List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

[StarWarsStarTrek]

There's also a map that shows population density across the galaxy, and it's more than obvious that there's just not enough of those super populated worlds to account for the higher number.
Coruscant itself is literally unique, as per some movie novelization.

Oh and SWST should really shut. I can't understand why he's allowed to reboot all discussions on and on. Everything about Dankayo has already been dealt with. Everything.
Same with the volcano base. JMS had even replied to SWST back on page 14, citing a post of mine from page 8.
This is ludicrous. If SWST can't be arsed to read and think, it's his problem. Let no him pollute this board. We all like debate and discussion and wouldn't mind more activity, but not if it comes at the price of quality and cohesion.

Since when do you determine when an argument has been "debunked", sir? Do you have a list of criteria in which, one fulfilled, a topic is closed off forever?

Your "addressing" of the issue was terrible. You thought that the atmosphere quote only referred to the Rebel base, which makes no sense at all. How does "the last" of the atmosphere drift out of a base instead of being replaced by the rest of the planet's atmsophere, and why would that only happen after the planet's topsoil was atomized and its surface evenly cratered? If you're going to argue that Dankayo had no atmosphere (despite being a colonized planet), then explain the latter. A very tiny hole would be all that's needed for the atmosphere to escape, yet the quote clearly states that the atmosphere-removing feat was the last to be accomplished, after cratering the surface and atomizing the topsoil.

Either way, you lose. If Dankayo had an atmosphere, then there's no scientifically or logically sound way that the quote could be referring to just the base's atmosphere. If Dankayo didn't have an atmosphere for some reason, then there's no reason why the feat would only be accomplished after the entire planet's surface was evenly cratered or the planet's topsoil atomized when a blaster rifle would have accomplished it in minutes (assuming no failsafes, which there probably were, which makes it even more moot).

[Mr. Oragahn]

There's also a map that shows population density across the galaxy, and it's more than obvious that there's just not enough of those super populated worlds to account for the higher number.
Coruscant itself is literally unique, as per some movie novelization.

Oh and SWST should really shut. I can't understand why he's allowed to reboot all discussions on and on. Everything about Dankayo has already been dealt with. Everything.
Same with the volcano base. JMS had even replied to SWST back on page 14, citing a post of mine from page 8.
This is ludicrous. If SWST can't be arsed to read and think, it's his problem. Let no him pollute this board. We all like debate and discussion and wouldn't mind more activity, but not if it comes at the price of quality and cohesion.

Since when do you determine when an argument has been "debunked", sir? Do you have a list of criteria in which, one fulfilled, a topic is closed off forever?

Your "addressing" of the issue was terrible. You thought that the atmosphere quote only referred to the Rebel base, which makes no sense at all. How does "the last" of the atmosphere drift out of a base instead of being replaced by the rest of the planet's atmsophere, and why would that only happen after the planet's topsoil was atomized and its surface evenly cratered? If you're going to argue that Dankayo had no atmosphere (despite being a colonized planet), then explain the latter. A very tiny hole would be all that's needed for the atmosphere to escape, yet the quote clearly states that the atmosphere-removing feat was the last to be accomplished, after cratering the surface and atomizing the topsoil.

Either way, you lose. If Dankayo had an atmosphere, then there's no scientifically or logically sound way that the quote could be referring to just the base's atmosphere. If Dankayo didn't have an atmosphere for some reason, then there's no reason why the feat would only be accomplished after the entire planet's surface was evenly cratered or the planet's topsoil atomized when a blaster rifle would have accomplished it in minutes (assuming no failsafes, which there probably were, which makes it even more moot).

I told you and other people here that I'd ignore your silly "questions" (which are nothing than baits, we all know it).
But, anyway, I still have to ask: Can't you read?
are ur engrish so not good dudebro?
If at least you could post them in the appropriate thread, maybe, maybe... I might deign moving a few fingers to drop a reply, but that would already be too kind.
I'll let you suffocate in your own ignorance and let you work out the quintessential revelation that awaits you just in case you might stop finding pleasure in trolling this place.
Oh, yes. Just if it weren't clear enough, I have again provided evidence that you have ignored people's post AND evidence. And not just mine, but JMS'. Only that.
You seem to enjoy those bans, really. :)

[Jedi Master Spock]

If you're going to argue that Dankayo had no atmosphere (despite being a colonized planet), then explain the latter.

There is literally no indication that Dankayo had any population other than a Rebel base (which was evacuated prior to the Imperial assault).

A very tiny hole would be all that's needed for the atmosphere to escape, yet the quote clearly states that the atmosphere-removing feat was the last to be accomplished, after cratering the surface and atomizing the topsoil.

If the atmosphere "drifts away" slowly, because it's not superheated, because Dankayo is just a small moon unable to hold its own atmosphere via gravity, then the atmosphere would drift away last.

Either way, you lose. If Dankayo had an atmosphere, then there's no scientifically or logically sound way that the quote could be referring to just the base's atmosphere.

And no way that, if Dankayo was a planet normally large enough to have its own atmosphere (as opposed to something like the asteroid the Falcon hid in during the TESB chase scene; which inexplicably had atmosphere and gravity much like a planet's down in the space slug's tunnel in spite of being much to small, something that none of the characters on the Falcon seemed to find remarkable) that stormtroopers would have been able to land and walk around - or rebel agent ZNT-8, who found that the Imperial bombardment had disabled the base's self-destruct and prevented it from being sufficiently thoroughly destroyed. That's right - the Rebel base wasn't destroyed enough for Rebel purposes by the bombardment.

If Dankayo didn't have an atmosphere for some reason, then there's no reason why the feat would only be accomplished after the entire planet's surface was evenly cratered or the planet's topsoil atomized when a blaster rifle would have accomplished it in minutes (assuming no failsafes, which there probably were, which makes it even more moot).

Except that it takes time for vapor to drift away when it's not superheated by high-gigaton blasts? Especially "last wisps." Because the process was finished last doesn't mean it was started last.

The Official Atlas map? I'm not sure I agree -- IIRC it lists only average-per-planet populations per sector, and none too exactly at that. Nothing solid on how many planets actually have huge (or small) populations, really.

It's not actually "per sector" in a list, it's a continuous contour display. What that map shows is that outside of the innermost core, planets with more than Earth's population are pretty rare. It may not be terribly solid, but it is very strongly suggestive of the kind of model I keep suggesting - there are a few very intensely populated core worlds, which mainly are the same worlds that were in the Republic, and then a very large number of more lightly populated worlds.

Thus, the Empire claims ten times as many systems as the Republic did a generation and earlier (ANH novelization's "million systems" vs TPM novelization's "hundred thousand systems" and AOTC's "ten thousand more systems" splitting the Republic in two), but most of the Empire's newly acquired systems are marginal systems like Tatooine. There are many more inhabited systems still that the Empire doesn't claim, but they're mostly very marginally populated or primitive. (Think of systems like Bespin or Endor - the Empire can walk in and take them, but they're not really worth it).

This actually highlights how high the ICS's battle droid numbers are - as one contributor on Wookieepedia put it (emphasis on the key line is mine):

The galalxy page lists the total population of the Star Wars galaxy at 100 quadrillion sentients, this apparently being taken from Dark Empire sourcebooks. That makes the concept of 1 quintillion battle droids somewhat difficult to grasp, as that would imply 10 battle droids for every sentient in the galaxy. To make some very cheap back of the envelop calculations: if Republic/CIS space encompassed 75% of the galactic populace (leaving space for the Unknown Regions, Wild Space, and autonomous areas such as Hutt Space), and the Republic had a 2:1 population advantage over the CIS (due to having more heavily populated Core Worlds and so forth), and the CIS military included a 10% military population ratio using 90% droids (since we know they had non-droid troops too) that would be...2.25 quadrillion battle droids in a 2.5 quadrillion being military. If they outnumber the Republic 100 to 1 then the Republic would have 25 trillion troops, clones or otherwise. However, it seems dubious that they outnumber the Republic 100 to 1 overall. The nature of Star Wars warfare is that the vast majority of battles will be fleet actions and ground conflict will be very rare, something the movies support. Obviously the Republic was not outnumbered 100 to 1 in space or they'd have been without hope Jedi or no Jedi, the 4 to 1 number you mentioned seems much more possible. That being so, perhaps the CIS simply had a 100 to 1 advantage in ground troops, a tiny fraction of their army, which would bring us back to quadrillions of troops. However, even given that base 100 quadrillion number to work with, the size of all armies can very massively simply by changing the percentages of the military to total populace, allowing you to generate almost any number you want. Mechalich 06:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Saxton realize this? Probably so. I expect he wanted to revise the population of the Star Wars galaxy - he has claimed the population of Coruscant alone is several quadrillion (rather than the trillion or so that is standard in EU works), with many Coruscant-like worlds in the Empire.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Phrases like that actually are common idiom. Words like "glass," "slag," "vaporize," and "destroy" are commonly used loosely. E.g., we might say that the USA and USSR have the ability to destroy the world, between their two nuclear arsenals. For several decades, in fact, the phrase "destroy the world" was common currency. People talked about "glassing" or "slagging" countries or regions all the time.

Again, show me evidence. Or maybe you could show me evidence of High Level Generals saying it.

This did not mean that the USA and USSR actually had the ability to turn countries into glass. They had the capability to effectively destroy a nation, but only a small fraction of that nation's surface would be melted. 100 gigatons divided among 100,000,000 single-kiloton devices is enough to create a lethal destructive effect on every square inch of an Earth-sized globe.

No, not at all. You're forgetting the Oceans and the Underground. Both are ideal hiding spots for a "ZOMG BOMB THE EARTH!" plan, and we know from Han Solo that a Base Delta Zero from a single ISD was intended to leave "no survivors. no witnesses."

Was there any atmosphere other than what was contained in the Rebel base?

Obviously, since it was an inhabited colony.

And how much "topsoil" was that? Dankayo's surface was also cold enough for stormtroopers to walk around on it no more than a few hours later.

Prove that the mop up forces were being sent just a few hours later, and explain why they couldn't be wearing specialized suits, just like the Scout Troopers did on Endor and various other troopers do in their respective environments. In fact, the last time I checked there were even magma troopers, so your problem is explained.

As I've said, others have discussed this incident in great detail and found that, while it describes a destructive event, it does not require, or even suggest, anything near what the ICS does.

Then what does it require? You aren't honestly going to claim that single digit megaton weapons could accomplish, it, would you?

It's in the first category - when you look at the details, such as the fact that several ISDs were required to obliterate the small Rebel base and turned out to do sub-ICS levels of destruction after dumping all the firepower they could on the planet.

http://www.theforce.net/books/story/top ... 111631.asp

Since when were they required? We know from various sources that a single ISD can perform a Base Delta Zero. Obviously, three would be more effective. The Empire isn't like the Borg, where they send just one borg cube to take on an entire civilization because it'll "probably" be enough.

Donner has provided the quote in context:

[T]he cruiser Wennis, a decomissioned, obsolete, and thoroughly effective instrument of pitiless warfare, being refitted to her master's precise specifications. Her crew was an odd but deliberate mixture of the cream of the galaxy's technical and military elite and its dregs, often represented in the same individual. Her weaponry and defenses ran the gamut from continent-destroying hell projectors to small teams of unarmed combat experts. She had been a gift of prudence from the highest and consequently most vulnerable of sources in the galaxy.

Note the lack of anything specific about the sense of "destroy." More likely, this is meant in the sense of "world-destroying nuclear arsenal," a phrase whose top hit on Google is a serious review of a book on the cold war.

Our smallest continent, Australia, is about 1/60th of the surface area of the "world". So therefore, even if we scale with 10 gigatons for figurative "world destroying" (which is obviously an intentional exaggeration), you get over one hundred megatons. And that's ridiculous; the 50 megaton Tsar bomb did not come close to "destroying" Asia in any sense.

Remember that this is referring to a single weapon; what yield would be needed to effectively "destroy" a continent? Again, even using Australia and the most modest definitions of "destroy", you get a yield of at least several hundred gigatons.

If you take it literally, then it gets borderline ridiculous.

Be consistent, please. Sources which describe the galactic population as 100 quadrillion generally say it has more than a million inhabited planets.

Right, but most are likely small outposts or such, hence why they don't get included in most planet counts.

The Empire doesn't rule every world in the galaxy; indeed, many inhabited worlds don't have a space-faring population.

But it rules most of them, and that's what matters.

If you consult Wookieepedia, for example, it will tell you that an estimated 20 million sentient species live in the Star Wars galaxy. The EU sources that suggest 100 quadrillion beings as the population of the Star Wars galaxy do so with a substantially larger number of worlds than the 1 million that make up the Empire.

Again, the Empire likely has claim over 99+% of those planets. Most planets that were not under its reign were likely ones with intelligent life that developed independently, but once they go spacefaring (which would happen around when their population gets anywhere near being significant to the count), they'd get thrown into the galactic radar.

(Notoriously, a number of sources ascribe a higher number of systems to the Empire, say 50 million assorted colonies, protectorates, and other minor possessions). Thus, the mean planetary population, according to EU sources, isn't more than a billion or so.

And even if that were true, you still get a figure that trumps the Enterprise, and this is assuming that Star Wars planetary nations consume no more per person than the United States and does not take into account population growth.

Moreover, the distribution is skewed. A significant portion of the galactic population is concentrated in a few heavily populated systems, e.g., Coruscant.

This would, of course, require evidence. Coruscant is heavily populated, true, but even it is hardly 1/1000th of the galactic population.

Thus, the median planetary population is actually closer to the size of the modern US, something that is actually more or less visible on the Essential Atlas's population density map (colored by average population per inhabited system). Thus, we do end up with realistic figures of e20-e22 joules.

You need to show math to justify this. Especially since, even with several heavily populated planets such as Coruscant, they really don't add up to more than perhaps 10% of 100 quadrillion. Coruscant has, what; most of you pro Trekkers would say 1 trillion, which translates to needed ten thousand Coruscants to amount to 10% of the galactic popuolation, and that hardly changes the calculations at all. And we know that planet-cities are rare, and that Coruscant is the most populated planet in the galaxy.

This is no more than a millisecond of peak power production of an ISD according to the Saxtonite model.

Hardly, since no evidence suggests that Star Wars ships have to charge up by any significant amount before going to hyperspace.

Again, second category. It fails to contradict the ICS, but neither does it actually require anything anywhere near to what the ICS states.

Actually, yes it does. Even if we take a median population of a billion per planet (reasonable enough, 300 million is ridiculous), and completely ignore population growth, immigration and likely a far higher power consumption per capita (especially with spaceships constantly reaching escape velocity and with the constant and energy intensive accelerations and turns of airspeeders), you get figures within reasonable distance of ICS statements.

Actually, I don't think it's an important difference. Saxton is the origin of the figure in either case.

But it had to go through an approval process, this time not only by Lucasarts, but by the author of the work. And it counts as canon, regardless of how much you dislike it.

The novel in context.

No, it didn't. You don't rely on an "exceptional" feat to pull off a one-chance trick unless if you absolutely have to. Did the turbolaser gunners have a magical moment of clarity? Did Wedge Antilles figure through his non-Force sensitive senses that said turbolaser gunner would by sheer chance be able to hit a target several OOM beyond typical effective range, and banked a crucial battle of an even more crucial war on it?

The ICS states "The DBY-827's precise, long-range tracking mode enables it to hit a target vessel at distances of over ten light minutes," i.e., it says such distances are within effective normal range.
Which is patently absurd.

And anybody can see that this hypothetical "vessel" is stationary or in predictable motion. You still don't understand that nothing contradicts this, because there are very obvious, fundamental reasons why they aren't used in the movies or TCW. It doesn't change the fact that, hypothetically, against a stationary or predictable target, a turbolaser can hit something from over 10 light minutes away.

Most moving targets would accidentally dodge it, if moving under power.

Not if its accelerating constantly, or not at all.

Given the tracking accuracy necessary to actually hit a target vessel at 10 light minutes (i.e., extremely small angular precision) and light-speed propagation (also part of the Saxtonite model) hundred kilometer ranges are utterly absurd to fight at. I.e., it's on the balance of contradicting the ICS - not supporting it. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Your reasoning isn't connecting here at all. How, exactly, it approaching 100 kilometers to fight a moving and unpredictable target contradicting being able to hit something from over 10 light minutes away at all? Do you realize that nowhere is it stated that the latter would actually happen in combat, not due to a lack of technological prowess, but because fundamentally the target could just move?

Well, I'm specifically referring to the coherent Saxtonite model, outlined by the ICSes, which has some details filled in on the SWTC. I like being specific.
Are you seriously arguing that people don't refer to the USSR / USA "slagging" countries/the world?

People use such all the time.

"when their urban centres are reduced to slag" - hardly world slagging.

And I find it hilarious that you have to resort to random people in internet forums to show what the Supreme Commander of the Galactic Alliance military uses as slang.

I would refer you again to the inherently inaccurate nature of comic book visuals.

Then your point has just been invalidated by yourself.

I don't "agree the source is unreliable." I say the medium is limited[/url] and that the literal visual depiction is unreliable.

And if the medium is limited, then by definition the source using said medium is limited.

