, it doesn't mask the explicit random and absurd sorting the shield would be going through to decide which bolt to stop and when.
Shields aren't "deciding" anything. Stop dressing them up as a sentient being.
Tactic: Having problems to defend a claim, so let's try to attack words and play semantics: strawman the use of a figure of speech, and claim that the literal use of the word is absurd.
We've been through this quite a lot now, and you have failed to show how your shield theory even makes any sense regarding hit ratios and efficiency.
Guess what? It does not.
The idea that it would be angled, for which you have provided precisely jack shit, doesn't solve anything. Even if shields could be angled (another thing which you claim with little evidence at all), you'd actually expect this mysterious feature to actually make sense.
At best, instead of having a gradient shield only, you have a gradient shield with angling. Woop-tee-do!
That sure makes a difference! :|
You still have so called interceptions that occur at pointless and nonsensical distances, and others that don't while bolts come suicidally close to their targets.
Wow, that's quite a rant there. Methinks you dost protest too much.
For the record- if you paid attention to the movies, you would know that Han orders Chewie to angle the deflector shields. Do pay more attention next time.
But lets, for the sake of argument, accept your claim about how angling of the shields and the vector of the bolts (because, you know, just because the enemy shooting at you is in front of you, all the bolts are coming in an identical fashion to the preceding one!) doesn't prove anything because I haven't explained it to your satisfaction:-
It is not about my satisfaction only.
You still have so called interceptions that occur at pointless and nonsensical distances, and others that don't while bolts come suicidally close to their targets.
That is a problem which your fusing theory also suffers from.
The difference is that mine has the support of a canon quote, and relies on
observed technology.
Yours is made up on the spot BS, supported by literally nothing apart from semantics whoring the definition of the word "flak".
Basically, he can't deal with the problem, so let's dodge it with mirror mirror and red herrings.
For the record, I never claimed that fusing was an exact science either, and if it's as accurace as firing computers are (have you counted the real amount of bolt vectors that actually point to the target in the AOTC pursuit? it's not that high), then it's not surprising that certain fuses can pop prematurely, or late.
It's not like the flak in WWII was ultra accurate either, you know.
Here, you have it. My explanation finely explains what we see. Above all, it's based on principles which did occur repeatedly.
Of course, we go with more false claims, about how his explanation uses canon, like mine doesn't.
Or the best part, me whoring about the definition of "flak", a point he actually conceded a while ago because he couldn't admit that he used a definition which was very incomplete in light of established dictionaries (Merriam-Webster's and Heritage's).
Priceless, really.
I mean, from the moment you deal with a troll that denies to the very meaning of words, what should we expect, really?
It does. How in the hell you can claim it doesn't is baffling me. If you were even a nugget right here, the bolts would be exploding around the N-1 like fireworks.
I didn't see Ani's fighter under anywhere near the level of bombardment of Slave I against the Delta-7?
Like if the concentration of fire had anything to do with the problem I pointed at.
No, the problem is that if the beliefs he defends were correct (gradient shielding in vacuum, no possibility of flak burst mode), anytime a droid fighter had been firing at the N-1, we'd have seen plenty of explosions around the N-1.
Yet:
That's just an example, since it happens several times.
Not surprising he fails to get that.
Or maybe he does, but he's just too dishonest to admit and loose face to his SDN friends, I suppose.
I question the logic here.
Basically, we see plenty of explosions occuring around the ship, even ahead of the ship. The vast bulk of these bolts, not to say all of them, were not even going to hit the ship.
Yet, they're intercepted.
However, when there's one single bolt that should have not been missed, and should have, above all, be intercepted without a shadow of doubt... it goes through and hits the ship.
After that, following your logic, the shields were still intercepting bolts left and right (the other explosions).
As noted above, and which you ignored, there are no other explosions observed, never mind to the implied extent of "left and right", after the shield generator is hit (we see hits in the front window for a brief moment after the hit, but they're not your oh-so-important 'distant' detonations).
The point was rather clear, however.
Plenty of bolts miss the ship, and still detonate. One directly goes for the ship, and hits.
Then two others are seen to detonate in front of the ship, and more explosions rock it.
Would
you like to be protected by that kind of nonsensical shields?
