The 1.5 megaton myth

[Mike DiCenso]

Hey, Mister Oragahn, ease off with the language and the insults directed at SWST. I understand the fustration he/she is causing, but don't lose your cool over him. It's just not worth, m'kay? But because you know better, I'm slapping you with a warning. So go outside, take a deep breath, go for a walk, ect, but work off that frustration.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

O_O

Seriously.
Why the fuck am I losing my time with you again?
You know, it just happens that all EU references for the Venator's biggest turrets we saw fire (during the exchange between a Venator and the IH) identify them as HTLs.
Not too hard, they're indeed the biggest ones.
In the ICSes, they're ought to fire more than 800 teratons per broadside.

And the movies have shown that blue bolts can come from HTLs.
Did you even watch ROTS once or something?

You still haven't proven that they're heavy turbolasers. How do you know they're not ion cannons? Oh, no, you don't, do you?

Yeah, I forgot that they could instabeam elsewhere.
Thank you for another of those major failures of yours you've used us to.

Yeah, you did. You also forgot that they had something called thrusters that allows them to move.

The OT novelizations are full of references about flak. Flak fired from typical turbolasers. And, oh wait, didn't someone like Mike recently tell you that TCWS are also full of such occurrences?
Damn you. A pity we don't have some infamous Hall here, you'd surely have a spot with your name.

You just admitted that the flak cannons are flak cannons, because the EU says so. What point are you trying to make? That turbolasers having flak means that flak cannons don't exist? Is this supposed to be a logical conclusion?

Oh yes, I forgot the time in the movie when the pictures paused and some text appeared over the screen, saying "btw, those green lines aren't turbolasers".
-_-
I think from there on, I'll just cite that post, just to ridicule you. It will buy me time and just show the kind of bloke you are.

The "turbolaser" was coming from the nose of the ISD. Feel free to show me diagrams that show a turbolaser at the nose of a star destroyer.

1. Not the topic x 2.
2. I'm not. I'm merely offering an interpretation of it, just in case we have to actually keep it.

1. Evading the question x 2.
2. Bullshit. You either agree with the quote or you don't agree with it.

I'm pretty sure that your identification of what is stupid is rather wrong here, suzie. :)
I just demonstrated that the neutronium claim is bullshit.

The neutronium-alloy claim is written in multiple EU sources. You haven't refuted a single one of them. Funny how you exalt trying to reconcile contradicting sources, yet are eager to outright throw out statements that aren't in your favor on your whim.

Tell me, quantify the durability of a neutronium-alloy hull. Oh, no, you can't, can you? How do you know that such a hull is supposed to not be affected by a violent atmosphere reentry? You don't, so stop pretending that you do.

Doing that by actually pointing at WILGA's post, which you had already ignored back then. That's quite an habit you have there btw.
Entire sections that get ripped apart and burn during a reentry, and a rather tame one in fact, won't hold long against very low nuclear firepower. Actually, they may even collapse under sub-KT firepower rather easily.

The ship was ripped in two, and you think that it was a tame reentry?

Indeed, delivering the equivalent of half a kiloton onto a 1 meter disc should really do messy things to that kind of superstructures.

Based on your ridiculous conclusion of the reentry being "tamed" and the ship being torn apart when it clearly wasn't, sure.

Not, for the fact that those cannons are fixed.
And may I point out that building weapons of defense to fit a predetermined pattern of naval deployment which, according to the ROTJ novelization, is supposed to be quite rare, is another trademark of retardation.

Prove that the gun emplacements were fixed. Prove that they were even supposed to be where they were. Do you see any of these being used in the Battle of Endor? No, hm, they were conveniently not used when turbolasers were up and functioning, weren't they?

They have some of the most populated cities. Development is irrelevant.

Prove it. Show me evidence that their homeworld is populated.

Yet a small town in Africa is still very small.

That's my entire point!

Thank you for losing there as well.

So you're conclusion is: the Twileks' homeworld is indeed like Africa, and Africa has small towns by world standards...so their homeworld is indicative of galactic standard? Nice going there, Mr. O!

I already told you not to serve me that LOTF reference again. Can't you read?