We don't know that X explosion is really Y meters across. We just know that it's there, and we happen to know that there are people running around on the surface during these bombardments in the middle of the target zones, mysteriously not demolished; that random critters and plants survived the bombardment and are wandering around looking sad afterwards. These qualitative pieces of information, which are not subject to the distortions of the media being used, are what provide a contradiction to the ICS; thus, the problem of comic book visuals being exaggerated, cartoonish, and non-literal do not suffice to eliminate the contradiction. If you are following an EU completist canon policy, you don't have grounds to throw out that information.

Of course I do. Other sources with no said limitations at all such as novels contradict the source, and there are more of them than you have of your comic books.

I'm not trying to deny "set in stone visuals." I'm pointing out that those visuals show something that does not and cannot reasonably fit with the ICS.

It fits fine. At the beginning of the bombardment, the quad laser turrets (kiloton?) are showing firepower on par with a modern day MOAB. After the protagonists start to escape (breaking orbit within seconds), Malak orders the "second phase" of the bombardment to start; now we see forty stories off of a super tall skyscraper being vaporized (and the skyscrapers remain standing; testament to whatever freakishly tough material they're made out of), and as we zoom out to orbit, we see unscientifically brief explosions that still scale to gigatons based on their fireball radius.

I'd also like to point out that there are various extreme, almost frightening speed feats in KOTOR. For example, the Sun Crusher was orbiting right next to a star, yet the battle for it involves ships moving from planets that are in orbit around the star (and presumably around the same distance as Earth, given the planets' climate) to join in on the battle against the sun crusher.

Also, in KOTOR 2, we are informed that nobody, not even spaceships or droids can travel safely on Taris in all but special protected zones because of the enormous amounts of acid in the air.

Do you know how many shots a laser cannon can make? Presumably, hundreds or thousands during a mission.

With kiloton level proton torpedoes, multi-gigajoule laser bolts are highly relevant to being able to make the whole island a smoking ruin.

No, not really. "Thousands" of laser cannon shots, if they are multi-gigajoule, would be a few kilotons of tnt in total. That's not anywhere within the firepower needed to slag an island. Not at all, and in this case, having multiple low powered shots to add up to a kiloton isn't going to help.

Emphasis added to your claim to highlight a very direct contradiction. The description is perfectly clear:
Salm reached out and touched the holographic world. The island he selected grew up in place of the world of which it was part. As the image expanded, the computer added buildings, mountains, ion-cannon batteries, and other details of military importance. Two steep mountain chains - the edges of an extinct Volcano's crater - enclosed the base like parentheses.
And then:
"The island, you see, is part of an old Volcano. The generators are geothermal and old and not up to the strain of raising the shield and powering the ion cannons."

"And if they choose to go turtle instead of trying to shoot?"

"The bomber pilot traced a circle around what would have originally been the edge of the crater. To the south the wall had broken down almost completely and much of the base had been built on the flat stretch of land that linked the volcano and the bay. On the north side of the crater the wall had begun to erode,but it was just a small divot compared to the gap in the south.

"The shield has to cover everything from the beach to the tops of the mountains. On the North side it should be possible to blast through the mountain and open up enough of a gap to let our bombers in. Once we're under the shield, the generators go and its over."

Grand isle is a volcanic island, produced by a single volcano, which has since subsided into dormancy. The "mountain chains" are the two rings of small peaks surrounding the volcanic crater.

I stand corrected. But the volcano that you mention did not have a definite size; but we do know that the "mountain chains", regardless of where they come from, are big enough to be considered mountains, and by extension, this volcano is extremely large. Therefore, your correction is true, but semantics.

In order for that analogy to continue neatly, you also need to have the reactors of the star destroyers not powering their weapons.

Which is fine by me. The reasons that nuclear warships and diesel warships can fight on near-level playing fields are much the same reasons that hypermatter-powered and fusion-powered ships in the Star Wars EU fight on near-level playing fields.

No, they can't. Otherwise, Star Wars engineers would install fusion reactors instead, since hypermatter reactors do have a slight chance of lethal malfunction and are presumably more expensive. What we do know is that Hypermatter Reaction is sated quite irrefutably in Star Wars: Death Star to be MORE powerful than matter/antimatter reaction. Therefore, if Star Wars fusion (which, as explained earlier, is far more potent and fundamentally different from modern nuclear fusion) is comparable with hypermatter, its because it uses fuel of extreme density, far in excess of nuclear fusion.

Whatever the ultimate potentials of hypermatter, it is not being used to create obscene shield strengths and firepower densities not achievable with fusion -

You're confusing Star Wars fusion with modern day nuclear fusion. As I've explained to you before, Star Wars fusion can fuse "virtually any substance" using unknown means.

So yeah, we know that hypermatter is more potent than M/AM, so it's obviously more powerful than nuclear fusion, and an unknown amount more powerful than Star Wars fusion.

not on the capital ships that Saxton intends to have such a massive pound-for-pound advantage over fighters.

No, Saxton didn't intend, he stated so, and got it written down into canon. You apply a far more rigid scrutiny for anything to do with Saxton (or pro Wars in general) than you do with other C canon statements. Saxton doesn't "estimate" firepower in the ICS2; he states them. Even if he made them up from scratch, they'd still be true. It's like saying that Jaina Solo doesn't exist because some EU author didn't interpret canon correctly when he/she made her.

"Virtually any substance" can generate energy by being retconfigured into a lower-energy nuclear state.

Translation: this canon statement is outright false because I don't like it, and I won't bother trying to rationalize it with the quotes I state below.

The fact that "fusion" in fact means "fusion" is underlined pretty heavily by the novels, particularly the ROTJ novel ("thermonuclear fireworks") and the ROTS novel (lengthy "sun dragon" passage).

Proton torpedos aren't reactors, and Tatooine slave children aren't Nuclear engineers. Unless if you think that there are also angels in Star Wars.

This is, of course, light years beyond our modern technology, but I'm afraid you need to have some advanced technology in order to have a galactic civilization. Hypermatter reactors, however, are a peculiarly Saxtonite oddity that he introduced;

Wrong, hypermatter was mentioned in the original ICS.

Actually, and although other EU sources have adopted hypermatter reactors, they show no indications at all that fighters and older capital ships, powered by fusion, are substantially outclassed on a pound-for-pound basis by hypermatter-powered capital ships.

Actually, they do, such as the Star Wars: Death Star novel that you conveniently dodged. It states that hypermatter has more energy potential than matter/antimatter conversion.

According to the ICS. But is that what George Lucas was thinking?

You think that George Lucas gives a shit about whether or not HTL's draw from the reactor? Do you think that he even knows that there are heavy turbolasers? Why do you keep on switching between author's intent and SoD randomly?

I disagree. The moment of inertia of a ship scales with mass and the square of dimension. A 1600m vessel has 10,000,000,000 times the moment of inertia of a similarly constructed 16m ship, but only has 1,000,000 times the reactor size. Proportionately, it's 10,000 times as hard to turn it around.

THIS SUPPORTS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

No, really, please reread the above and figure out the irony. You inverted your argument.

Now, it's true that capital ships have more geometrically compact forms than fighters, on average, and fighters do turn much more quickly; but a larger ship, even turning more slowly, experiences more torque, and as we saw in the TESB chase, the linear acceleration of an ISD isn't appreciably less than the linear acceleration of the "fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy."

Which is pretty darn fast, being able to cross a gas giant in one scene (as in the Falcon).

And ISD's are hardly slow either, given 1500 G acceleration in non Saxton reference guides.

Proportionately, in other words, an ISD requires more investment in maneuvering capability than a TIE fighter - just to turn like a slug in comparison.

Perhaps, but how often does it actually turn? Rarely, and we know that power can be diverted to various parts of ISD's when the situation calls for it, so turning power is conditional and irrelevant to distribution when the ISD's are in deadlocked slugging matches.

That's the problem with being big.

And it completely inverts your entire argument.

Even if it didn't, note that most stupid EU authors have the power proportions matter in a straight out slugging contest, but by your figuring it would only matter in a mobile firefight where speed and turning radius were the main factors.

Given the fragments that were visible were glowing a dim ruddy color, that means that they already cooled below incandescent temperatures.

So you're saying that they were cooled to the point of turning black?

Why are you assuming that they're infallible, rather than concluding that bolts fired from no apparent gun, of a size no different from those fired by visible guns on the model, are fired by invisibly small guns that are not actually present on the model?

Because you are selectively applying author's intent? Why don't you apply this to the destruction of Alderaan, and accept that the strange effects around it are just the special effects guys having some fun (or messing up) to make it look cooler, and accept that a planet being blown up by a giant laser is because the giant laser was reaaallllyyyy powerful, not that some magical chain reaction happened that we never hear about in any official source, ever?

You clearly don't understand.

A shock - you can call a "blast wave" a sound wave if you like, it's basically the same sort of thing - is ordinarily transmitted at the speed of sound. When it's very high energy, it travels faster than the speed of sound - hence "supersonic." But the speed of sound in rock is several kilometers per second. That means that the physical shock from the strike - much like the blast wave of a nuclear bomb - would travel at multiple kilometers per second. Yes, that means that the asteroid would be already shattered and scattered in the very frame of impact if the TLC yields were correct.

You'd be assuming that enough of the turbolaser's energy is being released in the form of a shock wave to fragment a however-long asteroid. Indeed, your argument seems to be more of a point against the validity/accuracy of the scene itself rather than any specific yield.

In many cases, yes.

Which ones, specifically?

Nobody is going to pretend that it doesn't take an elite fighter squadron to take down a Star Destroyer with nothing more than X-Wings. If nothing else, a Star Destroyer carries its own fighter complement.

I'm not saying that a single fighter squadron carries more firepower than an entire Star Destroyer. I'm saying that a single fighter squadron carries just enough firepower to disable a Star Destroyer, if applied just right - a VSD, at least, for X-Wings, and a full-size ISD for B-Wings.

Oh, yeah. With the right armament, and striking the right weak spots, a squadron of X wings has just enough firepower to cripple or destroy an ISD. But I don't see how this proves any point of yours.

ROTS

No, it doesn't. All of the destroyed (and unshielded, BTW) capital ships are from other capital ships.

and ROTJ both prove otherwise,

Not at all. No capital ships were destroyed from fighter attacks, not even from their thermonuclear proton torpedos

as does TESB - a ramming attack from the Falcon could have been as deadly to the ISD as the ROTJ A-Wing's ramming attack on the SSD.

Where is this stated?

Note that the fighter horde tasked to take out the Lusyanka consisted of several hundred craft, and was not by any measure an elite unit; just one well supplied with proton torpedoes.

Several hundred, with capital ship busting torpedos, sure.

Starfighters are less controversial. Very few people [i.e., only Saxtonites]

Saxtonites are more common and credible than you claim. For one, they're the only one of the factions to have a book that's canon, and there are various pieces of evidence that support them regardless of whether or not you agree with them. (Death Star if taken as DET; which is a completely reasonable theory, SW: Slave Ship which you agree to be evidence for pro Wars, Yavin circumnavigation; even if you disagree with the interpretation, assuming that the Rebel display is accurate is a completely reasonable and logical assumption).

put proton torpedoes at more than the kiloton range.

Because obviously kiloton range proton torpedos can turn an island into molten slag. Because obviously a civilization whose improvised, desk sized explosives are a megaton and laser cannons from giant walkers are dozens of kilotons would have kiloton level thermonuclear weapons for decent sized missiles.

About the AT-AT jab, claiming that the giant fireball is from the base exploding (the main Trekkie counter) would contradict your claim that SW military reactors use nuclear fusion, which doesn't explode or cause some massive fireball upon being hit.

Very few people put them under the ton range. Compare with SDs, where the non-Saxtonite range is about nine orders of magnitude below the Saxtonite range.

Too bad for you that our calculations are canon, and yours aren't.

Also, the relationships between starfighters and capital ships are extensively explored in the EU - and clearly contradicts Saxton's model.

Too bad for you that the "extensive" exploration is not an exploration as much as it is an ignorance conference from various idiots (whom you accept as fact, only to turn around and apply a ridiculously more rigid standard for Saxton's work to be fact to you), and even then it is accepted that fighters vs ISD's is suicidal for the fighters unless if the fighter squadron has a named character.

Or look at the movies, where the relationship is also explored, concluded with a piece of dialogue from Ackbar:

"If we
can knock out their shield
our fighters might stand
a chance."

70,000 g is a bad figure. It's not what we actually see in the film.

Now, it's funny that you should mention that the proton torpedoes we saw making that turn and what sort of target they were intended for. Those were the torpedoes that blew up the Death Star, launched from ships who were on a mission to destroy the Death Star, which were supplied specifically for the task of blowing up the Death Star. Yet they display every ounce of maneuverability that the anti-fighter missiles in ROTS display.

You're assuming that the proton torpedos used were the same used to blow up capital ships simply because the Death Star was big. However, the torpedos used were not trying to brute force the Death Star like they do to ISD's, instead having a tight turning radius would be far more important.

Remember, you said:

Sure, there are plenty. That volume can pack stuff other than explosives. Hint: what would it need more of to take out starfighter sized craft?

So. Proton torpedoes have the yield to take out small craft. This is not under dispute. Proton torpedoes also clearly have the maneuverability needed to take out small craft - the ones Luke shoots off in ANH are no less maneuverable than the ones fired at Obi and Ani in ROTS. And if you were treating the EU consistently, you'd respect the fact that they actually DO take out small craft on a regular basis in the EU.

Nowhere did I claim that proton torpedos cannot take out "small craft".

There is absolutely no reason for Jango's missile to be at the same time grossly larger than a proton torpedo (obvious from its use in AOTC), less powerful than a proton torpedo, and less maneuverable than a proton torpedo (obvious from its use in AOTC).

How do you know that they're less maneuverable than capital ship proton torpedos that aren't seen on screen? Why do you still seem to think that the proton torpedos seen in the movies are used to take on capital ships?

The logical conclusion is that it's more powerful than a proton torpedo. In exchange, it is larger and less maneuverable. The only problem is that if you're trying to reconcile the ICS with Rogue Squadron type incidents, you need to suddenly come up with gigaton proton torpedoes, and the AOTC missile isn't even near the 190 megatons that the ICS claims for it.

In addition to the above, concussion missiles are actually stated to be weaker in yield than proton torpedos.

I will note that the Death Star is larger than anything Jango Fett would reasonably expect to target with his missile.

The size of the Death Star is irrelevant unless if you feel like brute forcing it. It's the size of the exhaust port that matters, which is a meter long.

And I'm going to underline just how much bigger Jango's torpedo is. It's so much bigger that you could remove less than one tenth of its fuel and maneuvering thrusters and fit a pair of any proton torpedo seeker heads in there in addition to its current warhead. There's no logical reason whatsoever for Jango's missile to be a lower-yield weapon than any proton torpedo; it should have a payload larger than the entire proton torpedo [the part that actually gets fired at a target, anyway]. That's my point; and what you objected to.

I objected to it because you seem to think that the proton torpedos I'm talking about were actually seen on screen, when they weren't. You use the maneuverability of light proton torpedos to extend to that of heavy proton torpedos. That makes no sense.

It's perfectly understandable - once we understand that the B-Wing is advanced,

Ooohhh, so whoever made this craft created a vessel hundreds of times more powerful per volume than larger, more expensive and bulkier ships, out of nowhere, in a 25,000 year old spacefaring civilization. Tell me again why this didn't render capital ships obsolete?

unusually heavily armed for its size,

Irrelevant, due to reactor size.

and designed to unload its firepower in a hurry.

Which does not make up for a 100x size difference.

Something like a customs corvette needs to carry confiscated cargo and prisoners, several shifts' worth of crew, Stormtroopers, fuel supplies for extended travel, et cetera. That means that most of its mass is devoted to carrying stuff.

None of which are big enough factors to make up for the size difference. You're applying a double standard now, trying to justify a patently ridiculous claim by coming up with various rationalizations that make no sense at all.

If B wings really were as powerful as capital ships, then just a few (especially going by length scaling, which you support for no reason other than just to disagree with Saxton for the heck of it) could match an ISD. Which means that, mass producing these (which would be trivial for a civilization that build a Death Star), billions (yes, billion, they have the population and the industrial might [hint: Death Star]) could overwhelm the Federation with ISD level firepower.

Divide volume by surface area and you get (on average) length. This is what happens if shield strength scales with reactor size and inversely with the area protected.

Which is patently not true, or else the Theater Shield the Rebels set up wouldn't be able to "withstand any bombardment".

Actual length isn't necessarily important; it's just a rough proxy for use with similarly proportioned ships. It happens to be that Starships of the Galaxy (2007) provides exactly the relevant set of proportions in comparing a Strike Cruiser with a VSD: Similarly proportioned, but half the capabilities for one quarter of the price [and at 450m vs 900m, approximately one eighth the size].

By the way, do you think that the EU authors used this to justify their decision, or just chose it because they don't understand length vs volume?

Now, if you're intending to bring down ships smaller than you, which is the usual design requirement of something like an ISD, then you only need to match the shield capabilities of the enemy vessel with your firepower. If shield strength scales by volume divided by surface area, you only need to increase firepower by a similar factor [i.e., approximately with length] in order to compete. This leaves you with more space for transporting fighters, troops, and supplies, such as the fuel you would need to make an extended bombardment. A fighter might run dry after several hours of combat; but an ISD needs to carry fuel for its own fighters and its own capabilities for possibly dozens of combat missions in between resupply. It's painfully easy to come up with a good justification for why Star Wars ships' fighting abilities would scale roughly with the cube root of volume, or roughly with length.

