I challenge darkstar to a debate

[Mr. Oragahn]

BAIT ALERT

You see, SWST came here and debated everyone, and was trounced with a large bulk of evidence. I've seen members here trounce him time and time again.

I know that you are attempting to "support" me, but you really need to realize that SFJ is a fringe group in the larger ST v SW debate, that my own stance on SW yields, industry and FTL speed, among others, are generally accepted facts in SDN, CBR and even spacebattles, and that the evidence brought forth to "trounce" my own always openly admits to being unscientific and illogical.

Ow fuck, that's so transparent.

Hey Trinoya, you're reading this?
See how he's indeed learning.

FYI, SWST, ICS was largely dismissed by vote at SBC and it's clearly rejected over there these days, so much that now people have to impose ICS yields first in an OP, and they're barely taken seriously safe by a fringe group precisely. I posted the link to the poll several times. You keep ignoring all of this.

What, you say? For example; the answer given as to how one can argue that Wars uses nuclear fusion reactors, while at the same time arguing that the megaton scale firepower witnessed in ESB by Veer's AT-AT, or the vaporization of a star destroyer in RotJ, overloaded (when fusion reactors do not explode like nuclear bombs) is that "well, it's sci fi, it doesn't have to follow physics."

No one here accepts megaton-level firepower for AT-ATs, and you know it.
As for the bursting ISD in ROTJ, you already brought it up, and nothing has changed. Not only ships harness little stars, so when the core is ruptured, yes, it will explode. You'll also notice that the explosion wasn't that violent, even if the ship got engulfed in more or less three expanding fireballs.

The answer given as to how the superlaser "theory" conforms with our understanding of physics is "well, it's sci fi , it doesn't have to be scientific."

It is largely exotic, like it or not.

The answer given as to how a four million man army is logical in the context of a galactic war is "well, it's sci fi, it doesn't have to be logical."

No. It's Lucas wrote it.

The answer given to the various acceleration feats in the films, implying acceleration rates of as much as 20,000 Gs, which scale up to Saxtonite figures, is "well, they could be using magical mass-lightening technology."

A few cases, disputable, which ignore the slow ones.
Not to say that people on the opposite, against the wanky one, did get used to the possibility of linear accelerations being possible with a form of mass lightening, but that wasn't usable every time.

So the answer as to why Warsies and Trekkies disagree is that their methodologies are different.

No, they're the same. The methodology of Saxtonites is, however, heavily flawed.

The former strictly adheres to a scientific and logical analysis of both universes, the latter is willing to pull the "it's just a film for pete's sake!" card whenever it suits them.

BS.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Ow fuck, that's so transparent.

Hey Trinoya, you're reading this?
See how he's indeed learning.

Appeal to incredulity. Translation: you have no argument.

FYI, SWST, ICS was largely dismissed by vote at SBC and it's clearly rejected over there these days, so much that now people have to impose ICS yields first in an OP, and they're barely taken seriously safe by a fringe group precisely. I posted the link to the poll several times. You keep ignoring all of this.

You couldn't possibly know the current board climate at spacebattles. Only registered members can view posts; and you aren't one of them. Too bad for you. Back a few years ago, a moderate majority rejected ICS yields, but a very sizable majority also favored the Empire over the borg collective in a war. People are also evenly split between the Galactic Empire and the Imperium of Man, yet the latter being pitted against the UFP is closed for spite.

No one here accepts megaton-level firepower for AT-ATs, and you know it.

That's my entire point. The math can be done to calculate the fireball generated after General Veers orders "maximum firepower", math that is typically uncontested. Instead, most Trekkies lead towards one of the following arguments:

1. If AT-ATs possess nuclear level firepower, why was it not used against the Rebel trench forces?

2. Why didn't the fireball's shockwave kill off all of the surviving Rebel forces?

3. It could simply be the result of a reactor overload.

1 is explained in the OT ITW. 2 is an appeal to ignorance, since we actually have no clue what happens to the Rebel forces after the shield generator is destroyed. 3 is the most common argument, and blatantly contradicts any claim to Star Wars military tech using nuclear fusion, because fusion reactors don't explode like a megaton bomb upon being hit.

As for the bursting ISD in ROTJ, you already brought it up, and nothing has changed. Not only ships harness little stars, so when the core is ruptured, yes, it will explode. You'll also notice that the explosion wasn't that violent, even if the ship got engulfed in more or less three expanding fireballs.

