I challenge darkstar to a debate

[StarWarsStarTrek]

No it isn't. People have been talking about this stuff online for over 13 years (just going by ASVS, which was by no means the first or the only public forum for such things).

Judging by some rough search and calculation efforts, I'd ballpark about 400,000 posts at ASVS. Assuming an average of just 500 new bytes . . . 500 new letters . . . per post, that's 200 megabytes, and 200 million letters, or an average of something like 40-50 million words. That's about 100 copies of War and Peace. And I'd imagine that's a low-end figure.

Hell, just the root HTML documents on my website (as tallied by checking my local directory) total 5.1 megabytes. Even if half of that is HTML script and other such mess, you're still looking at 2.5 million letters, or something like 4-500,000 words . . . or, again, War and Peace.

That's why I don't expect you to just rush in and know all about all of this stuff in one go. But at the same time, you need to listen to your elders . . . I've forgotten more about this debate than you've ever known.

And your experience is...cool?

Oh really? And how does the Falcon going some unspecified value of what you consider "fast" prove jack about the Death Star?

It's an example in case you doubted the 670 km/s figure for the Death Star on the grounds of it being too absurdly fast.

What the hell are you talking about? The Imperial fleet was never at Yavin in the films.

I presume you're talking about Endor, except that the Imperial fleet was never seen to circumnavigate the planet.

Ah, sorry, Endor. In the novels, it was behind Endor, and then suddenly it was behind the Rebel fleet. Obviously it had to go around Endor.

Even your side has suggested that a short hyperjump was used to get to the Death Star.

Except that no evidence of such is shown, and one would wonder why the Death Star couldn't do the same thing to get within Yavin's range instead of going there via sublight drives.

That's a rather obvious editing error. You'd do better to argue a hyperjump there, since the thing goes from aircraft-speed near the surface to high orbit leisurely passing a Separatist ship, seemingly still at aircraft speed relative to the planet.

I have no doubt that Star Wars vessels can achieve orbit fairly quickly, but that's a literal jump-cut to space . . . it doesn't make sense.

You know what? It probably was an editing error. But is that reason to suspend suspension of disbelief? I'm pretty sure that the examples of uncovered stormtrooper armor are editing errors, as are examples of their armor being pierced by bows. And the examples of Acclamators being destroyed by AA guns were probably an example of oversight on the part of the creators.

1. "System" is not generally used the same way in the Star Wars films as we might use it. "On the system", for instance, is not a phrasing we would employ.

Really? What would system mean in Star Wars then? A city block? A house?

2. The script and film do not require us to believe that Bespin was anywhere but the Anoat system, which was the location given at the time. The novelization does make reference to "Bespin system", but as per #1 we have no real need to assume a separate star system.

So then there is quite clearly a difference between this Bespin system and the Anoat system. Did they just use one of them as a nickname?

3. I realize you're stuck with a bad lot, trying to defend your indefensible opinions, but it's really silly to argue exclusively at the margins. That is, you can't expect to make your opinion stick if you base your ideas off of obvious editing errors and silly stuff like the Hoth Anoat Bespin thing that fans have discussed for years simply because it's so confusing. A wide variety of theories have been presented on the topic, and yet you would claim one (with not even acknowledgement of the others) and that it proves your other claims.

I mean, arguing that "Anoat-Bespin = w00t sublight!" is absurd. You just shouldn't attempt to claim that a journey of light-years (as I presume you're arguing) being done with sublight engines is even plausible, much less claiming it as proof of sublight engine awesomeness.

A possible explanation is that the two systems were really close to one another for some strange, but still realistic reason, and that Han and Leia really took about a year to get there. This gives Luke a year to train with Yoda, which explains why he was confident enough to take on Vader, and the seemingly shorter time frame could be time dilation, since they'd be moving at relativistic speeds.

Anyway, here's your section on firepower and such that you requested as the topic:


Dude, 2002* called. They want their argument back.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdsaccel.html

(* that's the oldest Wayback Machine version of the page available, but I think it's probably a 2001 thing.)

You indirectly answered your own question; the imperials made a miscalculation and dropped out of hyperspace too late. Maybe the Rebels jammed their hyperspace travel. Maybe they miscalculated where the moon was. Maybe their trajectory in hyperspace meant that the gas giant was in between themselves and the moon, and in G canon there is no evidence that they can change direction mid hyperspace jump.

You assertion is that the Rebels were using a screen that was completely misrepresenting the movement of the Death Star, which is ridiculous, because it suggests that the Rebels would use a device that was clearly inaccurate.

So you have a totally-wrong acceleration and an unknown-but-assumed mass, and from such august reasonings comes a figure which you quote. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, so then cut the density in half. Or by three. Or by four. Unless if you're suggesting that the Death Star has the density of water or helium, it doesn't change the facts by a significant degree.

A debate is not a time to engage in theoretical ponderings. We're not interested in whether it is conceivable . . . only if there is canon evidence. I have yet to see any indication whatsoever of such evidence.

Conceivable? More than that; completely capable. The fact is that, if Star Wars has the ability to mount practical 200 gigaton turbolasers on warships, then they would. This is basic logic. If the military could mount terrawatt lasers that were practical on their jet fighters, they probably would.

Bzzt. It's a fusion reactor, my boy. Hypermatter does not exist in the Star Wars canon of Lucas.

If it is fusion, then it's some sort of exotic fusion. The amount of energy required to move the Death Star would be enormous, and a fusion reactor that uses standard nuclear fusion would not be able to supply that.

You've oversimplified by about a million.

1. You can't simply scale power and weapons systems up and down and expect the scaled output to be correct. The differences between a .357 Magnum and an Iowa Class 16-incher are extreme, but the energy difference is not a direct correlation of barrel width. But, do feel free to prove me wrong.

Except that in your analogy the weapons in question are in atmosphere projectiles subject to plenty of different factors, and iirc the Iowa's guns have explosive properties, whereas a magnum does not.

2. You pluck "e23" out of thin air. I presume you are assuming that the Death Star reactor generates 1E38W, but I'm afraid you'll have to prove that.

I already proved that the Death Star would have to generate roughly that amount of power to move itself at the speed that it did. You can alter it by an order of magnitude, but it doesn't change the facts.

Bzzt!

1. You're using the ICS as a source.

Are you saying that George Lucas also thinks that reference guides to the movies are in a different universe than the movies?

2. You just glossed over your own requirement anyway.

#2 is why your theoretical ponderings are irrelevant and useless and just make for extreme boredom. Especially since even if you "prove" to yourself, me, and everyone else that your 200GT turbolasers are plausible in Star Wars, that still doesn't put them there in the canon.

Wrong. If you were attacking an alien planet, and said planet has inhabitants that have been shown to know about nuclear fission and how to apply it, then you'd assume that they'd have nuclear weapons. If the military discovered how to create railguns that are practical and applicable, they'd make railguns. Your assertion is that, if Star Wars can create plausible 200 gigaton turbolasers, they'd still stick to 1.5 megaton turbolasers and use the rest of their enormous reactor power for...uh, playing video games?

But just for kicks, please explain heat dissipation of a 200GT directed energy weapon operating at, oh, 99.99% thermal efficiency. Mind you, that's extremely good efficiency . . . except for the part where it offloads 20 megatons of energy into its surroundings.

Oh yeah! Thanks for proving that Star Wars shields are pretty darn powerful.

I hope the kitchen is nearby . . . I hear the Empire's all about green energy, and utilizing the waste heat of turbolasers sounds green to me!

Green? In space, does eco friendly-ness really matter? xd

Isn't that cute! Were you proud of yourself for being so clever as to mention not mentioning an EU quote?

Uh huh

So you're using handwavium shields with no further explanation? You defined the problem . . . provide some real solutions! Or, better yet, drop the theoretical junk anyway . . . a debate is no place for that sort of exploration without context.

Oh, right. So shields that can quite clearly stop asteroid impacts; of what magnitude I'm not debating in this statement; and other physical impacts would not be of any help against recoil, protecting the ship?

What? Are you suggesting that they are not simple directed energy weapons? Very good! We know from the canon, after all, that blaster bolts are galvened particle beams, and when the galvening fades over time they disperse into a radioactive fog, so you've done well with that section. (RotS novelization, various quotes)

But of course, at that point, your whole concept breaks down. After all, there's no direct relation between an Iowa Class engine's output and its firepower, because the ship doesn't shoot energy . . . it shoots explosive matter. Similarly, Star Wars guns seem to shoot some sort of explosive whatever particle beam thing. We've even seen spent shells in RotS and TCW.

So why the hell do you guys try to claim engine power from firepower?

