2006-05-09

"Saxtonite" at Wookieepedia

I just received an entertaining link from a site visitor, who prefaced it with the comment that it was "a little gem for you from the greater SW community (i.e. those that dont zerg sites a la Wong)..."

(Note: if you're uncool like me and didn't know what zerging was, it refers to attacks without tactics in which sheer numbers are used to overwhelm the enemy. In other words, a perfect term to describe SD.Net board invasion tactics against enemy boards. But I digress . . . )

The link is to the Star Wars wiki entitled Wookieepedia, and mentions in broad strokes what it is to be a Saxtonite (or one who opposes them).

However, there is a grave error.

On the one hand, the entry reads "the difference is also a function of the gap between a group of fans who viewed the films as they first came out, and thus hold special reverence for them, and a group of fans who do not differentiate as strongly between the movies and other material."

And yet, later it is said that "Supporters of Saxton and his work point out that the films are the definitive work on the Star Wars universe, and that other sources in contradiction are incorrect. They point out that the movies are considered the most exact record of what occured, and therefore such analysis is justified."

In other words, the entry suggests that Saxtonites are focused on the canon and hold it in reverence, whereas anti-Saxtonites do not.

Those familiar with my opinions will realize that I was quite confused by the entry. After all, the problem I have with Saxton is not his method of pixel-counting and overanalysis of film frame captures . . . you can analyze something via any methodology you wish, and the one he uses is no worse than any other. (The fact that it is the standard of the Versus stuff online does bias me in favor of it, but still.)

The issue, of course, is that Saxton and friends will happily ignore the films if the need arises. This is how he exagerrates his canon-based Death Star II scaling of 270km to 900km (based solely on an incomplete matte painting that doesn't appear in the film) . . . this is where he gets the idea of a red moon around Hoth (based on an image from some EU source with extraordinarily bad color balance) . . . this is how he ends up getting his yield requirements for Star Wars weapons (where ISD firepower is based off the non-canon BDZ, a comic book image, and the necessity of blasting through non-canon neutronium hulls ... and Slave I firepower is based, not on Episode II, but on comic book renditions of the ship's guns in action).

So really, if the Wookieepedia entry were more correct, then perhaps it might say that those two camps are really just different as to whether they pixel-count at all, since the extra-canonical cherry-picking habits are the same.

108 comments:

  1. The article is fairly recent... and pretty much entirely written by Saxtonians. I recognize some of the handles, such as VT-16 and LtNOWIS.

    More to say, have you, Qui-Gon?
    It is requested that this article, or a section of this article, be expanded. See the request on the listing or on this article's talk page. Once the improvements have been completed, you may remove this notice and the page's listing.

    I'm sure someone will step up to the plate to add what the non-Saxtonians think about the Saxtonians. You could, if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are saxtonians of the same calibre as Wongies? Especially in terms of... ethics?

    We already know that in terms of data analysis, from time to time, they can be biased towards EU-inflated wank misinterpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To know about name...

    Zerg is insect-like, central-steered, race in Game "StarCraft", known for it's rush capabilities and controlled by "overmind" from background. The idea of them was, surprisingly, arisen in ST:TNG season 2. They should be those whe devastated Neutral Zone. But then, to reduce cost and ease the process, Zerg had been replaced with humanoid-like Borg.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon, "Wongies" are basically Saxtonites who express hatred of Trek - which is to say, most of them. The article even mentioned that the "main population" of Saxtonites live on Stardestroyer.net.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ss13...care to prove that statement? I find that a little hard to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that ss13 made some mistake there, but the overall idea was correct. The original idea for the Borg was that they were insectoid beings with a hive-like mind, but for budget reasons it was dropped in favor of the Borg that we all know. I think that it was mentioned either in the Encyclopedia or the TNG Companion book.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting bit of trivia.

    Here... click my name... :) I just need contributors to my databank now, and then I can get back to filling out the articles on my main page.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Man, I can't read the topic of this post without hearing in my head something like "Saxtonite is mentioned in ATTACK OF THE MOON SABER (book 1) as one of the main materials used in making AWESOMEARMOR, which makes star destroyers awesome, and totally able to destroy Enterprises with ease."

    I guess it's a good thing that the EU is non-canon and they don't let me sarcastically write EU books... :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is slightly off-topic (although I might fit Saxton's name in), but something just occurred to me while reading comments on the BDZ stuff.

    Given order and precedence of canon, even if the EU stuff were to be taken as canon, I see two glaring holes on the Wars side.

    1) If they were as powerful, they could simply have slagged Hutt; it's not as if they seemed to know of Home One at that point. There were Executor and 5 ISD, which means that they could probably have slagged the target area in the opening salvo. Thus making the Empire's WW1 tactics seem all the more ridiculous (I mean, it's rather simple, the Ion cannon required lowering the shield; so IF the SW ships have such great capabilities, you get a ISD and Executor in Avenger's position, getting ready to shoot, while the other 3 ISD intercept the transports; the base should be slagged in the opening salvo)

    2) The novel quotes (actual events rather than theory) mostly seem to mention sending down mop-up not only in the form of TIEs but also Stormtroopers. I may not be a military officer, or a physicist, but I doubt that sending infantry troops in a meter-deep lava puddle would do much good in an assault.

    It seems to me that the mention of both would probably have tipped off Saxton that his number-crunching based on a badly drawn comic (it's so vague it could have been Mars, dammit) was, in fact, a logical improbability.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only real explanation I can see for the Imperial fleet at Hoth not to bombard the Rebel base, or rather fire off to one side of the planet where the shield no longer could provide protection and just let massive seismic shockwaves in the crust destroy or disable the base, is because Vader wants to capture Luke alive. However, the problem with this is that Vader is still taking one hell of a gamble that Luke won't be killed trying to defend the base (which he nearly was when his snowspeeder was shot down by an AT-AT), or blasted out of the sky trying to break out of the blockade with the transports, ect.

    Speaking of tactics. Why didn't the Rebels have a better defense than they did at Hoth? They had time to dig troop trenches and install small guns, and at least one very large ion cannon, but why no mines, or traps for armored vehicles? We saw proto-AT-ATs in the PT, so the idea that you'd need pitfalls and other traps for vehicles such as those should already have been there. It should have been a relatively easy as there appeared to be only one viable approach to the base by land.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  11. g2k,
    geekparallax here.

    I was enjoying the classic Trek reruns on the G4 network the other day, and I saw something that might interest you. The episode was "Return of the Archons", and Kirk and his crew were about to be mobbed by mindless followers of Landru. Kirk then orders Spock to take out his phaser and fire a wide-beam on the stun setting. They both fire twice, and there are some good screens that can be had from that episode.
    I thought I'd bring it up since you've had past trouble with "Saxtonites" claiming that Phasers did not have wide-beam stun capability. It always helps to pad one's argument :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. GeekParallax,

    I believe he already knew of such:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWground-oldphas.html

    It's one of the nice demonstrations of wide-beam phaser settings.

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  13. Widefield stun against multiple targets was clearly and effectively established in VOY's "Cathexis":


    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWground-newphas2.html


    You'll have to scroll down about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the way to see the image.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think it was actually wide beam kill setting that the warsies were denying.

    Though given that wide beam vapourisation is possible I don't see any reason to doubt a wide beam kill setting less than vapourisation (and if it doesn't exist you could always just use widebeam vapourise).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, here's the deal. When you're arguing to win, you conveniently "forget" about everything that helps the opposition.

    This is why SDN residents start back over with claiming kiloton range photon torpedos, phasers that can't do any widebeam effects, terawatt ship power generation, etc etc etc, every single time you argue with them.

    Even if they concede a point once - i.e., they know they're wrong - they're back again with it on another forum, or the next week on the same forum if it's a new visitor, arguing from the same state of "ignorance" about the examples. It's all about systematic denial.

    The more often you hit the reset button, the more you can just recite a time-worn sequence of arguments that winds up just dragging out into nowhere. That's one of the reasons I decided I'd up and put up a Wiki databank on my website - to document the arguments, document the social groupings, and explore the arguments being set forth themselves, rather than shout them down.

    What can we learn from the context of these arguments? What drives all the debaters, and what does their worldview look like?

    ReplyDelete
  16. As for a widebeam phaser's ability to kill people, that is also a foregone conclusion given we've seen a TOS phaser on widebeam heat a bolder to a red-hot glow within seconds in "The Enemy Within" [TOS1], and in "Rapture" [DS95], Sisko's phaser on widebeam easily vaporizes through soild rock. All of these examples show that a phaser on widebeam and at settings with effects more than sufficent to kill a human outright instantly, or in seconds.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  17. There's a good demonstration of the firepower problem here:

    http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=100768&page=16

    Basically, at one point, after NoNamer insisting that the yield of the SPHA-T isn't that giganormous (because of the size of the explosion occuring as the beams hit the hull), MacLeod says this:

    "Nice job ignoring my demand that you provide the evidence to back up your claim (you know, content of the energy beam, properties of the materials in question, etc.) Your appeal to "CoE" is a red herring until you actually provide the evidence to back up your claim in the FIRST PLACE, you know."

    ...content of the energy beam, properties of the materials in question...

    Funny that it's only a valid argumentation method when inflated figures are attacked, but perfectly valid to claim such inflated figures when the supporting side is as clueless about the content and composition of the target in question.
    Then they go to say that it radiates through energized neutrinos (and only after that, dialed down weapons). Of course, such massive amounts of neutrino radiations would still have terrible effects on the environment and human troops around. But, well...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi, I'm another Anonymous, but I do frequent a few debate forums. In my time debating in several debates on Spacebattles and looking on other websites, I have found that the Rabid Warsies are hypocrites.