Nope. Nuclear reactors going up like fireworks upon being hit is a myth perpetuated by Greenpeace and popular nuclear hysteria. The only manner in which the ISD's reactor could have overloaded is if it were not using a nuclear reactor.

It is largely exotic, like it or not.

Do you realize that you are proving my point here? It is extremely unscientific to assume that an exotic technology is an excuse to assume that it violates fundamental laws of physics, and this is exactly what the pro-Trek side is doing with the Death Star.

No. It's Lucas wrote it.

You mean how Lucasarts officially denied that a concrete figure for the clone army will ever be given out.

Besides, I have already provided you a quote proving the obvious; that there was a draft imposed during the Clone Wars. Ergo, the clone army only constituted a tiny portion of the overall military.

A few cases, disputable, which ignore the slow ones.

No. This is faulty logic. If you see a tank moving at 40 mph, do you assume that this was just a trick of the eyes because said tank was not always moving at 40 mph? The Geonosis incident is hardly "disputable" at all; Dooku's ship is a few hundred meters above the ground. Dooku's assistant pushes a throttle. Suddenly, Dooku's ship is well past the rings of Geonosis, and only then does Yoda pick up his cane, and Padme run in to a severely wounded Anakin and Obi Wan. Ten seconds may very well be a conservative figure.

Not to say that people on the opposite, against the wanky one, did get used to the possibility of linear accelerations being possible with a form of mass lightening, but that wasn't usable every time.

Exactly; Mass lightening is impossible. The Geonosis incident is ample proof of SW acceleration speeds and engine power, and it is hardly a nonsensical outlier.

No, they're the same. The methodology of Saxtonites is, however, heavily flawed.

No, they're not the same. You admit that the superlaser chain reaction theory violates physics; you don't care. You admit that your theory has no mechanism; you don't care. You admit [hopefully] that mass lightening is impossible; you don't care. You admit that a few million men fighting a galactic war is illogical; you don't care.

BS.

Except that you prove my very point in your rebuttal here. You claim that a sufficiently powerful fusion reactor will magically explode upon being hit, without the slightest source or reference to support it. You think that a weapon being "exotic" is an excuse to horribly violate conservation of energy, and that there is no need for it to explain the noted facts of Alderaan's surmise any better than the standard model of Everything.

[Admiral Breetai]

You are lying SWST CBR would never accept your yields or anything, the fact that it's absolutely against forum rules to make calculations. That they ban you on sight for admitting to being from SDN or even supporting their agenda.

oh and because *I* lead the charge that got the EU declared as non canon and then got it into the rules that it's a bannable offense to use it unless specified otherwise in debates there: I know you are absolutely full of shit. You are also baiting so you should be banned for once again lying and trolling

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ow fuck, that's so transparent.

Hey Trinoya, you're reading this?
See how he's indeed learning.

Appeal to incredulity. Translation: you have no argument.

Concession accepted.

FYI, SWST, ICS was largely dismissed by vote at SBC and it's clearly rejected over there these days, so much that now people have to impose ICS yields first in an OP, and they're barely taken seriously safe by a fringe group precisely. I posted the link to the poll several times. You keep ignoring all of this.

You couldn't possibly know the current board climate at spacebattles. Only registered members can view posts; and you aren't one of them. Too bad for you.

:) :) :)
Dork claims he sent me PMs, wonders why I didn't respond, then claims I can't read them because I'm banned in another topic, then says I'm not registered and know shit about spacebattles, even if I read a thread like two days ago.
Dork is funny and clearly knows shit about SBC.

Back a few years ago, a moderate majority rejected ICS yields

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?p=3967806

Code: Select all

View Poll Results: Is the ICS a good representation for the SW universe?
Yes 		45 	24.19%
No 		141 	75.81%
Voters: 186. You may not vote on this poll

SWST's definition of moderate.

No one here accepts megaton-level firepower for AT-ATs, and you know it.

That's my entire point. The math can be done to calculate the fireball generated after General Veers orders "maximum firepower", math that is typically uncontested.

You did the maths? Ah.
At best you calculated an explosion resulting from the blasting of a giant power plant which was presently feeding, among other things, a shield generator protecting a large area from the fire of Death Squadron.
I guess that in your book, that fits as a reliable source of data to guess a yield with certainty. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
Yes, fusion cores mimic miniature suns. If you break the containment, the artificial star's energy won't vanish, idiot.