This is nothing new to people who study actual military systems. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer carries as its main weapons payload a 96 cell missile system. 10,000 tons of warship and up to 150 tons of missiles, plus a few torpedoes, CIWS, and a 5" gun, bringing its total maximum payload of ordnance up to ... I believe 200 tons or so. 2% of its mass is devoted to the things that go bang when it fights other ships. Compare with the F-18 Super Hornet; it has a maximum takeoff weight of 30 tons, and can carry 8 tons of external ordnance - 27%. The difference? The F-18 is intended to go in and go out in a couple hours. The Arleigh Burke class is designed for missions that could last for months.

See above.

Actually, Star Wars guides tend to avoid explicit yield figures. This is what was very unusual about the AOTC ICS.

Yields as in weapons? True. But other figures are just as important, and the NEGVS gives a Jedi Starfighter 5000 G's acceleration. It also gives certain thermal detonators a 100 meter blast radius, called thermal bombs in Star Wars: Death Star.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Charac ... index.html

Which then turns around to contradict the entire premise behind the "vaporize a small town argument", as I stated in the other thread.

No, they aren't. I gave you exact numbers as an example, so stp pretending ignorance.

For Wong and Saxton?

The TNGTM is horribly inaccurate when it comes to actual energy figures, but that's another topic for another time.

Yes, I believe that peak power consumption of an ISD is around an exawatt. Possibly several exawatts. This is solidly grounded in hyperdrive mechanics. I view conservation of energy as the best possible method of calculating peak power consumption; this is the same exact reason that GCS peak power consumption is clearly 400+ exawatts.

Which would scale to what exactly for the Enterprise?

What I find particularly neat about this method is that it can be used in the exact same manner for a GCS and ISD.

Hardly so, since your exawatt calculation seems to have come out of nowhere.

A gigaton event is as distinct from a megaton event as a Hiroshima event from a daisy cutter event.

But not nearly as noticeably.

I'm going to respond to the rest of this later. Sorry.

Where additional variation creeps is when things get more complicated, or more derived. Scaling issues, for example, crop up.

A kilojoule vs a megajoule for a hand weapon would probably equal the two opposite sides of a debate, but 10^24 joules and 10^27 joules would simply be a margin of error for one side of a debate.

If the hand weapon is a blaster carbine, yes.

If the hand weapon is a phaser, however, the figures range from kilojoules to gigajoules. Power consumption, for example, may be e18 watt for myself and e25 watt for Saxton, "only" seven orders of magnitude apart; but Saxton also believes the ISD has e25 watt sustained firepower, while I would pick the e16 watt range (EDIT: Well, really, e14-e16 watt sustained firepower, it is fairly hard to be too sure when it comes to sustained rates of fire, so I feel there's a large margin of error).

This is because in the Saxtonite model, firepower is limited by reactor power. In my model, reactor power is driven by the requirements of hyperdrive, and weapons may or may not even be integrated into the same power system.

Oh, there are diversities, but you all seem to agree that everybody else’s (everybody on your side) calculations are completely plausible. Otherwise, you wouldn’t jump to defending darkstar like you typically do. Then, on occasions of your choosing you suddenly turn around and disassociate from him.

I defend Darkstar's right to present his calculations; I feel they are "better" than the Saxtonite figures, relatively speaking, but that doesn't mean I think they're correct. If you read through the forum archives, you'll see that I have fairly intractable disagreements with many of our regular posters. We have respect for one another and understand why we come up with the figures that we do. Darkstar is a movie purist who applies a documentarian approach. I, however, prefer to take the movies as dramatic renditions rather than documentary evidence, and don't really care about the debate over what is and is not canon. As far as I'm concerned, any reasonable person attempting to include the EU will have to dispense with the ICS, just as any reasonable person attempting to make sense out of the movies will have to dispense with the ICS.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Let me add some comments here, notably on the whole hyperspace jump thing first, since it's a big piece.

Let's remember that SWST wanted to know how we could deal this on page 17.

As usual (and JMS, yo ucould have greatly benefited from this), a quick search would show that this point has already been covered.
If SWST wanted to know, he didn't have to ask.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 006#p28006: JMS says that some planets can have small populations. It's true, and we have no information on which nation we need to look for, especially since the concept of nation is rather well diluted in SW, where we largely deal with planetary governments.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 009#p28009: same thread, I add my own comments. Not only I provide numbers, but I also back them up and prove that hyperspace transit requires constant powering.
Look how SWST didn't reply. The date of my post was Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:29 am.

Now, look how he reboots the arguments here, Sun May 15, 2011 5:30 pm.
Yes SWST, we can actually keep track of your miserable evasive attempts.

What is most funny is that back in 2008, we already had this argument debunked in the Base Delta Zero thread, the very one SWST doesn't give a shit about.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 9859#p9859: more figures, more points.

Now, when he asked his question in the pined ICS thread, I responded two posts down from his.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 550#p34550: I reference my two other posts, as linked to above.
General Donner, being objective and constructive, argumented against my claim:

A possible problem with your interpretation though ... There are multiple EU sources that state it's the translation to and from hyperspace that's the part needing a hyperdrive. If you dump an object in hyperspace without a hyperdrive it stays there basically forever. It doesn't drop out, or slow down or whatever. Which would indicate you need little input energy after "jumping to lightspeed" to maintain your pace. You just need to jump in and then jump out again. If that's really so, the best you can do with that angle is dump down the per-jump energy by half.

Saxton quotes two novels that agree with him on this on his site, "Tyrant's Test" and "Hard Merchandise." I haven't read either in a while, but it doesn't look like either of them's been doctored to suit any particular POV from here.

Actually, none of the novels he cites say anything as such.
They both simply point out how dangerous it is to get in and out of hyperspace, and that even if you managed to enter it, you may not even survive the entry.
Besides, we have from this book a "jump to ..." example:

"You two — get back aboard Hound's Tooth and head out, full thrusters, to open space and prepare for a hyperspace jump to the Oranessen system. ..."

See? As we could intuitively deduce, they're about to make a jump to a given destination, not into hyperspace; the jump is the whole trip. While it clearly doesn't exclude the obvious meaning of a phrasing such as making jumps to hyperspace, the very open description of the energetic requirement of a hyperspace jump allows us to get a figure for the entire duration of the travel.
It's not like we needed any example, but I guess it cannot hurt.

What you GD thinks supports Saxton's position is this bit from Tyrant's Test:

"Or she may have tried to jump out and broken up in the process, in which case there might be very little debris to find," said Taisden.

Destruction of ship whilst jumping to hyperspace leaves little debris. The quote does not indicate whether the material is simply spread over enormous distances (because of the high velocities involved in the jump process) or whether some of the material is annihilated or actually ceases to exist. More probably (considering later comments on hyperphysics by Sil Sorannan) the material enters hyperspace and remains in hyperspace forever.

If what GD says is true, that Saxton used those facts to claim that a ship could stay in hyperspace forever and just needs to consume energy to enter and leave hyperspace, we have to keep in sight that this is true for debris.
More precisely, any matter can stay in hyperspace forever, but it would seem that Saxton rushed to the conclusion that what applies to debris also applies to the fragile construction that a ship is. We see that Saxton never considered that a constantly powered hyperdrive may be necessary for the safety of the ship while in hyperspace.

As I said, in TPM, a damaged and leaking hyperdrive forces Amidala and her friends to return to realspace early and reach for Tatooine.
The distance between Naboo and Tatooine still requires that the ship went to hyperspace, despite the leaking hyperdrive. They simply didn't have enough power for a trip to Coruscant, proving that the distance is very important on the amount of energy that's needed.
This wouldn't be the case if a jump required x joules, regardless of the time spent in hyperspace. If being in hyperspace was just a matter of drifting, they could simply disconnect the hyperdrive.
Nor that it matters, because there would be no reason for the hyperdrive to leak energy as long as it wasn't given any, and as far as the hyperdrive would be concerned, being given energy to jump to hyperspace from Naboo, then being given energy either to jump out of hyperspace near Tatooine or near Coruscant wouldn't make a difference.
After all, as pro-ICS people say, the energy is consumed during entrance from STL to FTL and the reverse: what it would leak near Tatooine or Coruscant, once powered to leave hyperspace, would be the same.

The only difference would only happen if, for some reason, the hyperdrive needs to remain powered so the ship can stay in hyperspace and reach her destination.
Since debris can stay in hyperspace, obviously the impotance of the hyperdrive is directly tied to the safety of the ship.

Now let's add another number there.
As I said, a jump is often used to describe a trip from point A to point B, and we know that in SW, some FTL trips, even for ISDs, can last some months.
If we take into account all of the EU, we'd also use those FTL speeds references.
For example, at 22.75 LY/hr from the same Tyrant's Test for an Interdictor's speed, we see that it would take more than 6 months to cover the entire galactic width (100.000 LY).
That's already beyond 15,778,800 seconds.
We'd also have the numerous quotes from Heir to the Empire that give us ISD cruising speeds of 2.9 LY/hour, which I suppose would be those in relatively poorly charted regions, for the sake of consistency.

Meaning that if the nation's total and historical energy expenditure can be found to be in the teratons or gigatons, we still find that the averaged power production of the ISD would be either in the petawatt range or the terawatt range.
As per my other posts, we see that teraton figures are very high. The estimate based on a current US per capita consumption applied to China's population of 1.331 Bn and stretched over 25,000 years (the age of the Old Republic, all pre-GE iterations combined), we got 316.17 TT.
Divided by 6 months, we get 20,037 KT/s.
You could say that months-long trips are not the norm, but I'd point out that I was rather very generous on the nation's head count and age.

Voila. Pro-ICS argument busted.

Extra:
A quick search for "nation" on wookieepedia returns those entries on the first page:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bakuran_ ... l_Symphony (Bakura is listed with a population of 68 M and "national" is used in a very lose sense anyway)
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Adumar, settled in the Dustavis Era, now counts 9.1 Bn heads. Settlers created several nations, but it seems that the government is global democratic monarchy.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Zhell, relative to Coruscant's distant past.






As for the Hell-projectors, we've never seen them mentioned nor used across all the EU.
While the sources that mentions them makes this weapon part of the standard weapon loadout, it's clear that it is totally contradicted by, simply put, the entirety of the rest of the EU.
So there's no point losing time with his outlier.





I also fail to find any refenrece to anyone of relevant authority using the word slag as a verb to indicate destroy, glass, burn or level a large strategical target.
It doesn't matter, though.
We know that the term to slag, in SW parlance, is not to be taken literally.
In Scavenger Hunt, the rebel base was to be turned to slag, and we've seen what the result was: buildings on the surface still remained.
We've been privy to Fell's own reliable knowledge of what would happen after a BDZ on Nar Shaddaa: collapsed buildings, burning ruins and smoking corpses. Fell knows the firepower of his ship and wouldn't apply a BDZ and be so worried about having to apply it if he wasn't oblivious to what it consists of.




Oh, I'll leave the BDZ stuff out, since I'm still waiting for SWST to actually address all the points in the appropriate thread (which he left in urgency to precisely avoid dealing with facts), and will concentrate on some random points he makes here.

Because obviously kiloton range proton torpedos can turn an island into molten slag. Because obviously a civilization whose improvised, desk sized explosives are a megaton and laser cannons from giant walkers are dozens of kilotons would have kiloton level thermonuclear weapons for decent sized missiles.

About the AT-AT jab, claiming that the giant fireball is from the base exploding (the main Trekkie counter) would contradict your claim that SW military reactors use nuclear fusion, which doesn't explode or cause some massive fireball upon being hit.

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

Yields as in weapons? True. But other figures are just as important, and the NEGVS gives a Jedi Starfighter 5000 G's acceleration. It also gives certain thermal detonators a 100 meter blast radius, called thermal bombs in Star Wars: Death Star.

5000 gees is an acceleration of 49,000 m/s².
In the movies, medium impacts already rock the people inside ships while flying at subsonic or, at best, sonic speeds. Do you really think that such intertial compensators could cope with accelerations so high as claimed?

The second is a rare variant of the thermal detonator.

EDIT: repaired the broken TPM video link.

[General Donner]

It's not actually "per sector" in a list, it's a continuous contour display. What that map shows is that outside of the innermost core, planets with more than Earth's population are pretty rare. It may not be terribly solid, but it is very strongly suggestive of the kind of model I keep suggesting - there are a few very intensely populated core worlds, which mainly are the same worlds that were in the Republic, and then a very large number of more lightly populated worlds.

I'm not sure I follow all the way. The map doesn't (AFAIK) indicate anything about the relative density of inhabited systems/stars, just planetary averages. While the area of minimally populated space is quite larger (or at least looks like it -- it's a 2-D, bird-view representation of a volume after all), I'd think inhabited planets will also be closer to each other in the Core. Both because stars are naturally closer there and because it's been settled for longer. Or am I missing something?

The map isn't really detailed enough to support anything on demographics beyond a very basic Core/Rim average population density comparison IMHO. Nothing on how relatively common/rare Core and Rim worlds are.

Thus, the Empire claims ten times as many systems as the Republic did a generation and earlier (ANH novelization's "million systems" vs TPM novelization's "hundred thousand systems" and AOTC's "ten thousand more systems" splitting the Republic in two), but most of the Empire's newly acquired systems are marginal systems like Tatooine. There are many more inhabited systems still that the Empire doesn't claim, but they're mostly very marginally populated or primitive. (Think of systems like Bespin or Endor - the Empire can walk in and take them, but they're not really worth it).

Since I also take the EU into account, I tend to view the million worlds as the more important and/or prosperous Republic and Imperial systems, while most Outer Rim worlds would be part of the colonies/protectorates and etc (in the 50+ million systems from WEG). While the high-end numbers from the ICS and one or two other books (billions of planets) tend to be outliers.

Broadly speaking I agree with your model thus far, but I don't necessarily think most of the Empire's worlds are so downright marginal as Tatooine (which IIRC has a total population less than 100,000, and half of those in the one city Mos Eisley). And I'm skeptic about there being very many inhabited systems (relatively speaking) not under Imperial control. Obviously there are some -- Ozzel's line in TESB about "many uncharted colonies" more or less proves that -- but I'd think most settled space is Imperial space.

Did Saxton realize this? Probably so. I expect he wanted to revise the population of the Star Wars galaxy - he has claimed the population of Coruscant alone is several quadrillion (rather than the trillion or so that is standard in EU works), with many Coruscant-like worlds in the Empire.

Purely logically I personally have a hard time faulting his Coruscant population density numbers in particular. Even if much other stuff he posits doesn't fit with the EU. With all the planet's surface (except small artificial seas) covered with cityscape (and absurdly tall skyscrapers in at least some places) it gets pretty absurd to say it's just one trillion people living there. Then the vast majority of the city has to be either empty ruins or totally automated factories and storage depots.

The 1 trillion number is just writers having no sense of scale and making up an arbitrary number they thought was big enough without checking. Though it used to be even worse -- the very earliest books (also RPG sourcebooks) said it was just a few billions.

But yes, given EU population numbers it can still become problematic, especially with some EU (though mostly old books) downright stating there are many "city-worlds" (with presumably somewhat similar populations). So a lower number might perhaps be required if we want to keep the 100 quadrillions number. (Like you say, Saxton probably wanted to replace it with a higher one.) Depending on just how "special" you think Coruscant is.

[General Donner]

What you GD thinks supports Saxton's position is this bit from Tyrant's Test:

"Or she may have tried to jump out and broken up in the process, in which case there might be very little debris to find," said Taisden.

Destruction of ship whilst jumping to hyperspace leaves little debris. The quote does not indicate whether the material is simply spread over enormous distances (because of the high velocities involved in the jump process) or whether some of the material is annihilated or actually ceases to exist. More probably (considering later comments on hyperphysics by Sil Sorannan) the material enters hyperspace and remains in hyperspace forever.

If what GD says is true, that Saxton used those facts to claim that a ship could stay in hyperspace forever and just needs to consume energy to enter and leave hyperspace, we have to keep in sight that this is true for debris.

I was actually thinking more specifically of a later bit in the novel, which Saxton refers to here and quotes further down on his Tyrant's Test page. I'll post his quote here:

"so here's something you should know about me. Before I joined Black Sword Command, I was detailed to the Research Section as a pilot for the experimental hyperphysics team. We were trying to learn how to drop bombs from hyperspace. We never learned how. "

Sorannan crouched by Nil Spaar's head, and his voice grew soft. "You see, it turns out that no matter which way you go through the magic door, you need a hyperdrive to open the door. None of the wreckage ever appeared again in realspace."

Maybe you also saw this and meant to include it as refuted -- I couldn't really tell from your reply. But if so, sorry for redundant posting.

More precisely, any matter can stay in hyperspace forever, but it would seem that Saxton rushed to the conclusion that what applies to debris also applies to the fragile construction that a ship is. We see that Saxton never considered that a constantly powered hyperdrive may be necessary for the safety of the ship while in hyperspace.

That's a good point. There might be other requirements for maintaining the ship in hyperspace that might take up power. Shielding, perhaps, against hostile phenomena there? Though these wouldn't necessarily be connected to the hyperdrive as such, but could be.