    During one debate, I brought up Star Trek's incident of high firepower, "The Die is Cast" (TDiC). They said that TDiC had already been brought up, and debunked, stating that it was a one time occurrence and is contradicted in other areas of Star Trek. Gee, what does that sound like? The ironic thing is that there is actual support in dialogue in other Star Trek episodes that would lend credence to high gigaton to low teraton firepower in Star Trek. The most well known example being Garak's quote in "Broken Link" that stated that the Defiant "had the firepower to reduce that plane to a smoking cinder." I have even stated that for me, it's all or nothing. I won't accept the ICS if they won't accept TDiC, but I wouldn't bring up TDiC if they didn't use the ICS, seeing as both examples are high end feats for both sides.

    I also brought up the explosion of Hoth's generator, and compared it to the Photon Torpedo explosion in "The Skin of Evil." My view was that in each instance, the yield of a weapon could not be known because of the fact that, in the generator was supplying power to an entire base. That means that the generator could supply gigawatts to terawatts of power at any given time. Two laser beams come in and destroy the containment fields and conduits for the power, and you have a massive explosion. That begs the question, how much of the explosion was the lasers, how much was the generator itself exploding due to a containment breach? The same thing happens in "The Skin of Evil," the shuttlecraft may have still had some anti-matter in the shuttle. How much of the explosion was the shuttle, and how much was the torpedo? Yet, the Rabid Warsies would try to divert people away from my example, citing that they were two different explosions, not realizing, or not wanting anyone else to realize, that the events were actually quite similar in the fact that it was impossible to get a firepower yield from either of those events.

    One more thing is that I've read a lot of the Star Wars EU. In fact, I believe it (the stories) to be part of my Star Wars canon. But, of course, the movies are still the highest form of canon. The thing is that the SW canon, and EU stories don't definitively show any weapons yields that would put SW in the high gigaton to low teraton range for the turbolasers. The only example of "high" yields is a comic book scan where there are many questions raised, such as the size of the planet(oid) being fired upon, since in the scan, it looks as if the planetoid might not be much larger than the ISD. Either way, it isn't any more proof of high yield SW weapons than TDiC or "Broken Link."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Congratulations, Anonymous. You've just proven that you can actually think for yourself, something that the groupthink of the Rabid Warsies won't tolerate in any form.

    As was pointed out previously in the weblog, it's interesting how many people on Spacebattles who watched RoTS, in particular the crash-landing of the Invisible Hand noticed that the ship not only was actually glowing red-hot on entry into Courscant's atmosphere, but that parts were falling off from areads of the ship not damaged in the battle, nor the breakup, and then the subsequent crash on the runway people also took note of the ship's underside structure collapsing. So much for the oft-touted neutronium hulls certain Warsies have been wanking on about, and that 200 gigaton ISC-level firepower cannot be correct given what was seen.

    Of course the Rabid Warsie damage control team immediately sprung into action and came up will all sorts of apologetics for it, but essentially what they said was either flat out false, or amounted to "Pay no attention to what you actually saw with your own eyes! ".

    After a while nobody really wants to keep arguing with people who won't conceed the single tiniest thing.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  20. Particularly when anyone extending a dissenting opinion gets quashed. I notice that thread one of our anon posters linked to is locked already.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And that, BHMM, is one of the big problems with the moderated forum format, particularly when a mod or mods are biased towards a particular conclusion, and don't like anyone questioning it.

    This is, of course, why the likes of Mike Wong have retreated into the relative safety of such a forum since they can control it will near-absolute impunity. Notice that on ASVS that the Warsies once they got sufficent numbers there essentially turned what is an unmoderated Usenet newsground into an unoffical moderated one in one stroke. The only thing they couldn't do there that can be done on a discussion board or a true moderated ng is filter posts, or actually ban people, or even lockout a thread. That's why you see the degeneration into "smashmouth" tactics, harassment, and other vileness.

    Having scanned through the thread in question, I have to say I feel sorry for Sharp Thorn. A pity, he seemed to have pretty good grasp on physics, far more than your average versus debater, and far more than the An Ancient guy he was arguing with most of the time.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  22. Feel pity pity on me too, as I was the one who pointed out the scenes in AOTC and ROTS are clearly sub-kilotons in firepower, and that claim they could be more would violate the laws of physics. Of course, I got summarily banned for a couple days.

    -Nonamer

    PS: Who is Sharp Thorn anyways?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi, again, it's me, the anon who posted a few posts up. NoNamer I noticed that you, and Sharp Thorn, another debator on the forum who was on your side, were clearly winning the debate in my book. You actually did provide evidence that supported your point and that Scimitar vs. ISD thread just shows the whole world that the Warsies are hypocrites, and I do think that the thread was closed because you were winning and there was literally nothing they could do to salvage it for the Warsies. The only forum that I know of that is unbiased against either side is the CBR forum, and they've banned Star Trek vs. Star Wars debates because of the bad blood between ST and SW fans. It's a shame to because there are many level-headed people who do actually take a look at both sides of the story and form an opinion based on facts, and not simply what they want to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. An Ancient is a funny lad. I argued with him, about a Stargate related issue, which in the end was putting his scalings into doubt.
    Even when dealing with things that are far below the complex levels of physics, he still got things ultimately wrong. And when he was cornered, not only he used insults, but accused me of doing so and said he was only "reacting".
    http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=84623&page=7
    No wonder why the Spacebattles thread turned sour and glot closed. This and the possibility that the pro-logic side, arguing against those saxtonites, had a decent point.

    Now, back on SW, AOTC is a very interesting movie in the study of firepower capabilities, particularily the geonosian battle.

    In the story of of inflated numbers, we're stuck with a situation where geonosian fighters, at this time firing on Obi-Wan and Anakin's LAAT, do not display the claimed levels of firepower.
    We have enough evidence of this when a bolt hits the tip of a sand dune, and only produces a negligible "puff" of sand.
    It's good to notice that IF we follow the constant "but it's focused" claim they often rely on, then it's a surprise that the bolt didn't go through the tip of that tiny sand dune, while it initially hit it at an upward angle.
    No, it was just stopped dead right there. So much for the super yield.
    There's just as much evidence when these same bolts hit the rocky cliffs of the secret landing bay, and produce negligible rabbit fart explosions.

    Oh, but the weapons were dialed down, because they could kill Dooku.

    1. Even at this pityful level, if Dooku was hit in the chest, he'd die anyway.
    2. If the rabid warsies accept that the geonosian fighters' weapons were firing flak, then even a missing hit from these bolts would still be a threat to Dooku, even at those low yields.

    So either the geonosian fighters have poor cannons, or they were dialed down (but then, it means dialed down from kiloton yields to supersoaker if you want an image).

    In the end, the LAAT was destroyed by a very few direct hits and a several glancing flaks.

    But I guess that these folks would argue that the LAAT's defenses were already and significantly lowered, proved by the fact that the transport already spent all its ordinance, so it obviously spend a good time fighting before catching the Jedi's band.
    Sure, but then let's look at the kind of firepower they faced.

    Battle Droids / Super Battle Droids?
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog45s477.jpg
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog46s481.jpg

    No. Their firepower is extremely low. Their aim is ridiculously horrible. Even their high ROF can barely compensate for such an abysmal aim.
    They're never seen used in an ground-to-air role, safe against targets hovering above the ground, but we can hardly call that "air".

    Droidekas?
    http://liberty.warp1.net/unsorted/droideka.jpg

    Same deal. They have a slightly better aim, but their firepower is very low as well.
    They're never seen used in an ground-to-air role, safe against targets hovering above the ground, but we can hardly call that "air".

    So what?
    Dwarf Spider Droids?
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog26s366.jpg

    Nope. Their firepower is very low as well. It's both evidenced in AOTC and ROTS, during the battle on Kashyyyk (look at the, hum, *craters* left on the sand beach).
    They're never seen used in an ground-to-air role, safe against targets hovering above the ground, but we can hardly call that "air".

    Homing Spider Droids?
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog24s347.jpg

    They're the ground heaviest droid units used against the Republic's army.
    As we can see, they're not that formidable. A beam stroke the ground before the clone troopers, during the sequence where Yoda's LAAT flies above the combat zone. The results are certainly not flattering. There's no flames resulting of the impact. A second hit does produce flames though, but the yield is in this range:
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog25s357.jpg
    On this one, the beam does produce a fire cloud, but as you can see, it's just almost non threatening as long as you're standing four or five meters away from the explosion.

    They're never seen used in an ground-to-air role, safe against targets hovering above the ground, but we can hardly call that "air".

    All these are cases taken from full force engagements, so there's no reason to claim lowered yields, and it's also good to notice that most bolts actually hit the ground at almost horizontal angles, thus nullifying any potential "focused projectile + dig capacity" absurd claim to explain the low explosive reaction when the bolt impacts.

    So we're left with either the geonosian starfighters, which we have already adressed, or the the Hailfire Droids, which can come with either torpedo launchers (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog36s422.jpg) or laser cannons (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog09s271.jpg).

    That's pretty much the only CIS unit ever used for an anti-air purpose.
    As we see, they're using flak weapons.
    Flak bursts can rock the LAATs, but hardly destroy them until a ship gets directly hit.

    We've seen a LAAT being destroyed. Let's look at what happened. A few seconds beforehand, the LAAT was almost directly stroke by bolt. The explosion, occuring to the rear right of the top missile nacelles, shaked the ship violently. But no debris could be seen. No damage, no flames eructing from the ship's structure.
    Visibly, the ship was just shaked. Maybe a few internal systems were slightly compressed by the flak burst, but there's no evidence of that.
    After that, the LAAT, as seen from Mace Windu's perspective, is directly hit in the left forward cannon globe. This produces an explosion which expands, and the flames and debris hit the rest of the ship. We see a secondary explosion occuring in the missiles nacelles, which almost immediately triggers a third explosion in the rear section, definitively crippling the ship.

