List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

[Mr. Oragahn]

1. Yes, he didn't provide any evidence.
2. They could always say that its uniqueness has nothing to do with the magnitude of its urbanization, but more about its variety, the style.

[User1662]

I suppose most of you have seen this:

http://www.tgdaily.com/entertainment/59 ... darth-maul

Basically TCW CGI is now of equal canon as the movies, post and prequel trilogy.

[Mike DiCenso]

Great catch there, Rogerd. Although any further discussion of this article ought to go into the Rules of Evidence section since it clarifies what George Lucas considers canon. In this case it's pretty hard to dismiss, and it's the most clear cut statement he's ever made since the interview in the 2005 Starlog.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

1. That the word "jump" connotes the singular action of jumping from realspace into hyperspace, as indicated by various statements of making the "jump to lightspeed" in both the films and literature.

2. That no timeframe is given for how long this hypothetical travel took. If the quote is referring to the energy consumed in the duration of traveling in hyperspace from point X to Y, the author would have provided a unit of time. Because no unit of time is given, the above interpretation is incorrect, as it adds in a completely unquantifiable unknown value for no reason at all.

1. Still works. You can jump into hyperspace as much as you can jump to place X or from point A to point B.
2. Just like he provided a size and age for the nation? Oooops! ;)

Note: that kind of "debunking", as copied by SWST, was already covered as part of the arguments, since it was essential to these arguments, precisely, to show that the initial claims of super power were not unavoidable. In fact, SWST's "debunking" is nothing more than the very original claim that was debunked here.
:D

[StarWarsStarTrek]

1. Still works. You can jump into hyperspace as much as you can jump to place X or from point A to point B.

Except that the term is rarely used in that manner. What's more, the alternative interpretation rests on the idea that it takes just as much power to stay in hyperspace as it does to jump between the two dimensions, or that it takes any power at all (and that the tendency of ships to revert back into realspace after a malfunction is not simply a safety mechanism). This doesn't fit well with the shifted-into-hyperspace theory stemming from the DS novel, because the debris would have immediately shifted back into realspace.

2. Just like he provided a size and age for the nation? Oooops! ;)

The size and age of a nation can be estimated. The distance of a hyperspace journey is completely arbitrary, and impossible to quantify. What is more, we already have one "unknown" variable here, but adding in another one is completely meaningless.

Note: that kind of "debunking", as copied by SWST, was already covered as part of the arguments, since it was essential to these arguments, precisely, to show that the initial claims of super power were not unavoidable. In fact, SWST's "debunking" is nothing more than the very original claim that was debunked here.

And this part of your response is relevant or constructive, how? If you have a vendentta against me, take it up over PM.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Except that the term is rarely used in that manner.

Prove it.

What's more, the alternative interpretation rests on the idea that it takes just as much power to stay in hyperspace as it does to jump between the two dimensions, or that it takes any power at all (and that the tendency of ships to revert back into realspace after a malfunction is not simply a safety mechanism). This doesn't fit well with the shifted-into-hyperspace theory stemming from the DS novel, because the debris would have immediately shifted back into realspace.

Judging the working of a hyperdrive based on the analysis of a phenomenon that required none is not logical.

2. Just like he provided a size and age for the nation? Oooops! ;)

The size and age of a nation can be estimated.

Then do it and prove that it won't be as arbitrary as any distance. After all, there are so many worlds and we so rarely hear about nations at all in Star Wars... oh wait, that's a point in favour of rarity of word use, isn't it?
Damn, you barely start and your arguments already suck.

The distance of a hyperspace journey is completely arbitrary, and impossible to quantify.

Just as much as the whole quote. I applaud you for finally catching up.

What is more, we already have one "unknown" variable here, but adding in another one is completely meaningless.

There's no law that says there has to be a limit in the number of unknown variables found in the interpretation of a line from a book. None at all.
I'd also point out that there are chances the book this line was taken from also gave those large starships and/or the Death Star fusion cores.

Note: that kind of "debunking", as copied by SWST, was already covered as part of the arguments, since it was essential to these arguments, precisely, to show that the initial claims of super power were not unavoidable. In fact, SWST's "debunking" is nothing more than the very original claim that was debunked here.

And this part of your response is relevant or constructive, how? If you have a vendentta against me, take it up over PM.

Just stating what you're doing. As usual "your" claims are nothing new. Your participation isn't even remotely interesting or constructive.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Prove it.

