That dense asteroid field is not nearly dense enough or thick enough that the thousands of 200 gigaton bolts per minute being tossed into it wouldn’t cut through it like a hot knife through butter. Do you understand that? The heat radius of a bolt that powerful would melt away the smallest of asteroid and blast apart anything large enough to present itself as an obstacle.StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Not really. Space is big, and a dense asteroid field would prematurely detonate turbolasers. The inverse square law makes it so that, by the time the turbolaser reaches the ship several kilometers away, it has weakened considerably.
And now what is this bullshit about turbolasers apparently only being good for a few kilometers? Are you honestly so desperate to save your firepower claims that you’d pretty much kill any ability at fighting at range to get it? Pathetic. Sorry, but even HTLs are going to require hundreds of km before they wear out so much if they’re used to “slag” planets.
http://www.nolettershome.info/?Season_1 ... %5BTCW1%5DDo you have prove for this? That is, you have yet to quantify the size or density of the asteroid fields.
Scroll down and look at the pretty pictures. It’s fairly thick, but it’s not all that large.
Strawman and not even a proper citation of circular reasoning.Circular reasoning. We are arguing over the firepower; and in relation shielding of Star Wars ship. Your argument in this part of your posts hinges on proving that, IF the ICS is assumed to be right, the asteroid scene would not make sense, hence contradicting the ICS. However, if the ICS is correct, said debris would be harmless and therefore the scene would still make sense, so your argument is a tautology.
First off, it can’t be circular reasoning on the account that we already know that ships can be harmed by flying asteroids–and not at very high velocity either. That and the fact that the B1s in the episode said “that didn’t sound good!” when a larger asteroid essentially scrapped up against them. Grievous’s response was “all power to the forward shields!”. When the B1 challenges this, he says “What if they try and attack us from behind?”, to which Grievous states “They can’t, the rocks will protect us.”
Now your strawman aside, the real argument is the obstacle the field plays. But as you will see by looking at the links of the thickness of said field, it’s not going to stand up long to three ships pouring out hundreds of thousands of gigatons every second.
Oh yeah and let’s remember something:
http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/nuke.php
See that? Just putting in 1 megaton (1,000 kilotons) and using aluminum composed rocks (which they’re not going to be–they’re going to be nickel-iron and poorly held together at that), we’d still be seeing considerable damage to anything within a kilometer of that explosion. Outside of it, not too much. Then putting in 200 gigatons (200,000,000 kilotons) we see that it would destroy anything within the calculator’s limited range of 3 km and if you look to the far right of that chart, where it says ‘impulse shock’? Click it and it will inform you that the vaporization is exceeding the speed of sound.
So chances are, anything within at least 3 km of one HTL pulse is going to be destroyed. Since bolts can’t really diverge too much on their path, we can only really use one turret here. Still, at 1 turret, multiplied by eight over a period of 60 seconds with two shot per second we’d get 1,920 shots per ship. Fired timely, and you’d ensure that 5,760 kilometers were destroyed with each shot.
Oh, but we should assume these guys suck and that they can only get at best, half of that range towards the target, right? Even so that’s still 2,880 kilometers for one ship over the span of sixty seconds. Three ships could easily triple those figures.
Red herring, we’re talking about Star Wars not Star Trek. And even so, what episode? And what evidence is there it’s a ring and not a sphere? That aside, it doesn’t solve you’re little problem, especially because we have a small exchange regarding that sort of thing in the episode ‘through the field sir?’ as per the B1, to which Grievous says ‘if we attack from above, they will have the advantage’.Yeah, that's an example of Sci Fi writers not realizing that space is 3d. There are plenty of ST examples of this; using a ring of minefields to try and mine a solar system, for example.
Hmm, I guess you can’t argue that they “forgot” it this episode, can you?