You know what? That's a good point. However, upon more thought, Star Wars guns don't seem to be explosive, or not turbolasers. They're thermal in nature. More evidence of this is apparent when that officer specifies to intensify forward batteries, aka divert power to the frontal weapons, aka turbolasers.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. You still have to prove they exist in order to claim them.

Besides which, what delightful oversimplification. In a mere three paragraphs without a lick of technical explanation you've solved the problem! Next up, would you mind completing nuclear fusion, cures for cancer, and so on in your next post?

You are asserting that, even if I prove e23 watt reactors, it would not prove 200 gigaton turbolasers. Let's put that to the test, as in assume that I did prove the e23 watt part.

We know that said energy is being used for something.

We know that said ship is a warship.

Let's brainstorm some possible applications of the energy:

Weapons
Shielding
Tension shields, inertial dampeners and other technoblabble
Life support
Electronics
Sensors
Targeting
Artificial gravity

Since star destroyers are warships, one would assume that weapons and shieldings would take priority. However, other things such as life support and sensors are still needed, right? Yep. How much energy would they require?


Tension shields, inertial dampeners and other technoblabble - hard to tell actually, but there are many examples in which star destroyers are not moving, and such would not need much of that stuff.
Life support - To suggest that even 1% of e23 watts would be needed to support a crew of several thousand would be suggesting that each crew member needs the entire United States to give it life support. That's clearly ridiculous in terms of realism. The entire United State's energy production/consumption is not needed for the life support of one person. Therefore, any life support needed would take up less than 0.01% or so of e23 watts.
Electronics - Since star destroyers are space age ships, electronics might need more energy to make holograms and other stuff. However, it's still ridiculous that the entire world's energy consumption or production for a year would be needed to generate holograms or such. Therefore, any electronics would still be insignificant compared to e23 watts.
Sensors - Even modern active scanners can scan large portions of the night sky in a matter of minutes. Would a star destroyer really need any significant portion of e23 watts to sense another ship generating e23 watts, which would be a huge amount that would be extremely easy to detect, even with modern sensors, from millions of kms away? No.

Targeting - I'll admit that Star Wars seems to use more manual targeting than a space age society should. Any targeting that it does use would not be any significant portion of e23 watts.

Therefore, the rest of the needed things, such as life support, would combine to less than 0.1% of e23 watts. The rest would be used for something, but what? Hmm...a warship would be focused on what? Fighting! Obviously the majority of the energy would be used to power weapons and shields. Unless if you can prove that e23 watts are needed to provide lighting and maintain oxygen levels. Weapons and shields are perhaps the only things in that list that do not have a realistic limit in how much you need. You only need so much for life support, or for lighting the ship. However, can you only need so much for shielding and weapons? Not when your enemy is likely also upgrading his/her shielding and weapons.

You might wave this off as being speculation and theoretical, but it does put into question your idea of 1.5 megaton turbolasers. There are e23 watts being generated by a star destroyer, right? A small portion of that would be going to stuff such as life support, but not a significant amount. Even if a star destroyer has 100 1.5 megaton turbolasers (which would actually give it more firepower than a Star Trek starship, so yeah) that's about e17 joules per second, less than 1% of the available energy of the star destroyer. Where is the rest of the energy going? Is it being used to cook dinner?

If we say that e22 watts are available for weapons and shielding; which would suggest that 90% of the power is being used for stuff such as life support, then that's still quite a bit of power. If 50% could be used for weaponry, that's a potential of over a teraton per second. Even if 1% could be used for weaponry, that's a potential of over 20 gigatons per second. Both of these figures are higher than any Star Trek starship in terms of firepower.

False dichotomy. Surely you don't think that a single explosive charge can, with utter and complete cleanliness, perfectly vaporize a 400 meter asteroid without a single piece of remnant debris blasted away, do you?

Yet, somehow, the amount of remnant debris was calculable. Therefore, they were expecting for there to still be debris, and they had calculated the size of said debris left over.

I stand by what?

I quoted someone else on my site who references Sagan et al. and refers to a large spread of nuclear weapons distributed around, totalling 100 megatons. That's not the same as a single 100MT bomb. In fact, on that very page I make fun of idiots who attempted to misread it that way:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html

That said, although that page is correct in noting the position of many scientists in regards to modeling the effects of a limited nuclear exchange, I am not so certain now of the correctness of their view. But that's neither here nor there, except to provide the second part of the fact that (1) that's not my opinion and (2) I don't necessarily stand by it anyway.

In any case, such speculations aren't required for the page's arguments anyway.

A concentrated 100 megaton nuclear explosion might not be the same as a distributed 100 megaton nuclear explosion, but it would still have comparable effects. The total amount of radiation released would still be the same, and it's still basically omnidirectional. And it's not your opinion? You quoted it, and put it on your website.

Also, in the breen attack on Earth, if they had even just 30 seconds to fire a barrage, they could have distributed far more than 100 megatons around the Earth. I'll admit that Star Trek ships can fire photon torpedos pretty quickly. If 100 megatons could start a nuclear winter, what about several gigatons? That would mess up the planet, yet the photon torpedos didn't.

Please provide evidence of even a single ship-mounted weapon being used against San Francisco.

Ah, so the Breen forces decided to simply use small scale fighter weapons on 0.1% yield when performing planetary bombardment?

1. You don't get nuclear winter in one second! Good grief.

Nor did we get one after several minutes, or several hours; no nuclear winter occurred.

2. The torpedoes fired against the planet in that scene (from "For the Uniform"[DSN5]) were quantum torpedoes detonated fifty kilometers above the planet's surface in order to disperse poisonous trilithium resin from attached cargo pods.

And? They were still fired, and yet did not show the effects that you'd expect from a 100 megaton weapon.

Needless to say, that's not the same thing as a surface strike, and we don't even know what special maneuvers are involved in that whole sequence. Certainly dispersing poison by attaching a cargo pod to a nuke is not going to be terribly efficient (except at destroying the poison), and yet as we see the torpedoes appear to produce continent-size shockfronts. The entire planet had to be evacuated of human life.

Or, put more simply, that's not exactly the best example of weak torpedoes that you've ever come up with.

What? Continent sized? Both me and even a trekkie calculated the explosion radius to be a few hundred kms. Actually, that's assuming that the blue part is the explosion radius, and not the brighter white part at the center, which would not explain what the brighter white part is. Presumably, that's the fireball, while the blue stuff is some sort of aftershock. Strangely, the fireball duration is a split second.

[2046]

Apparently my point didn't come across last time regarding your 200GT theorizings, so let's try again.

Let's suppose I conceded that your speculations were plausible and said that 200GT . . . hell, why stop there? . . . 200 yottaton weapons were technologically plausible in Star Wars. What would that change? We don't see them or any evidence of their presence. So why do you even try to argue it? You still have to prove they exist even after you try to prove they make sense in your mind.

Of course, you're asserting their plausibility as a backdoor way of trying to bring the ICS in the debate, which is childish, but whatever. At a stroke your entire argument is defeated, because if they don't actually show up in the canon then you can twist yourself into a pretzel to prove they *could* be there and it won't matter one iota, because even if I concede to your speculations they're *still* not in the canon.

Debate on what is rationally provable from the canon. Anything else is a waste of time.

Are you saying that George Lucas also thinks that reference guides to the movies are in a different universe than the movies?

I wouldn't phrase it that way, of course, since you're either trying to invoke mind-reading or else trying to create this magical world where Lucas has individually judged every work with a kingly hand sporting a begloved thumb up or down like some Roman emperor.

But, stripped of the BS, the idea is basically true . . . the ICS books are just more EU material, and have not been treated by Lucas as anything different.

Besides, if you wanted a canon debate, you could've said so in advance, rather than agree to rules of what counts and what doesn't and then bitched and moaned and tried to sneak stuff in the whole time as you seem bent on doing.

And the examples of Acclamators being destroyed by AA guns were probably an example of oversight on the part of the creators.

You, being you, would certainly think so. However, thanks for bringing up Republic cruisers being destroyed in-atmosphere by sub-megaton weapons. I guess George had misplaced his copy of the ICS books that day?

Oh really? And how does the Falcon going some unspecified value of what you consider "fast" prove jack about the Death Star?

It's an example in case you doubted the 670 km/s figure for the Death Star on the grounds of it being too absurdly fast.

I don't recall expressing doubt, don't actually care at this juncture, and don't see how it is relevant. You cannot prove Claim X by proving unrelated Claim A.

I presume you're talking about Endor, except that the Imperial fleet was never seen to circumnavigate the planet.

Ah, sorry, Endor. In the novels, it was behind Endor, and then suddenly it was behind the Rebel fleet. Obviously it had to go around Endor.

In the film and script, the Imperial fleet's just sitting there and there's no indication for how long or from where. But you're correct about the novelization, and then some . . .