Han states that he will "make the jump to lightspeed". He then physically pushes the throttle; and they jump to hyperspace.

Judging the working of a hyperdrive based on the analysis of a phenomenon that required none is not logical.

On the contrary, the hypermatter reactor (stated, mind you, to be more powerful than any realspace M/AM reaction) directly leads to this hyperspace phasing; hypermatter reactors directly power hyperdrives as well.

Then do it and prove that it won't be as arbitrary as any distance. After all, there are so many worlds and we so rarely hear about nations at all in Star Wars... oh wait, that's a point in favour of rarity of word use, isn't it?
Damn, you barely start and your arguments already suck.

Bullshit. I've already substantiated that any conceivable "nation" size in the Star Wars galaxy would lead to the same conclusion, with varying degrees of magnitude. Meanwhile, your deflection only sufficiently downgrades the end result if you both assume a ridiculous small nation and that this hypothetical travel time would be several hours, even though such timespans are only needed to, say, traverse very large sections of the galaxy. We know that the imperial starfleet is divided into sector groups; logically, an ISD would only have to jump within a small section of the entire galaxy, and no jump would take more than a few minutes.

T

Just as much as the whole quote. I applaud you for finally catching up.

Once again, we come to your amazing habit of dismissing any quote you deem inconvenient on a whim, while sticking to completely ridiculous statements, despite fully admitting that they are illogical, as though they were gospel, when they support your case.

There's no law that says there has to be a limit in the number of unknown variables found in the interpretation of a line from a book. None at all.

It's a general guideline (read: Occam's Razor), that the simplest theory fitting all the facts is the optimal one. My interpretation fits with the quote, and it only lists one [semi]unknown variable inherent in the quote. Yours introduces another. Mine wins.

I'd also point out that there are chances the book this line was taken from also gave those large starships and/or the Death Star fusion cores.

And I'd also point out that you have cited the Death Star passage describing the destruction of Alderaan on numerous occasions, and that the passage explicitly states that the exotic effects come from a HYPERMATTER REACTOR. It's hilarious to see you nitpick half of a single sentence from a quote, and ignore the other half.

It's also hilarious that you think the only kind of fusion is nuclear fusion, even though just hitting the Death Star's main reactor caused a chain reaction powerful enough to atomize the battle station, and that nuclear fusion reactors don't do this.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Han states that he will "make the jump to lightspeed". He then physically pushes the throttle; and they jump to hyperspace.

Bravo, you've found one sentence, nothing else. One sentence which doesn't begin to be relevant since it says "jump to lightspeed", contrary to the one that is debated.
Double failure for you.

Judging the working of a hyperdrive based on the analysis of a phenomenon that required none is not logical.

On the contrary, the hypermatter reactor (stated, mind you, to be more powerful than any realspace M/AM reaction) directly leads to this hyperspace phasing; hypermatter reactors directly power hyperdrives as well.

And a hyperdrive is supposed to be the device allowing something to go to hyperspace, and yet they pulled it without strapping one to Alderaan. Ergo, comparing both is absurd.

Then do it and prove that it won't be as arbitrary as any distance. After all, there are so many worlds and we so rarely hear about nations at all in Star Wars... oh wait, that's a point in favour of rarity of word use, isn't it?
Damn, you barely start and your arguments already suck.

Bullshit. I've already substantiated that any conceivable "nation" size in the Star Wars galaxy would lead to the same conclusion, with varying degrees of magnitude.

Debunked, many times.

Mike should look at this post from page 19 (two pages ago only) to notice that SWST is ignoring facts and rebooting the discussion : http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 426#p35426
In that post, I vaporized all of SWST's false claims, and he ignored it.
In fact, everything from the AT-ATs to the fusion cores blowing up was already covered, but he's denying those posts and rebooting the discussion, which is what he has always done.
Mike, it's about time you take the final decision, the only one to take in the face of this parody of discussion. SWST is a troll and you know it. Stop acting like if he gave any shit about the sanction system. Get him out of here at last so we never hear of him again.

There's no law that says there has to be a limit in the number of unknown variables found in the interpretation of a line from a book. None at all.

It's a general guideline (read: Occam's Razor), that the simplest theory fitting all the facts is the optimal one. My interpretation fits with the quote, and it only lists one [semi]unknown variable inherent in the quote. Yours introduces another. Mine wins.