As for the bursting ISD in ROTJ, you already brought it up, and nothing has changed. Not only ships harness little stars, so when the core is ruptured, yes, it will explode. You'll also notice that the explosion wasn't that violent, even if the ship got engulfed in more or less three expanding fireballs.

Nope. Nuclear reactors going up like fireworks upon being hit is a myth perpetuated by Greenpeace and popular nuclear hysteria. The only manner in which the ISD's reactor could have overloaded is if it were not using a nuclear reactor.

Fuck LOL!
Greenpeace? Since when Greenpeace has ever published a paper on the occurrence of sudden leaks in high energy artificial star containment systems per se?
Do you know anything about heat and pressure relative to fusion?
Well, no, obviously.

It is largely exotic, like it or not.

Do you realize that you are proving my point here? It is extremely unscientific to assume that an exotic technology is an excuse to assume that it violates fundamental laws of physics, and this is exactly what the pro-Trek side is doing with the Death Star.

The only point you have is the one neuron inside your head.

No. It's Lucas wrote it.

You mean how Lucasarts officially denied that a concrete figure for the clone army will ever be given out.

Lucasarts wrote it but Lucas altered the final decision, rarity. Then it was changed later on, only to be corrected via three different EU sources, and again revised down.

Besides, I have already provided you a quote proving the obvious; that there was a draft imposed during the Clone Wars. Ergo, the clone army only constituted a tiny portion of the overall military.

Yeah, they're all clones piloting fighters, vehicles and crewing starships as well as attacking on the ground and twiddling their fingers in their outposts, both in the film and the show, but guess what? They're not clones.
Just some dumb genetic luck that they're all such perfect lookalikes.

A few cases, disputable, which ignore the slow ones.

No. This is faulty logic. If you see a tank moving at 40 mph, do you assume that this was just a trick of the eyes because said tank was not always moving at 40 mph?

The tank may have to be represented on a simple axis at first, so you know your position and take it forth. If it's moving fast, maybe you don't know where it was going before that, and you don't know the initial impulse. Not to say that you pick an exception and turn it into a generality. Those are important facts you completely ignore.

The Geonosis incident is hardly "disputable" at all; Dooku's ship is a few hundred meters above the ground. Dooku's assistant pushes a throttle. Suddenly, Dooku's ship is well past the rings of Geonosis, and only then does Yoda pick up his cane, and Padme run in to a severely wounded Anakin and Obi Wan. Ten seconds may very well be a conservative figure.;

Ah, the miracles of Lucas' masterful editing skills. It doesn't seem to be of relevance to you that we do see Dooku's ship fly in front of CIS ships and that there's no impressive speed at all to be observed, despite the utterly stupid acceleration claim.

Not to say that people on the opposite, against the wanky one, did get used to the possibility of linear accelerations being possible with a form of mass lightening, but that wasn't usable every time.

Exactly; Mass lightening is impossible.

I said not usable every time, not impossible. Can't you read?
...
Oh, sorry. Why am I asking again. I guess that's another thing you have to learn as well.

You admit that the superlaser chain reaction theory violates physics; you don't care. You admit that your theory has no mechanism; you don't care.

I only point out a chain of events. Explaining the bullshit physics of soft SF wizzbang event is a waste of time. Didn't you know? It won't get published in any serious science journal, no matter how hard Saxton may try.

You admit [hopefully] that mass lightening is impossible; you don't care.

Obviously, you definitely can't read.

You admit that a few million men fighting a galactic war is illogical; you don't care.

Lucas goes for small scale. Can't go against the man.

Except that you prove my very point in your rebuttal here. You claim that a sufficiently powerful fusion reactor will magically explode upon being hit, without the slightest source or reference to support it.

Star in a bottle. Break the bottle.

You think that a weapon being "exotic" is an excuse to horribly violate conservation of energy,

Oh, that's an old recurring one.
I already covered that years ago, and it's a strawman.

and that there is no need for it to explain the noted facts of Alderaan's surmise any better than the standard model of Everything.

The model has to be expanded to other domains of logic in order to fit. If you cannot address the case of Alderaan properly, you have to go back and reconsider the first basic facts before even cobbling the primary hypothesis that you'll present to other people anytime superlasers and hyperspace get mentioned conjointly. Geez.