"The large central view-screen was coming alive. It was no
longer just the Death Star and the green moon behind it,
floating isolated in space. Now the massive Imperial fleet
could be seen flying in perfect, regimental formation, out
from behind Endor in two behemoth flanking waves - heading
to surround the Rebel fleet from both sides, like the
pincers of a deadly scorpion."

Of course, the novelization has several details wrong. For one, the Death Star shouldn't be visible along with Endor, since the Imperials were, in one group, opposite the Death Star from he Rebel fleet, but generally speaking we can say that the Imperial fleet had maneuvered around the limb of Endor at some point.

The novels are basically sort of the historical fiction version of the canon, so whether or not they were actively flying around the limb of Endor is less relevant than the notion that they could have done so.

Assuming an orbital altitude of around 500 kilometers, the limb of Endor (i.e. the horizon) would be about 2500 kilometers distant. At 200 kilometers (as per the Rebel hologram at one point), the horizon is 1600 kilometers distant. Assuming two minutes for the maneuver, that puts the velocity at anywhere from 13-20 kilometers per second.

At 200 m/s^2, even the high end of those is achievable in about a minute and a half. But, it's worth noting that Star Wars vessels have often seemed to me to have superior performance near planets anyway, presumably owing to the use of antigrav technology. So, it all could've been faster. But it is nice to see that it doesn't have to be some ridiculous figure.

Even your side has suggested that a short hyperjump was used to get to the Death Star.

Except that no evidence of such is shown, and one would wonder why the Death Star couldn't do the same thing to get within Yavin's range instead of going there via sublight drives.

It's too big, per "Shadow of Malevolence"[TCW1]. Quoting NoLettersHome.Info:

Anakin: "The Rendelia system. Near Naboo. Isn't that where our medical base is? I'll bet that will be his next target."
Plo Koon: "There are many star clusters in that area. With a ship that big, he will be unable to chart a course that's less than 10 parsecs."

For the first time, we hear that navigational hazards like stars have a wide-ranging effect, one that is possibly cumulative. For instance, we learned in the first Star Wars novelization that a planet's gravity well prevented hyperdrive use within a certain distance from a planet, and it would also make sense that this would be the case with a star, as well. However, the mere existence of multiple stars together means that a massive ship like Malevolence must completely go around the star clusters, traveling further to get to the same place that a smaller ship could get to with a more direct route.

By analogy, normal hyperspace lanes would normally be like an eight-lane superhighway that any mammoth ship can travel on, but the star clusters winnow that down into downtown Manhatten in rush hour . . . only bike messengers and pedestrians can get through.

Navigational hazards thus seem to affect the larger ship that much more. Whereas a smaller ship might be able to plot jumps that enable it to squeeze closer to or even between the star clusters in a survivable fashion (albeit with likely stress), the sheer bulk of the Malevolence means it has to just go well around the whole thing. The general theory we could draw out is that stuff in realspace might produce effects on hyperspace vessels passing through -- effects spreading out much further than the realspace item. Much as hitting something can destroy a hyperdriven vessel, the gravitational complexities of star clusters might be enough to disrupt a ship's hyperdrive, especially in the case of larger vessels.

This does have interesting implications for a vessel the size of, say, the Death Star.

Also, short hyperjumps are a known quantity:

"Obi-Wan took General Grievous's starfighter screaming out of the atmosphere so fast he popped the gravity well and made jump before the Vigilance could even scramble its fighters. He reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again. A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space." (RotS, Ch. 18)

That's a rather obvious editing error. You'd do better to argue a hyperjump there, since the thing goes from aircraft-speed near the surface to high orbit leisurely passing a Separatist ship, seemingly still at aircraft speed relative to the planet.

I have no doubt that Star Wars vessels can achieve orbit fairly quickly, but that's a literal jump-cut to space . . . it doesn't make sense.

You know what? It probably was an editing error. But is that reason to suspend suspension of disbelief?

Yes.

But after further reflection, there is an alternative. That is to presume a short escape hyperspace jump, possibly even from within the atmosphere. At the risk of speculating after having just gotten on to you about it:

There are only two things needed for such a jump. First is to know the minimum length of a hyperjump and to fall within that boundary, and second is to ponder the notion of a jump originating inside the atmosphere of a planet.

Such short jumps (in the neighborhood of a few hundred thousand kilometers) are implied by "Ambush"[TCW1] and perhaps other examples. In the RotS novelization, Obi-Wan, in the fighter formerly piloted by Grievous, "reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again. A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space."

The latter example suggests several jumps that only cover perhaps a few light-years . . . the first need not have been measured in anything more than AUs. That said, Dooku's escape would still represent the shortest known hyperspace jump, to my knowledge.

(Of course, supremely short hyperspace jumps would've been useful in numerous cases, such as the many occasions in TCW where ships come out of hyperspace only to find enemy vessels around a planet. However, it may be easier exiting a gravity well via jumping than entering one.)

We've also seen hyperspace jumps from within the atmosphere, a "mere" several thousand feet high, as occurred in "Jedi Crash"[TCW1] . . . they are clearly not advisable, but perhaps the sailship was capable of it in at least a semi-controlled manner. Dooku, after all, has a tendency to create elaborate escape routes for himself. Note the starship equipped with a meditation chamber with a direct escape tube to the flight deck in "Dooku Captured"[TCW1].

This is actually a useful idea with explanatory power, unlike your rampant unfounded speculations.

I'm pretty sure that the examples of uncovered stormtrooper armor are editing errors, as are examples of their armor being pierced by bows.

That makes no sense. Please review the concept of "editing" in a film context.

1. "System" is not generally used the same way in the Star Wars films as we might use it. "On the system", for instance, is not a phrasing we would employ.

Really? What would system mean in Star Wars then? A city block? A house?

There's variation, but it often seems to refer to just a planet, or perhaps a planet and its moons as a separate system from the star-planet system we would generally mean and which is also sometimes used. Suffice it to say there's enough variation in use that the automatic presumption of "star system" is not advisable.

"We're on our way to Coruscant, the central system in the Republic, on a very important mission." (TPM Ch. 10)

""Sirs, we've captured a small freighter that was entering the remains of Alderaan. A standard check indicates that its markings apparently match that of the ship which blasted its way out of the quarantine at Mos Eisley, Tatooine system, and went hyper before the Imperial blockade craft there could close on it."" (ANH Ch. 8)

"LEIA Organa sat silently before the huge display screen on which Yavin and its moons were displayed. A large red dot moved steadily toward the fourth of those satellites. Dodonna and several other field commanders of the Alliance stood behind her, their eyes also intent on the screen. Tiny green flecks began to appear around the fourth moon, to coalesce into small clouds like hovering emerald gnats.
Dodonna put a hand on her shoulder. It was comforting. "The red represents the progress of the Imperial battle station as it moves deeper into Yavin's system."" (ANH Ch. 12)

"The job had seemed simple enough: Just pilot Ben Kenobi, plus young Luke and two droids, to the Alderaan system." (TESB Ch. 1)

. . . and so on.

2. The script and film do not require us to believe that Bespin was anywhere but the Anoat system, which was the location given at the time. The novelization does make reference to "Bespin system", but as per #1 we have no real need to assume a separate star system.

So then there is quite clearly a difference between this Bespin system and the Anoat system.

Maybe, but not necessarily in the sense of a separate *star* even being involved.

A possible explanation is that the two systems were really close to one another for some strange, but still realistic reason, and that Han and Leia really took about a year to get there. This gives Luke a year to train with Yoda, which explains why he was confident enough to take on Vader, and the seemingly shorter time frame could be time dilation, since they'd be moving at relativistic speeds.

As I recall, you have to be north of 85% lightspeed to double the clock. At 200 meters per second squared, they'd have to burn the engines at maximum for two weeks or so straight to get anywhere near that. Fusion's great and all, but that's still a ridiculous amount of fuel.

And at that velocity a milligram dust particle would collide with a kinetic energy of over 7 tons of TNT, which is a whole 'nother can of worms considering hand weapons and mynocks can damage the Falcon exterior. But, we can assume some sort of deflector system a la Trek's.

No, I do suspect there was probably a long trip there, but I don't have the sense of it being significantly relativistic.

Dude, 2002* called. They want their argument back.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdsaccel.html

(* that's the oldest Wayback Machine version of the page available, but I think it's probably a 2001 thing.)

You indirectly answered your own question; the imperials made a miscalculation and dropped out of hyperspace too late.

Too late or too early?

You assertion is that the Rebels were using a screen that was completely misrepresenting the movement of the Death Star, which is ridiculous, because it suggests that the Rebels would use a device that was clearly inaccurate.