Shields that fail to stop the bolts that matter most, and then, after you've been hit, decide to stop a couple more, just for the kicks?
Plu-eez.
Those shields are a joke.
Where were your angled shields when the only bolt that was actually en route to hit the ship... did hit the ship?
This would prove that shields can let bolts pass through, and thus hardly are that impenetrable defense one could think of.
How could the shields intercept more bolts after it precisely failed to intercept the one which actually hit and damaged the generator?
Did it occur to you that the shields
didn't fail to intercept the bolt? Is the concept of the bolt partially overcoming the shields and damaging the generator in the process too difficult for you, or something? Try and think harder before you post - I fail to see the logic behind claiming that gradually diminishing shield intensities/ variable geometry is somehow contradicted because a bolt overcame the shields.
(or are you under the impression that gradually diminishing shield intensities means that the strength of the shield near the hull is zero?)
Though your "this would prove" comment implies you think shields must be some sort of invincible defence that never goes down under fire, which is quite bizarre given your D-7 shield argument. Obviously that would depend on what the shields are asked to deal with.
In reality - the TPM scene has nothing in particular to do with debunking my specific argument - it's simply a fact that the shields were up, the starboard-generator was struck, the shields were said to be "gone" moments later (after the loss of some droids), then they were brought back up to maximum thanks to R2. Obviously, with the damage to the generator, the effectiveness of the shields was dramatically reduced, and they soon collapsed. Why you think it's implicit to any argument that the shields of the Royal Yacht should be invincible to enemy fire and never get overcome is a matter best left for you to explain.
Really, I think you just didn't think about it very hard. You just saw an opportunity for a cheap dig, irrespective of how little sense your reasoning made, am I right?
This is really good. Remember the part about "sufficient". Well, we're right into it!
Apparently, the shield managed to drain *a bit* of the bolt (amount left to the appreciation of the believer), yet hit the generator.
Isn't it fantastic, then, that when the generator is hit, the other bolts explode, like before, instead of resulting into that partial interception he likes to think happened?
There are other absurd strawmen going on, like for example, I would have suggested that shields are an "invincible defence that never goes down under fire".
Hey! Sure!
At this point, why not claim that I said Jedi have no Force powers. It wouldn't be that different... I mean, why not?
There's the very simple idea, see, that since shields would be hull hugging, the droids might be sticking out of them. With the generator hit, it wouldn't be surprising if reshaping the shields to protect the droids would fail.
That said, I doubt the shields would have protected the droids anyway, in case of direct hit vectors.
What is there to believe? Has there been any source that has shown rebel airspeeders having shields?
I don't think so.
Who says it must be the Rebel speeders?
Sure, I also forgot Mary Poppins. She's got an umbrella and magic powers. She must have been somewhere. Her, her dwarves and a bag of dope I guess.
It can only be that, because I don't see anything else over these desert icy plains besides the airspeeders and the walkers.
Basically "sorry, I can't defend my assertion so... what? you don't believe in the pink unicorn?!"
Really, it gets
that pathetic.
I see that you simply completely backhanded the biggest problem with your theory: the fact that when applied to movie cases, it just makes no sense, and you still have to deal with a interception behaviour that is utterly antilogical and extremely unefficient.
A problem which you think your fusing system is immune to, apparently. How cute.
Inacurrate time based fuses.
Oh. That was short.
Notice that when Jango finally gets a sort of lock on Obi-Wan, the bursts mainly occur near his ship?
There's also the fact that while you claim shields are force fields, you forget to explain how light becomes hot matter.
Still crapping on about light, as if it has anything to do with my argument whatsoever, I see.
Like if it should be
my fault if he claims that he has evidence for
laser bolts (his words) while he also says they're not lightspeed weapons, and yet, refutes the idea that they contain matter.
Yes, that's the unfortunate side effect of his claims: not being able to push the reasoning far enough.
Thus, he ends with non-matter bolts that explode and release hot matter.
But besides this *cough* minor problem, I guess the theory I defend is the only one having issues with science.
Yes, that makes them good shields I suppose. I mean, why even bother partially stop a bolt that would miss anyway, instead of, well, just letting it go?
I forgot the principle where you think what you subjectively deem "good" shields is evidence for your argument.