    So although the ship was completely destroyed, it's good to remember that a direct hit only destroyed its target because of a chain reaction, not because the bolt was powerful enough to instantly turn the ship into a massive fireball (the kind of stuff you'd expect from weapons which are just as big as the ones able to fire in the kiloton range, if we buy the traditional saxtonian crap).
    It's important to notice that the size and luminosity of the flak bursts in that scene are barely greater than the ones of the bursts seen during the pursuit sequence.

    That's pretty much all what a LAAT could fear to go through during that whole battle. And they're shot down by that?

    Again, where are the formidable yields claimed by the rabid warsies?

    Anyway, a simple glimpse of the battles in ROTS is enough to laugh at the tactics and weapons' yields and range, when remembering the absurd figures Saxtonites swing here and there.

    ----

    I agree with Mike regarding the Invisible Hand crash. All the evidence is there. The hull is glowing red hot, large incandescent portions of the hull are constantly stripped off the main structure during reentry (and these parts were NOT hit during the battle, or someone is definitvely making stuff up), and finally the whole underneath structure is squashed by the ship's own weight. Poor against KE but super good against pure energy? A wonder then why all weapons are not just KE based then. To explain this, rabid warsies would once more need to dwelve into murky self contradicting theories full of hot air.
    Wouldn't it be simpler to not make absurd claims, and just stick with what's on screen?
    Yes it would.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with Mike regarding the Invisible Hand crash. All the evidence is there. The hull is glowing red hot, large incandescent portions of the hull are constantly stripped off the main structure during reentry (and these parts were NOT hit during the battle, or someone is definitvely making stuff up), and finally the whole underneath structure is squashed by the ship's own weight. Poor against KE but super good against pure energy? A wonder then why all weapons are not just KE based then. To explain this, rabid warsies would once more need to dwelve into murky self contradicting theories full of hot air.
    Wouldn't it be simpler to not make absurd claims, and just stick with what's on screen?
    Yes it would.

    You know we see SW starships leaving and entering atmosphere all the time: Venators, Acclamators, Trade Federation core ships even TIE fighters and with no ill effects. But why use those ships as benchmark when we can use a ship that has just been damaged so badly it cannot even hold orbit, breaks up before it even hits the atmopshere and is loosing it's artificial gravity. Yeah that's it that's the ticket.

    By the way I see you haven't provided any evidence of how much of the ship was sheared off by the atmosphere nor what exact part of the ship was it. I would like to remind you that the 1cm thick windows for example were completley intact.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Those were controlled descents, not crash landings. Obvious the would not be coming down so fast.

    ReplyDelete
  27. // You know we see SW starships leaving and entering atmosphere all the time: Venators, Acclamators, Trade Federation core ships even TIE fighters and with no ill effects.

    Absolutely none of these cases correspond to the IH event. All these ships were fully functional, had their shields OK, weren't really damaged before hand (though this is not an excuse to explain the hull glowing as you'll see) and above all, we actually never see any of them actualy penetrating the relevant layer of an atmosphere. Everytime we saw them, either they were in high orbit, or below the relevant atmospherical layer.
    And all of them were entering (or eventually leaving) through prefectly controlled trajectories, with controlled speeds, and sometimes very moderate ones. Certainly not ballistic.

    // But why use those ships as benchmark when we can use a ship that has just been damaged so badly it cannot even hold orbit...

    That system is irrelevant to the hull.

    // breaks up before it even hits the atmopshere and is loosing it's artificial gravity.

    It broke up because that part was already damaged, due to former internal explosions. We could see that part of the ship's structure was significantly damaged before it was definitively torn apart, which was not the case of the hull that concerns all of us.

    // By the way I see you haven't provided any evidence of how much of the ship was sheared off by the atmosphere...

    If you want to know how much was sheared, you can simply watch the movie, and witness by yourself. You will easily spot large chunks of the hull being ripped off throughout the whole fall.

    // ...nor what exact part of the ship was it.

    As you'll see when watching the video, the parts in questions are large layers of strictly undamaged hull. It's fairly simple at this point. Anytime an enemy bolt hit the structure, it blew a large hole in the hull. All the forward nose of the IH was largely undamaged. That and several other regions.

    // I would like to remind you that the 1cm thick windows for example were completley intact.

    Look, this vessel can withstand more than 200 gigaton level attacks, since its windows aren't destroyed upon reentry:

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/68097main_nasm_ent_hires.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  28. Absolutely none of these cases correspond to the IH event. All these ships were fully functional, had their shields OK,
    Thans for proving my point for me. They had their "shields OK" unlike the Invisible Hand which lost it's shields and was breaking up before it even entered atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be used to calculate the resistance of the shields of SW ships.

    If you want to know how much was sheared, you can simply watch the movie, and witness by yourself. You will easily spot large chunks of the hull being ripped off throughout the whole fall.
    No, since it is you who are claiming that Invisible Hand disproves ICS numbers it is you who must provide evidence about the amount of material sheared off and provide evidence of any damage.

    Look, this vessel can withstand more than 200 gigaton level attacks, since its windows aren't destroyed upon reentry:

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/68097main_nasm_ent_hires.jpg

    Nice try. It was you who claimed ICS is disproven since Invisible Hand was damaged in atmosphere reentry. I simply showed that not even the windows suffered any visible damage thereby disproving your claims.
    Try to understand that in order to disprove a source, in this case the ICS, you must first provide evidence for your claim, in this case some visible damage Invisible Hand sustained. You have showed none.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You need to read the last few pages of this debate: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=100768

    Unless you have Warsie glasses on, it's impossible for ICS to be true in said case. It's only a issue of inertia and fanboyism that ICS is still being believed.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "No, since it is you who are claiming that Invisible Hand disproves ICS numbers it is you who must provide evidence about the amount of material sheared off and provide evidence of any damage."

    Don't you just love their ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You need to read the last few pages of this debate: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=100768
    Connor Mcleod kicked their asses.


    Unless you have Warsie glasses on, it's impossible for ICS to be true in said case. It's only a issue of inertia and fanboyism that ICS is still being believed.



    "No, since it is you who are claiming that Invisible Hand disproves ICS numbers it is you who must provide evidence about the amount of material sheared off and provide evidence of any damage."

    Don't you just love their ignorance.

    No evidence? No calculations? What a shock.

    ReplyDelete
  32. By the way the moderator that closed the forum is Chris O'Farrel which was a former "trekkie" and part of "Wong is Wrong" group. However once he started thinking logically he realized Star Wars is simply superior.

    ReplyDelete
  33. // Thans for proving my point for me. They had their "shields OK" unlike the Invisible Hand which lost it's shields and was breaking up before it even entered atmosphere. Therefore it cannot be used to calculate the resistance of the shields of SW ships.

    We're not adressing the IH's shields, but the armor, so I'm not proving any point for you. You're just entirely missing the point.

    // No, since it is you who are claiming that Invisible Hand disproves ICS numbers it is you who must provide evidence about the amount of material sheared off and provide evidence of any damage.

    Ok. Listen, I'm clearly not in the mood of debating against a person who immediately and already resorts to such despisable tactics in his/her second post. You watch the film, you use your eyeballs, and you'll see it by yourself, since it's just impossible to miss them.
    Maybe if someone's nice enough, you'll find screenshots on the net, or find a small video.

    // Nice try. It was you who claimed ICS is disproven since Invisible Hand was damaged in atmosphere reentry. I simply showed that not even the windows suffered any visible damage thereby disproving your claims.

    The windows were definitively scorched. Same thing happens with NASA shuttles, and yet I've never heard that they would do a great job withstanding petajoules of direct energy, even less exajoules.

    Possible solutions:
    - Localized shields remaining active. It's not the first time that a bridge would be protected by its own set of localized shields. As a matter of fact, the Executor did.
    - Jedi powers generating a protective Force wall. This is an explanation you'd like. It grants them nice Force powers, and is often used to describe how Jedi can survive lethal impact and nearby explosions.
    - Transparent material (transparisteel) much more efficient against heat conductions (or lack of in fact)... but lousy against pin pointed KE (Grievous' spike shattering one of these windows). This one is quite logical, as the glass wasn't melted. A likely solution.
    - Etc.

    // Try to understand that in order to disprove a source, in this case the ICS, you must first provide evidence for your claim, in this case some visible damage Invisible Hand sustained. You have showed none.

    Ignorance.
    Everybody could notice the damage, and plenty of people before me did. And absolutely everyone who saw the film at least once saw the damage caused to the hull which was glowing super red.

    You may even want to read the novelisation, which exactly agrees with the movie, and provides even more juicy details.

    Technically, the ICS' funky firepower numbers are also disproved by other elements (like the ones I mentionned previously) and even some EU sources. Doesn't mean that all the ICS is wrong in its entirety. However, the aspects, which are the most important to your fellow rabid warsies, are.

    PS: I'm still wondering what happened at Spacebattles.com towards the end of March, since clicking on the Vs. debate forum, which was temporarily unavailable, redirected you to SD.net's boards.

    ReplyDelete
  34. We're not adressing the IH's shields, but the armor, so I'm not proving any point for you. You're just entirely missing the point.
    And where exactly does the ICS claim that armor can withstand 200 gigatons hmmm? It only quantifies it's shields. You are misinterpreting the ICS in order to attack it.
    And I'm supposedly the one using "despisabe tactics".

    ReplyDelete
  35. You know we see SW starships leaving and entering atmosphere all the time: Venators, Acclamators, Trade Federation core ships even TIE fighters and with no ill effects. But why use those ships as benchmark when we can use a ship that has just been damaged so badly it cannot even hold orbit, breaks up before it even hits the atmopshere and is loosing it's artificial gravity. Yeah that's it that's the ticket.
    It should be noted that the Invisible Hand wasn't even in orbit in the first place but hovering using repulsorlifts and was not travelling as fast as a space shuttle say.