As I said, in [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqGU22UeZMM#t=4m50s]]TPM, a damaged and leaking hyperdrive forces Amidala and her friends to return to realspace early and reach for Tatooine.
The distance between Naboo and Tatooine still requires that the ship went to hyperspace, despite the leaking hyperdrive. They simply didn't have enough power for a trip to Coruscant, proving that the distance is very important on the amount of energy that's needed.

Interesting. Can't watch YouTube from here, so I'll have to go back to the film itself. But that would seem to support your model.

You could say that months-long trips are not the norm, but I'd point out that I was rather very generous on the nation's head count and age.

Might depend on how you define "planetary nation" I suppose. Back at SDN in the day it was usually taken as "planetary nation=planet in SW." I don't think we have any clear definition in the EU, but they do seem to treat planet of origin a lot like we might nationality in many places.

The duration of the nation is certainly generous, though.

Something I might think of as an attempt at harmonizing wildly shifting EU hyperspeeds would otherwise be that ships might be designed differently depending on their mission parameters. The EU tends to say high-end hyperdrives are rather expensive. So maybe "local" patrol fleets, reserves and the like deliberately get slower engines in order to save on costs. It's not like they'll have to cross the galaxy regularly in any standard assignment anyway. That might explain the Thrawn books' speeds -- it's noted that Thrawn used a lot of second- and third-line equipment of poor quality, and he was pretty desperate for ships going after the Dark Force fleet.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Adumar, settled in the Dustavis Era, now counts 9.1 Bn heads. Settlers created several nations, but it seems that the government is global democratic monarchy.

Adumar kept multiple independent planetary states until well into the New Republic, when one of them conquered its rivals (with help from Wedge Antilles and company) and joined them. So its planetary government is still fairly new in galactic terms. It was specifically noted as exceptional in the novel, though ("Starfighters of Adumar") -- uniform planetary governments tend to be the norm.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The bit from pages 320-321 doesn't go against what I say. It merely confirms that objects can remain stuck in hyperspace as wreckage.
What Saxton needs to find is evidence from the movies and evidence in the EU that a ship without a functional hyperdrive can stay in hyperspace and even travel safely that way.
Not even the Another Chance fits the bill.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Let me add some comments here, notably on the whole hyperspace jump thing first, since it's a big piece.

Let's remember that SWST wanted to know how we could deal this on page 17.

As usual (and JMS, yo ucould have greatly benefited from this), a quick search would show that this point has already been covered.
If SWST wanted to know, he didn't have to ask.

Because surely you expect me to find these obscure posts by browsing the forum's many dozens of pages of threads, eh?

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 006#p28006: JMS says that some planets can have small populations. It's true, and we have no information on which nation we need to look for, especially since the concept of nation is rather well diluted in SW, where we largely deal with planetary governments.

100 quadrillion people in the galaxy (and supported by G canon RotS novelization, that quantifies the galaxy's population as "quadrillions"), and a million major planets. You do the math.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 009#p28009: same thread, I add my own comments. Not only I provide numbers, but I also back them up and prove that hyperspace transit requires constant powering.

Too bad for you that the calculations you used were extremely conservative. You fail to factor in population growth or the presumption that a space age society would consume more energy than China.

And double digit teratons is far more than the Enterprise at full power would consume in a day, and we know from the movies that even long distance hyperspace traveling only takes a matter of hours.

I'd also like to know how you came to your conclusion that hyperspace jumps require constant powering. By that model, the SW: Death Star claim that much of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace wouldn't make sense, because they'd just immediately shift back into realspace!


Let's do some more sensible calculations, even with your sketchy theory, shall we?

We can assume a planetary population of 5 billion; an entire order of magnitude lower than the mathematical average. This was Naboo's stated population, a planet that was distant and sparsely populated according to the TPM novelization.

We can assume that deziens in Star Wars would use at least 10 times more energy per person than in the United States. There are several ways to arrive to this conclusion:

1. Looking at the historical trend of energy consumption, which as increased just in the course of a century by a staggering amount.

2. Looking at the electronics used in Star Wars; three dimensional holographic projectors, comns that transmit to other planets at trillions of times light speed, sentient/partially sentient droids, etc. A high powered computer alone consumes respectable amounts of energy; imagine the quantum computers used in Star Wars (source: Star Wars Death Star).

3. Looking at the airspeeders making high G twists and turns across large cityscapes. One of those airspeeders alone belonging to a long range commuter would probably consume as much energy as a continental airplane flight in a day. If you want to take to extremes, you can factor in the various spaceships reaching escape velocity.

So we're already at around e26 joules over 25,000 years (not factoring in population growth and the future tense of the quote).

Going by your [highly skeptical] theory, assuming a hyperspace travel of a day (even though Dauth Maul traveled to Tatooine in but a few hours), we are left with around e22 joules per second, three orders of magnitude higher than the upper end calculations for Star Trek.

And this is still assuming that a Star Wars planetary nation would consume only 10 times more than the United States, which would be akin to assuming that the United States only consumes 10 times more energy than the Roman Empire.

Look how SWST didn't reply. The date of my post was Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:29 am.

Now, look how he reboots the arguments here, Sun May 15, 2011 5:30 pm.
Yes SWST, we can actually keep track of your miserable evasive attempts.

Yes, Mr. O, the amount of attention you expect me to put in every one of your random posts is bordering on fanaticism.

What is most funny is that back in 2008, we already had this argument debunked in the Base Delta Zero thread, the very one SWST doesn't give a shit about.


http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 9859#p9859: more figures, more points.

And explain to me where I was ever directed to these threads, or did you just expect me to magically discover them on my own?



Another feat showing the power of hyperspace travel is the incident at Pammant, where a batlestar cruiser colliding into Pammant rendered the planet uninhabitable and fractured its core.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Let me add some comments here, notably on the whole hyperspace jump thing first, since it's a big piece.

Let's remember that SWST wanted to know how we could deal this on page 17.

As usual (and JMS, yo ucould have greatly benefited from this), a quick search would show that this point has already been covered.
If SWST wanted to know, he didn't have to ask.

Because surely you expect me to find these obscure posts by browsing the forum's many dozens of pages of threads, eh?

Yes, considering that it took me one click to open a google page and a few more clicks to open tabs for few couple relevant replies.
As usual, you prove time and time again that you have no interest in an honestly intellectual exchange, otherwise you'd actually do what is necessary to take into consideration previous arguments, formulated theories and presented evidence to reach the truth.
What you do is pure Wongism, that is, seeking to win an argument, not to find the truth.
So I'm not surprised that you boldly claim that you're not concerned about such things.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 006#p28006: JMS says that some planets can have small populations. It's true, and we have no information on which nation we need to look for, especially since the concept of nation is rather well diluted in SW, where we largely deal with planetary governments.

100 quadrillion people in the galaxy (and supported by G canon RotS novelization, that quantifies the galaxy's population as "quadrillions"), and a million major planets. You do the math.

Irrelevant. The text about the hyperspace jump isn't specific about which nation one has to take.
Not that it matters much, because even if picking a population of a trillion, instead of the 1 billion something I used, you only multiply the power figure by a thousand, which in the best conditions still brings you to a low to mid exawatt power production. Which, if we safely extrapolate from the power production of a Venator, woud still be about, on the average, 6 orders of magnitude inferior ICS levels.
For the reminder, ICS gives the Venator a peak power production of 780,800 gigatons/s.
Following the massive increase between an Acclamator and a Venator, the ISD is ought to produce a level of power well into the petaton per second range.

THAT is the math that matters.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 009#p28009: same thread, I add my own comments. Not only I provide numbers, but I also back them up and prove that hyperspace transit requires constant powering.

Too bad for you that the calculations you used were extremely conservative. You fail to factor in population growth or the presumption that a space age society would consume more energy than China.

You don't really pay much attention, nor do you think your poitns thorough. You should.
If I did considere population growth, I would actually not use a figure of more than 1 billion people over 25 millennia.
If I used a trillion people, you'd still face the problem I highlighted above.

Then, if you thought that each individual would use a thousand times (!) more energy on the average than someone who lives in the USA now, and ran the numbers with a trillion people, you would still fall three OoMs short of the ICS numbers.
So obviously, even stretched to its maximum, the numbers cannot support the ICS, going this way.

They only can if you consider that the energy is all consumed on the hyperspace entry or exit.

And double digit teratons is far more than the Enterprise at full power would consume in a day,...

You will answer this question: why do you bring Star Trek in a thread which has nothing to do with it?

... and we know from the movies that even long distance hyperspace traveling only takes a matter of hours.

And we know from the movies that even nice ships like Padmé's yatch have hyperdrives that suck. So not all speeds are high, which is all I know to claim that the record energy consumption of a warships such as an ISD, in relation to the quote about the nation's entire energetic production, doesn't need to be derivated from short trips only.

Besides, as I pointed out, the quote itself comes from the EU. Why do you think you can use that quote from the EU and ignore two different sources which give examples of slow speeds for ISDs, especially when they're also cited on Saxton's website (we all know the fetish you have for him)?

I'd also like to know how you came to your conclusion that hyperspace jumps require constant powering.

If you actually read my post, instead of quoting it just to appear like you're replying to something, you'd know how.
General Donner has understood it. Why can't you? Are you stupid?

By that model, the SW: Death Star claim that much of the planet's mass was shifted into hyperspace wouldn't make sense, because they'd just immediately shift back into realspace!

Obviously not. As I said in my post, I didn't reject the idea that debris could stay in hyperspace.
Really, you have not read my post at all.

Let's do some more sensible calculations, even with your sketchy theory, shall we?

We can assume a planetary population of 5 billion; an entire order of magnitude lower than the mathematical average.

The high numbers (which you'd use to obtain an average of trillions per world!) come from worlds which are not nations anymore by any stretch of the imagination.

So the average would actually be much lower, and most likely established from a range of planets counting sub-million to billion-high populations.

This was Naboo's stated population, a planet that was distant and sparsely populated according to the TPM novelization.

Naboo was never given a population of five billion outside of the Atlas, and obviously its urbanization looks nowhere like it is mirroring such a population.
There's actually a conflict on this, since another recent EU source (Complete Locations, merely reporting the number given in Inside the Worlds of TPM) gives it a population of 600 million, which is far more logical considering the way even the capital city of Theed looks.

We can assume that deziens in Star Wars would use at least 10 times more energy per person than in the United States.

Or we can assume that they don't, and that the higher technology makes energetic consumption lower because much more efficient than it is today.
For example, taking cars, current combustion engines have a 40% inefficiency. An engine like the Stirling it twice better.
Same goes with lightbulbs and LEDs.
Etc.
But let's continue and go with your ten times increase; for the reminder, I have even shown that with a thousand times increase, we'd still be way too low for getting numbers that support the ICS.

There are several ways to arrive to this conclusion:

1. Looking at the historical trend of energy consumption, which as increased just in the course of a century by a staggering amount.

2. Looking at the electronics used in Star Wars; three dimensional holographic projectors, comns that transmit to other planets at trillions of times light speed, sentient/partially sentient droids, etc. A high powered computer alone consumes respectable amounts of energy; imagine the quantum computers used in Star Wars (source: Star Wars Death Star).

3. Looking at the airspeeders making high G twists and turns across large cityscapes. One of those airspeeders alone belonging to a long range commuter would probably consume as much energy as a continental airplane flight in a day. If you want to take to extremes, you can factor in the various spaceships reaching escape velocity.

1. Perhaps, but have you seen anything in particular in some house that would look like a relevant average in SW that would indicate a considerable increase of power consumption? This probably entails in point 2 though.

2. We can imagine all sorts of things. Your brain is much more powerful than a computer, yet uses a very small power.

3. So in the end, you're going to use spaceships as part of a nation's power production to calculate another spaceship's power production? What if that nation of yours actually happens to have so many ships that their cumulated power production is superior to that of an ISD? After all, it is Star Wars, right, and we're only talking of one ISD? :)
Speeders, that could eventually pass, but you're yet to provide a figure at all.

So we're already at around e26 joules over 25,000 years (not factoring in population growth and the future tense of the quote).

Going by your [highly skeptical] theory, assuming a hyperspace travel of a day (even though Dauth Maul traveled to Tatooine in but a few hours), we are left with around e22 joules per second, three orders of magnitude higher than the upper end calculations for Star Trek.

Lol.
Since you just realized that your stupid calculation failed to support your claim as a pro-ICS bloke, you're trying to shift that away with a comparison against Trek.
That is pathetic and so transparent.
I already told you way too many times in all other threads you posted which were Star Wars centric, I don't care about Trek.

Star Trek isn't relevant to this topic. Is that hard for you to understand?
Where in "List of Sources supporting the ICS" do you read anything about Star Trek, genius?
I really expect you to reply to the question I asked above about why you always need to bring this irrelevancies into such threads.

And this is still assuming that a Star Wars planetary nation would consume only 10 times more than the United States, which would be akin to assuming that the United States only consumes 10 times more energy than the Roman Empire.

Which is just funny because a factor of ten is roughly the difference between the men of Rome and current people (1).


Above all, what you lost sight of is not so much the fact that by stretching the premises with all sorts of favourable odds, you might reach a high enough number that would begin to look like the power production of a small ship in the ICS realm, but the fact that the quote can also be understood to provide a power figure that is considerably lower by 6 to more than 9 OoMs from ICS scale figures, and that is the crucial point, because it shows that the quote in question is not firm and solid.
It supports the ICS just as much as it absolutely does not.

I expect you to argue on this for pages now, but it would be absurd, because you simply cannot fault my numbers, and they prove my point damn well.

Look how SWST didn't reply. The date of my post was Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:29 am.

Now, look how he reboots the arguments here, Sun May 15, 2011 5:30 pm.
Yes SWST, we can actually keep track of your miserable evasive attempts.

Yes, Mr. O, the amount of attention you expect me to put in every one of your random posts is bordering on fanaticism.

They're hardly "random".

What is most funny is that back in 2008, we already had this argument debunked in the Base Delta Zero thread, the very one SWST doesn't give a shit about.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 9859#p9859: more figures, more points.

And explain to me where I was ever directed to these threads, or did you just expect me to magically discover them on my own?

The BDZ thread? You posted in it (without reading it).
How more direct can it be, praytell?

Another feat showing the power of hyperspace travel is the incident at Pammant, where a batlestar cruiser colliding into Pammant rendered the planet uninhabitable and fractured its core.

Considering the weird properties of hyperspace, who's surprised such things can happen?

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Yes, considering that it took me one click to open a google page and a few more clicks to open tabs for few couple relevant replies.
As usual, you prove time and time again that you have no interest in an honestly intellectual exchange, otherwise you'd actually do what is necessary to take into consideration previous arguments, formulated theories and presented evidence to reach the truth.
What you do is pure Wongism, that is, seeking to win an argument, not to find the truth.
So I'm not surprised that you boldly claim that you're not concerned about such things.

Because you knew where to look. You knew the keywords and the thread name. I didn't. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Irrelevant. The text about the hyperspace jump isn't specific about which nation one has to take.

"Many". So while not necessarily the mean, certainly not some obscure, sparsely populated outpost.

Not that it matters much, because even if picking a population of a trillion, instead of the 1 billion something I used, you only multiply the power figure by a thousand, which in the best conditions still brings you to a low to mid exawatt power production. Which, if we safely extrapolate from the power production of a Venator, woud still be about, on the average, 6 orders of magnitude inferior ICS levels.

No, which under "the best conditions" brings you to Death Star levels. Your "conditions" involve creating a theory out of nowhere to support your contrived figures, while nerfing Star Wars's planetary populations and power consumption.

For the reminder, ICS gives the Venator a peak power production of 780,800 gigatons/s.
Following the massive increase between an Acclamator and a Venator, the ISD is ought to produce a level of power well into the petaton per second range.

THAT is the math that matters.

Hardly. A Venator is a warship, an ISD is a more advanced warship, an Acclamator is a troop transport. There's a very big jump between two of these.

You don't really pay much attention, nor do you think your poitns thorough. You should.
If I did considere population growth, I would actually not use a figure of more than 1 billion people over 25 millennia.
If I used a trillion people, you'd still face the problem I highlighted above.

One billion people in a galaxy of 100 quadrillion people spread over a million or so major planets is mathematically low end, Mr. O. It's basic math for you.

Then, if you thought that each individual would use a thousand times (!) more energy

For a space age society, it's hardly as (!) as you'd expect.

on the average than someone who lives in the USA now, and ran the numbers with a trillion people, you would still fall three OoMs short of the ICS numbers.

No, you wouldn't. Or you would, if we go by your two stupid premises that a) hyperdrives require constant powering and b) hyperspace trips can take days or weeks.

So obviously, even stretched to its maximum, the numbers cannot support the ICS, going this way.

No, "stretched to the maximum" would be if you don't go by "constant powering".

They only can if you consider that the energy is all consumed on the hyperspace entry or exit.

Or, perhaps, that the extreme majority is consumed on the entry, as it logically would be.

You will answer this question: why do you bring Star Trek in a thread which has nothing to do with it?

You're clearly kidding yourself if you think that this thread has no connection with Star Trek. The entire purpose of this thread is to try and downplay Star Wars calcs so that they can be beaten by Star Trek's calcs.

And we know from the movies that even nice ships like Padmé's yatch have hyperdrives that suck.

Hardly; in RotS, Padme traveled to Mustafar (which is unlikely to be in the middle of a major hyperspace lane) in the time it takes for Anakin to kill a few witless Seperatists.