Good shields = shields which can be made to ignore bolts that are non threatening.
Hull hugging & flak bursts make perfect sense here.
Besides, you are welcome to explain how you think you have found a theory about laser bolts that fits, while at the same time you rejected the notion that they're lightspeed weapons.
Your rank dishonesty is showing. What did I put in parentheses next to "laser bolts", again? Twice?
Thread 1, page 1.
Filled with claims from Vympel saying they
are laser bolts, with little use of "" or '', and when these are present, they are used to sarcastically paraphrase me.
I could quote him once, like, say, here:
Leo1 wrote:There's also nothing to that effect in terms of AotC, genius. They're laser bolts. That's going from both the novel and the script. No mention of any magical flak bursting weapons there, or the EU. You have no argument.
And can you explain how Slave I's laser bolts accomplish this feat? No. That's apparently not necessary. Appealing to ignorance is a fine substitute.
As for all the clear and unambiguous evidence that such laser bolts are just what they sound like?
And that's just one piece amont several dozens of iterations.
Of course, he also had issues admitting the hot matter when other people said that it was there.
But maybe it means he acknowledges that the bolts
do contain matter?
At this point, his inconsistent stance is a waste. Ignoring or changing standards at will, he'll ignore his own very words if he feels pigeonholed in the slightest.
Why should they?
Oh, I see! They're projectiles fused by time, but they're all fused to explode at inconsistent times! That makes
perfect sense!
Well, I think at this point, he realizes that he has nothing more than his facade to maintain.
It is quite simple to understand that bursting projectiles are not bound to mathematically do so at an absolute constant range from their target.
The misconception would be to think that they're just energy.
I say they're matter.
Leaving aside the fact you're flat wrong ("galvened particle beam", say it with me now) How does this deflect the criticism? Are you now saying there's an actual physical device in the beam telling the bolt - which you think is "matter" (make that wiggle room!)- to explode - at random times?
And - re: the hypocrisy train -fine so
all the sources that say laser bolts and energy beams and what not are flat wrong, they're actually "matter". Ok, fine. Doesn't this make a mockery of your claim later that your explanation fits George Lucas' fictional universe? Why is (your interpretation of) "flak" indicative of anything - but laser bolt and so on is meangingless?
Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
More importantly than catching you out on being a hypocrite, however - did you miss in ANH how General Dodonna cautioned that the shaft was ray shielded, so the Rebels would have to use proton torpedoes? If the laser bolts are actually physical projectiles, wouldn't lasers have been just as good?
Is it your assertion as well, then, that "ray shields" is an equally meaningless concept that can be ignored, all in service to the Almighty God Of Your Definition of the Word Flak?
So basically, we're back to the point where he precisely disputes the idea that the bolts are matter.
Again, who's lying and being inconsistent really. If anything, what he did is that he just shot his own whole body with a nuke.
There's also the weird idea that somehow, "galvened particle beam" disputes the idea that they're matter.
Even if we assume that particle doesn't mean a small bit of matter, but precisely elementary particle, I, again, don't see how it fails to relate to matter. Read "galvened fermion beams".
He may have had a point on the hypocrisy part and the double standard between flak and laser, if I didn't also say that laser (bolt) is just a layman term in SF.
From the moment one claims that a battle station fires a big green beam of goo that goes at a fraction of c, and never provides any explantion, and calls it a superlaser, well, woop-tee-doo.
Now, we're probably at the point where I'll have to show how laser is acceptedly seen and understood as a layman term in many science-fantasy universes, a brainbug that everlasts.
There's also the very basic obvious point that a laser bolt and a missile are two completely different projectiles. Structure, speed, composition, behaviour, thrust, etc.
No one really said in the high canon how ray shields work. For all intents and purposes, they could have been force fields able to change the course of bolts, but not enough to deflect missiles which have their own guiding and propulsion systems.
And of course, we precisely much understand why he tried to refute the definition of flak. The superlatives rain, but we see through them like clear water.
It's simply that there's his belief on one side, and facts on the other.
As for how you time them?
Probably something to do with stability, critical mass or something. A timed reaction.
Coming from someone who took me to task for, "you provide no explanation, and make vague references to words hoping people's intelligence would be abused by such blank statements."