EDIT
Nevermind, I found it. You're referring to Son's of Mogh:
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/70 ... gh222.jpg/]
I hate to break it to you, but the Klingons weren't even finish deploying the mine field yet. You can see that from not only the fact there's a big chunk missing towards the bottom of the field, but that a second layer hadn't been completed on the right side. In fact, the Klingons looked like they were going to add a third layer.
So logically, they just hadn't added the 'bottom' and 'top' layers of the mine field. Try again.
No you haven’t. I asked for the quotes from the novels you cited as having actual BDZ operations. I want those citations, not a handful from a few technical manuals and source books that use figurative speech to make them sound cool.Hypocrisy? I have already provided all of the quotes. So much for accusing me of ignoring posts, eh?
Give the link and the quote.That's darkstar's rebuttal of the civilized world quote; to assume that civilized means merely cities, because apparently darkstar thinks that rural communities aren't civilized.
No it isn’t. How is it pretty literal? Because you say it is? What is your literature basis for such a claim? How much of a stooge does one have to be to think that the word ‘slag’ is automatically literal with absolutely no evidence?Oh, come on. "to reduce a civilized world to slag" is pretty literal,
And here’s a hint; the rest of Star Wars doesn’t take it literal. That’s why you won’t actually source the material that has BDZs. Because I’ve already seen it from other sources and we both know how much it takes a piss all over your claims of uber firepower.which happens to fit with the ICS. Saxton chose to take it literally, and in the ICS made it canon.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. It’s not our fault that he chose to take those passages literally–especially when we know of sources that clearly doesn’t take it literally. Such as the ones where the actual BDZ operations were based off of! Oh yeah, those sources you list off? They don’t mention anything about BDZ operations, which is totally different than what the flavor text suggest. The flavor text is addressing the firepower of the ships. Whether or not you take that literally has no bearing upon the definition of a BDZ, to which Saxton tried to apply it to.His literal claim is supported by other texts which he chose to take literally. It works, because his canon workings are supported by other EU literature that implies Saxton level ICSing.
So post evidence of BDZs slagging worlds. And no, the ICS is not an acceptable source.
It’s English mother f*****, do you speak it*?By your unsupported claim that "slag" is somehow figurative?
Are you saying that the numerous quotes mentioning turning a planet to slag are all figurative? Are EU writers just fond of the word slag
they are all figurative. And are they all found of slag? Possibly. Maybe. Millions of writers around the world use vaporize in a similar sense, as well as obliterate, disintegrate, and so forth. Likely one of them took it from another and started off a trend. It’s not entirely uncommon within large sand box franchises. It may even be a reference to the singular source that started it all.
No, Saxton mixed and mashed several different sources talking about different things and pretended they were the same. Ie, the ‘slagging’ was in reference to the flavor text from the books. The whole BDZ operation mentions absolutely nothing about slagging to begin with. It only mentions the destruction of population centers, valuable resources, and so forth. It says nothing about slagging a planet. Why? Because slagging a planet is a waste of energy. Literally, a complete and utter waste.The ICS, which is supported by several sources, most of which were written PRIOR to Saxton's book.
In other words, going through severally absurd mental gymnastics to believe that the visuals are always correct. Complete with ships that can magically change their size. Right.So we can assume that:
Some people in Starfleet do not know what they are talking about (and many plot relevant points show blatant stupidity on their part), and that they make routine mistakes, just like how they make routine mistakes in military tactics, moral judgment, safety procedures, etc.
or
Occasionally, the laws of physics in Star Trek have a bad day and decide to mess with the reflection of photons from light sources such as the sun, instead bending space-time and messing with the speed of light to make the starfleet ships look like they were approaching 10 km's of a borg cube when they were really a gazillion kilometers away. They also messed with the timeframe of the borg weapons, having them near instantly hit a starship in a split second like you'd expect in the depicted 10 km ranges. But since it's really 100,000 km ranges distorted, one would expect to find the starships to be able to dodge even light speed beams, but some random omnipotent being not only warped space-time, but warped the speed of borg and Federation weapons.