So not all speeds are high,

If your figures were correct, Padme would have spent all of her time between TPM and AotC traveling in hyperspace. No, really, all of it. Whoever would want to be a senator (and whoever could accomplish anything) if it takes your entire term just to go to a meeting?

Mind you, we know that there are "Emergency Congress Meetings" in the Galactic Republic, which could not possibly exist if every starship took years to arrive on Coruscant. Then it would hardly be an emergency meeting.

which is all I know to claim that the record energy consumption of a warships such as an ISD, in relation to the quote about the nation's entire energetic production, doesn't need to be derivated from short trips only.

Yet ISD's are not slow, as witnessed by the movies and the EU. It takes them a few hours, at most a day, to travel across good portions of the galaxy.

Besides, as I pointed out, the quote itself comes from the EU. Why do you think you can use that quote from the EU and ignore two different sources which give examples of slow speeds for ISDs,

State these alleged sources you have. More-so, explain how the Death Star traveled from Alderaan to the secret Rebel Base within a day. Or are you postulating that the Death Star has a faster hyperdrive than an ISD?

especially when they're also cited on Saxton's website (we all know the fetish you have for him)?

And we all know the immense, build up hatred you have for the astrophysicist, despite virtually never taking part in the debate and never having flamed anyone online, ever. He's probably the most composed prominent source of the SW v ST debate.

But since you are a believer in the Grand Warsie Conspiracy, you think that Saxton created his website and the ICS2 just to win an online debate.

\
If you actually read my post, instead of quoting it just to appear like you're replying to something, you'd know how.
General Donner has understood it. Why can't you? Are you stupid?

False conclusion. Me not understanding your post may very well have as much to do with it making no fucking sense than my alleged stupidity.

Obviously not. As I said in my post, I didn't reject the idea that debris could stay in hyperspace.
Really, you have not read my post at all.

There is no fundamental difference between "debris" and "starship" other than our human perception. Are you going to revert back to ancient peoples, where the kitchen and the fields were considered to be fundamentally different enough to both have a different god controlling them?

The high numbers (which you'd use to obtain an average of trillions per world!) come from worlds which are not nations anymore by any stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't work out either. If you have a median population of a billion or less, then to get to the 100 quadrillion figure you'd have to add in several thousand Coruscant level planets into the mix.

So the average would actually be much lower, and most likely established from a range of planets counting sub-million to billion-high populations.

See above. With a million one billion population planets, you'd need another set of super-populated planets totaling to 99.999 quadrillion people, or 99,999 EU-Coruscant level planets. You didn't think this out, did you?

Naboo was never given a population of five billion outside of the Atlas,

You mean the same source that you're using in this very thread?

and obviously its urbanization looks nowhere like it is mirroring such a population.
There's actually a conflict on this, since another recent EU source (Complete Locations, merely reporting the number given in Inside the Worlds of TPM) gives it a population of 600 million, which is far more logical considering the way even the capital city of Theed looks.

No, it's not logical at all that an entire planet would only have 600 million people.

Or we can assume that they don't, and that the higher technology makes energetic consumption lower because much more efficient than it is today.
For example, taking cars, current combustion engines have a 40% inefficiency. An engine like the Stirling it twice better.
Same goes with lightbulbs and LEDs.
Etc.
But let's continue and go with your ten times increase; for the reminder, I have even shown that with a thousand times increase, we'd still be way too low for getting numbers that support the ICS.

Or I could ask for you prove this. Efficiency is one thing, but there is no way you could have entire fleets of flying cars use less energy than a few automobiles traveling along roads. It simply doesn't work that way. Even with 100% efficiency, more energy would be consumed.

1. Perhaps, but have you seen anything in particular in some house that would look like a relevant average in SW that would indicate a considerable increase of power consumption? This probably entails in point 2 though.

Holopads, holograms, droids, turbolifts.

2. We can imagine all sorts of things. Your brain is much more powerful than a computer, yet uses a very small power.

That's completely different. We're talking about SW computers that are fundamentally the same, but are far, far, far more advanced and perform extreme calculations (C3PO, according to Luke, responds to orders in nanoseconds-literally).

3. So in the end, you're going to use spaceships as part of a nation's power production to calculate another spaceship's power production? What if that nation of yours actually happens to have so many ships that their cumulated power production is superior to that of an ISD? After all, it is Star Wars, right, and we're only talking of one ISD? :)

If taken to extremes, sure. Clearly you didn't catch that part.

Speeders, that could eventually pass, but you're yet to provide a figure at all.

I'm not providing an exact figure, I'm having faith in your ability to comprehend that airspeeders would consume several times more energy than cars for very obvious reasons.

Lol.
Since you just realized that your stupid calculation failed to support your claim as a pro-ICS bloke, you're trying to shift that away with a comparison against Trek.
That is pathetic and so transparent.
I already told you way too many times in all other threads you posted which were Star Wars centric, I don't care about Trek.

Of course you care about Trek. Your attempt to distance yourself away from this fact is as confusing as it is futile.

Star Trek isn't relevant to this topic. Is that hard for you to understand?
Where in "List of Sources supporting the ICS" do you read anything about Star Trek, genius?
I really expect you to reply to the question I asked above about why you always need to bring this irrelevancies into such threads.

On the contrary, even if you can prove that X figure or Y figure is below ICS by two or three OOM, and you win this thread, you end up losing the debate as a whole because said numbers would still trump Trek. And we all know that the latter is the end intention of this thread.

Furthermore, my quote completely supports the ICS. You see, we have two conflicting calculations; one that uses the constant powering model, the other that doesn't. One just happens to support the ICS, while the other supports nothing (not even darkstar calculations, depending on your figure its either far too high or too low unless if you curtail it). Logically, the former interpretation counts as support for the ICS.

Take it this way. You are an archeologist that unearths a document claiming that Alexander the Great visited here. Searching for confirmation, you unearth another document, but due to its faded condition you don't know if it's saying "Alexander the Great" or "Alexander was great", the latter of which could be a compliment to a certain random Alexander.

You have two interpretations, but one just oh-so-happens to fit with your original discovery. Is it complete? No, but it's definitely evidence.

Which is just funny because a factor of ten is roughly the difference between the men of Rome and current people (1).

The site you were using includes physical labor and simple tools used for food and basic transportation, ie completely renewable. If you're going to include that as the collective "energy use" of the nation, then you'd might as well include starships too.

Above all, what you lost sight of is not so much the fact that by stretching the premises with all sorts of favourable odds, you might reach a high enough number that would begin to look like the power production of a small ship in the ICS realm, but the fact that the quote can also be understood to provide a power figure that is considerably lower by 6 to more than 9 OoMs from ICS scale figures, and that is the crucial point, because it shows that the quote in question is not firm and solid.
It supports the ICS just as much as it absolutely does not.

You don't need to stretch the quote by any imagination. Just don't assume constant powering (or correctly assume that going into hyperspace consumes 99% of the power, just like how escaping a planet's gravity well consumes most of the power while getting to the moon is trivial in comparison [power-wise]), and you get figures ranging from ICS levels to overshooting ICS levels into frightening Death Star levels.

I expect you to argue on this for pages now, but it would be absurd, because you simply cannot fault my numbers, and they prove my point damn well.

ROFLAMO. Says the person that thinks that you can have a million one billion population planets add up to a 100 quadrillion. Did you even bother to try and do basic multiplication to test your theory?

They're hardly "random".

Just as random as every other post in this board, statistically speaking.

The BDZ thread? You posted in it (without reading it).
How more direct can it be, praytell?

Of course I didn't read all 12 or whatever pages before posting in it. I'd presume that anybody I get into a debate with would be willing to respost their own arguments, because it's their burden to provide proof, just like how it's my burden to do the same, not to run off and loudly scream that I've already posted it *somewhere*.

Considering the weird properties of hyperspace, who's surprised such things can happen?

Weird or not, fracturing a planet's core requires stellar-level energy, as does moving a moon sized battle station, blowing up a planet or ripping moon sized chunks off of a planet (source: LOTF Revelation). Like it or not, Star Wars is a Type 2 civilization, while Star Trek is lagging at a Type one.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

"blowing up a planet or ripping moon sized chunks off of a planet, Fracturing a planet's core".......

I raise you causing spontaneous supernovas, also blowing up planets and or chunks off them, creating a planet terraformed to preferred parameters and reigniting dead stars along with the creation of black holes.

Moving a moon sized battle station....

I raise you moving a actual moon and Stella core.





Oh and lets not forget several perfectly viable methods of time travel and reality shifting.

Like it or not, Star Wars is a Type 2 civilization, while Star Trek is lagging at a Type one.

Strange how the abilities you list are pissed on by the more high end canon trek abilities and only the federations level of abilities at that, if we go galaxy vs galaxy SW gets urinated on from a far greater height (and i do not mean using the Q or other godlike races).

[Mr. Oragahn]

Yes, considering that it took me one click to open a google page and a few more clicks to open tabs for few couple relevant replies.
As usual, you prove time and time again that you have no interest in an honestly intellectual exchange, otherwise you'd actually do what is necessary to take into consideration previous arguments, formulated theories and presented evidence to reach the truth.
What you do is pure Wongism, that is, seeking to win an argument, not to find the truth.
So I'm not surprised that you boldly claim that you're not concerned about such things.

Because you knew where to look. You knew the keywords and the thread name. I didn't. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Key words being nothing more than those of the quote you used. As for the thread name, I didn't know it. Google returned threads. Difference.
Now, is it your admission that you don't even know how to use a search engine?
Sorry for sounding obnoxious, but it's hard to take you seriously when each excuse you pull is even more absurd than the day before.
What next? You can't spell Google or Yahoo?

Irrelevant. The text about the hyperspace jump isn't specific about which nation one has to take.

"Many". So while not necessarily the mean, certainly not some obscure, sparsely populated outpost.

And as such, I still find the billion mark more than enough.

Not that it matters much, because even if picking a population of a trillion, instead of the 1 billion something I used, you only multiply the power figure by a thousand, which in the best conditions still brings you to a low to mid exawatt power production. Which, if we safely extrapolate from the power production of a Venator, woud still be about, on the average, 6 orders of magnitude inferior ICS levels.

No, which under "the best conditions" brings you to Death Star levels.

When you make a claim, you substantiate it. You just don't say "no" and add something vague after that.

Your "conditions" involve creating a theory out of nowhere to support your contrived figures, while nerfing Star Wars's planetary populations and power consumption.

Oh sweet jesus. That's always been your defense. It's so usual of people who just have no argument. You don't even show why my theory has a problem, you just call it faulty. In this case, it is even silly, because a theory always come out of nowhere.
But it's based on an idea and observations.
Thus far, it works. Unless you have evidence that it doesn't ?

Oh and now I'm nerfing the SW planetary populations? We're talking about nations, not planets. Taking a planet as a nation is probably even beyond the acceptable high end. Seriously enough, it's totally counter intuitive to the concept of nation as used everyday.

For the reminder, ICS gives the Venator a peak power production of 780,800 gigatons/s.
Following the massive increase between an Acclamator and a Venator, the ISD is ought to produce a level of power well into the petaton per second range.

THAT is the math that matters.

Hardly. A Venator is a warship, an ISD is a more advanced warship, an Acclamator is a troop transport. There's a very big jump between two of these.

There were Acclamators with weapons. Heck, your precious ICS makes Acclamators warships just as much as Venators and ISDs. :D
Try harder.

You don't really pay much attention, nor do you think your poitns thorough. You should.
If I did considere population growth, I would actually not use a figure of more than 1 billion people over 25 millennia.
If I used a trillion people, you'd still face the problem I highlighted above.

One billion people in a galaxy of 100 quadrillion people spread over a million or so major planets is mathematically low end, Mr. O. It's basic math for you.

Nothing in higher SW presupposes that the average planet in Star Wars boasts a population of 100 billions (which is the average), if there's a million worlds. And as I said, since it's an average, the less populated worlds would be found to count millions or less, while the more populated worlds would count many trillions of even a few quadrillions, which would obviously make these planets city-planets. Which excludes them from the range of "nations".
I don't know who came with 400 quadrillions, but it's a complete nonsense. A few quadrillions would pass if we would ignore Coruscant's 1 trillion figure and go for a more likely 2 to 3 digits trillion figure, and therefore just need a few of such worlds or slighly less populated worlds to make most of the galactic populace.

400 quadrillions is just a bullshit figure. I don't know which EU author came with this BS but's it's absolute nonsense, and for once, even if it's just another proof that the writers generally don't get the scales, it's rare when things are made bigger than what they should be.

Then, if you thought that each individual would use a thousand times (!) more energy

For a space age society, it's hardly as (!) as you'd expect.

You have hardly begun to prove it.

on the average than someone who lives in the USA now, and ran the numbers with a trillion people, you would still fall three OoMs short of the ICS numbers.

No, you wouldn't. Or you would, if we go by your two stupid premises that a) hyperdrives require constant powering and b) hyperspace trips can take days or weeks.

Stupid? Where did you even debunk them?
For the durations, I have EU figures. And I said months. Since the formulation in the quotation about the energy consumed by an ISD represents a record, it's obvious that it's based on exceptional premises.

They only can if you consider that the energy is all consumed on the hyperspace entry or exit.

Or, perhaps, that the extreme majority is consumed on the entry, as it logically would be.

Why would that be more logical?
Explain. Empty claims aren't enough.

You will answer this question: why do you bring Star Trek in a thread which has nothing to do with it?

You're clearly kidding yourself if you think that this thread has no connection with Star Trek.

It's an ICS thread. What's more to understand?
And I already told you many times that I don't care about Trek in threads which are certainly SW centric. It's not the first time you try that red herring.
When will you get it?

The entire purpose of this thread is to try and downplay Star Wars calcs so that they can be beaten by Star Trek's calcs.

That's still not an excuse.

And we know from the movies that even nice ships like Padmé's yatch have hyperdrives that suck.

Hardly; in RotS, Padme traveled to Mustafar (which is unlikely to be in the middle of a major hyperspace lane) in the time it takes for Anakin to kill a few witless Seperatists.

Try AotC. Facts are facts. Her ship was slow as hell in that movie, despite rushing to rescue owbeewon.

So not all speeds are high,

If your figures were correct, Padme would have spent all of her time between TPM and AotC traveling in hyperspace.

What?
Some routes obviously are very fast while others suck. It is a fact that some ships in the movies have very slow FTL drives.

No, really, all of it. Whoever would want to be a senator (and whoever could accomplish anything) if it takes your entire term just to go to a meeting?

Senators who have a seat in the Senate usually stay there, and we know that they often belong to important enough worlds. As a matter of act, there are not enough pods to represent a million worlds, or even a tenth of that anyway.

It is not very important either. Using several days instead of a few months will only reduce numbers by an OoM.
Considering that I am totally free to use a small or moderate nation (million people or less), since there's no obligation of size, even with people who consume a thousand times more energy than any current average US citizen, I can prove that there are figures which will simply NOT fit with the requirements for ICS support, and that is what matters.

You don't seem to get it. YOU claimed that it supported the ICS. I merely prove that it does automatically not. And that is all there is to do.

which is all I know to claim that the record energy consumption of a warships such as an ISD, in relation to the quote about the nation's entire energetic production, doesn't need to be derivated from short trips only.

Yet ISD's are not slow, as witnessed by the movies and the EU. It takes them a few hours, at most a day, to travel across good portions of the galaxy.

It all depends of the region which they're flying through. If it's well mapped, they can go very, very fast. This factor is so important that controlling hyperspace routes is of the utmost importance. It's been well established in the CWS, within the plot for the premiering movie and with the Malevolence's FTL speed around a damn silly nebula of some sort.

In fact, it's so silly that I could pick the Malevolence speed, use it over a long distance like tens of thousands of light years, and on the other hand, compare that to a nation of less than a million people with a level of technology inferior to ancient Romans.
The numbers would be very, very small.

Get this: nothing in the quotation forbids me from doing so.

Besides, as I pointed out, the quote itself comes from the EU. Why do you think you can use that quote from the EU and ignore two different sources which give examples of slow speeds for ISDs,

State these alleged sources you have.

Oh please. I already did.
In that post that you obviously didn't read, yet quoted.

More-so, explain how the Death Star traveled from Alderaan to the secret Rebel Base within a day.

Because it's fast thank you.
Explain why the ISDs have the slow ass speeds that exist in the EU?

Or are you postulating that the Death Star has a faster hyperdrive than an ISD?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

especially when they're also cited on Saxton's website (we all know the fetish you have for him)?

And we all know the immense, build up hatred you have for the astrophysicist, despite virtually never taking part in the debate and never having flamed anyone online, ever. He's probably the most composed prominent source of the SW v ST debate.

So he's the most composed prominent source of the SW v ST debate after all? :D

But since you are a believer in the Grand Warsie Conspiracy, you think that Saxton created his website and the ICS2 just to win an online debate.

Obviously.
I had even found pieces of versus arguments on his website, despite his disclaimed that there would be no such material.
He erased them from his website soon after.
SWTC and Saxton's distance from versus debates.

If you actually read my post, instead of quoting it just to appear like you're replying to something, you'd know how.
General Donner has understood it. Why can't you? Are you stupid?

False conclusion. Me not understanding your post may very well have as much to do with it making no fucking sense than my alleged stupidity.

General Donner got it. So I suppose that he's smarter than you then, by a considerable margin.
Not to say that there's nothing hard to understand in my post. You just need to read it. You'll see how I come to the simple conclusion that hyperdrives require constant powering.