Just by incorrect scaling alone the screen makes that case for me.

So should I take it that you wish to assert the absolute accuracy of Rebel information displays? This should be fun . . . please, be my guest.

So you have a totally-wrong acceleration and an unknown-but-assumed mass, and from such august reasonings comes a figure which you quote. What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, so then cut the density in half. Or by three. Or by four. Unless if you're suggesting that the Death Star has the density of water or helium, it doesn't change the facts by a significant degree.

Easy, there, dodger . . . you respond to only part of the point. My point was that your every figure was questionable, including acceleration.

You've oversimplified by about a million.

1. You can't simply scale power and weapons systems up and down and expect the scaled output to be correct. The differences between a .357 Magnum and an Iowa Class 16-incher are extreme, but the energy difference is not a direct correlation of barrel width. But, do feel free to prove me wrong.

Except that in your analogy the weapons in question are in atmosphere projectiles subject to plenty of different factors,

And the very same thing is true when you're talking about scaling reactors up and down. Hell, by your reasoning they could just scale up a car engine to massive size in order to run a large cargo ship and achieve the exact same efficiency per volume and everything else, all without incident.

But that isn't how things work in the real world. Yeah, there is a suitably large internal combustion engine in maritime use, it is like no internal combustion engine in any car, and the power-to-weight ratio of that turbocharged RT-flex96C isabout 1/20th that of a V-8 Duramax turbodiesel.

You'd think they'd almost do as well to hook a bunch of automotive V-8s together, except that added complexity and weight of all the linkages would kill the idea pretty quick. The point remains, however, that you can't just hit the "LOL SIZEx200!!!" button and expect the specs to hold.

Consider that an internal combustion engine will have issues with unburned fuel . . . this is why fuel is injected in vaporized form, and lots of research and design goes into the shape and mechanics of the combustion chamber to eke out the last little bit of combustion. Now make the combustion chamber fifty times bigger, and watch the headaches mount.

For a fusion reactor, this problem is just as bad if not worse, since in a magnetic confinement system (just as an example) you're gonna have to go absolutely nuts with your field strength in order to maintain pressure.

Put simply, if you still cling to the idea of effortless scaling which has no effects on output then I can't help you, because you're just being intentionally ignorant of how things work in the real world.

and iirc the Iowa's guns have explosive properties, whereas a magnum does not.

They have solid projectiles, too. Don't try to elude the point by fixating on the analogy . . . even if my analogy was wrong it's not a "get out of jail free" card regarding the point I made, which was quite clear.

2. You pluck "e23" out of thin air. I presume you are assuming that the Death Star reactor generates 1E38W, but I'm afraid you'll have to prove that.

I already proved that the Death Star would have to generate roughly that amount of power to move itself at the speed that it did.

You have done no such thing. Frankly, the Yavin example doesn't require the Death Star to have any STL drive system at all . . . just drop out of hyperspace and whip around the planet by gravity and boom, you're there . . . where's the need for powered flight?

But just for kicks, please explain heat dissipation of a 200GT directed energy weapon operating at, oh, 99.99% thermal efficiency. Mind you, that's extremely good efficiency . . . except for the part where it offloads 20 megatons of energy into its surroundings.

Oh yeah! Thanks for proving that Star Wars shields are pretty darn powerful.

Thanks for admitting that you're not even trying. It's just all magical handwavium to you, isn't it?

What? Are you suggesting that they are not simple directed energy weapons? Very good! {...} So why the hell do you guys try to claim engine power from firepower?

You know what? That's a good point. However, upon more thought, Star Wars guns don't seem to be explosive, or not turbolasers. They're thermal in nature. More evidence of this is apparent when that officer specifies to intensify forward batteries, aka divert power to the frontal weapons, aka turbolasers.

"You know what? That's a good point. But upon more thought, I shall ignore it for no reason whatsoever."

I mean, dude, seriously.

Intensification of firepower in a particular direction does not necessarily equal putting more energy to the guns.

And even if it did, that still doesn't prove that the guns with extra energy going to them are DET weapons . . . in the absence of information, it is just as valid to assume that extra power might simply accelerate reloading. (Indeed, that would make more sense given the Seppie shell casings!)

You are asserting that, even if I prove e23 watt reactors, it would not prove 200 gigaton turbolasers. Let's put that to the test, as in assume that I did prove the e23 watt part.

Okay, let's assume you proved 1E23W reactors. This would be accomplished by your showing me events or facts which absolutely require reactor energy of that level. And yet by your own (if even momentary) admission, weapons yields are not such an example. And yet you want to go in reverse and claim that the reactor proves yields?

Don't get me wrong . . . I applaud your determination, even if it is misguided. But by then claiming that you have proven anything about the weapons simply because you lack the creativity to imagine uses for such power is neither logical nor my concern.

So, to make things easier on both of us, get back to me when you have some proof of 1E23W reactors.

Tension shields

What the hell is a tension shield? Are you trying to sneak in more EU crap again?

False dichotomy. Surely you don't think that a single explosive charge can, with utter and complete cleanliness, perfectly vaporize a 400 meter asteroid without a single piece of remnant debris blasted away, do you?

Yet, somehow, the amount of remnant debris was calculable. Therefore, they were expecting for there to still be debris, and they had calculated the size of said debris left over.

Yes. And?

And it's not your opinion? You quoted it, and put it on your website.

I quote Mike Wong, too. Hell, I'm quoting you in this message. That doesn't make his opinions my opinions, and it's really scary that you would seem to think so . . . it suggests your intelligence level is alarmingly low.

Please provide evidence of even a single ship-mounted weapon being used against San Francisco.

Ah, so the Breen forces decided to simply use small scale fighter weapons on 0.1% yield when performing planetary bombardment?

We aren't told it's a planetary bombardment, though I like how you ever so dishonestly slip that assumption in as part of your nonsense. But in any case, please provide evidence of even a single *vehicle-mounted* weapon being used against San Francisco.

Hell, man, you can't even prove they didn't use chainsaws . . . know why? Because we don't know a damn thing about the attack! All we see is smoke and broken stuff.

1. You don't get nuclear winter in one second! Good grief.

Nor did we get one after several minutes, or several hours; no nuclear winter occurred.

1. Stop pretending that I'm arguing for one, and stop pretending that I somehow need one.

2. You don't know when the images of San Fran were taken.

3. You don't get a nuclear winter after a few minutes or hours, either . . . for crying out loud, if you're gonna pretend I am arguing for one, at least look up what it is so that I'm not so offended by your ignorance that I feel the need to correct you, thus fuelling your insane pretense.

2. The torpedoes fired against the planet in that scene (from "For the Uniform"[DSN5]) were quantum torpedoes detonated fifty kilometers above the planet's surface in order to disperse poisonous trilithium resin from attached cargo pods.

And? They were still fired, and yet did not show the effects that you'd expect from a 100 megaton weapon.[/quote]

What effects are you expecting?

What? Continent sized? Both me and even a trekkie calculated the explosion radius to be a few hundred kms.

I don't care what you did. Even by eyeball alone, the white blast waves are clearly larger, covering a near-majority of the the sunlit 1/8th of a planet visible.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

FYI, I'm not out, but I am busy and my interest in debating this isn't what it is before. You can check back after a while; I'll try to respond ASAP.

[Mike DiCenso]

Stepping in here in my capacity as a moderator. If either of you has a reasonable need of an extension. Such as you have a real-life issue, or a login issue. Something can be worked out, otherwise you are both "on the clock" so to speak in making your reply.
-Mike

[2046]

At present the agreed-upon time gives 11 more days in addition to the 20 or so since my last reply. I intentionally left a pretty long time with lots of wiggle room, simply knowing how I have sporadic time for such things. (Just noting it here so it isn't lost in the commentary thread.)

That said, I am open to an extension for a good cause, but I do wish to note that extensions for 'sudden disinterest' seem inappropriate somehow. If you wish, you may withdraw without conceding your claims (quitting while saving face, as it were), in which case I'll simply make my final post a wrap-up and we'll be done.

[Mike DiCenso]

I agree. Simply delaying because you are burned out and not as interested in debating is not excuse enough. The clock will keep running for SWST until and unless he/she comes up with a suitably vaild reason for a delay.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I am planning to respond by this Friday. Promise, promise promise. XD This is not in any way a delaying tactic.

So by this Friday, I'll respond, or you can declare victory.

[Mike DiCenso]

This Friday it is, then.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Ok, a response is coming up.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Apparently my point didn't come across last time regarding your 200GT theorizings, so let's try again.

Let's suppose I conceded that your speculations were plausible and said that 200GT . . . hell, why stop there? . . . 200 yottaton weapons were technologically plausible in Star Wars. What would that change? We don't see them or any evidence of their presence. So why do you even try to argue it? You still have to prove they exist even after you try to prove they make sense in your mind.