[Trinoya]

Hey Trinoya, you're reading this?
See how he's indeed learning.

And I've seen it before, my apathy, however, makes it all just a tad boring and not all that interesting. You could all do like me and just ignore the repeated arguments, tired retrys, and old postings and focus only on his new contributions. Otherwise you are just feeding into the cycle until it starts anew. It's almost like watching the citadel council in action :P

Ironically Mr. O, you and I aren't on different pages, your prior post reveals, after all...

What challenge is there in trying to convince a brick wall, pray tell?

Hence my apathy, and being far more interested in any potential for change or progress.

As I said, I'm not a moderator, so I have the choice to sit back and espouse the want for change, and decry the engagement of the cycle on both sides, though I'm getting concerned the ending might just be reduced to three colors and a loss of faith in Bioware ^_- (all this talk of cycles, couldn't resist).

[Praeothmin]

You did the maths? Ah.
At best you calculated an explosion resulting from the blasting of a giant power plant which was presently feeding, among other things, a shield generator protecting a large area from the fire of Death Squadron.
I guess that in your book, that fits as a reliable source of data to guess a yield with certainty. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Plus, wonder of wonders (not really), SWST ignores the fact that we fully see TWO explosions when the AT-AT fires at full power, the first one being the AT-AT's weapons (very small), then the power plant generator exploding (very big)...

Just like he always ignores Hoth's self-exploding asteroids... :)

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Plus, wonder of wonders (not really), SWST ignores the fact that we fully see TWO explosions when the AT-AT fires at full power, the first one being the AT-AT's weapons (very small), then the power plant generator exploding (very big)...

You demonstrate your scientific ignorance yet again. The first explosion quite visibly destroyed the reactor; there will thus be nothing left to overload or explode! The reactor would not have been vaporized and then overload, because there would be no more reactants to react!

Mind you, if the reactor did overload, it would have had to have been the initial explosion, and then the second fireball was a laser cannon not weakened by the generator's shielding. And the fact that the reactor overloaded would merely prove that it was not run with nuclear fission or fusion.

Just like he always ignores Hoth's self-exploding asteroids... :)

You motherfucking liar. I responded to it several times in the past, you fucking hypocrite.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=165

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Concession accepted.

Once again, you lack any hint of a rational argument, and thus resort to using a rhetorical "concession accepted" (when my response was precisely the opposite), to evade countering the fact that you actually were using an appeal to incredulity, completely devoid of any semblance of substance.

You did the maths? Ah.
At best you calculated an explosion resulting from the blasting of a giant power plant which was presently feeding, among other things, a shield generator protecting a large area from the fire of Death Squadron.
I guess that in your book, that fits as a reliable source of data to guess a yield with certainty. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
Yes, fusion cores mimic miniature suns. If you break the containment, the artificial star's energy won't vanish, idiot.

Don't talk about shit you don't understand. A fusion reactor isn't full of active energy just waiting to explode; most of the energy rests within the mass of the hydrogen atoms themselves, and will only be released under very specific circumstances. The "energy" won't vanish; it's still in the fucking atoms. But it isn't going to explode like a bomb.

Fuck LOL!
Greenpeace? Since when Greenpeace has ever published a paper on the occurrence of sudden leaks in high energy artificial star containment systems per se?
Do you know anything about heat and pressure relative to fusion?
Well, no, obviously.

I'm no expert, but I do know a marginal step above the layman, yes. However, I get the strange impression from the phrasing of your sentence that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, which would certainly explain why you vaguely point to "heat and pressure relative to fusion", and expect me to concede in embarrassment of not knowing.

But please, explain to me the science, or link us all to a scientific paper or credible website, that demonstrates in detail, how a large external detonation would cause hydrogen atoms to undergo nuclear fusion.

The only point you have is the one neuron inside your head.

Do you actually have a logical argument to make? Let me respost what I said:

Do you realize that you are proving my point here? It is extremely unscientific to assume that an exotic technology is an excuse to assume that it violates fundamental laws of physics, and this is exactly what the pro-Trek side is doing with the Death Star.

Now, your extremely uninvented comeback is not a substantive response to the slightest extent.

Lucasarts wrote it but Lucas altered the final decision, rarity. Then it was changed later on, only to be corrected via three different EU sources, and again revised down.