Obviously not. As I said in my post, I didn't reject the idea that debris could stay in hyperspace.
Really, you have not read my post at all.

There is no fundamental difference between "debris" and "starship" other than our human perception.

Of course. Aside from the fact that a starships is not a pile of debris... yet.

Are you going to revert back to ancient peoples, where the kitchen and the fields were considered to be fundamentally different enough to both have a different god controlling them?

Well, again, this is just not what I claim, and obviously General Donner got my point very well, and I don't think there was anything complicated to understand.
So you'll read my post at least once, because I doubt you are that stupid.
Well, I mean, there's still a chance but considering the stuff you pulled on mojo in the Spaghetti Monster thread, it seems that you're just being obtuse, dishonet and flat out lazy.

The high numbers (which you'd use to obtain an average of trillions per world!) come from worlds which are not nations anymore by any stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't work out either. If you have a median population of a billion or less, then to get to the 100 quadrillion figure you'd have to add in several thousand Coruscant level planets into the mix.

Did you hear?
Coruscant-like worlds are not nations by any stretch of the imagination.
And it's quite a thing that one has to pick such worlds so much as to make the quotation about the power consumption approach ICS levels.
But I'm just repeating myself at that point.

Naboo was never given a population of five billion outside of the Atlas,

You mean the same source that you're using in this very thread?

Where?

and obviously its urbanization looks nowhere like it is mirroring such a population.
There's actually a conflict on this, since another recent EU source (Complete Locations, merely reporting the number given in Inside the Worlds of TPM) gives it a population of 600 million, which is far more logical considering the way even the capital city of Theed looks.

No, it's not logical at all that an entire planet would only have 600 million people.

Listen, fool.
Either you shut up or you substantiate your claims.

Or we can assume that they don't, and that the higher technology makes energetic consumption lower because much more efficient than it is today.
For example, taking cars, current combustion engines have a 40% inefficiency. An engine like the Stirling it twice better.
Same goes with lightbulbs and LEDs.
Etc.
But let's continue and go with your ten times increase; for the reminder, I have even shown that with a thousand times increase, we'd still be way too low for getting numbers that support the ICS.

Or I could ask for you prove this. Efficiency is one thing, but there is no way you could have entire fleets of flying cars use less energy than a few automobiles traveling along roads. It simply doesn't work that way. Even with 100% efficiency, more energy would be consumed.

Entire fleets of flying cars? Where did we see that outside of Coruscant, again?
And don't you think that the US figure doesn't account for the colossal amount of cars that actually flood the streets, roads and motorways, plus all other more or less earth bound vehicles one American citizen can use?

Not to say that as far as speeders are concerned, antigrav is supposed to consume no energy. But you still need energy to move around, and that has no reason to be more power-hungry than a car, especially since car engines are not efficient at all.

Really, if you want to debunk my figures, you will have to prove that I should have used quite higher numbers. And by proof, I don't mean just a few opinions. I mean maths. Solid maths.
So go do your homeworks and we'll see.

1. Perhaps, but have you seen anything in particular in some house that would look like a relevant average in SW that would indicate a considerable increase of power consumption? This probably entails in point 2 though.

Holopads, holograms, droids, turbolifts.

Holopads = watt?
Hologram = watt?
Droids = watt?
Turbolifts? They go faster, eventually. It doesn't mean people will use them more just because they go faster though. So please provide a solid figure for that as well.

2. We can imagine all sorts of things. Your brain is much more powerful than a computer, yet uses a very small power.

That's completely different. We're talking about SW computers that are fundamentally the same, but are far, far, far more advanced and perform extreme calculations (C3PO, according to Luke, responds to orders in nanoseconds-literally).

Yeah yeah yeah.
And in watts, that means .... ?

3. So in the end, you're going to use spaceships as part of a nation's power production to calculate another spaceship's power production? What if that nation of yours actually happens to have so many ships that their cumulated power production is superior to that of an ISD? After all, it is Star Wars, right, and we're only talking of one ISD? :)

If taken to extremes, sure. Clearly you didn't catch that part.

Oh I do catch the part. I have just shown how your premises look silly.

Speeders, that could eventually pass, but you're yet to provide a figure at all.

I'm not providing an exact figure, I'm having faith in your ability to comprehend that airspeeders would consume several times more energy than cars for very obvious reasons.

And these reasons would be?

In case you didn't notice, your attempts at dodging the obvious requirements to substantiate your claims are not going to work on me.

Lol.
Since you just realized that your stupid calculation failed to support your claim as a pro-ICS bloke, you're trying to shift that away with a comparison against Trek.
That is pathetic and so transparent.
I already told you way too many times in all other threads you posted which were Star Wars centric, I don't care about Trek.

Of course you care about Trek. Your attempt to distance yourself away from this fact is as confusing as it is futile.

I'm not even a Trekkie, and it's like the umpteen time you've been told so.

Furthermore, my quote completely supports the ICS. You see, we have two conflicting calculations; one that uses the constant powering model, the other that doesn't. One just happens to support the ICS, while the other supports nothing (not even darkstar calculations, depending on your figure its either far too high or too low unless if you curtail it). Logically, the former interpretation counts as support for the ICS.

Yes, while the later counts as proof that the quotation can be seen in a light that doesn't support the ICS.
See, it swings both ways, so it's as much useful to you as it's actually useless.
But you don't get it yet.
You're a bit slow I think.

Take it this way. You are an archeologist that unearths a document claiming that Alexander the Great visited here. Searching for confirmation, you unearth another document, but due to its faded condition you don't know if it's saying "Alexander the Great" or "Alexander was great", the latter of which could be a compliment to a certain random Alexander.

You have two interpretations, but one just oh-so-happens to fit with your original discovery. Is it complete? No, but it's definitely evidence.

While I also unearth a document claiming that Alexander the Great didn't visit here (in case you don't get it, I'm refering to the clear indication of terajoule firepower for warships, from frigates to ISDs).
So the second document you found contradicts the first but fits with the third!
Unbelievable.

Which is just funny because a factor of ten is roughly the difference between the men of Rome and current people (1).

The site you were using includes physical labor and simple tools used for food and basic transportation, ie completely renewable. If you're going to include that as the collective "energy use" of the nation, then you'd might as well include starships too.

With the obvious caveat that I described. ;)

Above all, what you lost sight of is not so much the fact that by stretching the premises with all sorts of favourable odds, you might reach a high enough number that would begin to look like the power production of a small ship in the ICS realm, but the fact that the quote can also be understood to provide a power figure that is considerably lower by 6 to more than 9 OoMs from ICS scale figures, and that is the crucial point, because it shows that the quote in question is not firm and solid.
It supports the ICS just as much as it absolutely does not.

You don't need to stretch the quote by any imagination. Just don't assume constant powering (or correctly assume that going into hyperspace consumes 99% of the power, just like how escaping a planet's gravity well consumes most of the power while getting to the moon is trivial in comparison [power-wise]), and you get figures ranging from ICS levels to overshooting ICS levels into frightening Death Star levels.

You failed.
My point still stands.

I expect you to argue on this for pages now, but it would be absurd, because you simply cannot fault my numbers, and they prove my point damn well.

ROFLAMO. Says the person that thinks that you can have a million one billion population planets add up to a 100 quadrillion. Did you even bother to try and do basic multiplication to test your theory?

Now it's only 100 quadrillions instead of 400? Keep going and we might agree in two or three pages from there.

They're hardly "random".

Just as random as every other post in this board, statistically speaking.

Of course, when you have no clue how to use a search engine. :/

The BDZ thread? You posted in it (without reading it).
How more direct can it be, praytell?

Of course I didn't read all 12 or whatever pages before posting in it.

Sincerely!
It's just better to ask people to duplicate their posts and evidence all over again, just for your precious buttock.
Anyway, that admission is all I needed. :D

Considering the weird properties of hyperspace, who's surprised such things can happen?

Weird or not, fracturing a planet's core requires stellar-level energy,...

Weird, definitely. We know that since the movie and even more since Death Star.
We don't know how dense matter reacts when an object attempts to exit hyperspace inside a planet.
Obviously funky crap happens. That's hardly controlled. So it's not a good measure of power production.

... as does moving a moon sized battle station, blowing up a planet or ripping moon sized chunks off of a planet (source: LOTF Revelation). Like it or not, Star Wars is a Type 2 civilization, while Star Trek is lagging at a Type one.

Can't care about Trek.
Oh crap, enough of it.
I'll report you for that and all the rest above.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Key words being nothing more than those of the quote you used. As for the thread name, I didn't know it. Google returned threads. Difference.
Now, is it your admission that you don't even know how to use a search engine?
Sorry for sounding obnoxious, but it's hard to take you seriously when each excuse you pull is even more absurd than the day before.
What next? You can't spell Google or Yahoo?

And I would have thought of the idea to go researching for your evidence how? Am I the one who's supposed to dig through google to find your own arguments and positions, or are you supposed to be the one to bring the evidence to me? Go search up Burden of Proof.

And as such, I still find the billion mark more than enough.

Low end, being 50 times below the mathematical average, but not ridiculous, true.

When you make a claim, you substantiate it. You just don't say "no" and add something vague after that.

Easy. 50 billion. 25,000 years. 20x power generation. Population growth of 2%.

Oh sweet jesus. That's always been your defense. It's so usual of people who just have no argument. You don't even show why my theory has a problem, you just call it faulty. In this case, it is even silly, because a theory always come out of nowhere.
But it's based on an idea and observations.
Thus far, it works. Unless you have evidence that it doesn't ?

In addition to providing jack all evidence that hyperdrives require constant (and equal) powering, I already pointed out fault in it; that it would come in odds with your "shifting into hyperspace" claim, because combining your two theories (although the latter is written into canon) the debris shifted into hyperspace would instantly shift back out.

Oh and now I'm nerfing the SW planetary populations? We're talking about nations, not planets. Taking a planet as a nation is probably even beyond the acceptable high end. Seriously enough, it's totally counter intuitive to the concept of nation as used everyday.

Nations in Star Wars are planets, as is clearly shown in every populated planet we ever hear about.

There were Acclamators with weapons. Heck, your precious ICS makes Acclamators warships just as much as Venators and ISDs. :D
Try harder.

So because Acclamators have weapons on them, they're suddenly warships now? Where is this coming from? Is an APC a main battle tank because it has a gun on it?

Nothing in higher SW presupposes that the average planet in Star Wars boasts a population of 100 billions (which is the average), if there's a million worlds. And as I said, since it's an average, the less populated worlds would be found to count millions or less, while the more populated worlds would count many trillions of even a few quadrillions, which would obviously make these planets city-planets. Which excludes them from the range of "nations".

The Laws of Mathematics do. What's so hard for you to understand? 100 quadrillion people, 1 million or so planets, 50 billion people per planet. 300 or so trillion death count from the YV war.

I don't know who came with 400 quadrillions, but it's a complete nonsense.

I find it funny how you dismiss any canon sources that you don't agree with as "nonsense". Yet you're completely happy with the Grand Army of the Republic having 3 million soldiers. Apparently, a fucking galaxy[/i] having hundreds of quadrillions of citizens is stupid to you, but waging a galactic war with an army smaller than the United States army back in WW2 is fine.

A few quadrillions would pass if we would ignore Coruscant's 1 trillion figure and go for a more likely 2 to 3 digits trillion figure, and therefore just need a few of such worlds or slighly less populated worlds to make most of the galactic populace.

Quadrillions as the population range is canon, confirmed in the RotS novelization. Coruscant's population was mentioned in the trillions (plural), and the galaxy's population (also mentioned in CW Gambit: Siege) in the quadrillions (plural).

400 quadrillions is just a bullshit figure.

More bullshit than 3 million soldiers to wage a galactic war? Are underestimates more acceptable to you than alleged overestimates?

I don't know which EU author came with this BS but's it's absolute nonsense, and for once, even if it's just another proof that the writers generally don't get the scales, it's rare when things are made bigger than what they should be.

On the contrary, you don't get the scale. There are an estimated 500 million potentially habitable planets in the Milky Way; presumably within an OOM more or less in the SW galaxy. They'd have over 25,000 years to colonize them, with traveling time taking at most weeks, hardly significant in 25,000 years with various colonizations happening at once.

With just one million inhabited planets (an understatement, given the size of the galaxy and the time available to colonize them all), you have 25,000 years of population growth with space-age medicine to stop plague and disease. Going by lower-than-modern population growths, you'd reach a trillion people from 6 billion in just 500 years; I kid you not. And that's for one Earth population planet. Modern problems; food, water, etc are hardly an issue when you can synthesize food (Star Wars: Slave Ship).

And then there's space. A single planet's star would have enough power to feed quadillions of humans to day in theory. Think about the various asteroid fields and room for orbital space habitats. And you have 25,000 years to build them.

100 quadrillion is an underestimate, if nothing else. Especially since the droid army is numbered by some sources in the quintillions.

You have hardly begun to prove it.

Because you're obsessed with under-rating Star Wars. You refuse to acknowledge that it has any advanced technology beyond fusion, FTL and fancy electronics. Whenever I mention that Star Wars, being a space age society, would logically have X, you'd counter and scream NOOOO!!!! You're completely fine with their galactic army numbering 3 million, but an entire galaxy's population being 100 quadrillion? No, you say!

Stupid? Where did you even debunk them?

Smart? Where did you ever prove them?

For the durations, I have EU figures. And I said months. Since the formulation in the quotation about the energy consumed by an ISD represents a record, it's obvious that it's based on exceptional premises.

And I have movie figures. I win, you lose.

Why would that be more logical?
Explain. Empty claims aren't enough.

Because shifting into an alternate dimension would be more difficult than simply maintaining a speed in that dimension? Are you going to ask next why getting into space is harder than traveling in space?

It's an ICS thread. What's more to understand?
And I already told you many times that I don't care about Trek in threads which are certainly SW centric. It's not the first time you try that red herring.
When will you get it?

That's still not an excuse.

Whatever. If you're going to play games, then play games. But you're not fooling anybody by claiming that this thread has nothing to do with Star Trek.

Try AotC. Facts are facts. Her ship was slow as hell in that movie, despite rushing to rescue owbeewon.

Are you actually going to bother to debunk my RotS example?

What?
Some routes obviously are very fast while others suck. It is a fact that some ships in the movies have very slow FTL drives.

And Padme's ship traveled to a secret base (or presumably so, as Grevious would not send them to a planet in the middle of a hyperspace lane) in the time it takes for Vader to kill Nute Gunray and the seperatist leaders, and then stand outside and cry dramatically.

Senators who have a seat in the Senate usually stay there, and we know that they often belong to important enough worlds. As a matter of act, there are not enough pods to represent a million worlds, or even a tenth of that anyway.

It is not very important either. Using several days instead of a few months will only reduce numbers by an OoM.
Considering that I am totally free to use a small or moderate nation (million people or less), since there's no obligation of size, even with people who consume a thousand times more energy than any current average US citizen, I can prove that there are figures which will simply NOT fit with the requirements for ICS support, and that is what matters.

You don't seem to get it. YOU claimed that it supported the ICS. I merely prove that it does automatically not. And that is all there is to do.

Prove that most senators stay in Congress. Is Padme some sort of exception? What about Organa, who gladly traveled with Obi Wan to Wild Space (almost completely uncharted) in a stated to be modest ship? Did he and Obi Wan grow old after they returned?

It all depends of the region which they're flying through. If it's well mapped, they can go very, very fast. This factor is so important that controlling hyperspace routes is of the utmost importance. It's been well established in the CWS, within the plot for the premiering movie and with the Malevolence's FTL speed around a damn silly nebula of some sort.

In fact, it's so silly that I could pick the Malevolence speed, use it over a long distance like tens of thousands of light years, and on the other hand, compare that to a nation of less than a million people with a level of technology inferior to ancient Romans.
The numbers would be very, very small.

Get this: nothing in the quotation forbids me from doing so.

That's fucking silly. You're making obviously ridiculous premises (taking pre-Roman Empire "nations" and ignoring the future tense of the quote that implies advancement) on the basis that nothing in the quotation technically forbids you from doing so.

Well then, by that reasoning, I'll assume for the small-town quote that they're talking about point defense turbolasers on frigates literally vaporizing small towns. The numbers will be very, very large indeed.

Oh please. I already did.
In that post that you obviously didn't read, yet quoted.

I don't see the evidence posted, Mr. O.

Because it's fast thank you.
Explain why the ISDs have the slow ass speeds that exist in the EU?

Because the EU is C canon, and ANH is G canon. I win again.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Or let me rephrase that: are you postulating that the Death Star has a hyperdrive several orders of magnitude faster than an ISD2, so much that it can travel to secret bases in hours while ISD's presumably would take weeks.

So he's the most composed prominent source of the SW v ST debate after all? :D

No, "most" was corresponding with "composed" and prominent was an additional adjective. Basic grammar here.

Obviously.
I had even found pieces of versus arguments on his website, despite his disclaimed that there would be no such material.
He erased them from his website soon after.
SWTC and Saxton's distance from versus debates.

Unless if you can show me evidence of him actually debating in SW v ST (other than a single example), then your point fails. Hosting somebody else's website doesn't mean that you agree with it. Fox channel hosts the liberal leaning Simpsons because it makes cashloads of money. Saxton likely hosts it because it does SW calculations, not because of the debate.