No, 200 yottaton weapons are not plausible. Please check your math.

EDIT: more specifically, a 200 yottaton weapon would require more energy than I proposed a star destroyer produces.

Of course, you're asserting their plausibility as a backdoor way of trying to bring the ICS in the debate, which is childish, but whatever. At a stroke your entire argument is defeated, because if they don't actually show up in the canon then you can twist yourself into a pretzel to prove they *could* be there and it won't matter one iota, because even if I concede to your speculations they're *still* not in the canon.

No, we know that star destroyers produce e24 joules per second. Logically, this energy is being used for something. What do you suggest? That it's being used to cook dinner?

Debate on what is rationally provable from the canon. Anything else is a waste of time.

It is rationally provable from canon that Star Wars has 200 gigaton level weapons, unless if you think that e24 joules per second are being produced to cook dinner.

[quote
I wouldn't phrase it that way, of course, since you're either trying to invoke mind-reading or else trying to create this magical world where Lucas has individually judged every work with a kingly hand sporting a begloved thumb up or down like some Roman emperor.

But, stripped of the BS, the idea is basically true . . . the ICS books are just more EU material, and have not been treated by Lucas as anything different.

[/quote]

Lucas's quotes that you have provided imply that he does not accept post ROTJ storylines. There is no evidence whatsoever that a book about the movies would be considered to be in a different universe.

Besides, if you wanted a canon debate, you could've said so in advance, rather than agree to rules of what counts and what doesn't and then bitched and moaned and tried to sneak stuff in the whole time as you seem bent on doing.

I did say so in evidence. The ICS's are movie guides. Apparently, you think that Lucas's ambiguous alternate universe quote applies to guides of the freaking movies.

You, being you, would certainly think so. However, thanks for bringing up Republic cruisers being destroyed in-atmosphere by sub-megaton weapons. I guess George had misplaced his copy of the ICS books that day?

You seriously think that George Lucas personally sees over all of the CW episodes?

I don't recall expressing doubt, don't actually care at this juncture, and don't see how it is relevant. You cannot prove Claim X by proving unrelated Claim A.

It is relevant because in order for the Death Star to move that fast at the size that it is, it would need about e30 joules of energy...which turns out to scale down almost perfectly to e24 joules!

In the film and script, the Imperial fleet's just sitting there and there's no indication for how long or from where. But you're correct about the novelization, and then some . . .

"The large central view-screen was coming alive. It was no
longer just the Death Star and the green moon behind it,
floating isolated in space. Now the massive Imperial fleet
could be seen flying in perfect, regimental formation, out
from behind Endor in two behemoth flanking waves - heading
to surround the Rebel fleet from both sides, like the
pincers of a deadly scorpion."

Of course, the novelization has several details wrong. For one, the Death Star shouldn't be visible along with Endor, since the Imperials were, in one group, opposite the Death Star from he Rebel fleet, but generally speaking we can say that the Imperial fleet had maneuvered around the limb of Endor at some point.

The novels are basically sort of the historical fiction version of the canon, so whether or not they were actively flying around the limb of Endor is less relevant than the notion that they could have done so.

Assuming an orbital altitude of around 500 kilometers, the limb of Endor (i.e. the horizon) would be about 2500 kilometers distant. At 200 kilometers (as per the Rebel hologram at one point), the horizon is 1600 kilometers distant. Assuming two minutes for the maneuver, that puts the velocity at anywhere from 13-20 kilometers per second.

At 200 m/s^2, even the high end of those is achievable in about a minute and a half. But, it's worth noting that Star Wars vessels have often seemed to me to have superior performance near planets anyway, presumably owing to the use of antigrav technology. So, it all could've been faster. But it is nice to see that it doesn't have to be some ridiculous figure.

You're acting like as if 13-20 kilometers per second is insignificant. You're also making unsuportted assumptions such as the maneuver taking 2 minutes when such a time frame would be well within the capabilities of the Rebels to detect in motion.

It's too big, per "Shadow of Malevolence"[TCW1]. Quoting NoLettersHome.Info:

Anakin: "The Rendelia system. Near Naboo. Isn't that where our medical base is? I'll bet that will be his next target."
Plo Koon: "There are many star clusters in that area. With a ship that big, he will be unable to chart a course that's less than 10 parsecs."

For the first time, we hear that navigational hazards like stars have a wide-ranging effect, one that is possibly cumulative. For instance, we learned in the first Star Wars novelization that a planet's gravity well prevented hyperdrive use within a certain distance from a planet, and it would also make sense that this would be the case with a star, as well. However, the mere existence of multiple stars together means that a massive ship like Malevolence must completely go around the star clusters, traveling further to get to the same place that a smaller ship could get to with a more direct route.

By analogy, normal hyperspace lanes would normally be like an eight-lane superhighway that any mammoth ship can travel on, but the star clusters winnow that down into downtown Manhatten in rush hour . . . only bike messengers and pedestrians can get through.

Navigational hazards thus seem to affect the larger ship that much more. Whereas a smaller ship might be able to plot jumps that enable it to squeeze closer to or even between the star clusters in a survivable fashion (albeit with likely stress), the sheer bulk of the Malevolence means it has to just go well around the whole thing. The general theory we could draw out is that stuff in realspace might produce effects on hyperspace vessels passing through -- effects spreading out much further than the realspace item. Much as hitting something can destroy a hyperdriven vessel, the gravitational complexities of star clusters might be enough to disrupt a ship's hyperdrive, especially in the case of larger vessels.

This does have interesting implications for a vessel the size of, say, the Death Star.

Except that we were referring to a micro hyperjump in this case, possibly within a star system. Therefore, star clusters would not be a factor, nor would any other major potential obstacles.

Also, short hyperjumps are a known quantity:

"Obi-Wan took General Grievous's starfighter screaming out of the atmosphere so fast he popped the gravity well and made jump before the Vigilance could even scramble its fighters. He reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again. A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space." (RotS, Ch. 18)

It seems strange that I'm arguing against the presence of micro hyperdrive jumps, which could help Star Wars in a war significantly.

That being said, your post does not imply that Obi Wan used specific hyperdrive coordinates or that he even used micro hyperdrive. Well beyond the system could be several light years in space terms.

Yes.

But after further reflection, there is an alternative. That is to presume a short escape hyperspace jump, possibly even from within the atmosphere. At the risk of speculating after having just gotten on to you about it:

There are only two things needed for such a jump. First is to know the minimum length of a hyperjump and to fall within that boundary, and second is to ponder the notion of a jump originating inside the atmosphere of a planet.

Such short jumps (in the neighborhood of a few hundred thousand kilometers) are implied by "Ambush"[TCW1] and perhaps other examples. In the RotS novelization, Obi-Wan, in the fighter formerly piloted by Grievous, "reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again. A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space."

The latter example suggests several jumps that only cover perhaps a few light-years . . . the first need not have been measured in anything more than AUs. That said, Dooku's escape would still represent the shortest known hyperspace jump, to my knowledge.

(Of course, supremely short hyperspace jumps would've been useful in numerous cases, such as the many occasions in TCW where ships come out of hyperspace only to find enemy vessels around a planet. However, it may be easier exiting a gravity well via jumping than entering one.)

We've also seen hyperspace jumps from within the atmosphere, a "mere" several thousand feet high, as occurred in "Jedi Crash"[TCW1] . . . they are clearly not advisable, but perhaps the sailship was capable of it in at least a semi-controlled manner. Dooku, after all, has a tendency to create elaborate escape routes for himself. Note the starship equipped with a meditation chamber with a direct escape tube to the flight deck in "Dooku Captured"[TCW1].

This is actually a useful idea with explanatory power, unlike your rampant unfounded speculations.

The problem is that it contradicts your assertion that gravity wells interfere with hyperdrives. Suddenly, you're suggesting that a sail ship can do a hyperdrive jump inside the atmosphere? Why would Dooku risk such a maneuver if it were dangerous?

And unfounded speculations? My speculation as you call it is the common sense idea the ship left orbit by flying, which is what it was doing in its screen time.

Your idea is that the ship did an off screen, never stated micro hyperjump, but instead of jumping away simply jumped a few thousand kms conveniently for a pan of it leaving Geonosis.

That being said, your idea of Star Wars having micro hyperdrive capabilities like this actually helps its cause. Using this method, Star Wars strike groups could hyperjump into Federation planets, turbolaser it, or if you think that turbolasers are too weak drop some nuclear weapons on it or chemical weapons, and micro hyperjump out. In trouble? Micro hyperjump out.

That makes no sense. Please review the concept of "editing" in a film context.