    For all we know Star Wars ships never exceed 1000 km/h in atmosphere (and with repulsorlifts able to get them out of an atmosphere why would they need to?).

    ReplyDelete
  36. // And where exactly does the ICS claim that armor can withstand 200 gigatons hmmm? It only quantifies it's shields. You are misinterpreting the ICS in order to attack it.
    And I'm supposedly the one using "despisabe tactics".


    We're also adressing the neutronium based hulls, for the people who can follow. Now stop embarassing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. We're also adressing the neutronium based hulls, for the people who can follow. Now stop embarassing yourself.
    And why would neutronium inside a hull prevent it from being damaged by atmospheric reentry? Neutronium is liquiud and can only be used in blobs inside the hull to increase it thermal resistivity.
    The only one embarassing himself is you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Seems like you've got neutronium confused with adamantium :D

    ReplyDelete
  39. Seems like you've got neutronium confused with adamantium :D
    Seems like you don't know shit about neutronium.

    ReplyDelete
  40. To the Pro-Wars Anonymous person,

    What's SW canon to you? I'm just wondering, not being hostile or anything of the sort. I'm not debating, but I wanted to see what you believe here from more than just the debate here. Again, just curious. I think I figured it out, but I never know if I'm right or wrong unless I ask.

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  41. Everything that carries the title Star Wars is obviously a part of the same universe and it "happend" and it "matters".
    Otherwise what is the point of making such material in the first place if not to expand upon the original Star Wars story.
    Obviously George Lucas is the ultimate owner of SW and whenever other sources clash with his films his films win.
    This entire "EU is part of a parallel universe" was born out of deliberatley misinterpreting Lucas's quotes for the sole purpose of ousting inconvenient evidence.
    Every contradiction with the films should be dealt case by case rather than dismissing the entire EU.
    Quite frankly pro Trek dabters had no problems with EU being a part of "real" SW until ICS books came out and out and pegged SW weapons at 200 gigatons. All of a sudden all hell broke loose: endless seraches for obscure Lucas quotes presented out of context, attacking Dr. Saxton and his personal motives, pretending that if you can find any contradictions between EU and the films than suddenly all of EU was invalid etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't have a problem with the EU today... provided, of course, that when you compare it with Trek, you feel just as free to use the Trek EU, and also provided that you don't use materials that contradict the movies.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I hope he doesn't truly wish to open that door. I can distinctly remember a book called Dark Mirror by Diane Duane, written back in ~1994 dealing with a mirror universe TNG Enteprise. It was written before DS9 started airing their mirror universe episodes, but we could reason it by saying that this is simply a variation on the mirror universe. In it, the Enteprise was capable of producing 800 terrawatts of energy quite easily with just a bit of pushing of the warp core. That's just one example of statistics that we could whip out if he wishes to introduce the Trek EU.

    Or, he could be reasonable, accept that the quotes mean the Star Wars EU is not canon, and ignore the EU of both universes. But then, that would mean admitting that Wars technology is inferior(in most cases) and thus he would never do that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. In it, the Enteprise was capable of producing 800 terrawatts of energy quite easily with just a bit of pushing of the warp core.
    According to the ICS Acclamator has reactor power of 200 billion terrawats so this doesn't change a thing.
    Besides Paramount explicitly stated anything not on TV is speculation. Nevertheless I don't really have a problem with Star Trek novels provided they don't contradict the films or series.

    <

    ReplyDelete
  45. Seems like you don't know shit about neutronium.
    On the contrary, my young uneducated warsie. :)

    I do know that all proposed neutron star core materials are fluids - the trouble is, Star Wars neutronium is described as non-fluid, which means it's not real-world neutronium. Sorry.

    Or, to put it another way - if you have machines capable of keeping RW neutronium from dispersing, you won't need neutronium anymore - those machines would provide superior protection against any from of attack.

    ReplyDelete
  46. On the contrary, my young uneducated warsie. :)

    I do know that all proposed neutron star core materials are fluids - the trouble is, Star Wars neutronium is described as non-fluid, which means it's not real-world neutronium. Sorry.

    If that is the case then how can this SW neutronium be disproved by Invisible Hand incident when we don't even know it's properties?

    Or, to put it another way - if you have machines capable of keeping RW neutronium from dispersing, you won't need neutronium anymore - those machines would provide superior protection against any from of attack.
    Why would neutronium disperse? It's gravitational pull would keep it together.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And why would neutronium inside a hull prevent it from being damaged by atmospheric reentry? Neutronium is liquiud and can only be used in blobs inside the hull to increase it thermal resistivity.
    The only one embarassing himself is you.

    To increase thermal resistivity. If you mean to allow the hull to handle higher temperatures then I would expect it to not be damaged by atmospheric entry.

    As for the phase of Neutronium, we actually don't know if it's a liquid. Our best bet is that it exists as a superfluid inside Neutron stars but we don't actually have any evidence for that (though pulsar glitches and noise are very suggestive). We also don't know how neutronium could be contained outside a neutron star and that might have a very big impact on how it exists (for example Star Trek neutronium outside a neutron star is usually very unsuperfluid like).

    According to the ICS Acclamator has reactor power of 200 billion terrawats so this doesn't change a thing.
    I could get canon quotes from Star Trek that support a much higher power.

    Of course a fusion reactor that could fit into a ship could never get 200 exawatts but then again, rabid warsies are masters at fanwank.

    Why would neutronium disperse? It's gravitational pull would keep it together.
    Yes. If it's in a fucking neutron star.

    Outside a neutron star it ain't gonna star neutronium unless you put quite a bit of effort into making it star that way.

    ReplyDelete
  48. To increase thermal resistivity. If you mean to allow the hull to handle higher temperatures then I would expect it to not be damaged by atmospheric entry.
    Yes but other parts of the hull will still get into contact with the atmosphere and be sheared off especially if the ship has already sustained heavy damage.

    I could get canon quotes from Star Trek that support a much higher power.
    Highere than 200 billion TW? Please do.

    Of course a fusion reactor that could fit into a ship could never get 200 exawatts but then again, rabid warsies are masters at fanwank.
    This is why official literature mentiones hypermatter reactors but we'll conveniently forget all about that won't we?

    Yes. If it's in a fucking neutron star.

    Outside a neutron star it ain't gonna star neutronium unless you put quite a bit of effort into making it star that way.

    And why not? Please explain why would neutronium cease to be neutronium if you remove some from the neutron star? What would it turn into?

    ReplyDelete
  49. This is why official literature mentiones hypermatter reactors but we'll conveniently forget all about that won't we?
    Since ANH and ROTS novelisations has estabilished that Death Star, the most powerful Imperial installation, was powered by fusion reactors, therefore, yeah, we "conveniently forget all about hypermatter reactors" ;D

    And why not? Please explain why would neutronium cease to be neutronium if you remove some from the neutron star? What would it turn into?
    "Seems like you don't know shit about neutronium." Oh, the irony, the irony... :D

    Anyway, read here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWneutronium.html

    ReplyDelete
  50. Since ANH and ROTS novelisations has estabilished that Death Star, the most powerful Imperial installation, was powered by fusion reactors, therefore, yeah, we "conveniently forget all about hypermatter reactors" ;D
    There is quote saying that Death Star has a reactor powered by nuclear fusion? Do tell.

    "Seems like you don't know shit about neutronium." Oh, the irony, the irony... :D

    Anyway, read here:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWneutronium.html

    And that demonstrates what exactly?
    IF you have a point make it idiot don't throw useless links.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There is quote saying that Death Star has a reactor powered by nuclear fusion? Do tell.

    ROTS novelisation: "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."

    ANH novelisation: "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun."

    And, before you revert to the standard Warsie response: No, I'm not saying that there's the dragon living inside every fusion reactor and every sun.

    And that demonstrates what exactly?
    That demonstrates that you need pressure to create and mantain neutronium. Without it you'll end up with collection of rapidly dispersing neutrons.

    Do you understand now, genius?

    ReplyDelete
  52. ROTS novelisation: "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."
    Yes fusion furnaces power everythning from podraces to starships just like diesel engines power everything from cars to ships. That doesn't mean that we have no nuclear powered ships.

    ANH novelisation: "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun."
    This is nothing but articstic description. Nucelar fusion reactor bears no resemblence to a sun. I say again find me a quote that states nuclear fusion reaction is powering Death Star and is't superlaser.

    That demonstrates that you need pressure to create and mantain neutronium. Without it you'll end up with collection of rapidly dispersing neutrons.
    You need pressure to create neutronium once you got it it's not going anywhere. It will likely decay but current science knows little about the rate of decay.

    Do you understand now, genius?
    Much more than you moron.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "And that demonstrates what exactly?
    IF you have a point make it idiot don't throw useless links."

    I love it when they start insulting people in order to get their point across.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "And that demonstrates what exactly?
    IF you have a point make it idiot don't throw useless links."

    I love it when they start insulting people in order to get their point across.

    Ah yes the old "you are mean" argument. Do you have a counter argumet to go with it? No? Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes fusion furnaces power everythning from podraces to starships just like diesel engines power everything from cars to ships. That doesn't mean that we have no nuclear powered ships.
    If we had no ANH quote, your analogy would be correct. Unfortunately for you, we do, and therefore it's not.

    Nucelar fusion reactor bears no resemblence to a sun.
    And yet the first quote directly compares suns with fusion furnances... Sorry.

    It will likely decay but current science knows little about the rate of decay.
    On the contrary, my young Warsie. Outside of pressure of neutron star or nuclei free neutrons are unstable and decay with a half-life of just under 15 minutes.

    Ah yes the old "you are mean" argument.
    In case you haven't noticed, it was simply an observation about your silly tactic, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If we had no ANH quote, your analogy would be correct. Unfortunately for you, we do, and therefore it's not.
    A quote which states Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion? I'm still waiting.