General Donner got it. So I suppose that he's smarter than you then, by a considerable margin.
Not to say that there's nothing hard to understand in my post. You just need to read it. You'll see how I come to the simple conclusion that hyperdrives require constant powering.

I don't need to read it, but I did. Now the burden is on you to prove in this thread how hyperdrives require constant powering. You haven't, however much you continue to repeatedly state that you have.

Of course. Aside from the fact that a starships is not a pile of debris... yet.

By that line of reasoning, the mass of Alderaan being shifted into hyperspace apparently shattered it into pieces and mass scattered it...but that doesn't happen to ISD's because they're shielded! So an ISD can resist the energies needed to rip a planet apart and mass scatter it?

But no, this is a red herring. Whether or not an ISD survives the hyperdrive jump has nothing to do with requiring constant powering. That constant powering based on your theory would involve powering shields, and the quote was not referring to that at all. Presumably by "constant powering" you mean that without said powering the ship would revert back into realspace, but that allegedly didn't happen with Alderaan.

Well, again, this is just not what I claim, and obviously General Donner got my point very well, and I don't think there was anything complicated to understand.
So you'll read my post at least once, because I doubt you are that stupid.
Well, I mean, there's still a chance but considering the stuff you pulled on mojo in the Spaghetti Monster thread, it seems that you're just being obtuse, dishonet and flat out lazy.

Your evasion tactic's getting fucking annoying. If you can't provide evidence or elaborate on it, then you lose. I don't care if you think that I "should" get it or if others supposedly did. I read it, and none of it proves that hyperdrives require constant powering.

Did you hear?
Coruscant-like worlds are not nations by any stretch of the imagination.
And it's quite a thing that one has to pick such worlds so much as to make the quotation about the power consumption approach ICS levels.
But I'm just repeating myself at that point.

Did you hear? You still don't get it. In order for your imaginary figure for planet population (which is a completely ridiculous figure for a planet with 25,000 years of population growth) to work out mathematically to 100 quadrillion, you'd need to add in 99,999 EU Coruscant population planets as outliers to offset the 1 million 1 billion population planets. I never claimed that Coruscant was a nation, I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of a 1 billion median working out to 100 quadrillion.

Where?

Here:

There's also a map that shows population density across the galaxy, and it's more than obvious that there's just not enough of those super populated worlds to account for the higher number.
Coruscant itself is literally unique, as per some movie novelization.

That would be the Atlas map.

Your claim "it's nowhere outside of the atlas" is also pointless. It would be like saying that Jaina didn't kill Caedus anywhere outside of LOTF: Invincible, or that none of the events in X book happened outside of X book. Since when do you need 2 sources to tell you one thing?

Listen, fool.
Either you shut up or you substantiate your claims.

Don't call me a fool. A population of 600 million would double in less than half a decade with modern population growth rates; extend that to 25,000 years. And modern Earth doesn't have bacta.

Entire fleets of flying cars? Where did we see that outside of Coruscant, again?
And don't you think that the US figure doesn't account for the colossal amount of cars that actually flood the streets, roads and motorways, plus all other more or less earth bound vehicles one American citizen can use?

Not to say that as far as speeders are concerned, antigrav is supposed to consume no energy. But you still need energy to move around, and that has no reason to be more power-hungry than a car, especially since car engines are not efficient at all.

Really, if you want to debunk my figures, you will have to prove that I should have used quite higher numbers. And by proof, I don't mean just a few opinions. I mean maths. Solid maths.
So go do your homeworks and we'll see.

It was a fucking exaggeration. My point is that making a droid react in nanoseconds or a car zip high above a city making high G turns will consume more energy than a Honda or a Mac laptop unless if Honda's are REALLY inefficient. Otherwise, even the theoretical 100% efficient flying car would be more energy consuming.

Holopads = watt?
Hologram = watt?
Droids = watt?
Turbolifts? They go faster, eventually. It doesn't mean people will use them more just because they go faster though. So please provide a solid figure for that as well.


Yeah yeah yeah.
And in watts, that means .... ?

It means more than now. Do I need to speculate calculations hear? Computers in Star Wars are more than a million times faster than modern computers, but I'm only giving a 10x power increase. Airspeeders in Star Wars fly far more than 10x farther than modern automobiles, but I'm only giving a 10x power increase.

Oh I do catch the part. I have just shown how your premises look silly.

That wasn't my premise. I was giving the possibility of using spaceship usage. I didn't actually factor it in, as I clearly and explicitly stated in the thread.

And these reasons would be?

In case you didn't notice, your attempts at dodging the obvious requirements to substantiate your claims are not going to work on me.

So you're claiming that computers that run billions of times faster (FOTJ: Allies) and process a process similar degree more information (Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor) don't use an OOM more than modern computers.

Or that airspeeders don't use more energy than cars.

I'm not even a Trekkie, and it's like the umpteen time you've been told so.

Then why have you never argued for Wars in any of the threads I've witnessed you participate in? What is it with these alleged Warsies that support Trek all the time?

Yes, while the later counts as proof that the quotation can be seen in a light that doesn't support the ICS.
See, it swings both ways, so it's as much useful to you as it's actually useless.
But you don't get it yet.
You're a bit slow I think.

And you still don't get it. The quote supports the ICS because one interpretation does, and by definition that one interpretation (as long as it's not outright wrong) is right. Why? Because the ICS is canon and therefore by Lucasarts policy has Burden of Proof on its side. That's why screams of "THE ICS ISN'T SUPPORTED BY THE MOVIES!" are so fucking annoying.

While I also unearth a document claiming that Alexander the Great didn't visit here (in case you don't get it, I'm refering to the clear indication of terajoule firepower for warships, from frigates to ISDs).
So the second document you found contradicts the first but fits with the third!
Unbelievable.

What "clear indication" of terajoule firepower for warships? You surely don't mean the quote referring to a frigate's laser cannons, do you?

With the obvious caveat that I described. ;)

No, with the fact that your source doesn't debunk my position at all, and you use two double standard criteria to define the "energy consumption" of a nation.

You failed.
My point still stands.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

Now it's only 100 quadrillions instead of 400? Keep going and we might agree in two or three pages from there.

Wow, nice job at nitpicking. So, pick one, and answer the question. If you have one million one billion population planets, that equals a population of a trillion (which means that EU Coruscant outpopulates the rest of the galaxy, a ridiculous notion). Explain where the 99.99 quadrillion or 399.99 quadrillion people come from for your fan figure to fit with the canon Atlas.

Of course, when you have no clue how to use a search engine. :/

Of course, when I magically know what arguments and keywords you expect me - want me to search for.

Sincerely!
It's just better to ask people to duplicate their posts and evidence all over again, just for your precious buttock.
Anyway, that admission is all I needed. :D

Actually, yes, you are supposed to repeat your argument every time you get into a debate if the new debater requests so. Clearly you haven't gotten Burden of Proof yet.

Considering the weird properties of hyperspace, who's surprised such things can happen?

Weird, definitely. We know that since the movie and even more since Death Star.
We don't know how dense matter reacts when an object attempts to exit hyperspace inside a planet.
Obviously funky crap happens. That's hardly controlled. So it's not a good measure of power production.

Translation: you don't accept that fracturing a planet's core requires stellar level energies.

Can't care about Trek.
Oh crap, enough of it.
I'll report you for that and all the rest above.

Fine then. Ignore Trek being a type 1. So stop ignoring Wars being a type 2.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Key words being nothing more than those of the quote you used. As for the thread name, I didn't know it. Google returned threads. Difference.
Now, is it your admission that you don't even know how to use a search engine?
Sorry for sounding obnoxious, but it's hard to take you seriously when each excuse you pull is even more absurd than the day before.
What next? You can't spell Google or Yahoo?

And I would have thought of the idea to go researching for your evidence how? Am I the one who's supposed to dig through google to find your own arguments and positions, or are you supposed to be the one to bring the evidence to me? Go search up Burden of Proof.

I didn't say you had to search for my evidence.
You asked a question of page 16 back in July about that quotation, and we already had old posts covering it, and we also had people answering your question and you didn't acknowledge them.

My point is that you didn't even pay attention to the posts people wrote to reply to your question. It was nothing more than a big fuck off. And yes, after asking a question and having people spend some time to answer it, it was minimal politeness to read people's posts.

You did what you always do, ignore debunkings only to repeat the same claims elsewhere, like if nothing had been done before or in reaction to your former attempts.
That's what is tiring with you.

When you make a claim, you substantiate it. You just don't say "no" and add something vague after that.

Easy. 50 billion. 25,000 years. 20x power generation. Population growth of 2%.

Aside from the same mistake you do about population growth, could you please just clarify what "Death Star levels" is?

Oh sweet jesus. That's always been your defense. It's so usual of people who just have no argument. You don't even show why my theory has a problem, you just call it faulty. In this case, it is even silly, because a theory always come out of nowhere.
But it's based on an idea and observations.
Thus far, it works. Unless you have evidence that it doesn't ?

In addition to providing jack all evidence that hyperdrives require constant (and equal) powering,...

I did in this thread, with a distinctive commentary on TPM, here, second half of the post.
Show how those observations are wrong.

I already pointed out fault in it; that it would come in odds with your "shifting into hyperspace" claim, because combining your two theories (although the latter is written into canon) the debris shifted into hyperspace would instantly shift back out.

And what is my "shifting into hyperspace" claim, pray tell?
Something tells me that you're inventing a theory out of the blue here, one I'm certainly not the progenitor of.

Oh and now I'm nerfing the SW planetary populations? We're talking about nations, not planets. Taking a planet as a nation is probably even beyond the acceptable high end. Seriously enough, it's totally counter intuitive to the concept of nation as used everyday.

Nations in Star Wars are planets, as is clearly shown in every populated planet we ever hear about.

Evidence other than your words for it?

There were Acclamators with weapons. Heck, your precious ICS makes Acclamators warships just as much as Venators and ISDs. :D
Try harder.

So because Acclamators have weapons on them, they're suddenly warships now? Where is this coming from? Is an APC a main battle tank because it has a gun on it?

Acclamators in the ICS are given capable weapons which can easily be used to melt the surface of a world. The EU had a mark II which came with weapons clearly designed to engage enemy capital ships, and there's no indication that the power core design between the Mk-I and the Mk-II was considerable.
My point stands.

Nothing in higher SW presupposes that the average planet in Star Wars boasts a population of 100 billions (which is the average), if there's a million worlds. And as I said, since it's an average, the less populated worlds would be found to count millions or less, while the more populated worlds would count many trillions of even a few quadrillions, which would obviously make these planets city-planets. Which excludes them from the range of "nations".

The Laws of Mathematics do. What's so hard for you to understand? 100 quadrillion people, 1 million or so planets, 50 billion people per planet. 300 or so trillion death count from the YV war.

Oh keep the pretentiousness down with your silly "laws".
You don't understand what averages we're dealing with. You make a planetary population average, while I'm talking about a national population average.

I don't know who came with 400 quadrillions, but it's a complete nonsense.

I find it funny how you dismiss any canon sources that you don't agree with as "nonsense".

I'd dismiss it if I had a good reason to. I think the ROTS novelization just had "untold" quadrillions, and going with low quadrillions and a population for Coruscant of around a hundred trillions would have greatly helped.
I'm merely wondering who the hell precisely came with the very specific 400 quadrillion figure.
The vast majority of planets we saw in SW are small population planets, notably in TCWS, and several of these worlds are represented in the Senate or even have their own pod.
Even highly urbanized worlds like Christophsis have nowhere the urbanization of Coruscant.

400 quadrillions require an overall population that just doesn't make sense in light of all the samples we got.

A few quadrillions would pass if we would ignore Coruscant's 1 trillion figure and go for a more likely 2 to 3 digits trillion figure, and therefore just need a few of such worlds or slighly less populated worlds to make most of the galactic populace.

Quadrillions as the population range is canon, confirmed in the RotS novelization. Coruscant's population was mentioned in the trillions (plural), and the galaxy's population (also mentioned in CW Gambit: Siege) in the quadrillions (plural).

"Quadrillions" is still vague and would easily allow much less than 10 quad and work more or less, if we were to ignore the tame +1 trillion pop given for Coruscant.

More bullshit than 3 million soldiers to wage a galactic war? Are underestimates more acceptable to you than alleged overestimates?

Yeah but the thing is, Lucas really gave us some numbers and the scope of the war doesn't really fit with considerably higher numbers, although I'd have been happier if we had more than just 3M clones involved there.
That number is equally bad.

I don't know which EU author came with this BS but's it's absolute nonsense, and for once, even if it's just another proof that the writers generally don't get the scales, it's rare when things are made bigger than what they should be.

On the contrary, you don't get the scale. There are an estimated 500 million potentially habitable planets in the Milky Way;...

Good. Your estimation will already be 500 times greater than the number of worlds given to the Galactic Empire.

... presumably within an OOM more or less in the SW galaxy. They'd have over 25,000 years to colonize them, with traveling time taking at most weeks, hardly significant in 25,000 years with various colonizations happening at once.

With just one million inhabited planets (an understatement, given the size of the galaxy and the time available to colonize them all),...

Understatement? I think it's given in ANH, nah? Doesn't that make it super canon?

... you have 25,000 years of population growth with space-age medicine to stop plague and disease. Going by lower-than-modern population growths, you'd reach a trillion people from 6 billion in just 500 years; I kid you not. And that's for one Earth population planet. Modern problems; food, water, etc are hardly an issue when you can synthesize food (Star Wars: Slave Ship).

And then there's space. A single planet's star would have enough power to feed quadillions of humans to day in theory. Think about the various asteroid fields and room for orbital space habitats. And you have 25,000 years to build them.

100 quadrillion is an underestimate, if nothing else. Especially since the droid army is numbered by some sources in the quintillions.

lol. I love how you assume that all goes up, that there are no wars, no limitations, and make a large amount of assumptions on how the populaces spread across the galaxy.
Your model is already broken from the very movies: it should easily be verified, yet we see that it's places like Coruscant which stick out.
If your model were true, there'd be no way for the planets we saw and which have been part of the Republic for a long time, so much as to have a seat in the Senate, to be so lightly populated.

To save your model, you'll have to find excuses, explanations, which will, by definition, precisely shatter your model.
In fact, you just have no solid basis aside from a broken model full of indluging assumptions, to claim that 400 quadrillions is a low end.
Besides, as you take the liberty to claim a possession of ten or even a hundred times more worlds than what the GE is stated to have, I could use that to obtain a lower average, since 400 quadrillions is a fixed top number after all. But let's leave those pointless permutations aside.
Thus far, 400 quadrillions is the highest canon value we have.

In fact, Wookieepedia tells a different story.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_galaxy

While there was a hyperspace disturbance outside of the galaxy, hyperspace made it possible within the galaxy to have an enormous, and diverse, civilization. There were approximately 400 billion stars and around half of these had planets that could support life. Ten percent of those planets developed life, while sentient life developed in 1/1,000 of those (about 20 million). The galaxy was populated by approximately 100 quadrillion different life forms.

...

Life developed in 10% of the habitable planets, while sentient life developed in 1/1,000 of those (about 20 million sentient species). It was estimated that they together totaled 100 quadrillion beings.

Huh, not only the [source7] footnote doesn't lead to any source, but there's no indication of a population of 400 quadrillion sentient people.

According to the first chapter, the SW galaxy has 200 billion systems which can support life, on planets (one or more). 10% of those planets did support life. Only a thousandth of those worlds sported sentient life: 20 millions worlds or 20 million species? The wording is disastrous.
The second paragraph is worded differently and now we get a number of sentient species of 20 millions. We get a totaled 100 quadrillion beings, which we will assume are sentient beings.

Nothing is said that this total represents the population of the Republic or the GE.

If you want me to accept quadrillions for the Galactic Empire, you'll have to provide properly quoted sources, which present undisputable evidence please.

You have hardly begun to prove it.

Because you're obsessed with under-rating Star Wars. You refuse to acknowledge that it has any advanced technology beyond fusion, FTL and fancy electronics. Whenever I mention that Star Wars, being a space age society, would logically have X, you'd counter and scream NOOOO!!!! You're completely fine with their galactic army numbering 3 million, but an entire galaxy's population being 100 quadrillion? No, you say!

Cut the whining.

For the durations, I have EU figures. And I said months. Since the formulation in the quotation about the energy consumed by an ISD represents a record, it's obvious that it's based on exceptional premises.

And I have movie figures. I win, you lose.

Nice. You again ignored the evidence that in AotC, we see Padmé's ship take a lot of time to cover a small distance, and in TCWS, a massive and advanced CIS warship said to be the fastest come to a crawl to get around a nebula with her hyperdrives.

Why would that be more logical?
Explain. Empty claims aren't enough.

Because shifting into an alternate dimension would be more difficult than simply maintaining a speed in that dimension? Are you going to ask next why getting into space is harder than traveling in space?

I precisely went to find a reason why a ship would have to keep hyperdrives powered in hyperspace. You simply didn't read my post, which was clear from your first reply after said post, when you said I explained nothing, and I told you that I did and General Donner had no problem to read and understand said post.
I demonstrated that TPM supports the idea that hyperdrives are constantly powered. You're welcome to debunk those observations (see link I gave earlier in that post).