Except that there also shots of ewok arrows bouncing off of stormtroopers, and the screen shots of the arrows penetrating the stormtrooper armor happens to be the backpack; so maybe it isn't an editing error, it's the difference between armor and a backpack.

There's variation, but it often seems to refer to just a planet, or perhaps a planet and its moons as a separate system from the star-planet system we would generally mean and which is also sometimes used. Suffice it to say there's enough variation in use that the automatic presumption of "star system" is not advisable.

"We're on our way to Coruscant, the central system in the Republic, on a very important mission." (TPM Ch. 10)

""Sirs, we've captured a small freighter that was entering the remains of Alderaan. A standard check indicates that its markings apparently match that of the ship which blasted its way out of the quarantine at Mos Eisley, Tatooine system, and went hyper before the Imperial blockade craft there could close on it."" (ANH Ch. 8)

"LEIA Organa sat silently before the huge display screen on which Yavin and its moons were displayed. A large red dot moved steadily toward the fourth of those satellites. Dodonna and several other field commanders of the Alliance stood behind her, their eyes also intent on the screen. Tiny green flecks began to appear around the fourth moon, to coalesce into small clouds like hovering emerald gnats.
Dodonna put a hand on her shoulder. It was comforting. "The red represents the progress of the Imperial battle station as it moves deeper into Yavin's system."" (ANH Ch. 12)

"The job had seemed simple enough: Just pilot Ben Kenobi, plus young Luke and two droids, to the Alderaan system." (TESB Ch. 1)

. . . and so on.

That's simple; the systems in Star Wars are named after the prominent planet in the system.

Maybe, but not necessarily in the sense of a separate *star* even being involved.

A completely unsupported claim, since a system in space terms would imply a star system, and there's no reason to believe that they for some reason have system relating to a planet's orbit or something like that.

Or did Han decide to mention such small scale terms astronomically wise?

As I recall, you have to be north of 85% lightspeed to double the clock. At 200 meters per second squared, they'd have to burn the engines at maximum for two weeks or so straight to get anywhere near that. Fusion's great and all, but that's still a ridiculous amount of fuel.

And at that velocity a milligram dust particle would collide with a kinetic energy of over 7 tons of TNT, which is a whole 'nother can of worms considering hand weapons and mynocks can damage the Falcon exterior. But, we can assume some sort of deflector system a la Trek's.

No, I do suspect there was probably a long trip there, but I don't have the sense of it being significantly relativistic.

Spare me a freaking break; the Falcon was tanking shots from a star destroyer's light turbolasers. Are you going to claim that light turbolasers are less than 7 tons of tnt?

Too late or too early?

Does it really matter?

Just by incorrect scaling alone the screen makes that case for me.

So should I take it that you wish to assert the absolute accuracy of Rebel information displays? This should be fun . . . please, be my guest.

I'm not asserting the absolute accuracy, I'm asserting enough accuracy so that the Rebels have some use for the device. You're claiming that the device was misjudging the speed of the imperials by a factor of several hundred, and that the Rebels would use such a device just for the heck of it.

Easy, there, dodger . . . you respond to only part of the point. My point was that your every figure was questionable, including acceleration.

Questionable in nitpicky terms, yes. But the possible margin of error does not detract from the argument.

And the very same thing is true when you're talking about scaling reactors up and down. Hell, by your reasoning they could just scale up a car engine to massive size in order to run a large cargo ship and achieve the exact same efficiency per volume and everything else, all without incident.

If anything, scaling a reactor up would reduce its efficiency. That would imply that the star destroyers' fusion/hypermatter/etc. reactor is even more efficient per volume than the Death Star's reactor is.

But that isn't how things work in the real world. Yeah, there is a suitably large internal combustion engine in maritime use, it is like no internal combustion engine in any car, and the power-to-weight ratio of that turbocharged RT-flex96C isabout 1/20th that of a V-8 Duramax turbodiesel.

You do realize that this actually helps my arguments and implies that the smaller star destroyer reactor are more efficient, do you?

You'd think they'd almost do as well to hook a bunch of automotive V-8s together, except that added complexity and weight of all the linkages would kill the idea pretty quick. The point remains, however, that you can't just hit the "LOL SIZEx200!!!" button and expect the specs to hold.

Not exactly, no. However, you can do so to a good enough accuracy. Take the star destroyer's power generation specs and divide or multiply by 20 and you still get a figure far higher than, you know, a certain ship.

Consider that an internal combustion engine will have issues with unburned fuel . . . this is why fuel is injected in vaporized form, and lots of research and design goes into the shape and mechanics of the combustion chamber to eke out the last little bit of combustion. Now make the combustion chamber fifty times bigger, and watch the headaches mount.


For a fusion reactor, this problem is just as bad if not worse, since in a magnetic confinement system (just as an example) you're gonna have to go absolutely nuts with your field strength in order to maintain pressure.

Put simply, if you still cling to the idea of effortless scaling which has no effects on output then I can't help you, because you're just being intentionally ignorant of how things work in the real world.

Again, this is...completely counter intuitive to your argument, and actually implies a higher power generation figure for a star destroyer than I predicted.

They have solid projectiles, too. Don't try to elude the point by fixating on the analogy . . . even if my analogy was wrong it's not a "get out of jail free" card regarding the point I made, which was quite clear.

I didn't say it was a get out of jail free card, I was replying to your analogy. The Iowa's guns and a mangum are very different in numerous ways that do not apply to a star destroyer and a death star.

You have done no such thing. Frankly, the Yavin example doesn't require the Death Star to have any STL drive system at all . . . just drop out of hyperspace and whip around the planet by gravity and boom, you're there . . . where's the need for powered flight?

Because gravity alone would not propel the Death Star at 670 km/s.

Thanks for admitting that you're not even trying. It's just all magical handwavium to you, isn't it?

No, it's the fact that if Star Wars shields can turbolaser fire, it can take the heat waste of turbolaser fire. As your example shows, if a Star Wars shield is capable of fighting long battles with 200 gigatons hitting it, then 20 megatons every once in a while is insignificant in the long run. Reduce the numbers, and this still applies.

"You know what? That's a good point. But upon more thought, I shall ignore it for no reason whatsoever."

I mean, dude, seriously.

Intensification of firepower in a particular direction does not necessarily equal putting more energy to the guns.

And even if it did, that still doesn't prove that the guns with extra energy going to them are DET weapons . . . in the absence of information, it is just as valid to assume that extra power might simply accelerate reloading. (Indeed, that would make more sense given the Seppie shell casings!)

Uh huh, e24 joules per second into reloading the guns...what?

Okay, let's assume you proved 1E23W reactors. This would be accomplished by your showing me events or facts which absolutely require reactor energy of that level. And yet by your own (if even momentary) admission, weapons yields are not such an example. And yet you want to go in reverse and claim that the reactor proves yields?

Don't get me wrong . . . I applaud your determination, even if it is misguided. But by then claiming that you have proven anything about the weapons simply because you lack the creativity to imagine uses for such power is neither logical nor my concern.

So, to make things easier on both of us, get back to me when you have some proof of 1E23W reactors.

Again, the e23 watts are being used for something. Do you have any other ideas of significant energy consuming processes other than shields and guns? Would a star destroyer have e23 watts being devoted to cooking? Hint; a star destroyer is a freaking war ship.

What the hell is a tension shield? Are you trying to sneak in more EU crap again?

Ah, sorry, that's EU. Honest mistake.

So that's one less thing that the e23 watts could be used for. It is being used for something. Logically, a war ship would have most of its energy production being diverted to combat relevant areas during a battle.

Yes. And?

And they were fully expecting for there to be leftover fragments?

I quote Mike Wong, too. Hell, I'm quoting you in this message. That doesn't make his opinions my opinions, and it's really scary that you would seem to think so . . . it suggests your intelligence level is alarmingly low.

Yeah, you quote Wong...and then essays refuting it. You quote this guy as evidence. There's a pretty obvious difference.

We aren't told it's a planetary bombardment, though I like how you ever so dishonestly slip that assumption in as part of your nonsense. But in any case, please provide evidence of even a single *vehicle-mounted* weapon being used against San Francisco.

Hell, man, you can't even prove they didn't use chainsaws . . . know why? Because we don't know a damn thing about the attack! All we see is smoke and broken stuff.

So the breen forces just attacked Earth...but it isn't a bombardment? Are you kidding me? How else would you define attacking Earth?

And you're asking for proof that they used vehicle mounted weapons to attack San Fransisco, which we know was attacked? What, do you expect that they opened their space canopies and fired phaser rifles from space?