    And yet the first quote directly compares suns with fusion furnances... Sorry.
    Yes it does and yet nuclear fusion in reactors will bear no resemblence to that of a sun. This is why it's called artistic description idiot.

    On the contrary, my young Warsie. Outside of pressure of neutron star or nuclei free neutrons are unstable and decay with a half-life of just under 15 minutes.
    Yes free neutrons but neutrons in neutronium are not free but exist as a form of superdense fluid.

    ReplyDelete
  57. A quote which states Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion?
    I have already provided two quotes that suggest exactly that. It shouldn't be hard to understand their implications.

    Yes it does and yet nuclear fusion in reactors will bear no resemblence to that of a sun.
    Oh, this one has rather obvious explanation: in Star Wars, fusion furnances bear striking resemblance to natural fusion process in suns. As per canon quote from novelisation.

    And before you start shouting "But it's not scientifically possible!", neither is Force. And Warp drive. And turbolasers. And phasers. Etc, etc.

    George Lucas would like us to believe that fusion furnances are similiar to actual suns? That's his perogrative, even if it's not scientifically possible, as you may claim.

    So, unless you want to ignore George Lucas... again... you're stuck with those facts.

    Yes free neutrons but neutrons in neutronium are not free but exist as a form of superdense fluid.
    Only because of intense pressure inside the neutron star.

    (actually, according to what Mike Wong used to say about that matter (before he realized it hurts Star Wars position), any neutronium outside neutron star would blow up in a burst of particle radiation. Atonishing, huh? ;D )

    ReplyDelete
  58. A quote which states Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion?
    I have already provided two quotes that suggest exactly that. It shouldn't be hard to understand their implications.

    Yes it does and yet nuclear fusion in reactors will bear no resemblence to that of a sun.
    Oh, this one has rather obvious explanation: in Star Wars, fusion furnances bear striking resemblance to natural fusion process in suns. As per canon quote from novelisation.

    And before you start shouting "But it's not scientifically possible!", neither is Force. And Warp drive. And turbolasers. And phasers. Etc, etc.

    George Lucas would like us to believe that fusion furnances are similiar to actual suns? That's his perogrative, even if it's not scientifically possible, as you may claim.

    So, unless you want to ignore George Lucas... again... you're stuck with those facts.

    Yes free neutrons but neutrons in neutronium are not free but exist as a form of superdense fluid.
    Only because of intense pressure inside the neutron star.

    (actually, according to what Mike Wong used to say about that matter (before he realized it hurts Star Wars position), any neutronium outside neutron star would blow up in a burst of particle radiation. Atonishing, huh? ;D )

    ReplyDelete
  59. I have already provided two quotes that suggest exactly that. It shouldn't be hard to understand their implications.
    And I have already explained why neither of those quotes prove that fusion powers Death Star and every starship in the galaxy. This entire blog entry was about Saxton and ICS being wrong. Prove it.

    Oh, this one has rather obvious explanation: in Star Wars, fusion furnances bear striking resemblance to natural fusion process in suns. As per canon quote from novelisation.
    What canon quote? Where does it say that SW nuclear fusion reactors bear a resemblence with the sun? Do you understand what artistic expression and figure of speech is? If the author wanted to be literal he would simply say "the liberated energy of nuclear fusion reactor".

    And before you start shouting "But it's not scientifically possible!", neither is Force. And Warp drive. And turbolasers. And phasers. Etc, etc.
    George Lucas would like us to believe that fusion furnances are similiar to actual suns? That's his perogrative, even if it's not scientifically possible, as you may claim.
    So, unless you want to ignore George Lucas... again... you're stuck with those facts.

    So there is the Force and FTL travel, so what? If you saw a person shooting lightining from his fingers and jumping 20m into air would you discard all scientific principles because of that? Sorry kid but it doesn't work that way.
    And once again: where does it say that suns are similar to nuclear fusion reactors in ANH novel?

    Only because of intense pressure inside the neutron star.

    (actually, according to what Mike Wong used to say about that matter (before he realized it hurts Star Wars position), any neutronium outside neutron star would blow up in a burst of particle radiation. Atonishing, huh? ;D )

    Not if the said civilization had the ability to manipulate gravity which incidentaly SW does. Besides this is a discussion of wether ICS is right or wrong and I don't recall the ICS saying anything about neutronium hulls.

    ReplyDelete
  60. And I have already explained why neither of those quotes prove that fusion powers Death Star and every starship in the galaxy.
    And I have already explained why your explanations are incorrect. Sorry, but stating "It's an artistic expression! It's simply a figure of speech!" is not enough.

    And, incidentally, what's the deal with "every starship in the galaxy" stuff? Was I claiming that fusion furnances power every starship in the galaxy? No, I wasn't.

    If you're lost, I'll restate my point:
    Death Star reactor is without the doubt the most powerful Imperial power source. It stands to reason it is also the most advanced reactor of its time.

    You with me so far?

    So, if the most powerful and advanced power source is based on fusion, then other, less advanced and less powerful reactors cannot possibly be based on radically different and thousand of times more powerful technology. Got it?

    This entire blog entry was about Saxton and ICS being wrong. Prove it.
    If Death Star reactor represents the most powerful starwarsish reactor ever, then if it's fusion based, then it disproves ICS firepower figures.

    And, since it is...

    (and, incidentally, our comments are no longer abot Saxton and ICS specifically, in case you haven't noticed)

    Where does it say that SW nuclear fusion reactors bear a resemblence with the sun?
    "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."

    If the author wanted to be literal (...)
    Seems to me he didn't want to be. Sorry, gramps.

    If you saw a person shooting lightining from his fingers and jumping 20m into air would you discard all scientific principles because of that?
    Yes if I've had an inside-universe explanation like "this is our focused ki power. It allows us to shoot ki blasts and defy the gravity".

    We are dealing with fictional world here, with fictional materials, fictional explanations, and fictional power sources. Sorry, old man.

    Not if the said civilization had the ability to manipulate gravity which incidentaly SW does.
    And this ability works even on wreckages? Or half-burnt ships falling through the atmosphere?

    Besides this is a discussion of wether ICS is right or wrong
    Not at this point.

    "We're also adressing the neutronium based hulls, for the people who can follow. Now stop embarassing yourself."

    ReplyDelete
  61. And I have already explained why your explanations are incorrect. Sorry, but stating "It's an artistic expression! It's simply a figure of speech!" is not enough.
    No you didn't. You simply insist on literal interpretation even though the author was clearly using a figure of speech. "Small artificial sun", what is that anyway?

    If you're lost, I'll restate my point:
    Death Star reactor is without the doubt the most powerful Imperial power source. It stands to reason it is also the most advanced reactor of its time.
    You with me so far?
    So, if the most powerful and advanced power source is based on fusion, then other, less advanced and less powerful reactors cannot possibly be based on radically different and thousand of times more powerful technology. Got it?

    Except there is no evidence that Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion. Sorry.

    If Death Star reactor represents the most powerful starwarsish reactor ever, then if it's fusion based, then it disproves ICS firepower figures.
    And, since it is...
    (and, incidentally, our comments are no longer abot Saxton and ICS specifically, in case you haven't noticed)

    Actually since the Death Star blew up a planet it most ceartainly doesn't disprove ICS figures. And I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we should accept your interpretation of ANH quote over official numbers in ICS.

    >>Where does it say that SW nuclear fusion reactors bear a resemblence with the sun?
    "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."

    And the part that states that SW fusion reactors are similar to suns is?

    >>If the author wanted to be literal (...)
    Seems to me he didn't want to be. Sorry, gramps.

    Bwahahahaha! Holy cow you but you are one dumb little shit! NO he didn't want to be literal that's the point! Therefore we cannot take the authors description of "small artificial sun" literaly therefore it's a figure of speech. Looks like you got so lost in your own bullshit you cannot even keep your story starigth.



    We are dealing with fictional world here, with fictional materials, fictional explanations, and fictional power sources. Sorry, old man.

    Can you get any more self contradicting?
    First you insist that nuclear fusion in SW is the real world nuclear fusion with all real world limitations but now all of a sudden it's a "fictional power source" that is different then real world fusion.
    So how the hell can you know it's limitations? How the hell can you know that this funky "fictional universe" fusion isnt more powerful than real world fusion?

    And this ability works even on wreckages? Or half-burnt ships falling through the atmosphere?
    Hmmm could this be the reason it's hull was being damaged?

    Not at this point.
    "We're also adressing the neutronium based hulls, for the people who can follow. Now stop embarassing yourself."

    Of course you don't since you know that you utterly failed to provide any evidence against ICS so now you try to divert the discussion. Quite frankly I don't give a shit, be it real world or "SW world" neutronium ICS stands and it's numbers stand.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Small artificial sun", what is that anyway?
    A fusion furnance, for example. :)

    Except there is no evidence
    except that provided above...
    that Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion.

    Actually since the Death Star blew up a planet it most certainly doesn't disprove ICS figures.
    It does if it merely have the power, not the firepower to do that. Do you understand that distinction?

    nd I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we should accept your interpretation of ANH quote over official numbers in ICS.
    You cannot "still" wait for something recently introduced.

    Anyway, we can accept my (and others) interpretation of ANH and ROTS quote over numbers in ICS because of reasons explained in blog post.

    And the part that states that SW fusion reactors are similar to suns is?
    "smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces".

    Do I have to break it further for you? If you require further help, don't hesitate to ask.

    NO he didn't want to be literal that's the point!
    And thus he used less literal expression, which, together with ROTS quote tells us what we need to know. That's the whole point. Now go wash your mouth with soap.