I don't care if you don't want me to serve you that reference again, it's still canon and there's no contradiction with it. This is another example of you choosing to throw out canon evidence that doesn't suit you, sort of like you throw out SW: DS's explicit descriptions of hypermatter in favor of your speculation about hypermatter being another term for fusion. One is canon, in the same source that you used yourself, and another is pulled out of your ass.

Oh, yeah, you know that how again?

Because Tatooine is a poor, rural, desert planet? Do you think that such a planet would have the resources, motive (since they're mostly farmers) or practicality (why would a desert planet have settlements where there is plenty of heat build up) to build any more than a makeshift "town"?

In America and in the UK, which are the two main countries wherein English forms are used, small towns are well identified. There's some variance, but not enough to allow for some silly definition like the one you used based on an ecumenopolis.
That's absurd.

And America and the UK are well developed countries. This just proves my point.

No, that's certainly not what I did. I merely used your "evidence" against you.
You should have not brought the Canadian example first. Now you don't know how to get out of this pitfall. Too bad for you.

Oh, you think that you're so smart, "using my example against me". Too bad for you that my example was in reference to Otowa, not a Canadian small town. Your clever trick gets you nowhere. In fact, the entire point I was making was that capital cities are not by nature large, and your rebuttal was that...Canada's capital was small.

And where does it prove that a small town would be huge in Star Wars?

Because as population increases, settlement sizes increase? Is this new for you?

Oh shit. Now you want me to define "superior".
When will this nonsense ever stop?

Clearly the point flew way over your head. You provided a subjective, non official definition by some random dictionary site, and you asked me to find a "superior" definition. If I provided you with another definition, how would you determine if it was "superior" or not? I'll tell you how: you'll judge it based on how well it conforms to your interpretation of the word.

"to break up and scatter"
Like when you... destroy... something. Or pulverize.

*sigh*

And it says to vanish, too. I suppose that it also has to break it down into microscopic particles, doesn't it? Or did you decide to not read that part?

Yes, because there's honestly no other way for it to be figurative. Besides, you have not even provided a figurative alternative either. All you have given, and insisted on, is the literal way.

"figurative alternative"? You still aren't getting the point, are you? You cannot establish an upper limit based on a figurative term, because figurative terms are unquantifiable.

Level, as flatten, you know.
The nuclear calculator provides a range for that kind of effects, due to massive overpressure.
Oops, sorry, I used scientific terms.

How do you know that "level, as flatten, you know" is "figurative vaporization" and not "figurative blowing the hell up" or "figurative scorch" or "figuratively destroy"? Why are you setting your own subjective definition of what counts as "figurative" vaporization and what does not?

Already done with the SDN calc.

Again, prove that the figure is enough to "figuratively vaporize" a small town and not enough to "figuratively scorch" one.

Why should I even bother?
Scatter, eventually? Do you think it would make a difference? I don't think so.

That's my whole point. If the quote had said "annihilate" a small town, how would your calcs change? You seem to think that you can quantify a figurative term, meaning that you'd have to come up with clear differences between what effects counts figurative vaporization and what counts as destroying and what counts as annihilating.

What. I. Said.

Red. Herring.

See former posts to see what went on.

I've seen them, and you seem to think that I thought that 400 gigatons was akin to Venator full power HTL's, when indeed they were akin to Acclamator quad MTL's.

Oh, damn! He comes with different figures? The crime! We'll remember this as a day in infamy!

Your inability to understand the implications of this is ridiculous. Darkstar comes up with several different calculations that are incompatible with eachother. He thinks that ISD's have power generation in the terrawatt range (and claims that he's being generous), yet then turns around saying that they can fire 2 HTL's per second, each being 1.5 megatons. This does not compute. He also claims that the Falcon only has megawatts of power generation, and then turns around and admits that the Slave 1's laser cannons were 13 gigajoules per shot, and it was firing 11 shots per second! This does not compute.

The hyper high end can only be based on the literal scientific interpretation of vaporization.

And it's not hyper high end. It's based on the very real, accurate definition of the term, not your inaccurate definition of the term.