1. Stop pretending that I'm arguing for one, and stop pretending that I somehow need one.

2. You don't know when the images of San Fran were taken.

3. You don't get a nuclear winter after a few minutes or hours, either . . . for crying out loud, if you're gonna pretend I am arguing for one, at least look up what it is so that I'm not so offended by your ignorance that I feel the need to correct you, thus fuelling your insane pretense.

1. You quoted in your site as evidence someone who argued for 100 megatons being enough for a nuclear winter.

2. Good point, but the fact that the Earth is still inhabited far after means that we know that a nuclear winter did not occur.

3. And guess what? Earth did not become uninhabitable for inconvenient to inhabit days, months or weeks later.

What effects are you expecting?

A nuclear winter and a fireball lasting longer than a second?

I don't care what you did. Even by eyeball alone, the white blast waves are clearly larger, covering a near-majority of the the sunlit 1/8th of a planet visible.

Maybe you're looking at a different video, because:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

[Mike DiCenso]

SWST, please take some time to clean up your post, especially the quotes markers. It won't count against you.
-Mike

[2046]

My reply is forthcoming.

[2046]

That might've actually been your strongest post, if for no other reason than the fact that it took a lot of extra time for me to untangle your godawful quoting. Good way to end.

Basically, your primary argument boils down to:

1. That Star Destroyers have 200GT weapons because of a convoluted series of claims:

A1. That the Death Star reactor outputs 1E38J based on the superlaser as a DET weapon, a concept long debunked. I know. I debunked it.
(And indeed, as far as I know all those folks using "DET" at places like Spacebattles are using it because I introduced them to the phrase in 2001/2.)

A2. That the Death Star reactor outputs 1E29J based on the Rebel display in ANH, along with wild guesses as to its mass, velocity, and so on that result in a particular energy for its supposed maneuvering. However, you choose to ignore the contrary Imperial display, and provide no evidence to back up your other speculative notions, other than to claim that you're within a margin of error which you can't be in.

B. From A, you then move on to the notion that one can scale reactors, meaning to scale from the Death Star's reactor, despite their being no canon indication of the size of an ISD reactor and despite the inherent flaws in such a concept.

C. Having thus generated an ISD reactor value almost out of thin air, you then assert 200GT weapons based on the fact that you can't imagine what else the reactor could be doing, in spite of the fact that no one has ever seen such yields from Star Wars, or even anything in that range save for the superlaser itself.

Specific quotes and responses:

Apparently my point didn't come across last time regarding your 200GT theorizings, so let's try again.

Let's suppose I conceded that your speculations were plausible and said that 200GT . . . hell, why stop there? . . . 200 yottaton weapons were technologically plausible in Star Wars. What would that change? We don't see them or any evidence of their presence. So why do you even try to argue it? You still have to prove they exist even after you try to prove they make sense in your mind.

No, 200 yottaton weapons are not plausible. Please check your math.

EDIT: more specifically, a 200 yottaton weapon would require more energy than I proposed a star destroyer produces.

Strongest post or not, you completely ignore my point. I take your failure to answer either as a refusal or an inability, or both.

Put another way, if I dream up a way to argue for the plausibility of 560 gazillaton phasers, it is ridiculous to make such a claim if (a) they cannot be seen in the canon, (b) are contradicted in the canon, and (c) are basically only in my head.

When it comes to the Star Wars of George Lucas, you only see 200 whateverton weapons in your head. They do not exist in the films or TCW episodes. So arguments regarding their potential plausibility are pointless, fruitless exercises.

we know that star destroyers produce e24 joules per second.

No, we do not. We all know you think they do, but your reasoning is flawed, based solely on your unproven claim that the Death Star reactor generates 1E38W, and your ridiculous reactor-scaling maneuvers.

It is relevant because in order for the Death Star to move that fast at the size that it is

How fast? You don't know because you're using a wildly out-of-scale diagram which contradicts another representation of the same exact thing, and making wild guesses as to altitude over the orbited body, the size of the orbited body, and any other helpful data you need to deduce velocity.

As I said, we don't even know that it was powered flight.

How much does it mass? You don't know, because you're using a wild guess.

And from that you declare a particular energy level for a Star Destroyer that is contrary to pretty much all other indications.

That's just silly.

Just by incorrect scaling alone the screen makes that case for me.

So should I take it that you wish to assert the absolute accuracy of Rebel information displays? This should be fun . . . please, be my guest.

I'm not asserting the absolute accuracy, I'm asserting enough accuracy so that the Rebels have some use for the device. You're claiming that the device was misjudging the speed of the imperials by a factor of several hundred, and that the Rebels would use such a device just for the heck of it.

On the contrary . . . it doesn't matter if it was an out-of-scale display so long as it represented the time before the shot and relative positioning. That table, of course, was a sci-fi version of the old plotting table, only the airplane models that got moved around manually with sticks are instead replaced by an electronic display. However, just as the old aircraft models or icons were not actually six times the size of London, so too was the Death Star not half the size of Yavin.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdsaccel.html

And the very same thing is true when you're talking about scaling reactors up and down. Hell, by your reasoning they could just scale up a car engine to massive size in order to run a large cargo ship and achieve the exact same efficiency per volume and everything else, all without incident.

If anything, scaling a reactor up would reduce its efficiency. {...} Again, this is...completely counter intuitive to your argument, and actually implies a higher power generation figure for a star destroyer than I predicted.

Oh really? Okay, then, why aren't laptops powered by little tiny internal combustion engines? By your reasoning reactors ought to be far more efficient at smaller sizes, so clearly a small bank of nano-scale internal combustion engines would probably be a perpetual motion machine for the laptops, in your mind.

But alas, that's not the case.

They have solid projectiles, too. Don't try to elude the point by fixating on the analogy . . . even if my analogy was wrong it's not a "get out of jail free" card regarding the point I made, which was quite clear.

I didn't say it was a get out of jail free card, I was replying to your analogy. The Iowa's guns and a mangum are very different in numerous ways that do not apply to a star destroyer and a death star.

You wasted this part of your last post simply handwaving a dismissal of the point? Why even bother?

You have done no such thing. Frankly, the Yavin example doesn't require the Death Star to have any STL drive system at all . . . just drop out of hyperspace and whip around the planet by gravity and boom, you're there . . . where's the need for powered flight?

Because gravity alone would not propel the Death Star at 670 km/s.

And if you had evidence that the Death Star was at 670m/s, you could make that statement . . . but your unwillingness to provide proof of any of your claims is at the very heart of the matter.



And let's cover some other errata . . . but not all, because trying to go through your godawful quoting is taking too much time and as a result of it I lose my place in between moments I can devote to your nonsense:

Lucas's quotes that you have provided imply that he does not accept post ROTJ storylines. There is no evidence whatsoever that a book about the movies would be considered to be in a different universe.

You need evidence that it is in the same universe. I don't have to prove that every particular fiction book based on Star Wars is in or out. We have it from Lucas that all such licensed stuff is out, so if you want it in you have to prove it's in.

But since you can't, all you can do is try to claim that it's in some special category (of fiction book based on the films) that makes it more special than any book of any other category (of fiction books based on the films). And then you demand that I prove that this special made-up category is non-canon. That's ridiculous.

That's like me trying to claim that the number 5 is imbued with special meaning because it has round parts, despite all digits being declared meaningless (which naturally includes 0, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9).

Stop fantasizing and accept fact.

You seriously think that George Lucas personally sees over all of the CW episodes?

Well, he does, so yeah, I do:

Lucas is "very specific. He'll get down to a line. He and I will
change lines of dialog all the time. It's something that he's taught me
to do as a director, which I've never really done before. Constantly
with the attitude of making it better. When he writes dialog for
Anakin, it's Anakin, there is no doubt. And we do that all throughout
the process. He'll watch it in a rough form, a grey proxy animation. He
is super hands on. He'll cut things right down to the frame and insert
shots but it's all with an attitude of 'I have to be absorbing it, the
director has to be absorbing it, I have to maintain that feeling of
Stars Wars..."

http://www.canonwars.com/weblog/2009/10 ... iecom.html

There are probably over a dozen more quotes just like that one about how Lucas is involved with TCW, so feel free to wail and bemoan it . . . I have more.

You're acting like as if 13-20 kilometers per second is insignificant.

Not at all . . . it fits nicely with the existing calculations and whatnot that I have, requiring no modification to my overall view of Imperial vessel acceleration capability.

You're also making unsuportted assumptions such as the maneuver taking 2 minutes when such a time frame would be well within the capabilities of the Rebels to detect in motion.

You would almost think the Imperials knew the Rebels were coming. Like Lando said, how else could they be jamm . . . oh. Huh. Funny, that.

It's too big, per "Shadow of Malevolence"[TCW1]. Quoting NoLettersHome.Info:

<snip>

Except that we were referring to a micro hyperjump in this case, possibly within a star system. Therefore, star clusters would not be a factor, nor would any other major potential obstacles.