It's an ICS thread. What's more to understand?
And I already told you many times that I don't care about Trek in threads which are certainly SW centric. It's not the first time you try that red herring.
When will you get it?

That's still not an excuse.

Whatever. If you're going to play games, then play games. But you're not fooling anybody by claiming that this thread has nothing to do with Star Trek.

You're confused. No one said that evidence from this thread would not be used against a certain set of pro-Wars arguments.
And it's not about Star Trek, but any universe that gets pitted against SW and with legions of foaming fanboys picking bits from Saxton's published works.

Try AotC. Facts are facts. Her ship was slow as hell in that movie, despite rushing to rescue owbeewon.

Are you actually going to bother to debunk my RotS example?

WHy should I give a shit. I provide examples that starships can be slow as hell in Star Wars higher canon. That is all I need, in case you didn't get it.

What?
Some routes obviously are very fast while others suck. It is a fact that some ships in the movies have very slow FTL drives.

And Padme's ship traveled to a secret base (or presumably so, as Grevious would not send them to a planet in the middle of a hyperspace lane) in the time it takes for Vader to kill Nute Gunray and the seperatist leaders, and then stand outside and cry dramatically.

She departed after that. Notice that the sun was lower where Padmé was than where the Senate building was, as we see it when Vader sends his message. The sun was setting when Padmé left. This means it took her several hours to get to Mustafar anyway. It's still very fast though.

Anyway, in AOTC her ship was slow as hell.
How long do you keep on?

Besides, considering the insane speeds achieved by ships departing from Coruscant, I'm wondering if there's nothing about its planetary system that doesn't dramatically favor hyperdrives, like some gigantic booster or something. But that's for another topic.

Senators who have a seat in the Senate usually stay there, and we know that they often belong to important enough worlds. As a matter of act, there are not enough pods to represent a million worlds, or even a tenth of that anyway.

It is not very important either. Using several days instead of a few months will only reduce numbers by an OoM.
Considering that I am totally free to use a small or moderate nation (million people or less), since there's no obligation of size, even with people who consume a thousand times more energy than any current average US citizen, I can prove that there are figures which will simply NOT fit with the requirements for ICS support, and that is what matters.

You don't seem to get it. YOU claimed that it supported the ICS. I merely prove that it does automatically not. And that is all there is to do.

Prove that most senators stay in Congress. Is Padme some sort of exception? What about Organa, who gladly traveled with Obi Wan to Wild Space (almost completely uncharted) in a stated to be modest ship? Did he and Obi Wan grow old after they returned?

What about the important point, being that the quotation doesn't automatically support the ICS and only supports the ICS since it's easy to show that it can support a wide range of much lower figures?
That is the crux of the issue here. It is not a solid piece of evidence for the pro-ICS people because any anti-ICS person can show that much lower numbers are also obtained from this quotation.

It all depends of the region which they're flying through. If it's well mapped, they can go very, very fast. This factor is so important that controlling hyperspace routes is of the utmost importance. It's been well established in the CWS, within the plot for the premiering movie and with the Malevolence's FTL speed around a damn silly nebula of some sort.

In fact, it's so silly that I could pick the Malevolence speed, use it over a long distance like tens of thousands of light years, and on the other hand, compare that to a nation of less than a million people with a level of technology inferior to ancient Romans.
The numbers would be very, very small.

Get this: nothing in the quotation forbids me from doing so.

That's fucking silly. You're making obviously ridiculous premises (taking pre-Roman Empire "nations" and ignoring the future tense of the quote that implies advancement) on the basis that nothing in the quotation technically forbids you from doing so.

I didn't know that pre-Roman nations counted billions of people.
And yes, technically, absolutely nothing prevents me from using the smallest nation I'd like to pick, since there's no size qualifying value attached to the noun "nation". It's just some nations.

Well then, by that reasoning, I'll assume for the small-town quote that they're talking about point defense turbolasers on frigates literally vaporizing small towns. The numbers will be very, very large indeed.

And I'll equally use the lower interpretations.
You really don't get it at all.

For the quotation to support the ICS, it shouldn't be so open to interpretation that one could actually derive a power in the megawatt range.

Oh please. I already did.
In that post that you obviously didn't read, yet quoted.

I don't see the evidence posted, Mr. O.

Correction: you don't read evidence that is posted.
Now that I have given you the link to the post you obviously didn't read (despite quoting it abundantly), I hope you'll be able to fill your ignorance.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Or let me rephrase that: are you postulating that the Death Star has a hyperdrive several orders of magnitude faster than an ISD2, so much that it can travel to secret bases in hours while ISD's presumably would take weeks.

Considering that I provided at least two examples from higher canon of ships coming to a crawl at FTL speeds, it will be hard to reply to that question since it's hard to come with a firm model.
I could even pick the Millennium Falcon's speed from Hoth to Bespin, since it couldn't be anything else but slow, as slow enough to allow Yoda to train Luke in the meantime.

So he's the most composed prominent source of the SW v ST debate after all? :D

No, "most" was corresponding with "composed" and prominent was an additional adjective. Basic grammar here.

Dude, you're correcting yourself now. I just quoted you verbatim. :)

Obviously.
I had even found pieces of versus arguments on his website, despite his disclaimed that there would be no such material.
He erased them from his website soon after.
SWTC and Saxton's distance from versus debates.

Unless if you can show me evidence of him actually debating in SW v ST (other than a single example), then your point fails. Hosting somebody else's website doesn't mean that you agree with it. Fox channel hosts the liberal leaning Simpsons because it makes cashloads of money. Saxton likely hosts it because it does SW calculations, not because of the debate.

You obviously didn't read the link I gave, since it has nothing to do with what you think. There's nothing about hosting any shit whatsoever, genius.
Again, you prove that we could post any link, you always ignore us.
What's the point bothering with you?
You're sad.

General Donner got it. So I suppose that he's smarter than you then, by a considerable margin.
Not to say that there's nothing hard to understand in my post. You just need to read it. You'll see how I come to the simple conclusion that hyperdrives require constant powering.

I don't need to read it, but I did. ...

If you want to understand what I meant, and if you want to at least pretend that I was wrong and eventually argue that I never provided an explanation, you would need to read the post of mine which I claim does explain the hyperdrive issue as seen in TPM.
Yes, you need to read the post for a honest debate to take place.

... Now the burden is on you to prove in this thread how hyperdrives require constant powering. You haven't, however much you continue to repeatedly state that you have.

That's really glorious.
So you don't need to read my post, despite how essential it is to the proper course of a decent debate, then you do claim to have read it, and after that, you say that I have to prove that hyperdrives require constant powering.
Stop talking crap.
Really, this is not serious. At least quote the part of the message that actually explains that and show me where I'm wrong.
Otherwise you're just a hot baloon.

Of course. Aside from the fact that a starships is not a pile of debris... yet.

By that line of reasoning, the mass of Alderaan being shifted into hyperspace apparently shattered it into pieces and mass scattered it...but that doesn't happen to ISD's because they're shielded!

Although I had not thought of Alderaan since I only focused on ships, it is possible that the destruction of Alderaan happened because the planet didn't have its own hyperdrive.
Aside from the scales that boggle the mind, it does work in theory.
Well, that and the fact that I'm not sure how an hyperdrive huge enough for a planet would have saved it from the superlaser's own energy.
What a derailing.

So an ISD can resist the energies needed to rip a planet apart and mass scatter it?

What?
Someone needs to sew your brain or something. I can't even reason how it so poorly works so you actually end making such baffling leaps of logic.

But no, this is a red herring.

Thank you for noticing, at least. :)

Whether or not an ISD survives the hyperdrive jump has nothing to do with requiring constant powering. That constant powering based on your theory would involve powering shields, and the quote was not referring to that at all. Presumably by "constant powering" you mean that without said powering the ship would revert back into realspace, but that allegedly didn't happen with Alderaan.

I didn't mention shields, although I remember that I had a debare some months with you or someone else and the question of shielding ships in hyperspace was raised. I knew I had read something about this, but I couldn't retrieve the text so I put it on hold.
Still, I didn't specifically speak of a shield per se, but there's clearly the concept of the ship requiring some protection or strengthening of some kind during the trip.
That's the idea.

Well, again, this is just not what I claim, and obviously General Donner got my point very well, and I don't think there was anything complicated to understand.
So you'll read my post at least once, because I doubt you are that stupid.
Well, I mean, there's still a chance but considering the stuff you pulled on mojo in the Spaghetti Monster thread, it seems that you're just being obtuse, dishonet and flat out lazy.

Your evasion tactic's getting fucking annoying. If you can't provide evidence or elaborate on it, then you lose. I don't care if you think that I "should" get it or if others supposedly did. I read it, and none of it proves that hyperdrives require constant powering.

You haven't begun to show how wrong it is. Repeating that it's wrong without demonstrating it is mere flailing.
You need to do more than that, because as far as I'm concerned, what I demonstrated with TPM is rather solid.

It's actually quite a miracle that after claiming at least twice in your last post that you have read the one where I explain it all, you never spoke of TPM once.
I tihnk you're just bullshitting and you've read nothing, because that's just the way your posts would look like if you had not read anything.

Did you hear?
Coruscant-like worlds are not nations by any stretch of the imagination.
And it's quite a thing that one has to pick such worlds so much as to make the quotation about the power consumption approach ICS levels.
But I'm just repeating myself at that point.

Did you hear? You still don't get it. In order for your imaginary figure for planet population (which is a completely ridiculous figure for a planet with 25,000 years of population growth) to work out mathematically to 100 quadrillion, you'd need to add in 99,999 EU Coruscant population planets as outliers to offset the 1 million 1 billion population planets. I never claimed that Coruscant was a nation, I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of a 1 billion median working out to 100 quadrillion.

Geez. Can someone explain this *beep* why one shall not use Coruscant-like planets as part of the overall sample of how populated NATIONS might be?

Where?

Here:

There's also a map that shows population density across the galaxy, and it's more than obvious that there's just not enough of those super populated worlds to account for the higher number.
Coruscant itself is literally unique, as per some movie novelization.

That would be the Atlas map.

Right.
So we have a contradiction. If we use the Atlas, we get a large population for Naboo (one that is silly considering the urbanization model it supports).
Otherwise, we have the lower number that fits better, but then it's from the same source that gives +1 trillion people to Coruscant.

Your claim "it's nowhere outside of the atlas" is also pointless. It would be like saying that Jaina didn't kill Caedus anywhere outside of LOTF: Invincible, or that none of the events in X book happened outside of X book. Since when do you need 2 sources to tell you one thing?

It is not pointless because an equally valid EU source provides a different figure, and one that makes more sense at that, and is equally represented in the EU (it's not outnumbered by the other figure).

Listen, fool.
Either you shut up or you substantiate your claims.

Don't call me a fool. A population of 600 million would double in less than half a decade with modern population growth rates; extend that to 25,000 years. And modern Earth doesn't have bacta.

I called you fool because you quite deserved it. You don't even think your points through. You don't even realize that TODAY, population growth in advanced countries is negative.
I mean, in what fucking world do you live?
You think that the whole of the Star Wars galaxy keeps fucking like subsaharian Africans or something?

Entire fleets of flying cars? Where did we see that outside of Coruscant, again?
And don't you think that the US figure doesn't account for the colossal amount of cars that actually flood the streets, roads and motorways, plus all other more or less earth bound vehicles one American citizen can use?

Not to say that as far as speeders are concerned, antigrav is supposed to consume no energy. But you still need energy to move around, and that has no reason to be more power-hungry than a car, especially since car engines are not efficient at all.

Really, if you want to debunk my figures, you will have to prove that I should have used quite higher numbers. And by proof, I don't mean just a few opinions. I mean maths. Solid maths.
So go do your homeworks and we'll see.

It was a fucking exaggeration. My point is that making a droid react in nanoseconds or a car zip high above a city making high G turns will consume more energy than a Honda or a Mac laptop unless if Honda's are REALLY inefficient. Otherwise, even the theoretical 100% efficient flying car would be more energy consuming.

Numbers or shut up. Can't you read?

Holopads = watt?
Hologram = watt?
Droids = watt?
Turbolifts? They go faster, eventually. It doesn't mean people will use them more just because they go faster though. So please provide a solid figure for that as well.

Yeah yeah yeah.
And in watts, that means .... ?

It means more than now. Do I need to speculate calculations hear? Computers in Star Wars are more than a million times faster than modern computers, but I'm only giving a 10x power increase. Airspeeders in Star Wars fly far more than 10x farther than modern automobiles, but I'm only giving a 10x power increase.

Numbers, why don't you really try to get some?

Let's also remember that two posts ago, I did also comment on a figure based on a consumption a thousand times superior.

Oh I do catch the part. I have just shown how your premises look silly.

That wasn't my premise. I was giving the possibility of using spaceship usage. I didn't actually factor it in, as I clearly and explicitly stated in the thread.

How can you claim that you didn't factor starship usage when all you did was arbitrarily increase power consumption per capita by a thousand without giving any number to back this up?

And these reasons would be?

In case you didn't notice, your attempts at dodging the obvious requirements to substantiate your claims are not going to work on me.

So you're claiming that computers that run billions of times faster (FOTJ: Allies) and process a process similar degree more information (Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor) don't use an OOM more than modern computers.

Or that airspeeders don't use more energy than cars.

See, if you actually read my post, you'll observe that I asked that question only in regards to the speeders, not the computers.
Simply put, I'm asking you to show why I must agree that speeders will consume such vast amounts of power as to legitimize an increase of a thousand from the original power figure I used.

As for droid brains, are they still using binary?

I'm not even a Trekkie, and it's like the umpteen time you've been told so.

Then why have you never argued for Wars in any of the threads I've witnessed you participate in?

By your own admission, you didn't read much of the forum.

What is it with these alleged Warsies that support Trek all the time?

Oh, you think I'm a Warsie? Well, I'm probably much more of a Warsie than a Trekkie, that is sure. But certainly nothing like Wongies.
Hey, let me give you a hint: stop thinking so hard. :)
Just stop using Trek-based red herrings and all will go well.

Yes, while the later counts as proof that the quotation can be seen in a light that doesn't support the ICS.
See, it swings both ways, so it's as much useful to you as it's actually useless.
But you don't get it yet.
You're a bit slow I think.

And you still don't get it. The quote supports the ICS because one interpretation does, and by definition that one interpretation (as long as it's not outright wrong) is right. Why? Because the ICS is canon and therefore by Lucasarts policy has Burden of Proof on its side. That's why screams of "THE ICS ISN'T SUPPORTED BY THE MOVIES!" are so fucking annoying.

It doesn't matter if it supports the ICS in one way, if it can equally debunk the ICS in another way.

Let me explain: what you are looking for is solid evidence. The kind of evidence which, even when you extract low ends out of it, you will obtain figures very close to the ICS.

As for the question of canonicity, the ICS is as canon as any other EU source that contradicts it, and they're quite numerous, as we've shown.

Plus we have largely proved on this forum that several claims made by the official publications written or influenced by Saxton are debunked by the movies.
For one, the idea that ships have super hulls that don't pale in light of the protection offered by shields (Millennium Falcon in Echo Base, TESB novelization).
I have shown that the bolts that damaged one of the best starfighters of its time, the Delta-7 aethersprite, were certainly nowhere worth kilotons, but actually megajoules.
Same goes with the missiles Jango fired, which were not rated in the hundred megatons like the ICS claims.
Or like the space mine, which even if it had a total energy in the gigatons, clearly never dealt that much energy over a small surface, considering the observed destruction of asteroids hit by the disc.
There's the old Malevolence Hand case and her hull that burns up in the atmosphere. We also have a beam that destroys a CIS frigate and it's obviously nowhere the expected magnitude of destruction required by the ICS.
And then there's the TCWS that you can add; as far as I'm concerned, I don't take the visuals down to the letter, but I treat them as an overall indication of magnitudes, and I also hold dialogues in higher respect.

While I also unearth a document claiming that Alexander the Great didn't visit here (in case you don't get it, I'm refering to the clear indication of terajoule firepower for warships, from frigates to ISDs).
So the second document you found contradicts the first but fits with the third!
Unbelievable.

What "clear indication" of terajoule firepower for warships? You surely don't mean the quote referring to a frigate's laser cannons, do you?

I already explained that it also refers to the firepower of an ISD.
Nor that it would matter much, even if it was about the frigates's firepower, since they're not supposed to be like 9 to 12 orders of magnitude weaker than an ISD.
Pff.
Once again, I'll link to my post on page 8 of the major ICS thread.

There's plenty other EU sources that contradict the ICS, and you get the list at the beginning of this thread (which you've nicely polluted).

Considering the weird properties of hyperspace, who's surprised such things can happen?

Weird, definitely. We know that since the movie and even more since Death Star.
We don't know how dense matter reacts when an object attempts to exit hyperspace inside a planet.
Obviously funky crap happens. That's hardly controlled. So it's not a good measure of power production.

Translation: you don't accept that fracturing a planet's core requires stellar level energies.

Correction: you can't translate.
Aaaaaand here stops that another attempt at derailing the thread.

Can't care about Trek.
Oh crap, enough of it.
I'll report you for that and all the rest above.

Fine then. Ignore Trek being a type 1. So stop ignoring Wars being a type 2.

I don't care about your types.
I just told you to stop trying to bait me with your silly Trek shit, and you try it again just after that, despite knowing that you've just been reported for that.
Somehow, you're worrying, really.