In addition, this ROB decided to mess with the electrical impulses and chemical reactions within the brain of all of the starfleet officers to not notice something weird when they find the Federation fleet right next to the borg cube, and come up with the idea to "prepare for ramming speed", something which without ROB intervention would be impossible at 100,000 km out.
No. Because this is only a poorly disguised attempt to treating the visuals as if they’re perfect when we know they’re not. Or should we start treating Clone Wars visuals as if they’re perfect? Oh right, you’ll claim some bullshit ‘artistic art’ claim for that, but when it comes to Star Trek? Oh, that has to be literally true.
Sorry, I ain’t buying it.
No, you see this is just you trying to nitpick my methodology. That’s not how it works. We are given reason to believe that those rings mean something more through the EU’s Death Star novel. Therefore this is where the visuals work with the rest of the story–simply because the writer in this case went out of his way to explain the effect itself is not bad, even if it is stitching.And the story clearly intends for the Death Star to be so uberly powerful and frightening that it can destroy a planet, because it's so powerful. The halo rings are obviously fancy VFX visuals. By the literary method you use, this chain reaction would have been mentioned by some character or some reference guide somewhere in Star Wars continuity.
Avoiding any certain story or plot surprises? I would assume he’s right. Not that I ever recall such a thing to begin with, so what’s the point?So if Picard says that the borg cube must be a million km's away, and one looks out the window and sees the borg cube right outside scraping the Enterprise's hull, what would your explanation be?
Jesus Christ, how do you think you can be so fucking dishonest and I won’t find out? Yeah, it was destroyed–but we also have the scene where Anakin destroys the shield generator within the hanger bay that causes a chain reaction that leads to the ship’s destruction. Anakin never penetrated their shields; he simply entered an unshielded hanger bay where they apparently put a shield generator or something critical to the shield’s function there.Or according to Nute Gunray, nothing can penetrate a TF battleship's shield, yet the visuals show one being destroyed.
Oh yeah, and that would be a no limits fallacy. Obviously there is going to be a limitation to what they can withstand with their shields. This is again, you trying to nitpick part of the methodology and part of the evidence and ignoring the rest. Try again.
Try a more convincing twist of the truth next time, okay?Yes, it's the minimum energy needed to fulfill the mission; and in a mission, you try and effectively accomplish your goal with the least amount of energy and resources.
That’s the minimum energy we need to get the destruction from a conservative point of view. It doesn’t include the possibility that one would go in for overkill in order to ensure that the ship is destroyed.
Because it would be larger and have a greater sense of gravity than a smaller one.How does the asteroid having a strong magnetic field make it resistant to antimatter warheads?
It was an offhand example. It could of course, be much larger. Looking at one of the smallest planetoids available, 5 Astraea has a 125 km diameter.20-40 kilometers is no more believable as a planetary body than 10 kilometers is.
The Star Trek VFX specialists can portray planets and even stars from orbit with decent scale. There is no reason to believe that they made the object a 10 kilometer asteroid instead of a 1000 km asteroid (and no, 20-40 kilometers is some aributrary figure, because it's no more believable as a planetoid).
Again, Death Star novel. Read it.And the Death Star being DET supports the David vs Goliath allegory better than a chain reaction weapon that is mysteriously never mentioned in the films, the film-novels, any reference guide or any novel.
How? Simply stating something to be true doesn’t make it so. Providing evidence would go a long way towards fixing that.Star Wars having 50 million C hyperdrive supports the story intent of the galaxy having already been explored long ago, and wars taking place over entire galaxies within years, with our heroes dashing across said galaxy within hours.
See? The literary method can support Star Wars too.