Simplicity of a theory has nothing to do with the number of unknowns found in the interpretation of a line from a book. One could make a very simple theory or a complicated one, it would be irrelevant to the interpretation's content. In fact, if you knew anything about how theorizing works, you'd know that observation comes first, well before advancing any hypothesis and later the theory.

I'd also point out that there are chances the book this line was taken from also gave those large starships and/or the Death Star fusion cores.

And I'd also point out that you have cited the Death Star passage describing the destruction of Alderaan on numerous occasions, and that the passage explicitly states that the exotic effects come from a HYPERMATTER REACTOR.

I don't care, because the point here is that you cherry pick a quote from a source that gives a type of reactor for the ships and/or the battle station in SW that is incompatible with the ICS.

It's also hilarious that you think the only kind of fusion is nuclear fusion, even though just hitting the Death Star's main reactor caused a chain reaction powerful enough to atomize the battle station, and that nuclear fusion reactors don't do this.

Annihilation doesn't either, if we go down the literal route. Atomization is to turn to atoms. Annihilation... doesn't.
Wow, yes I know, I'm that smart.
Less literal interpretations completely work with the idea of 100% fusion cores.

[Lucky]

When browsing some of the recent pages in this stickied thread, I remembered that the quote in regards to an imperial star destroyer consuming more energy than most planetary civilizations in a single hyperspace jump has been contested. Usually, Trekkies admit that this quotation is in agreement with ICS statistics, but instead argue that it is simply an outlier; but now, there are claims that the quote actually supports low reactor power figures!

The idea is that the hyperspace jump's energy consumption is really the total amount of energy consumed in several hours of the actual travel. However, this interpretations runs into two issues:

1. That the word "jump" connotes the singular action of jumping from realspace into hyperspace, as indicated by various statements of making the "jump to lightspeed" in both the films and literature.

2. That no timeframe is given for how long this hypothetical travel took. If the quote is referring to the energy consumed in the duration of traveling in hyperspace from point X to Y, the author would have provided a unit of time. Because no unit of time is given, the above interpretation is incorrect, as it adds in a completely unquantifiable unknown value for no reason at all.

Some may argue that you could simply use an "average" figure for how long an ISD stays in hyperspace, but how would the author have expected anyone to know this figure? Do you take the mean, or the median? Would using an "average" figure not require us to assume that the author is a moron who makes a quantitative statement with an unknown variable? Besides, how long ISDs stay in hyperspace is completely conditional, and may range from a few milliseconds to several hours.

This interpretation of the quote is based on an attempt to nitpick a semantic loophole, and then perform a complex series of mental gymnastics to arrive to a conclusion that holds no advantage over the standard one, yet introduces an unknown variable and makes a host of assumptions as to its value.



----------

The yearly energy consumption of the United States is around 8 * 10^19 joules. If this planetary nation had only the size and energy consumption of the United States and its entire lifespan were 25,000 years (with absolutely no population growth or increase in energy usage), then an imperial star destroyer's peak reactor output would be around 2 * 10^24 watts.

If this planetary nation's population over its entire lifespan peaks at 9 billion, the conservative estimate for when our own population on Earth will stagnate, and your average Wars sapient consumes twice as much energy as a person from the United States, then an imperial star destroyer's peak reactor output would be 1.2 * 10^26 watts.

If this planetary nation's population were fifty billion, the value derived from dividing the 100 quadrillion population figure of The Essential Atlas with the one million star systems of the Empire, and your average Wars sapient consumes ten times as much energy as a person from the United States, then an imperial star destroyer's peak reactor output would be 3.33 * 10^27 watts.


Based on these values, the peak output of an ISD's reactor ranges from 2e24 to 3.3e27 watts. First, it can be duly noted that the reactor's power would likely be far higher during the short burst of a hyperspace jump, compared to even output during combat, and that this output level may not be sustainable. Second, the last calculation is not even the highest figure you could derive, nor is it particularly extreme; none of the assumptions it makes are unsupportable, unreasonable or even particularly high. Third, this values fit with the observation that ships entering hyperspace accelerate to relativistic speeds in a fraction of a second, and promptly deccelerate from said relativistic speeds within a fraction of a second upon returning to realspace.

1) Episode: 1 shows a hyperdrive is powered throughout the entire jump. It is why the yacht had to land on Tatooine rather then go straight to Coruscant.

2) A nation in Star Wars can have populations numbering in the thousands, be stone age, and possibly have not mastered fire yet as shown in "Mercy Mission".