Uh huh. Link.

Yeah, they're all clones piloting fighters, vehicles and crewing starships as well as attacking on the ground and twiddling their fingers in their outposts, both in the film and the show, but guess what? They're not clones.
Just some dumb genetic luck that they're all such perfect lookalikes.

Mr. O's method of analyzing EU evidence that supports himself: It does not matter if 3 million men fighting a galactic war makes sense. It is stated, it is canon, go home.

Mr. O's method of analyzing inconvenient EU evidence: Well, this just doesn't make sense. It doesn't "fit" logically, Ergo, it's wrong.

Yes, I am far more willing to accept that TCW and the movies' imaginary camera decided to show us the actions of the clone troopers and ignore the draftees than I am to think that a single clone trooper was sufficient to police an entire star system.

The problem with you is that you cannot seem to decide the standards in which EU evidence is to be scrutinized under, and exactly when enough holes in a statement is enough to consider it an outlier. When it suits you, you freely admit that a source doesn't make the slightest shred of sense, but then respond by saying that it does not matter, because it is canon. In other cases, such as this one, you are willing to dismiss an inconvenient source on the slightest whim.

The tank may have to be represented on a simple axis at first, so you know your position and take it forth. If it's moving fast, maybe you don't know where it was going before that, and you don't know the initial impulse. Not to say that you pick an exception and turn it into a generality. Those are important facts you completely ignore.

In your attempt to sound sophisticated, you completely ignore the fact that none of this applies to any of my examples, at all. We can easily calculate how fast Dooku's ship was moving before the acceleration (read: very subsonic).

Ah, the miracles of Lucas' masterful editing skills.

What, you think that he considered the scientific consequences of adding in fire rings to the destruction of Alderaan? What is it with you and ridiculous double standards?

It doesn't seem to be of relevance to you that we do see Dooku's ship fly in front of CIS ships and that there's no impressive speed at all to be observed, despite the utterly stupid acceleration claim.

"utterly stupid acceleration claim?" Fine. Explain to me what is incorrect about either my premises or my math.

I said not usable every time, not impossible. Can't you read?
...
Oh, sorry. Why am I asking again. I guess that's another thing you have to learn as well.

Wait...

You didn't just say that mass lightening is possible, did you?

I only point out a chain of events.

No, you point out a chain of events and then draw a conclusion from it, but fail to explain how you get from point A to B.

Alderaan's destruction produces exotic effects
Therefore, it is "exotic"
Therefore, I can throw out Conservation of Energy, and whatever the fuck I want.

Explaining the bullshit physics of soft SF wizzbang event is a waste of time. Didn't you know? It won't get published in any serious science journal, no matter how hard Saxton may try.

Sure, you can argue that this entire debate is a waste of time. But this doesn't change the fact that Saxton's work and calculations are being made by someone who actually knows his shit, doesn't think that fusion reactors magically explode because "all that energy's got to go somewhere!!!", and doesn't attempt to bluff his way through providing proof by claiming that I don't understand "heat and pressure relative to fusion". ROFL.


Also, do you realize that, every time you respond with shit like this, you simply prove my point that Trekkies do not put as large an emphasis on science as the Warsie faction does? By your own admission, you don't attempt to scientifically analyze the workings of the Death Star, because you don't think it's relevant. You think that mass lightening is possible, which just baffles the mind. And you continue to sprout the outright nonsense that fusion reactors are ticking bombs ready to explode at the slightest touch, despite all scientific fact pointing to the exact opposite.

Obviously, you definitely can't read.

And you don't understand conservation of energy. I can see this, so obviously, I can read.

Lucas goes for small scale. Can't go against the man.

Lucas goes for small scale, yet the plot of the original movie revolves around a 350,000 square kilometer battle station the size of a small moon?

Really, this is just hilarious.

Star in a bottle. Break the bottle.

That's nice rhetoric. Now, would you care to cite your source, and/or explain from a scientific standpoint, why nuclear reactors detonate upon being hit, and why Chernobyl did not vaporize a tenth of Ukraine upon melting down? Oh, right, it did not explode at all.

Oh, that's an old recurring one.
I already covered that years ago, and it's a strawman.

Too bad that just saying that it is a strawman, while pointing vaguely to something you covered "years" ago, doesn't qualify as proof.