But here you are admitting that VFX can be in error. But the whole point of your claim to VFX is that it’s infallible physics, right?Barring a very blatant VFX feature that necessitates dropping SoD (such as the Enterprise changing size, or TCW cartoon having an animated universe), the SoD method:
And yet you suggest that the visual artists are somehow much better at this? And again, you are suggesting that we can only have one or the other. I am not. I am simply saying that we must follow what best suits the story, not the visuals which are an aid to the story. You know, something that George Lucas said himself?1. Allows for technical analysis. The problem with analyzing merely the story is that typically the writers don't bother to test whether or not the Enterprise busting that asteroid is 10 megatons or 100 kilotons, so therefore all technical readings would not be within the spirit of the story.
No it doesn’t. Because then in order for that to be true, the characters would have to be incredibly stupid.2. Treats both universes as if they were real, instead of fictional universes, because the latter mindset includes character shields and the act of plot, which is all that matters if the two were crossed over in a movie. Again, this eliminates realistic, technical analysis of them.
Except you just stated above that what causes those photons can be in error; ie, VFX effects.3. Relies on the reflection of photons instead of the claims of fallible, in universe characters with biases.
Rigged? You keep saying that the visuals should always be taken over the plot! Therefore by your logic, Vader is insane and everyone on the ship is playing a sick, sick joke with him. Fuck, he can’t even clearly use the force well enough to know that they’re all fucking with him.Because your examples of violating SoD are clearly rigged.
But yet you’re happy to keep yammering about ‘photons’ and shit, as if that suddenly makes it scientific. It doesn’t because those photons are not based off of actual reality; they are effects often added in after the fact. Hell, in this case, the photons showing that the guy is standing up under his own power is far more canon than any other visual effect because it actually happened!
Um, what? The Enterprise D wasn’t there for the Battle of Wolf 359.You refuse to believe the visuals depicting the Federation fleet within 10 kilomters of a borg cube...why? It's essential to the plot, because at 100,000+ kilometers there would not be the sudden destruction of the flagship.
No, they penetrated through a shuttle bay, not through the actual thick hull itself. Nor does this address the issue of them doing it at high Trek sublight speeds–otherwise Voyager would simply have outran the ramming ship.The deal is that it penetrated the Voyager's hull through its pathetic kinetic energy, and Janeway was fully expecting this, not even attempting to use point defense or banking on the hull stopping it.
Yes, because the characters of TOS, DS9, and TNG all knew that when someone is compromised, you revoke their security codes.And you think think that the rest of Starfleet is any better, when the Voyager is among the premier starships of the Federation?
And what novel is this again?Dreadful? What makes you think it to be dreadful?
"turbolaser gunners blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."
And?Since when would asteroid fields hide star destroyers? Even the chemical engines of Apollo 11 could be detected from Pluto.
From atop? No.What do you mean half a dozen? There were far more asteroids than that.
Like what? For fuck’s sake, use specific examples, don’t make vague references and expect them to fly.More examples of TCW being taken above G canon; you use the term "higher canon" (higher means MORE high) to describe a scene in TCW in contrast to a quote from the ROTJ novel, which is G canon.
Well that sure as hell then means the scaling up in energy is going to be a rather large problem for you to claim gigatons.Nowhere did I claim kiloton level blasters or even laser cannons, except maybe the large quad turrets on star destroyers, so this is a strawman.
No I don’t.You take the bombing of a village in TCW over the statements in the G canon ROTJ novel.
Except there was absolutely no such treaties to begin with. It was already mentioned in Heroes on Both Sides that the Republic won’t even accept open diplomatic relations with the CIS because it would legitimize them as a sovereign nation in their eyes. You know, the whole part about Padme and Ashoka illegally meeting with a Separatist senator?Oh, then maybe those bombs used by the CIS bombers were not proton torpedos (as you have acknowledged, "we are not talking about proton torpedos), but some other weapon. Why are they weaker? Perhaps they are chemical bombs, as an off screen treaty between the two sides to not use nuclear weapons on civilian targets.
Where? That’s OT ICS according to my knowledge.It hardly matters; G canon sides that proton torpedos are at least kiloton level,
We aren’t talking about proton torpedoes! This is all one long strawman; I am addressing the issue of the lasers not being used and the low yield of the bombs in comparison to what should be at least ton level firepower.and proton torpedos are far more relevant than some random bombs.