You're asking about the Death Star microjumping around gas giants at Yavin. To remind you of the context, you said "one would wonder why the Death Star couldn't do the same thing to get within Yavin's range instead of going there via sublight drives."

The gas giant's a gravity well.

Also, short hyperjumps are a known quantity:

"Obi-Wan took General Grievous's starfighter screaming out of the atmosphere so fast he popped the gravity well and made jump before the Vigilance could even scramble its fighters. He reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again. A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space." (RotS, Ch. 18)

<snip>Well beyond the system could be several light years in space terms.

Or it could be several thousand kilometers. There's no need to assume light-years.

The problem is that it contradicts your assertion that gravity wells interfere with hyperdrives.

Not at all. Rain interferes with tire traction . . . a theory asserting that someone maintained semi-control in a high-speed maneuver on wet roads does not make for a contradiction.

Similarly, we have seen ships survive a low-altitude entry into hyperspace. This need not mean that gravity wells are safe . . . merely that they are survivable, at least in one direction.

Why would Dooku risk such a maneuver if it were dangerous?

Um, what?

Count Dooku has just been attacked at one of the bases of his power by a superior force. He has run across the desert on a flying motorcycle with scarcely a windshield to protect him while under fire from his enemies. He has fought Jedi, young and old, and survived only by subterfuge. He does these things with the mission of reaching his master with plans to the Death Star in mind.

And yet all of the sudden, you think it's safer for him to leisurely climb through an atmosphere that was swarming with his enemies, rather than jump as soon as plausible to at least receive cover from one of his own cruisers?

Are you mad?

And unfounded speculations? My speculation as you call it is the common sense idea the ship left orbit by flying, which is what it was doing in its screen time.

Except it doesn't make sense in screen time, because if we go by the editing as-is then the vessel's observed velocity makes no sense.

If you look at a video of a car on a quarter-mile track and at one point it's at the beginning of the track doing 1mph and, when you look away for a few seconds, you see it at the other end of the track doing 1mph, do you not assume it sped up to go down the track? I mean I guess it's possible to conclude that you were unconscious for 15 minutes, but really . . .

That being said, your idea of Star Wars having micro hyperdrive capabilities like this actually helps its cause.

Short jumps are a known quantity . . . I am, indeed, the one who said that already. Similarly, short warp flights are a known quantity, hence the Picard Maneuver.

It seems clear that short hyperjumps must not have much combat utility, since we do not see them occur in combat. Perhaps it is too taxing on power and whatnot. But whatever the case, it doesn't happen.

Except that there also shots of ewok arrows bouncing off of stormtroopers, and the screen shots of the arrows penetrating the stormtrooper armor happens to be the backpack; so maybe it isn't an editing error, it's the difference between armor and a backpack.

The "backpack" is integrated, so it is the armor. Don't screw with me on that one.

There's variation, but it often seems to refer to just a planet, or perhaps a planet and its moons as a separate system from the star-planet system we would generally mean and which is also sometimes used. Suffice it to say there's enough variation in use that the automatic presumption of "star system" is not advisable.

"We're on our way to Coruscant, the central system in the Republic, on a very important mission." (TPM Ch. 10)

""Sirs, we've captured a small freighter that was entering the remains of Alderaan. A standard check indicates that its markings apparently match that of the ship which blasted its way out of the quarantine at Mos Eisley, Tatooine system, and went hyper before the Imperial blockade craft there could close on it."" (ANH Ch. 8)

"LEIA Organa sat silently before the huge display screen on which Yavin and its moons were displayed. A large red dot moved steadily toward the fourth of those satellites. Dodonna and several other field commanders of the Alliance stood behind her, their eyes also intent on the screen. Tiny green flecks began to appear around the fourth moon, to coalesce into small clouds like hovering emerald gnats.
Dodonna put a hand on her shoulder. It was comforting. "The red represents the progress of the Imperial battle station as it moves deeper into Yavin's system."" (ANH Ch. 12)

"The job had seemed simple enough: Just pilot Ben Kenobi, plus young Luke and two droids, to the Alderaan system." (TESB Ch. 1)

. . . and so on.

That's simple; the systems in Star Wars are named after the prominent planet in the system.

No. You didn't read all the examples. "Deeper into Yavin's system", for instance, makes no sense except as a planetary system.

You quote this guy as evidence.

I already told you you're wrong about your whole nuclear winter fantasy. Stop trying to argue with me about my reasons for quoting someone. The very attempt is absurd.

We aren't told it's a planetary bombardment, though I like how you ever so dishonestly slip that assumption in as part of your nonsense. But in any case, please provide evidence of even a single *vehicle-mounted* weapon being used against San Francisco.

Hell, man, you can't even prove they didn't use chainsaws . . . know why? Because we don't know a damn thing about the attack! All we see is smoke and broken stuff.

So the breen forces just attacked Earth...but it isn't a bombardment? Are you kidding me? How else would you define attacking Earth?

And you're asking for proof that they used vehicle mounted weapons to attack San Fransisco, which we know was attacked? What, do you expect that they opened their space canopies and fired phaser rifles from space?

You're getting warmer! Except why do you think that they had to be in space when firing phaser rifles?

To sum up, SWST, your arguments simply don't hold up. In general, your pattern of argumentation is to assume something and fail to prove or even show a willingness to discuss your assumption objectively, even to the point of trying to argue with me about stuff that's inside my own head.

The Breen attack is the most easily accessible example of your assumption-based style, since you imagine terms to associate with it like "bombardment" without evidence. Literally, there is no reason to assume anything about the event except whatever is required from looking at the one brief image of the results we see of the aftermath. And what we see does not require anything more than a few photon grenades or heavy ground weapon activity.

But in your mind, and only there, it just had-to-had-to-had-to be some sort of huge fleet shooting everything it had from space. Except we know what that looks like and results in from TDiC, Skin of Evil, et al., so your imagination is contradicted . . . not that you care.

In any case, I really wanted to do a thorough deconstruction of the whole "debate", but really it doesn't need it. I don't feel like you did much other than to advertise your assumptions, and indeed I gave you plenty of room leaving myself wide open on occasion for you to do more but nothing really ever materialized.

But still, thanks for the waste of time.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

A few things, I might respond more in depth later:

1. You curiously ignore my point that said energy that star destroyers can produce are being used for something, and that e24 joules could not possibly be used for, for exmaple, cooking dinner. If a star destroyer is producing e24 joules per seoncd, than it has to be for something, and a large portion of that something is obviously for weapons and shielding, given that the star destroyer is a warship. Weapons and shielding are also things that you really cannot overkill on when the opposition is going to be amping up their weapons and shielding power too. As for cooking dinner, there is a certain energy point in which expending more energy in cooking a steak really doesn't help at all. This is not the case with weapons and shielding.

2. You make the completely random strawman about the Death Star's superlaser, when I've hardly mentioned it at all and surely disagree with the e38 joules claim; I go with the e32 joules claim.

3. You dismiss my speed energy calculations as "wild guesses" while missing the point. The calculation puts a star destroyer well in excess of the power output of the Enterprise or any other Federation starship by at least 4 orders of magnitude, and in order to even out the fields you'd have to claim that my estimates for the mass of the Death Star were off by a factor of 10,000, which would mean that the Death Star would be ridiculously non dense.

4. You think that the Breen forces apparently could have landed troops onto the ground just to take a potshot a San Fransico and then moved out, which would actually say much ill about Star Trek's tactical competence:

a) They spend time sending down troops with the intention of essentially destroying a city when they could have used orbital bombardment. Why would they send down ground troops with the intention of destruction? It's obviously not occupation, because if they captured San Fransico, they'd have the entire rest of the Earth surrounding it with Federation soldiers and the Federation with space and air supremacy...it's like taking a single building while invading DC or something. Why could they not use orbital bombardment?

b) They would actually land a contingent of troops small enough to be used against a single city in an entire opposing 1st...planet planet occupied with military forces in a conventional assault with no backup.

c) The Federation allowed for what was likely a very small force of troops to land onto Earth and attack San Fransisco, and failed to stop the attack.

d) Meanwhile, as the Breen ground troops could be battling with the Federation troops that would obviously have contingency plans to defend and quickly mobilize in aid of major cities that could be attacked, some sarcasm there, the Breen transport ships were able to sit there and take the blunt force of all of the Earth defense, which were obviously super high and big given that Earth is the capital, and not get destroyed.

5. Please keep this debate civil.

[2046]

Dude, the debate ended with my last post. I thought you weren't interested anymore . . . now you're trying to extend it?

I'll respond to your last post for fun and profit, but the debate's over.