    ("dumb little shit"? Really, elders these days... ;))

    First you insist that nuclear fusion in SW is the real world nuclear fusion with all real world limitations but now all of a sudden it's a "fictional power source" that is different then real world fusion.
    Um, no. Read what I wrote again.

    Hmmm could this be the reason it's hull was being damaged?
    Well... interesting claim. Care to prove it?

    Of course you don't since you know that you utterly failed to provide any evidence against ICS so now you try to divert the discussion.
    Of course I do, since I know that I've sufficiently and patiently explained to you why ICS numbers cannot possibly be right, so now's time to cover other topics which were brought up in those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Typical rabid foaming at the mouth Warsie. No real evidence, no arguements, and lots of twisting of words.

    The so-called neutronium hull of the IH is nothing of the sort. We saw the hull itself glowing red-hot underneath the plasma sheath during entry. We saw a good-sized chunk fall off from a part of the vessel that had not been hit by any of the RSS Mas Ramdar's TLs. We saw when the ship came into contact with the runway on Courscant that the inital small part of the undercarriage literally glowed almost white-hot, and started to grind away, then the ship heeled over as the entire underside collapsed under the ship's weight.

    That is the point brought up here, and it still stands. As does the fact that anyone with a shred of honesty who watched the movie would have noticed these things. Instead what we have are Rabid Warsies screaming and pissing and trying to come up with apologetics since they know that it means their precious AoTC ICS is wrong, and their fankwank about SW hull armor is clearly wrong. It is by simple extension that if the hulls of SW ships glow red-hot during an atmospheric entry from less-than-orbital velocities, it only logically follows that the ludicriously over-inflated ICS firepower numbers might, or are wrong as well.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  64. No you didn't. You simply insist on literal interpretation even though the author was clearly using a figure of speech.

    First there is no way "small artificial sun" can be considered to be a literary device, it is simply too percise a discription.


    Second since you are trying to argue author intent you obviously have never heard of spention of disbelief, look it up.

    "Small artificial sun", what is that anyway?

    A small man made sun used for power perhaps?

    Except there is no evidence that Death Star is powered by nuclear fusion. Sorry.


    Did you even read the two quotes? One says SW fusion reactor are like a sun (ROTS) and the other discribes the power source of the Death Star as a "small artifical sun". Do the math.

    Actually since the Death Star blew up a planet it most ceartainly doesn't disprove ICS figures.

    Simple the Death Star does not ICS level fire power in order to be consistant with canon and the death star is not capable of producing the necissary energy so the ICS is a mute point.

    And I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we should accept your interpretation of ANH quote over official numbers in ICS.

    Because said interpitations are the only that are logical.

    And the part that states that SW fusion reactors are similar to suns is?

    Let me spell this out: acording to myth dragons live in the suns, smaller dragons live in fusion furnaces, the habitat is logically the same only smaller so the inside of a fusion reactor is like the inside of the sun, fusion furnaces power starships. Therefore starships are powered by fusion that is very similar to that which takes place inside a sun.

    Bwahahahaha! Holy cow you but you are one dumb little shit!

    Ad Hominem

    NO he didn't want to be literal that's the point! Therefore we cannot take the authors description of "small artificial sun" literaly therefore it's a figure of speech. Looks like you got so lost in your own bullshit you cannot even keep your story starigth.

    Supension of disbelief renders the whole point mute.

    Can you get any more self contradicting?
    First you insist that nuclear fusion in SW is the real world nuclear fusion with all real world limitations but now all of a sudden it's a "fictional power source" that is different then real world fusion.
    So how the hell can you know it's limitations? How the hell can you know that this funky "fictional universe" fusion isnt more powerful than real world fusion?


    Let me try and set the record stright. In sci-fi we are constantly faced with technology that can do things that are impossible by modern day standards, therefore we assume that our current understanding of physics is wrong. This does not mean all the rules go out the window, it mean that we use modern science but when faced with something like warp drive we for the purpose of analys we assume it is possible.

    Of course you don't since you know that you utterly failed to provide any evidence against ICS so now you try to divert the discussion. Quite frankly I don't give a shit, be it real world or "SW world" neutronium ICS stands and it's numbers stand.

    other people have already been over this but I will go over it again. There is no way neutronium armour which is meant to with stand a few 200GT shots is going to glow red hot and just fall off in an uncontrolled reentry, expecailly the part that were not damaged but fell off.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Yes but other parts of the hull will still get into contact with the atmosphere and be sheared off especially if the ship has already sustained heavy damage.
    So basically neutronium would be useless for a Star Wars ship since parts of the hull would come off and the neutronium would be unable to provide any thermal resistance.

    Highere than 200 billion TW? Please do.
    Amanda : "It's hard to imagine how much energy is harnessed in there."
    Data : "Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating twelve point seven five billion gigawatts per-"

    From "TNG: True Q"

    Enterprise orbiting a planet and therefore not using the Warp drive yet the warp drive is already producing a heap of power.

    Seven : "The optical assembly is properly aligned. I am ready to access the main power supply."
    Kim : "After you."

    Kim : "Wait! What are you doing, there are five million gigawatts running through there!"
    Seven : "The exoskeleton on this limb can withstand it."

    A single conduit powering something which is not the warp drive but a main power supply for one of the sensors has 5 petawatts runing through it.

    And why not? Please explain why would neutronium cease to be neutronium if you remove some from the neutron star? What would it turn into?
    <IMITATE PERSON_TYPE="Warsie">Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand science or anything else</IMITATE>

    Neutronium exists under very high pressure where the neutrons are forced together by gravity. Take Neutronium outside a neutron star and it isn't going to be under very high pressure so those neutrons will only have the strong nuclear force to keep them together and that only works over very short distances.

    Now add to that the fact that without the high pressures neutrons will decay into protons and electrons (while releasing an antineutrino) with a half life of 15 minutes you're going to get some charged particles in there which will repel each other and blow the whole thing apart (remember than neutrons can only attract their nearest neighbours while protons can repel any protons around).

    Neutronium isn't going to last very long outside the conditions of a neutron star unless you force it to last.

    IF you have a point make it idiot don't throw useless links.
    Did you ever consider whether the link might just make the point?

    Typical Warsie.

    Yes fusion furnaces power everythning from podraces to starships just like diesel engines power everything from cars to ships. That doesn't mean that we have no nuclear powered ships.
    So? It's not like nuclear powered ships are any faster than steam-powered ships.

    Yes it does and yet nuclear fusion in reactors will bear no resemblence to that of a sun.
    Most reactors on Earth use Deuterium and Tritium because that is the easiest to ignite even though it produces lots of fast neutrons and makes the reactor vessel radioactive enough to be high level waste after a few years.

    D+D would probably be used in most Star Wars ships fusion reactors and is used in Star Trek ships. The Death Star though would have a much bigger reactor and so would be capable of fusion Hydrogen just like a main sequence star thereby making the artificial term very applicable.

    Yes free neutrons but neutrons in neutronium are not free but exist as a form of superdense fluid.
    Take neutronium outside a neutron star and it'll end up becoming a bunch of free neutrons.

    So there is the Force and FTL travel, so what? If you saw a person shooting lightining from his fingers and jumping 20m into air would you discard all scientific principles because of that? Sorry kid but it doesn't work that way.
    I take it you've never heard of the Force Skeptics?

    ReplyDelete
  66. >>"Small artificial sun", what is that anyway?
    A fusion furnance, for example. :)

    Really? So fusion furnaces have a photosphere, corona, core just like suns? How big is that "small sun"? Surely bigger than Jupiter for example since it is too small to become a fusion powered star. I guess Death Star is million km across then.

    It does if it merely have the power, not the firepower to do that. Do you understand that distinction?
    Actually as seen in the films it does have the firepower.

    You cannot "still" wait for something recently introduced.
    Anyway, we can accept my (and others) interpretation of ANH and ROTS quote over numbers in ICS because of reasons explained in blog post.

    You explained nothing except for your desire for EU to be a parallel universe that doesn't count.

    "smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces".
    Do I have to break it further for you? If you require further help, don't hesitate to ask.

    So not only you are stupid but you don't have the ability to read. It only states that fusion-dragons are smaller cousins of sun-drugins it doesn't state anything about the nature of the fusion.

    And thus he used less literal expression, which, together with ROTS quote tells us what we need to know. That's the whole point. Now go wash your mouth with soap.

    ("dumb little shit"? Really, elders these days... ;))

    Could you please make at least two consecutive posts that are self consistent? In last post you said "Seems to me he didn't want to be[literal]. Sorry, gramps." and now you turn around and say that he has? Make up your mind.

    Um, no. Read what I wrote again.
    So you are saying that real nuclear fusion is or isn't the same as SW nuclear fusion? If it is then "small artificial sun" cannot possibly be literal and if it isn't then we have no knowledge about the limitation of this "SW fusion". It's a lose-lose proposition for fanatical Trekkies though. Though break.

    Well... interesting claim. Care to prove it?
    I don't need to prove a damn thing to defend ICS. I only have to come up with a reasonable explanation. You on the other hand who claim that ICS cannot possibly be reconciled with the films do have to prove how and why.

    Of course I do, since I know that I've sufficiently and patiently explained to you why ICS numbers cannot possibly be right, so now's time to cover other topics which were brought up in those comments.
    Sure you did. And you wonder why your threads on Spacebattles get locked and you get warnings.

    First there is no way "small artificial sun" can be considered to be a literary device, it is simply too percise a discription.
    Second since you are trying to argue author intent you obviously have never heard of spention of disbelief, look it up.

    Too precise? Do you know that a sun in order to maintain fusion must be at least 10 times more massive than Jupiter? Are you saying Death Star is bigger than Jupiter? And suspension of disbelief doesn't have anything to do with it, we are discussiong wether a description should be taken literaly or not. It obviously shouldn't.

    >>"Small artificial sun", what is that anyway?
    A small man made sun used for power perhaps?