The model has to be expanded to other domains of logic in order to fit. If you cannot address the case of Alderaan properly, you have to go back and reconsider the first basic facts before even cobbling the primary hypothesis that you'll present to other people anytime superlasers and hyperspace get mentioned conjointly. Geez.

No, you've never explained to me:

a) Where this energy you claim the superlaser just "attracts" comes from
b) What mechanism causes this energy to appear
c) Why this energy somehow creates fire rings
d) Why it is a better explanation to say that this exotic energy comes from some alternate dimension as a result of the superlaser, rather than that it comes from the hypermatter reactor itself (especially given that I've provided a quote from the original ICS confirming that the hypermatter reactor directly and solely powers the superlaser)
e) Why this mechanism is not used to power starships and as weaponry elsewhere


Really, your position would be a whole lot stronger if your methodology weren't so inconsistent and full of double standards. You apply different levels of scrutiny and different thresholds in which to throw out canon based on how it suits you; you are willing to dismiss certain feats by breaking suspension of disbelief, but then turn around to strictly adhere to it, in the case with the Death Star.

[Praeothmin]

You demonstrate your scientific ignorance yet again. The first explosion quite visibly destroyed the reactor; there will thus be nothing left to overload or explode! The reactor would not have been vaporized and then overload, because there would be no more reactants to react!

I demonstrate my ignorance?
Then please explain to me why, at 4:07 of this clip, after the initial explosion caused by the AT-AT's fire, we still see the outline of the Generator?
Which disappears in an incredible explosion after this first one...
Lying much?

Mind you, if the reactor did overload, it would have had to have been the initial explosion, and then the second fireball was a laser cannon not weakened by the generator's shielding. And the fact that the reactor overloaded would merely prove that it was not run with nuclear fission or fusion.

So let me get your bullshit straight:
The AT-AT fired, and caused the generator to explode, AND THEN, ONLY THEN, did the AT-AT's bolt explode?
And I'm the ignorant one?
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off... :)

Oh, and where was it mentioned the Generator was shielded, exactly?

You motherfucking liar. I responded to it several times in the past, you fucking hypocrite.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=165

Really?
What is so funny is that, the very post you link to shows you saying this:

How do you know how large the asteroids were? Do you have a point of reference? If you don't know how large they were then how do you know how fast they were moving? How does this override the fact that metallic tie fighters made no dents in the asteroids upon collision?

Please point to me, in that very sentence, where oh where do you address the fact these asteroids self-exploded (as seen at 0:11, 0:20, 0:31 where we see the resulting flash of the collision of this video)?
While the small Tie fighters did not make dents in the bigger asteroids, the smaller ones (smaller than the Ties) did explode upon impact...
And I would say the Ties not making dents shows how flimsy they are... :)
And nowhere do we see an asteroid going faster than 5-10 m/s, and those asteroids, compared to Ties, were no bigger than 6-12 meters wide, for a kinetic energy of 356 030 536.50000005 Joules, or 0.000 085 093 340 464 kiloton (using an Iron asteroid 12 meters wide at 10 m/s)...

[Mr. Oragahn]

LOL, not only he's rebooting the AT-AT firepower topic an umpteen time, but he's currently doing it into two different threads at once. Same ol', same ol'.

It gets really tiring to have to debate him to reveal his bullshiting to the staff that doesn't care enough to dispose of the annoying critter.
I like this board but the moderation here, as someone recently said, is "pants on head retarded".
In any other sane place, SWST would have barely left a mark and would already be forgotten.

[Picard]

But da Bozzz!! We aaarghh too zmall! We kan not allow to loohrze anhhyone!

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Strangely enough, Mr. O is actually right. We should not be discussing the exact same topic throughout multiple threads, simultaneously. But I just have to respond to this:

So let me get your bullshit straight:
The AT-AT fired, and caused the generator to explode, AND THEN, ONLY THEN, did the AT-AT's bolt explode?
And I'm the ignorant one?
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off... :)

This has got to be one of the funniest things I’ve heard all day. Apparently, when I say that a laser cannon caused the second massive mushroom cloud, you conclude that I am referring to the same blasts that caused the first explosion!

Really, I should be the one laughing my ass off right now.

Really?
What is so funny is that, the very post you link to shows you saying this:

How do you know how large the asteroids were? Do you have a point of reference? If you don't know how large they were then how do you know how fast they were moving? How does this override the fact that metallic tie fighters made no dents in the asteroids upon collision?