I'm saying... that more mass than the small town's gets vaporized. There's the town's mass, and then there's more mass, like the ground's.

And what point are you trying to make? Are you denying that a blast that vaporizes a town is an overkill because it also vaporizes the ground?

Because to turn the entirety of the city into plasma, you'll that much energy over such a range. I spare you the difference between a contained explosion and a surfacic one, plus the fact that you have to input excess energy just to be sure to actually vaporize all of it, and not just make a big fireball.

So you've just dig yourself a hole by showing that based on the completely reasonable scientific definition of vaporize (you know, the entire reason why the word exists), the calculation falls within ICS ranges. Yet you still think that your interpretation is right, not the one that fits with Saxton ICS's, even though the latter are canon and your unsupported decree that it has to be figurative isn't.

You are annoying, in being incapable of understanding that I'm not going to accept a perfectly valid argument being countered by a red herring based on what another author wrote in another book.
What you say is just dumb. No one in his sane mind would say that a TL can vaporize a small town when it dumps so much energy on the surface of a world at once. That's foolish.

No, it's not foolish. The amount of energy needed to vaporize a small town is in line with Saxton ICS's, which are canon. The amount of energy needed to "figuratively" vaporize a small is unquantifiable and not in line with the completely canon ICS's. Therefore, the literal interpretation fits better with the facts. That's how you form a Scientific Theory, not by saying that it's figurative and providing jack all to explain why.

WTF.
You were wrong with your use of the terminology "order of magnitude". I corrected that bit. It's funny how you dodge this by returning to another part of the debate (interpretation of the term vaporized).
The error, in this post, was:

Of course, if we wanted to be honest and look at the true vaporization figures, knowing that they're for a single bomb placed inside a closed environment, instead of an open and flat surface, we would already get 452.1 gigatons.

Which just so happens to be within an OOM of 200 gigatons.

As we can see, it has nothing to do with how one understands the word vaporized.

Yes, I need to go that low into your turd just to show how desperate you are.

200 GT is within an OOM of 452.1 gigatons. You will explain why you decided to ignore the substance of my claim of being within an OOM of 200 gigatons in favor of nitpicking by word choice.

Why couldn't he?

Burden of Proof, that's what.

Both interpretations are good ones, so there.

No they aren't. Mine fits with the ICS, yours doesn't. The best interpretation is the one that fits best with the facts. Mine fits best with canon, yours doesn't.

But since you refuse that people can use the term vaporize to mean reduced to rubble, pebbles and dust, it's no wonder why you keep asking those asinine questions.
It does make for a tiring "debate".

Because it's an unscientific meaning of the word, maybe, and you can't quantify it?

Frankly, this board was used to debaters of far greater caliber than yours.

This is the funniest thing I've heard all day. No offense to any of the great debaters here, but I'd be interested in hearing of these "great caliber" debaters that dwarf me.

The lower end interpretation fits with plenty of sources cited there, far outnumbered the ICS, if that's what matters to you.

I don't care about how many mystical sources you claim but never provide, I want to see them. And I don't care if you already posted them on some other forum. You need to provide evidence. Otherwise, these imaginary sources you squeal about but refuse to spend a few seconds posting are imaginary.

Of course, you would know that, if you were a nut honest and had attempted to prove why the ICS figures are closer to Star Wars than the vast bulk of EU quotes, movie novelizations and TCWS.

Too bad for you. Literal interpretation fits with ICS's. Your figurative interpretation apparently fits with other sources, but you haven't provided them in this thread.

I'm under no obligation to repeat entire swathes of former debates and posts full of evidence for your own delusional pleasure.
Your refusal to read those posts is just proof that you're not interested in a real debate.
I'm clearly getting the vibe that you're a miserable person who just registered to troll this board. This level of dishonesty you demonstrate, post after post, is precisely flabbergasting.

You're dodging the point, and you know it. If you have evidence, spend a few seconds reposting just one of them. You can claim to have provided them before, but such a claim has no evidence to back it up. I can deny it all I want, and I'll be right, because your accusation goes unsupported.