That's rich.
(the difference would be I'm relying on observed Star Wars technology with verifiable characteristics - like the angling of which you were completely ignorant, while you're just making random shit up at the drop of a hat)
Want to try that again?
He fails to understand between the difference in asking why something would do X, and asking what composes bolts and what kind of advanced physical reaction goes on.
It did not require a thesis on the Projection of Exotic Shields in Various Media.
I required a simple, and non technical, but still sensical, explanation as to why angling would mean
anything in the light of the eratic interception patterns, when we know that non erratic surfacic shields (hull hugging or not) are easily available, and even demonstrated to exist with the case of the N-1, or the lucrehulk ships, and more.
That's just another dodge. Thanks for the try, but that failed as well.
Evidence for what? That they're timed? It's the theory, if I recall. How am I supposed to prove that they're timed? It's the hypothesis for the observed phenomenom.
Exactly. You have no evidence. A problem my theory does not suffer from, your continued insistence that the ICS is invalid because you say so otherwise.
In authorized circles, we'd call that bullshit.
I didn't insist that the ICS was invalid. Just certain claims it made were so.
As for the rest, yes, he precisely has zero evidence.
Well, if you need some kind of evidence, I'd point that the imperial blasters, on the AT-AT, quite proved that they could detonate under certain conditions which have nothing to do with shields at all.
Proves nothing. Same explosions occured with no blaster bolts anywhere in attendance. (Hint: you can't harp about something having nothing to do with shields when it may well have nothing to do with blasters either).
For the record, I still haven't precisely made a definitive statement on why certain bolts would contain matter, and yet be largely invisible to the naked eye.
For example, many volatile gases are invisible to the naked eye, until they explode.
There are different types of fuses. It could even be that fuse modes may be a setting.
This just keeps getting funnier and funnier! So not only are the bolts randomly fused to explode at random times, they're also being spat out with different types of fuses, randomly!
Fascinating.
Caught in alteration of words. The appeal to ridicule aside, let's understand that I said settings were available.
A setting could exist such as on a volley of 10 bolts, 2 could be time fused, and 8 not.
Or none. Or all.
Or 8 could be short time fused, and other long timed fused. Etc.
The combinations are only limited by your imagination at that point. They're all possible.
For example, the TIE fighters firing at the Millenium Falcon (firing flak in the novel) could have set their twin cannons to fire time fused bolts at the ship.
It's an hypothesis, if I had to find an explanation regarding proximity fuses. I'd be looking for an explanation that relies on a form of bolt disruption.
So, no evidence for that either, gotcha.
It's an hypothesis, based upon the observation of bolts and known and established nature of shields.
Actually, I think I have an idea that could possibly mesh all things together, but that's for another thread.
I never said proxy fuses were in use in most battles. It was just a thought, like we say.
But you say they were fused at Geonosis. So, again- what up?
There is not "but".
Jesus. I said they were fused at Geonosis. Period.
It didn't require any other pointless stretch.
Geonosis is just an example where flak bursts occured, and I advanced the possibility that they the projectiles were time fused.
Just like much of Star Wars' gadgets. Like the seismic charge, that manages to create a field of schmuzuk that remains thin, flat and expands on its own, long after the original device was destroyed.
Still under the illusion you can make up whatever nonsensical, no evidence crap you like about anything at all if you reference an observed technology you don't comprehend, eh?
Because he did, I suppose. I must have missed the part where he told us where he explained the near contradictory mechanisms of lightsabres, the existence of forces that kept a ring of "something" planar and still energetic, with no generator anywhere, or even how he explained how Sith generated lightnings, etc.
This was in relevance to the violation of Conservation of Momentum. The point, rather simple, is that apparent violations of known principles can be easily found in Star Wars.
It's not worse than light that generates hot matter by interacting with a mere gravitational or magnetic force field. *cough*
Wow, a
double strawman, how efficient of you!
At this point, I'd just invite you to reread the parts above, where we precisely see that he's clearly caught saying they're laser bolts, they're not matter, they're not lightspeed weapons... and I'm not even sure if he's even admitted the existence of hot matter.
At this point, when one person literally ignores movie facts to such an extent that you could press his face on the screen to look at an explosion, and he'd still say there's no explosion, I don't see the point wasting time.