    See above. A nuclear fusion reactor will bear no resemblence to a sun and to describe it as such is a clear indicator that artistic description was being used.

    Did you even read the two quotes? One says SW fusion reactor are like a sun (ROTS) and the other discribes the power source of the Death Star as a "small artifical sun". Do the math.
    No you liar. The first quote states that sun-dragons inside a sun are similar to sun-dragons inside a fusion reactor. The second quote states that debris from Death Star was scattered by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. It describes the amount of energy not the mechanisam.

    Simple the Death Star does not ICS level fire power in order to be consistant with canon and the death star is not capable of producing the necissary energy so the ICS is a mute point.
    Yes it does. Darkstars idiotic explanation of "matter being prepared by the superlaser related hyperspace domain" notwithstanding.
    Besides in order to disprove ICS you must prove that Death Star in fact did not deliver the said amount of energy.

    Supension of disbelief renders the whole point mute.
    Suspension of disbelief doesn't have anything to do with it. The author never mentiones fusion. It is you and only you who is trying to interpret the "small artificial sun" as nuclear fusion reactor.

    Let me try and set the record stright. In sci-fi we are constantly faced with technology that can do things that are impossible by modern day standards, therefore we assume that our current understanding of physics is wrong. This does not mean all the rules go out the window, it mean that we use modern science but when faced with something like warp drive we for the purpose of analys we assume it is possible.
    Exactly. But kazeite wants to have it both ways. On one hand he claims that nuclear fusion in SW is the same as ours when it comes to power limitation but completley different than ours when it comes to mechanism and appearance.

    other people have already been over this but I will go over it again. There is no way neutronium armour which is meant to with stand a few 200GT shots is going to glow red hot and just fall off in an uncontrolled reentry, expecailly the part that were not damaged but fell off.
    Am I reaching you people at all?
    NEVER IN THE ENTIRE ICS OR ANYWHERE IN SW HAS ANYONE CLAIMED THAT ARMOUR CAN WITHSTAND THAT AMOUNT OF POWER.
    ICS ONLY QUANTIFIES THE SHIELDS WHICH WERE DOWN WHEN INVISIBLE HAND HIT THE ATMOSPHERE.

    Amanda : "It's hard to imagine how much energy is harnessed in there."
    Data : "Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating twelve point seven five billion gigawatts per-"
    From "TNG: True Q"
    Enterprise orbiting a planet and therefore not using the Warp drive yet the warp drive is already producing a heap of power.

    Per what? Data didn't finish the sentence did the? Even if we do assume that "per" part didn't exist that is still 12.5 million TW or 16000 times less than Acclamator.

    Seven : "The optical assembly is properly aligned. I am ready to access the main power supply."
    Kim : "After you."
    Kim : "Wait! What are you doing, there are five million gigawatts running through there!"
    Seven : "The exoskeleton on this limb can withstand it."
    A single conduit powering something which is not the warp drive but a main power supply for one of the sensors has 5 petawatts runing through it.

    5000TW? How is that even close to 200 billion TW?

    So? It's not like nuclear powered ships are any faster than steam-powered ships.
    Speed is not the only measure of performance. How do operational ranges add up hmm?

    Most reactors on Earth use Deuterium and Tritium because that is the easiest to ignite even though it produces lots of fast neutrons and makes the reactor vessel radioactive enough to be high level waste after a few years.
    D+D would probably be used in most Star Wars ships fusion reactors and is used in Star Trek ships. The Death Star though would have a much bigger reactor and so would be capable of fusion Hydrogen just like a main sequence star thereby making the artificial term very applicable.

    But not in literal sense. The quote never said anything about mechanism and you will have to prove your interpretation of the quote is accurate in order to disprove the ICS.

    I take it you've never heard of the Force Skeptics?
    This is obviously intended to be a parody and if it isn't the the guy is a moron. Who were Palpatine and Yoda trying to fool when they were fighting? For whose benefit did Palpatine shoot the lightning when Mace and Anakin were in the room? Was he trying to impress the same people who were a part of this sham? Seriously the lengths at which fanatic Trekkies will go never ceases to amaze me.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Then why name the material neutronium, and specify that it's the solid state one, if its properties are unknown, and scientifically hard to bring to the realm reality?
    Mr Saxton wanted to sound scientific and threw neutronium as "wow, super hyper tough material under solid form X".

    Anyway, the hull's reaction to friction simply shows that there's no super tough material of unknown composition at play, there's no way to deny that (in spite of your multiple attempts of ignorance) and Saxton just threw neutronium for the sake of it, but it certainly has nothing to do with what you expect it to do, that is, resist to insane firepower.

    Which amuses me, since if SW's solid neutronium is just so shitty (and couldn't really eixst anyway without implying some tech that would make the neutronium based hull useless), then what tells us that the gigatons refered in the ICS are the same as the ones we use on Earth? It could be gigatons of very weak explosives, largely weaker than TNT. As long as Saxton just throws scientific terms to impress the plebe without even caring to see if it fits or make sense, then we can just pretend that all these supposedly contemporary terms filling the ICS point to things in Star Wars which aren't things we know, use or refer to on Earth.
    Sounds stupid, but Saxton's claim is. I'm just following his trail of non sense.


    // And I have already explained why neither of those quotes prove that fusion powers Death Star and every starship in the galaxy. This entire blog entry was about Saxton and ICS being wrong. Prove it.


    Let's be logic. The Death Star is the top notch, groud breaking, ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It needs the largest amounts of power ever needed thus far (by the time of a DS existence). It's therefore ought to possess the most efficient and powerful generators available.

    Thus, if ships and vehicles, mostly civilian, being largely older or built during the same era, house generators which aren't based on the same technology, I hardly see why they'd be more efficient. Especially since we're talking about all sorts and types of ships (and even atmospherical vehicles), not necessarily warships.

    - You claim: They're not the same, so a ship's reactor could easily be more efficent and powerful than a DS reactor scaled to the ship's one.
    - Me: No. If even lousy podracers used more efficient reactors, then the Death Star would have them.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Surely bigger than Jupiter for example since it is too small to become a fusion powered star. I guess Death Star is million km across then.
    Natuarl suns have to be rather large but artifical suns don't have to be as large (and if they Empire couldn't make an artificial sun smaller than a natural one I'd say they were pretty damn crap).

    The reason it is possible to get an artificial sun that is smaller than a natuarl one is because natural suns have to rely on gravity to get the pressure to start fusion while artificial suns can use other methods.

    So you are saying that real nuclear fusion is or isn't the same as SW nuclear fusion? If it is then "small artificial sun" cannot possibly be literal and if it isn't then we have no knowledge about the limitation of this "SW fusion". It's a lose-lose proposition for fanatical Trekkies though. Though break.
    Fusion in Star Wars and Star Trek is expected to follow the laws of physics that we know of.

    Though given the technology we see in Star Wars I would find it very hard to believe they couldn't make a fusion reactor fusing protium fit inside the Death Star.

    Too precise? Do you know that a sun in order to maintain fusion must be at least 10 times more massive than Jupiter?
    Quite a lot more than that if you want protium to fuse.

    But that is for a natural sun which requires enough mass for gravity to create the core pressures needed for fusion to occur.

    But what if you aren't talking about a natural sun but an artificial sun with a containment system?

    THEN THE MINIMUM MASS DOESN'T FUCKING APPLY.

    See above. A nuclear fusion reactor will bear no resemblence to a sun and to describe it as such is a clear indicator that artistic description was being used.
    Well if it is using fusion then it does bear a resemblence to the sun.

    The second quote states that debris from Death Star was scattered by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. It describes the amount of energy not the mechanisam.
    "Liberated energy of a small artificial sun". It is quite clear that the energy was coming from A SMALL ARTIFICIAL SUN.

    There is no way that it could refer to the amount of energy.

    Per what?
    I suspect it may have been per volume (so per cubic metre maybe).

    Data didn't finish the sentence did the? Even if we do assume that "per" part didn't exist that is still 12.5 million TW or 16000 times less than Acclamator.
    When the Enterprise was in orbit and not using it's warp drive. Nor were they using any weapons or shields so it would be very unlikely that they were running at anything close a permille.

    5000TW? How is that even close to 200 billion TW?
    A single conduit for a sensor has that much power running through it in normal operation.

    That is a lot of power for a sensor but could only possibly be a fraction of what the ship is generating at the time which would be millions of TW without use of the warp drive.

    Turn the warp drive on and you get well into the billions for a ship smaller than the one in the ICS.

    This is obviously intended to be a parody and if it isn't the the guy is a moron. Who were Palpatine and Yoda trying to fool when they were fighting? For whose benefit did Palpatine shoot the lightning when Mace and Anakin were in the room? Was he trying to impress the same people who were a part of this sham? Seriously the lengths at which fanatic Trekkies will go never ceases to amaze me.
    LOL.

    Oh well, whenever a Warsie comes up with a stupid claim I'll just link to that.

    Mr. Oragahn
    Which amuses me, since if SW's solid neutronium is just so shitty (and couldn't really eixst anyway without implying some tech that would make the neutronium based hull useless), then what tells us that the gigatons refered in the ICS are the same as the ones we use on Earth? It could be gigatons of very weak explosives, largely weaker than TNT.
    Completely true.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Really? So fusion furnaces have a photosphere, corona, core just like suns?
    Why should they?

    Actually as seen in the films it does have the firepower.
    Star Wars films clearly show (and explictly state) that Death Star has only power, not firepower, to destroy entire worlds.

    You explained nothing except for your desire for EU to be a parallel universe that doesn't count.
    :blink, blink: What are you talking about?