This did not address my statement at all....So what? There's a difference in not being able to present a naval threat and not being able to harm something period. These fighters do not have even ton level firepower in their lasers, yet we see that in the Clone Wars, they can harm capital ships with them. Whether that applies to ISDs or SSDs twenty years later when combat technology has significantly changed from the more peaceful Republic has no implications upon that fact.
No, Naboo fighters with their lasers and proton torpedoes could not take out a shield in G canon. However, they did make an attempt. So if it was such a massive disparity as per kilotons (at best per your claims) vs gigatons, they would have never tried to begin with. See the problems here?Right; starfighters designed and equipped to take out capital ships can do so. But their mounted laser cannons cannot in G canon, where the Naboo starfighters even with their proton torpedos could not take out the shields of a TF battleship. Heavy gigaton level missiles/torpedos can harm capital ships, small ones cannot.
...Because Lando is now a military expert? How old was he when the Clone Wars took place? And furthermore, you kill your own argument because we see a tight wedge battle in Revenge of the Sith. Most likely, Lando was referring to the concept of getting so close to an ISD–which the enemy fleet was composed of.Yes you do. You take the short range showings in TCW as fact (even though Lando considers point blank range to be a few dozen kilomters, and Ackbar considers it crazy to get in so close), yet take the short range showings in ST as just VFX.
Nor does this actually really address anything given that I, like 2046, assume that they can target things within a few hundred kilometers at least.
I don’t believe I said that. In fact, when you earlier in another thread claimed hundreds of kms for combat, I didn’t really challenge it, save for asking for evidence.Yet why do you take low end Star Wars feats as more valid than upper end, higher canon Star Wars feats? TCW shows point blank range combat, yes; but the higher canon ROTJ shows hundreds of kms combat, and a few dozen km's is considered to be a huge gamble and point blank range.
That doesn’t show me the math you did to get that.Because the Rebel fleet went from Yavin 4 to right next to the Death Star, which was beyond orbit, in a few minutes?
What pressure?Because of the size of the Death Star, and pressure?
Hyperjump? And what is ‘hidden behind’ mean? The entire other side of the planet or that the curvature of the planet hid their fleet from them?The Rebels attack the Death Star 2 in ROTJ. The next moment, they find an imperial fleet right behind them, having hidden beyond Endor. From behind a planet to right next to a fleet and within visual range so fast that no Rebel officer happened to notice the ships until they were there?
Assuming that Bespin is that far away. Why can’t it be nearby so that it would only take weeks or maybe a few months?As another example, since I have posted evidence above, the Falcon was able to reach Bespin using only its sublight drives. Even if the Bespin system was only a light year away, the Falcon would have had to travel at relativistic speeds to have reached there before Luke grew old.
So what? How far away is the Bespin system?The Falcon traveled to a separate star system using sublight drives, and none of the characters noticeably aged.
Just because there is on unusual characteristic about an asteroid field, it doesn’t mean that you can arbtrarily add on other characteristics for your own purposes.Since when are asteroid fields so dense? The asteroid field in ESB was clearly extremely high collision and intense, for whatever reason. There are examples of very high velocity objects, including asteroids, today. Relativistic might be a stretch, by hypervelocity is not.
The Death Star is much larger. It’s already established in the Malevolence archs that Malevolence would have to plot a massive course no less than twelve parsecs around a nebula because of its size. Therefore the larger Death Star would be limited in the sort of hyperjumps it could make due to those same limitations. The X-Wings being much smaller than any capital ship, would have an easier time.It can't be a jump cut because there was a Rebel display console showing the time. It isn't a hyperspace jump, because why wouldn't the Death Star use it to get right next to Yavin 4? It couldn't have been a VFX error because the Death Star and the fleet had to circumnavigate Yavin 4 in order to reach the Rebel moon; this is essential to the plot.