[StarWarsStarTrek]

And a hyperdrive is supposed to be the device allowing something to go to hyperspace, and yet they pulled it without strapping one to Alderaan. Ergo, comparing both is absurd.

But you are arguing that a hyperdrive requires constant powering in order to keep a ship in hyperspace. The hypermatter reactor’s boost was a singular action. By your line of reasoning, an object in hyperspace will automatically shift out without a constant external force keeping it there, which would have meant that the matter shifted into hyperspace would have instantaneously shifted out.

Debunked, many times.

Mike should look at this post from page 19 (two pages ago only) to notice that SWST is ignoring facts and rebooting the discussion : http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 426#p35426
In that post, I vaporized all of SWST's false claims, and he ignored it.

No, you didn’t. The link to this brilliant debunking of the hyperspace quote (remember context; we are assuming, briefly, that my interpretation of “hyperspace jump” is correct) lists out to e25 joules, higher even than Saxton’s work. You can’t nerf this sufficiently without going with your interpretation and assuming that your average hyperspace jump takes hours, and that’s my entire point.

Mind you, you clearly didn’t read my post in detail. My lower limit statistics only gave this planetary civilization 300 million people over its entire history. How the fuck does a nation stagnate permanently at 300 million over twenty five millennia without artificial birth restrictions of some sort?

Additionally, your calculation assumes that a space age civilization consumes not a joule more energy annually than a modern populace, which is completely asinine.

In fact, everything from the AT-ATs to the fusion cores blowing up was already covered, but he's denying those posts and rebooting the discussion, which is what he has always done.

Yes, let’s look at that:


Fusion reactors in SW are aking to miniature suns...[/quote]

In terms of power generation? Thank you for conceding everything.

Obviously, though, you are referring to mechanism. Which makes this statement irrelevant, since all fusion reactors at least mildly resemble the inner workings of a fusion based star.

and that's quite logical considering the volume of the reactor and the power it would have to output to power the base, the weapons, and above all the shield to repel any fire from the enemy fleet.
What this means is that there's literally a ball of super hot plasma that's providing power to the systems.
Guess what happens when you violently breach the containment of such a reactor?
I won't even bother you with the fact that fuel for fusion cores in SW can actually combust as well (Padmé destroying her ship in TCWS, or the destruction of the Black Ice in the WEG RPG supplement of the same name). Which means all the fuel reserves near the core would just feed the fireball even more.

Science, Mr. O, science. A ball of “super hot plasma” might splatter all over the place. Guess what? This super-hot plasma’s bonds won’t fuse, it won’t undergo any nuclear or even chemical reaction, and all you have is a bunch of hot matter being blasted. This is enough to atomize a small moon now?

The only way that this plasma would actually be dangerous is if the blast that destroys the reactor has so much energy, it splatters it at significant velocities. And if the blast is powerful enough to make this plasma magically collide with the megaton-yield witnessed in ESB…well, then your entire point dies right here.

To put it briefly: this plasma is hot. But this plasma won’t react or undergo fusion, and is therefore completely incapable of explaining the vaporization of an ISD in RotJ, or the megaton explosion seen in ESB.

But please, cite a REAL scientific source to back up your bullshit that fusion reactors are just giant bombs waiting to detonate, rather than your own words. What you don’t seem to understand is that whether or not fusion reactors explode is a matter of scientific fact, not interpretation of Star Wars.

Simplicity of a theory has nothing to do with the number of unknowns found in the interpretation of a line from a book.

Yes, actually, it does. It’s not the only factor, but a theory with less unknowns is by definition simpler.

The problem is that you haven’t provided a shred of a reason as to why your interpretation is better than mine, and why we should use it.


[quoteI don't care, because the point here is that you cherry pick a quote from a source that gives a type of reactor for the ships and/or the battle station in SW that is incompatible with the ICS.
[/quote]

Do you realize that this is exactly what you do every time you bring up the Death Star quote? The exact same sentence also says:

1. That hypermatter reactors exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2. That they produce energy exceeding any realspace mass-energy conversion.

So no, actually, this isn’t exactly what you are doing. I am [supposedly] cherry picking from a source; you’re cherry picking sentence fragments.

Annihilation doesn't either, if we go down the literal route. Atomization is to turn to atoms. Annihilation... doesn't.

Wow, yes I know, I'm that smart.
Less literal interpretations completely work with the idea of 100% fusion cores.