I'd like to remind you that this is a red herring
No, it's not. It destroys your argument. You say bolts are fused to explode. I post a picture of a bolt from which an "explosion" emanates, yet the bolt is completely fine.
Your theory of fusing cannot explain this event in any remotely coherent fashion. A partial shield interaction, can.
In the thread, I also precised that it could be possible that bolts react partially.
I also pointed him to the fact that this is a problem for both theories. Of course, he refuses to acknowledge the problem, yet has never explained why his visible bolt could continue to go on, if intercepted to the point it explodes, partially or not.
I proposed a solution. The difference with a solid shell is that a theoretical chemical reaction could be stopped, or only react partially.
However, when a shell explodes, well, it's all or nothing.
The fact that we're dealing with some exotic weapon anyway leaves me enough room to wiggle.
The part with emphasis added pretty much explains your entire debate philosophy in a nutshell - thank you for making it clear that you think if you merely wiggle- or shall I say, twitch incoherently, you're able to sustain an argument that explicit canon evidence is wrong- nowhere do you even attempt to justify how an exotic "matter" weapon explains anything.
Of course, I'd have to remind him that in chemistry, for example, reactions are not always complete.
Sometimes, you have to force them to be total.
Oh yeah, the dictionary thing.
The definition I like best. Really, you got to love that.
I sure do love it. Rant all you like, on and on and on and on and on and on ....., about how your preferred definition of the word flak is right, and about how mine must somehow be "wrong", or "incomplete", or "peculiar", or whatever else.
It is.
A reasonable observer will get the point - where multiple definitions of a word exist, it is not open to you to simply pick one and insist it must be correct where there are others that fit the context just as well. Ergo, the word "flak" lends no strength to your argument, no matter how much you wish it did.
The two most reputable sources for definitions precisely list all the definitions that exist, and show him wrong.
(and for someone getting anal retentive about anti "aircraft" fire, I'd be interested to hear your argument that laser bolts are "shells").
Shell, definition.
Main Entry:
1shell Listen to the pronunciation of 1shell
Pronunciation:
\?shel\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English sciell; akin to Old English scealu shell, Old Norse skel, Lithuanian skelti to split, Greek skallein to hoe
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: a hard rigid usually largely calcareous covering or support of an animal
b: the hard or tough often thin outer covering of an egg (as of a bird or reptile) — see egg illustration
2: the covering or outside part of a fruit or seed especially when hard or fibrous
3: shell material (as of mollusks or turtles) or their substance
4: something that resembles a shell: as
a: a framework or exterior structure; especially : a building with an unfinished interior
b (1): an external case or outside covering <the shell of a ship>
(2): a thin usually spherical layer or surface enclosing a space or surrounding an object <an expanding shell of gas around a neutron star>
c: a casing without substance <mere effigies and shells of men — Thomas Carlyle>
d: an edible crust for holding a filling <a pastry shell> <a taco salad in a tortilla shell>
e: band shell
f: a small beer glass
g: an unlined article of outerwear
5: a shell-bearing mollusk
6: an impersonal attitude or manner that conceals the presence or absence of feeling <he retreated into his shell>
7: a narrow light racing boat propelled by one or more persons pulling oars or sculls
8: any of the regions occupied by the orbits of a group of electrons of approximately equal energy surrounding the nucleus of an atom
9 a: a projectile for cannon containing an explosive bursting charge b: a metal or paper case which holds the charge of powder and shot or bullet used with breech-loading small arms
10: a plain usually sleeveless blouse or sweater
11: a company or corporation that exists without assets or independent operations as a legal entity through which another company or corporation can conduct various dealings
b (1): an external case* or outside covering <the shell of a ship>
(2): a thin usually spherical layer or surface enclosing a space or surrounding an object <an expanding shell of gas around a neutron star>
It has even a line for explosive projectile.
Bottled matter rather fits well enough.
Flak has no real life basis?
More strawmen. You well know what I was referring to.
From someone denying definitions, yes, I think I know fairly well.
The truth is, it also fits with canon, and respects the creator's vision of his fictional universe.