Please point to me, in that very sentence, where oh where do you address the fact these asteroids self-exploded (as seen at 0:11, 0:20, 0:31 where we see the resulting flash of the collision of this video)?
While the small Tie fighters did not make dents in the bigger asteroids, the smaller ones (smaller than the Ties) did explode upon impact...
And I would say the Ties not making dents shows how flimsy they are... :)
And nowhere do we see an asteroid going faster than 5-10 m/s, and those asteroids, compared to Ties, were no bigger than 6-12 meters wide, for a kinetic energy of 356 030 536.50000005 Joules, or 0.000 085 093 340 464 kiloton (using an Iron asteroid 12 meters wide at 10 m/s)...

1. The observations of asteroids colliding with one another are impossible to scale; we have no clue how distant they are, which means that we can’t tell how large they are, which means that we cannot deduce their velocities either.
2. The observations of tie fighters colliding against asteroids completely ignores the possibility of the vaporizations stemming from the tie fighters themselves exploding as a result of their ammo/fuel overloading. After all, you appear to be under the impression that every ship in the imperial Starfleet is magically rigged to explode like a nuclear bomb upon impact.
3. The conclusion from the idea that asteroids have magical explosives planted in them with enough yield to self vaporize (sometimes requiring megatons) is that, when we witness asteroids colliding against ISDs’ hulls during the sequence at a very significant rate (possibly as high as >1 per second), their internal explosives are also vaporizing, and impacting against each star destroyer’s shields with kilotons or megatons of energy, in addition to the asteroids’ KE and momentum. So, in other words, the amount of punishment that the fleet withstands when waiting for various bounty hunters to assemble from across the galaxy would be monumentally high.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Strangely enough, Mr. O is actually right. We should not be discussing the exact same topic throughout multiple threads, simultaneously. But I just have to respond to this:

So let me get your bullshit straight:
The AT-AT fired, and caused the generator to explode, AND THEN, ONLY THEN, did the AT-AT's bolt explode?
And I'm the ignorant one?
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off... :)

This has got to be one of the funniest things I’ve heard all day. Apparently, when I say that a laser cannon caused the second massive mushroom cloud, you conclude that I am referring to the same blasts that caused the first explosion!

Really, I should be the one laughing my ass off right now.

Our local idiot now claims that something else fired at Echo Base's power generator. Another weapon, a second bolt? Guy sees things no one else has been able to see for more than 30 years.
His trolling is definitely loosing subtlety post after post.

1. The observations of asteroids colliding with one another are impossible to scale; we have no clue how distant they are, which means that we can’t tell how large they are, which means that we cannot deduce their velocities either.
2. The observations of tie fighters colliding against asteroids completely ignores the possibility of the vaporizations stemming from the tie fighters themselves exploding as a result of their ammo/fuel overloading. After all, you appear to be under the impression that every ship in the imperial Starfleet is magically rigged to explode like a nuclear bomb upon impact.
3. The conclusion from the idea that asteroids have magical explosives planted in them with enough yield to self vaporize (sometimes requiring megatons) is that, when we witness asteroids colliding against ISDs’ hulls during the sequence at a very significant rate (possibly as high as >1 per second), their internal explosives are also vaporizing, and impacting against each star destroyer’s shields with kilotons or megatons of energy, in addition to the asteroids’ KE and momentum. So, in other words, the amount of punishment that the fleet withstands when waiting for various bounty hunters to assemble from across the galaxy would be monumentally high.

1. SWST's right. Those asteroids just happen not to be grazed by recognizable ships.

2. Right again. Why are you guys trying to show that some asteroids spontaneously blow up? Where did you see that?

3. He made the calcs. Megatons are, at the very least, absolutely needed to completely destroy those very large asteroids. That is proof that the ships grazing them are capable of withstanding nearby near fully-kinetic bursts in the petajoule range. Praeothmin and else, you're starting to irritate me.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Our local idiot now claims that something else fired at Echo Base's power generator. Another weapon, a second bolt? Guy sees things no one else has been able to see for more than 30 years.
His trolling is definitely loosing subtlety post after post.

I never said that the laser cannon did not stem from the AT-AT; it wouldn't make sense for me to say this, given that my entire argument is an attempt to derive the firepower of an AT-AT.