Wait, you didn’t actually think that I was being literal here, did you? And mind you, your logic, even if I were, is horrendous. Do you realize that only the reactor itself would annihilate, which would release a vast burst of energy to destroy the station itself? Are you under the impression that an antimatter reactor detonating would unleash magical radiation that also annihilates everything else, rather than lots and lots of gamma rays?

The fact is that the Death Star was blown into quintillions of very, very, very tiny pieces, that overcame GBE and were scattered at significant speeds. The amount of “super hot plasma” needed to do this would out-mass the Death Star itself a hundred times over, and the energy needed to scatter this mass at significant kinetic energy to do anything would give Luke’s proton torpedo millions of exatons of energy.

Basically, fusion reactors won’t undergo fusion or any reaction upon being blown up. Your only argument rests with a bunch of plasma being significant to do damage without reacting with anything.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And a hyperdrive is supposed to be the device allowing something to go to hyperspace, and yet they pulled it without strapping one to Alderaan. Ergo, comparing both is absurd.

But you are arguing that a hyperdrive requires constant powering in order to keep a ship in hyperspace. The hypermatter reactor’s boost was a singular action. By your line of reasoning, an object in hyperspace will automatically shift out without a constant external force keeping it there, which would have meant that the matter shifted into hyperspace would have instantaneously shifted out.

Debunked, many times.

Mike should look at this post from page 19 (two pages ago only) to notice that SWST is ignoring facts and rebooting the discussion : http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 426#p35426
In that post, I vaporized all of SWST's false claims, and he ignored it.

No, you didn’t. The link to this brilliant debunking of the hyperspace quote (remember context; we are assuming, briefly, that my interpretation of “hyperspace jump” is correct) lists out to e25 joules, higher even than Saxton’s work. You can’t nerf this sufficiently without going with your interpretation and assuming that your average hyperspace jump takes hours, and that’s my entire point.

Mind you, you clearly didn’t read my post in detail. My lower limit statistics only gave this planetary civilization 300 million people over its entire history. How the fuck does a nation stagnate permanently at 300 million over twenty five millennia without artificial birth restrictions of some sort?

Additionally, your calculation assumes that a space age civilization consumes not a joule more energy annually than a modern populace, which is completely asinine.

In fact, everything from the AT-ATs to the fusion cores blowing up was already covered, but he's denying those posts and rebooting the discussion, which is what he has always done.

Yes, let’s look at that:

Fusion reactors in SW are aking to miniature suns...

In terms of power generation? Thank you for conceding everything.

Obviously, though, you are referring to mechanism. Which makes this statement irrelevant, since all fusion reactors at least mildly resemble the inner workings of a fusion based star.

and that's quite logical considering the volume of the reactor and the power it would have to output to power the base, the weapons, and above all the shield to repel any fire from the enemy fleet.
What this means is that there's literally a ball of super hot plasma that's providing power to the systems.
Guess what happens when you violently breach the containment of such a reactor?
I won't even bother you with the fact that fuel for fusion cores in SW can actually combust as well (Padmé destroying her ship in TCWS, or the destruction of the Black Ice in the WEG RPG supplement of the same name). Which means all the fuel reserves near the core would just feed the fireball even more.

Science, Mr. O, science. A ball of “super hot plasma” might splatter all over the place. Guess what? This super-hot plasma’s bonds won’t fuse, it won’t undergo any nuclear or even chemical reaction, and all you have is a bunch of hot matter being blasted. This is enough to atomize a small moon now?

The only way that this plasma would actually be dangerous is if the blast that destroys the reactor has so much energy, it splatters it at significant velocities. And if the blast is powerful enough to make this plasma magically collide with the megaton-yield witnessed in ESB…well, then your entire point dies right here.

To put it briefly: this plasma is hot. But this plasma won’t react or undergo fusion, and is therefore completely incapable of explaining the vaporization of an ISD in RotJ, or the megaton explosion seen in ESB.

But please, cite a REAL scientific source to back up your bullshit that fusion reactors are just giant bombs waiting to detonate, rather than your own words. What you don’t seem to understand is that whether or not fusion reactors explode is a matter of scientific fact, not interpretation of Star Wars.

Simplicity of a theory has nothing to do with the number of unknowns found in the interpretation of a line from a book.

Yes, actually, it does. It’s not the only factor, but a theory with less unknowns is by definition simpler.