Apparently, not only are you the world's self-appointed dictionary meister, with authority of life and death over the meaning of words, you also have a keen insght into the workings of George Lucas' brain - I should've realized. I mean, after all, you've already claimed "flak" is relevant to the asteroid chase even though the word doesn't appear in the script George Lucas wrote or the novelization thereof.
It happens, and shows no difference with the other cases where it's precisely written black on white.
There is no reason to dismiss evidence like that.
Even if you counted all the explosions, and took the highest firepower values, you wouldn't even start knocking on the high gigajoule range's door.
Sure, if we swallow your argument about how lower limits are really upper limits, that is.
For the summary, I did provide a surface explosion calc, which was leaps and bounds way too generous, and yet, it was just in the low gigajoule range.
He provided no calculation. He could have, for example, tried to estimate the kinetic energy of debris.
He didn't.
Again, you're ignoring the very fact that I already adressed the point about the bolt penetrating the rock.
This, of course, being nothing else but a repetition of what was already said in the former thread.
So it really starts to pile up.
You have this strange way of thinking that if you say you don't have to address something, you've somehow addressed it.
It was again, adressed.
The point is that the explosion obviously comes from the inside on both accounts. He denies this, fails to point to the surface explosion that should exist, and try to blurry the waters with more requests at explaining how things work in detail.
Ultimately, I could just tell him to buzz off, since the movie says it happened the way I say it did.
I was patient enough.
Offered analogies ranged from bunker buster to hammered nail.
The latter of which is even more inane than the former.
Because he said so doesn't mean it is not without merit.
You can have gripes with the theory, sure, but you have never understood that your non-lightspeed laser theory fails to fit with explosions that originate from inside the asteroids.
Actually, that laser bolts are a galvened particle beam produced by a combination of light and high-energy particles w/ blaster gas is a canon fact, Mr "Matter". I'm sorry you don't like it, but the list is piling up of things you don't like and therefore don't think you need to consider.
Considering that he refuted the very idea that the bolts could contain matter, the particles he refers to can only be bosons.
Which, again, fails to explain the explosions.
For the record, again, "galvened particle beams" perfectly fits with matter projectiles.
Simply put, a laser bolt, as you defined it, would have exploded at the surface. But there are no surface explosions.
We're not in a position to observe impact on the surface, as the tracking of the bolts so clearly indicates. What
would help your argument if you could actually show a bolt penetrating in the manner that you say it penetrates - bunker buster style, or hammer and nail or whatever else, - but you can't, because it doesn't exist, and, especially in view of your fusing argument that you make out the
other side of your mouth, makes no sense. You simply need that to be true because it assists in your quest to turn lower limits into upper limits.
Woo... I was just so waiting for that argument. :)
He cannot point to an explosion on the surface because, huh, "we can't see it!"
Just of course. :D
Just again.
http://st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Episodes ... mack04.jpg
We can see the explosion that comes from the inside.
One has to tell me how there could be an asteroid already cracking, and having fire emanating from the inside, in that frame, and yet see no sign of ejecta anywhere else, even coming from behind the asteroid (the ejecta would not be stopped by vacuum, it would expand immediately, faster and farther)...
http://st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Episodes ... mack03.jpg
One has to explain how there couldn't be any sign of external explosion when we can see, even in that former frame above, that the first sign of any fireball occurs on the
opposite side of the asteroid.
I suppose I'm down to having to point out the brown pixels that belong to the asteroid and surround the blossoming fire bulge, because he just cannot get it on his own.
How could the opposite side of the asteroid already show a sign of a growing fireball, if the side hit by the so called laser bolt doesn't even display any form of fire, nor in the following frames?
It is impossible, as far as his position is concerned. As simple as that.
The claims are all the more remarkable, but the mere fruit of a lack of ability to precisely run simple observations and apply logic.
It's just more of his smoke screen. I suppose it suffice to appease his appetite for truth, but not mine.
It even more failed when you attempted to locate the origin of the explosion
Ah yes, because a grazing hit from behind can't possibly explain the sequence, but a non-ablating laser bolt that you can't even see does. Makes perfect sense.
He repeated grazing hit a few times already, but utterly failed to locate it, or even prove the existence of the explosion, while any surface explosion would already be visible.
So, here we are. That's simply what I had to deal with.