I have shown that my interpretation fits with the ICS's (and Slave Ship, and OT:ITW...). You counter by saying that your interpretation fits with more sources, but fail to cite any of them (even though I just did so for my side several times and had no problem with doing so).

o_O
...
Asteroids are not invisible, genius.

Damn, and I thought I had seen all!

After they get vaporized in space, they are. You're asking me to show proof of an asteroid being there when you see it getting vaporized.

How do you know that?
Why matter wouldn't be part of the bolt?
How would you explain the flak bursts in TCWS then?
Asteroids, again?
lol

Show me evidence that flak bursts work like that in space. You see the glow being self contained, meaning that it has to be something being vaporized.

Can't see the picture. But I can know that by reading the html link that it's going to be zero evidence at all.
I asked you, rather kindly, to provide evidence of asteroids, not to repeat the same retarded nonsense that comes from SDN.
I note your failure to comply.

Easy, you see the asteroid being vaporized. It's up to you to show proof that there are magical flak cannons that self contain themselves inside a specific diameter (even when they could have not used this magical containment field and have roasted the Falcon that was right next to the glow).

Now, seeing how this was completely futile -I'm used to debate with people belonging to the homo sapiens sapiens branch after all- I'll just ignore anything you could say in that thread before starting to lose neurons due to how dumb your position is.
Bye.

[/quote]

Fuck you. You just called me sub-human, an insult that is simply unacceptable. Mike's response to this is to tell you to "calm down" and to sympathize with you? He shows no disgust at calling someone sub-human?

Mike is probably going to whine about me saying "fuck you". Yeah, calling somebody sub-human is something that he can sympathize with, but saying "fuck you" isn't.

[Admiral Breetai]

are you blind or just completely insane? Mike told him to calm down instead of banning his ass and warning him because he has...VASTLY LESS INFRACTIONS THEN YOU DO!! DOIIIII

sweet zombie jesus SWST also..fuck you you said that? really?? that's pretty much more offensive then anything I said to you in your little tantrum thread where you challenged me to a debate..and I wracked up a bunch of warnings...so LOL your probably going on a vacation again

[StarWarsStarTrek]

are you blind or just completely insane?

No, I just don't debate with silly generalizations and attempting to rebute rebuttals by restating what was rebuted.

Mike told him to calm down instead of banning his ass and warning him because he has...VASTLY LESS INFRACTIONS THEN YOU DO!! DOIIIII

So you're admitting that his treatment of the infraction is based more on past preferences than the merit of the infraction itself. Gotcha.

sweet zombie jesus SWST also..

Why do you keep using ".."'s in your statements?

fuck you you said that? really?? that's pretty much more offensive then anything I said to you in your little tantrum thread where you challenged me to a debate..and I wracked up a bunch of warnings...so LOL your probably going on a vacation again

Right, because calling someone sub human is not offensive. Fuck you, asshole is something that is offensive, but not nearly as degrading as the above.

[Admiral Breetai]

[
No, I just don't debate with silly generalizations and attempting to rebute rebuttals by restating what was rebuted.

you cannot have just typed that with a straight face..if you did your nuts

[
So you're admitting that his treatment of the infraction is based more on past preferences than the merit of the infraction itself. Gotcha.

no you dishonest debater you and here you go blatantly distorting what I said that's against the rules! Now then what I said was "currently mister O having far less of a "record" then you is going to get a far less severe punishment then you who took mulitiple vacations recently and warnings"

this is in the forums rules

[
Why do you keep using ".."'s in your statements?

....Because!...I'm...James...Kirk!

now onto your next question hopefully more relevant than this

[
Right, because calling someone sub human is not offensive. Fuck you, asshole is something that is offensive, but not nearly as degrading as the above.

calling some one sub human is pretty fucked up..but given how badly you have screwed up here and abused mister O's patients..his emotional reaction which was out of pure frustration..is certainly more forgivable than some one who's acting like an emotionally unstable troll who's going out of his way to snipe at every one here...out of pure frustration due to his repeated defeats and failure to wank his favorite series loudly declaring the F bomb..in a knee jerk reaction to being called out on his bullshit

[StarWarsStarTrek]

you cannot have just typed that with a straight face..if you did your nuts

Thank you for proving my point. Your no-substance response is "you can't be serious...because...because...that's nuts...because...you're asking for evidence? ROTL you're a troll!"

no you dishonest debater you and here you go blatantly distorting what I said that's against the rules! Now then what I said was "currently mister O having far less of a "record" then you is going to get a far less severe punishment then you who took mulitiple vacations recently and warnings"

this is in the forums rules

Nowhere was I arguing the punishment, I was arguing the way in which Mike gave it, in which he treated Mr. O sympathetically when there's nothing sympathetic about it.