No, I am saying that we see two explosions; a smaller one, and then a massive one. The second explosion could not have been the result of a reactor overload (which cannot fucking happen in a nuclear reactor), since the reactor is already gone. Ergo, if there ever was a reactor overload, it was the first explosion.

Then, logically, the second explosion has to stem from another laser cannon fired by the AT-AT, in order to ensure complete destruction. The original explosion is smaller because the shield dissipated most of the shots' power.

If you have an alternative explanation, feel free to provide it. Without any reactor overload, we simply conclude that the first shot is weaker because the shield dissipated it partially, and then the second shot is hitting with full strength.

1. SWST's right. Those asteroids just happen not to be grazed by recognizable ships.

Not the same asteroids, no. The self vaporizing asteroids are of unknown size, moving at unknown velocities. While the asteroids hitting the tie fighters are of very quantifiable size, and are unscratched by collisions with metallic objects.

2. Right again. Why are you guys trying to show that some asteroids spontaneously blow up? Where did you see that?

Except that point number two is addressing a completely different argument than point one.

3. He made the calcs. Megatons are, at the very least, absolutely needed to completely destroy those very large asteroids. That is proof that the ships grazing them are capable of withstanding nearby near fully-kinetic bursts in the petajoule range. Praeothmin and else, you're starting to irritate me.

Grazing them? The asteroids collide right into the center of an ISD's hull, and then vaporizes. Ergo, these imaginary explosives planted inside the asteroids must have went off. The term "graze" is hardly the proper word here.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Our local idiot now claims that something else fired at Echo Base's power generator. Another weapon, a second bolt? Guy sees things no one else has been able to see for more than 30 years.
His trolling is definitely loosing subtlety post after post.

I never said that the laser cannon did not stem from the AT-AT; it wouldn't make sense for me to say this, given that my entire argument is an attempt to derive the firepower of an AT-AT.

No, I am saying that we see two explosions; a smaller one, and then a massive one. The second explosion could not have been the result of a reactor overload (which cannot fucking happen in a nuclear reactor), since the reactor is already gone.

Just as much as the bolt that damaged the reactor. One single pair of bolts. You're seeing things, definitely.

Ergo, if there ever was a reactor overload, it was the first explosion. :

Unless, instead of making stupid claims, one can consider that the reactor wasn't sufficiently damaged to immediately explode upon contact with the bolt.
Is that too hard or will you cope with it?

Then, logically, the second explosion has to stem from another laser cannon fired by the AT-AT, in order to ensure complete destruction. The original explosion is smaller because the shield dissipated most of the shots' power.

So another cannon did it. Yes, I understood that stupid claim. Feel free to point it out in the movie though, that should be funny.

1. SWST's right. Those asteroids just happen not to be grazed by recognizable ships.

Not the same asteroids, no. The self vaporizing asteroids are of unknown size, moving at unknown velocities. While the asteroids hitting the tie fighters are of very quantifiable size, and are unscratched by collisions with metallic objects.

He's totally right. We don't even see the projected shadow on the Millennium Falcon that grazes one of those larger asteroids formerly hit by a smaller one which produced an explosion that didn't exist. OK?

2. Right again. Why are you guys trying to show that some asteroids spontaneously blow up? Where did you see that?

Except that point number two is addressing a completely different argument than point one.

Yes, I agree. TIEs, while making megaton nuclear explosions due to the fuel and ammo, don't break the asteroids they slam into. Ergo those asteroids have no reason to burst and can't anyway.

3. He made the calcs. Megatons are, at the very least, absolutely needed to completely destroy those very large asteroids. That is proof that the ships grazing them are capable of withstanding nearby near fully-kinetic bursts in the petajoule range. Praeothmin and else, you're starting to irritate me.

Grazing them? The asteroids collide right into the center of an ISD's hull, and then vaporizes. Ergo, these imaginary explosives planted inside the asteroids must have went off. The term "graze" is hardly the proper word here.

Indeed, they should pay attention because we're clearly talking about the asteroid that hit the ISD, not the ones that bothered Han and his pursuing friends. The ISD killer (in fact it didn't kill anything or anyone, shields coped with the energy) completely debunks the absurd claim of safe bursting space rocks.
Geez, is it that hard to follow Praeothmin? It's about time you go learn some science btw, because ">1 per second" is a valid unit of acceleration.