The problem is that you haven’t provided a shred of a reason as to why your interpretation is better than mine, and why we should use it.

I don't care, because the point here is that you cherry pick a quote from a source that gives a type of reactor for the ships and/or the battle station in SW that is incompatible with the ICS.

Do you realize that this is exactly what you do every time you bring up the Death Star quote? The exact same sentence also says:

1. That hypermatter reactors exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2. That they produce energy exceeding any realspace mass-energy conversion.

So no, actually, this isn’t exactly what you are doing. I am [supposedly] cherry picking from a source; you’re cherry picking sentence fragments.

Annihilation doesn't either, if we go down the literal route. Atomization is to turn to atoms. Annihilation... doesn't.

Wow, yes I know, I'm that smart.
Less literal interpretations completely work with the idea of 100% fusion cores.

Wait, you didn’t actually think that I was being literal here, did you? And mind you, your logic, even if I were, is horrendous. Do you realize that only the reactor itself would annihilate, which would release a vast burst of energy to destroy the station itself? Are you under the impression that an antimatter reactor detonating would unleash magical radiation that also annihilates everything else, rather than lots and lots of gamma rays?

The fact is that the Death Star was blown into quintillions of very, very, very tiny pieces, that overcame GBE and were scattered at significant speeds. The amount of “super hot plasma” needed to do this would out-mass the Death Star itself a hundred times over, and the energy needed to scatter this mass at significant kinetic energy to do anything would give Luke’s proton torpedo millions of exatons of energy.

Basically, fusion reactors won’t undergo fusion or any reaction upon being blown up. Your only argument rests with a bunch of plasma being significant to do damage without reacting with anything.

You take pleasure in typing walls of idiocies. I have already gone over ALL of that, but no matter how hard I tried to make you comprehend things, you wouldn't get it. Just there, several of your replies are in fact arguments against things I didn't say. I'd really enjoy discussing those points with someone who does want to get somewhere instead of running around the same pole, but I know you won't care and won't even try to read them and understand them, and you'll only pretend doing so and then probably bow out for some time just to restart your monologue later on. I could give you links to posts you're supposed to have already read but you never read them, so I'd be wasting my time.
It's just tiresome that you spoil fine threads with your tripe. We could read that thread from the moment you jumped in and we'd see that your efforts are completely useless and certainly disruptive.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Whatever. Too bad for you that you don't understand even basic nuclear physics, because you are still under the self delusion that they will magically explode when you hit them, and you feel so self entitled, the idea that you might have to cite a source to prove this never occurred to you.

Nor did the asinine idea that a Star Wars civilization will consume no more energy per capita than a 20th century United States ever occur to you to be a ridiculously conservative calculation.

But please, feel free to link me to the page in which you actually cite your source in relation to fusion reactors, or when you provided evidence that your average space age society consumes no more energy per capita than a 20th century nation. You never did. So you can take your "I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT!" nonsense and shove it somewhere.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Whatever. Too bad for you that you don't understand even basic nuclear physics, because you are still under the self delusion that they will magically explode when you hit them, and you feel so self entitled, the idea that you might have to cite a source to prove this never occurred to you.

Nor did the asinine idea that a Star Wars civilization will consume no more energy per capita than a 20th century United States ever occur to you to be a ridiculously conservative calculation.

But please, feel free to link me to the page in which you actually cite your source in relation to fusion reactors, or when you provided evidence that your average space age society consumes no more energy per capita than a 20th century nation. You never did. So you can take your "I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT!" nonsense and shove it somewhere.

[User1663]

Here's a tidbit of note regarding the ICS and canon precedence (explicitly regarding firepower) from the head of the holocron, Leland Chee himself:

[Ulic]: Hi Mr Chee, I was wondering if I could ask a question related to something you mentioned on your old Dark Horse forum thread; you confirmed that the Incredible Cross Section firepower stats were still considered canon, but I noticed that X-Wing: Isard's Revenge mentioned capital ships firing "terajoules of coherent light", which is significantly lower than the gigatons of firepower the ICS mentions; are these firepower figures from X-Wing: Isard's Revenge still considered canon, and if so how would the Holocron reconcile the two, for example, if an author requested starship firepower figures from the database?

[Leland Chee]: Cross-Sections would still be the first place I'd look when determining firepower.

Note the bold.

[Praeothmin]

Did that person then ask him how come the ICS firepower figures don't match one iota with the movies depictions, or even TCW's examples of firepower?


:)