[
Why do you keep using ".."'s in your statements?

....Because!...I'm...James...Kirk!

now onto your next question hopefully more relevant than this

It is relevant, because it's not how you write English. It's...freaking...annoying.

calling some one sub human is pretty fucked up..but given how badly you have screwed up here and abused mister O's patients..his emotional reaction which was out of pure frustration..is certainly more forgivable than some one who's acting like an emotionally unstable troll who's going out of his way to snipe at every one here...out of pure frustration due to his repeated defeats and failure to wank his favorite series loudly declaring the F bomb..in a knee jerk reaction to being called out on his bullshit

So you excuse Mr. O's written response as "emotional" (even though he still has yet to apologize or edit his post), yet you accuse me of having a knee jerk reaction? Can you get more self-contradicting than that?

[Admiral Breetai]

Thank you for proving my point. Your no-substance response is "you can't be serious...because...because...that's nuts...because...you're asking for evidence? ROTL you're a troll!"

Nowhere was I arguing the punishment, I was arguing the way in which Mike gave it, in which he treated Mr. O sympathetically when there's nothing sympathetic about it.

and the way with which mike gave it is consistent with the mans "criminal record" if you will

So you excuse Mr. O's written response as "emotional" (even though he still has yet to apologize or edit his post), yet you accuse me of having a knee jerk reaction? Can you get more self-contradicting than that?

because mister O perhaps more than any one save JMS and Mike went out of his way..to be nice patient and civil with you..these three man exhibited the patients of saints and when you went too far...well this happened

he got a warning for it..but considering the context of the situation which is also a mods job..he deserves nothing more

[Picard]

Is this "SWST infractions" topic or what? I'd say splittings are in order.

BTW, SWST, can you kindly explain me how are you attempting to fit 200 - 450 - gigaton heavy turbolasers with 22 - kiloton medium ones?

[Admiral Breetai]

the 22 kilo as medium makes no sense..those wouldn't even dent the shields if gt was the figure needed for heavy guns

i don't suggest splitting the topic because he has enough temper tantrum threads but it's of course up to the mods

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Is this "SWST infractions" topic or what? I'd say splittings are in order.

BTW, SWST, can you kindly explain me how are you attempting to fit 200 - 450 - gigaton heavy turbolasers with 22 - kiloton medium ones?

I would like you to kindly explain where I claimed 22 kiloton MTL's.

[Picard]

TESB asteroid chase scene, where we see ISD vaporizing asteroids. As I already explained like five times before.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

TESB asteroid chase scene, where we see ISD vaporizing asteroids. As I already explained like five times before.

Do I need to explain to you the difference between upper and lower limits?

[Picard]

There are no upper and lower limits when it is only value avaliable. And if you read my page, you'd see that I TOOK upper limit - I took largest asteroid avaliable, assuming it was nickel/iron instead of rock. So, it IS upper limit.

[Praeothmin]

TESB asteroid chase scene, where we see ISD vaporizing asteroids. As I already explained like five times before.

Do I need to explain to you the difference between upper and lower limits?

Do I need to remind you -AGAIN- about the self exploding asteroids which make your "lower limit" pure BS, and points to an actual lower limit?

[StarWarsStarTrek]

There are no upper and lower limits when it is only value avaliable. And if you read my page, you'd see that I TOOK upper limit - I took largest asteroid avaliable, assuming it was nickel/iron instead of rock. So, it IS upper limit.

Appeal to ignorance. By your logic, if we see a bullet easily penetrate plywood, and it's the only value we have on that caliber, that's an upper limit...because it's the only value.