    So not only you are stupid but you don't have the ability to read.
    Ad hominem. And, pretty silly, I hasten to add :)

    So you are saying that real nuclear fusion is or isn't the same as SW nuclear fusion?
    No. I'm saying that SW neutronium cannot possibly be real world neutronium, precisely because EU tells us so. At the same time, I'm saying that fusion reactors use the same principles as real world fusion reactors, precisely because novelisation tells us so.

    It only states that fusion-dragons are smaller cousins of sun-drugins it doesn't state anything about the nature of the fusion.
    As mentioned above: same mythic animals mean same environment. It shouldn't be too hard to understand.

    Could you please make at least two consecutive posts that are self consistent?
    Yeah, no problem. Why do you ask?

    and now you turn around and say that he has?
    Um, no. Read what I wrote again.

    So you are saying that real nuclear fusion is or isn't the same as SW nuclear fusion?
    I'm saying that SW neutronium cannot possibly be real world neutronium, precisely because EU tells us so. At the same time, I'm saying that fusion reactors use the same principles as real world fusion reactors, precisely because novelisation tells us so.

    It's a lose-lose proposition for fanatical Warsies though. Sorry.

    I don't need to prove a damn thing to defend ICS.
    Yes you do. It was your theory, so you have to prove it. I've proved my stance, so it's simply a matter of wanting to be taken seriously and returning the courtesy.

    You on the other hand who claim that ICS cannot possibly be reconciled with the films do have to prove how and why.
    And I did. Are we done then?

    And you wonder why your threads on Spacebattles get locked and you get warnings.
    :blink, blink: What are you talking about? I've never posted anything on Spacebattles. Seems like you're one little confused Warsie... ;)

    Besides in order to disprove ICS you must prove that Death Star in fact did not deliver the said amount of energy.
    We already did. So, it means we're done, right?

    But kazeite wants to have it both ways.
    It's called "consistent approach" - meaning I throw science out of the window only when situation requires me to do so. It's fun - you should try it.

    (And it's Kazeite, with capital K.)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Yet Another AnonymousThu May 25, 09:01:00 AM 2006

    Too precise? Do you know that a sun in order to maintain fusion must be at least 10 times more massive than Jupiter? Are you saying Death Star is bigger than Jupiter? And suspension of disbelief doesn't have anything to do with it, we are discussiong wether a description should be taken literaly or not. It obviously shouldn't.

    I am saying that an artifical sun, one that is discribed to be small is described by canon to be the power source of the DS.

    No you liar. The first quote states that sun-dragons inside a sun are similar to sun-dragons inside a fusion reactor. The second quote states that debris from Death Star was scattered by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun.

    No, qoute one describes the inside of a fusion reactor as sun like, quote two describes the engery liberated by the small artifical sun powering the DS. Simple enough for you?

    It describes the amount of energy not the mechanisam.

    Concession acepted. A small sun at the very most would have 1e26w, too little to produce 1e38j in any resonable time. So by your own words DET superlasers are impossible. pwned.

    Yes it does. Darkstars idiotic explanation of "matter being prepared by the superlaser related hyperspace domain" notwithstanding.
    Besides in order to disprove ICS you must prove that Death Star in fact did not deliver the said amount of energy.


    Instead of insulting people like an ignorant fanboy, how about you actually try to disprove Darkstar's theory. You know the one formed from observation and canon evidence with supporting points to back it up. Kind of like that whole scientific method thing Wong is always bringing up.

    Suspension of disbelief doesn't have anything to do with it. The author never mentiones fusion. It is you and only you who is trying to interpret the "small artificial sun" as nuclear fusion reactor.

    Right, because we so frequently see non-fusion powered suns, oh wait a minute, we don't. Second you were trying to argue author's intent which is invalid under SoD.

    Exactly. But kazeite wants to have it both ways. On one hand he claims that nuclear fusion in SW is the same as ours when it comes to power limitation but completley different than ours when it comes to mechanism and appearance.

    Which is entirly resonalbe giving the evidence.

    Am I reaching you people at all?
    NEVER IN THE ENTIRE ICS OR ANYWHERE IN SW HAS ANYONE CLAIMED THAT ARMOUR CAN WITHSTAND THAT AMOUNT OF POWER.
    ICS ONLY QUANTIFIES THE SHIELDS WHICH WERE DOWN WHEN INVISIBLE HAND HIT THE ATMOSPHERE.


    You might of not claimed that but canon does. we see unshielded ships being hit with TL that do not tear through the ship like a hot knife through butter, therefore armour can partialy with stand TL. Therefore when said armour gets destroyed by uncontroled reentry which is no where near 200GT of energy the ICS must be wrong.

    5000TW? How is that even close to 200 billion TW?

    When it is a single power conduit to a single sub system that is in no way related to tactical systems on a light cruiser/

    ReplyDelete
  71. You know, what if Data wasn't gonna really say a time after the "per" bit, as the script suggests? I've heard of a reference to antimatter waste or something in either Voyager of Enterprise, so what if he was actually gonna say "...per [number of mass used]"? I think Darkstar still has that uber antimatter page still up with the TOS example of atmospheric removal. It makes more sense than thinking he's gonna say a time.

    ReplyDelete
  72. This is getting a bit too long so I will sum up some of your claims.

    About "artificial sun"
    You claim that articial sun quote is literal and then go on to claim that we should assume that the same mechanism is found in Death Star reactor. When I point out that sun cannot possibly be scaled down to a size of 10km or so you retort that the mechanism actually isn't the same thereby admitting that we shouldn't use that quote literaly in the first place.

    Concession acepted. A small sun at the very most would have 1e26w, too little to produce 1e38j in any resonable time. So by your own words DET superlasers are impossible. pwned.
    Read the novel again it said liberated energy. That means total energy not what it produced inside one second. A sun does indeed have a power output of 4*10^26W but it takes about a million years for the created energy to exit to the surface which means that our sun contains some 10^40J. Which means that "liberated energy" of our sun would be 100 times greater than 10^38J leaving plenty of room for a "small artifical sun" to have 10^38J.
    Another one bites the dust. Commence Trekkie whining.

    You might of not claimed that but canon does. we see unshielded ships being hit with TL that do not tear through the ship like a hot knife through butter, therefore armour can partialy with stand TL. Therefore when said armour gets destroyed by uncontroled reentry which is no where near 200GT of energy the ICS must be wrong.
    And evidence that shield were down is? Evidence that turbolasers were on full power was? Need I remind you that Palpatine the mastermind behind the attack was aboard Invisible Hand at that time?

    Instead of insulting people like an ignorant fanboy, how about you actually try to disprove Darkstar's theory. You know the one formed from observation and canon evidence with supporting points to back it up. Kind of like that whole scientific method thing Wong is always bringing up.
    Because he has no theory which I could attack imbecile. You migth find this shocking but "The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain." is not a theory. It doesn't explain a damned thing and it offers no equations or predictions through which we could test it. What are these superlaser particles? How do they create this energy field? Why does this energy field sets of a mass-energy conversion? How is this related to hyperspace domain? What is hyperspace domain?

    Right, because we so frequently see non-fusion powered suns, oh wait a minute, we don't. Second you were trying to argue author's intent which is invalid under SoD.
    Actually we do you moron. White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.


    >>Exactly. But kazeite wants to have it both ways. On one hand he claims that nuclear fusion in SW is the same as ours when it comes to power limitation but completley different than ours when it comes to mechanism and appearance.
    Which is entirly resonalbe giving the evidence.

    What evidence? The only evidence you have is your insistence to interpret "small artifical sun" as nuclear fusion which conveniently has the same power limitations as real fusion but at the same time can mimic sun's mechanism at the diameter of 10km.

    >>5000TW? How is that even close to 200 billion TW?
    When it is a single power conduit to a single sub system that is in no way related to tactical systems on a light cruiser/

    And you of course have evidence that other power systems will come anywhere close to 200 billion TW? More usual Trekkie made up bullshit. By the way I seem to recall a certain XO who said that entire Enterprise couldn't generate more than 1TW.

    ReplyDelete
  73. When I point out that sun cannot possibly be scaled down to a size of 10km or so you retort that the mechanism actually isn't the same
    Actually, no. Is your understanding of the written word so poor?

    Read the novel again it said liberated energy. That means total energy not what it produced inside one second.
    According to your greatest enemy, literal meaning, that is... :D

    And evidence that shield were down is?
    Gee, I don't know... maybe hull getting damaged would give you that clue?

    Evidence that turbolasers were on full power was? Need I remind you that Palpatine the mastermind behind the attack was aboard Invisible Hand at that time?
    Oh, but do remind us :D
    "Set your batteries to 0.000001% of power. We wouldn't want to risk damaging ship holding Chancellor, now, would we?"

    "The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain." is not a theory.
    It may shock you, but it's certainly a viable theory as much as "Death Star blew up the planet" is.

    It doesn't explain a damned thing and it offers no equations or predictions through which we could test it.
    False, false, and false. And thus your ignorance has been proven.

    What is hyperspace domain?
    What is turbolaser? What is phaser? What is Force? What is hypderdrive? Or maybe you'd like to explain to us all what is this hypermatter, huh? Do you catch my drift, or do I have to break it down for you again?

    White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.
    ROTS novelisation disagrees with you.

    The only evidence you have is your insistence to interpret "small artifical sun" as nuclear fusion which conveniently has the same power limitations as real fusion but at the same time can mimic sun's mechanism at the diameter of 10km.
    Yup. So, I see that you have no actual response for that...

    And you of course have evidence that other power systems will come anywhere close to 200 billion TW?
    Use your head. It doesn't hurt, I assure you. Do you honestly believe that optical array (or whatever was that conduit powering) would be the most powerful machine on the entire ship?
    How come that every Starfleet ship can fly at warp, use weapons, mantain shields and sensors without running out of energy? More usual Warsie made up bullshit.

    By the way I seem to recall a certain XO who said that entire Enterprise couldn't generate more than 1TW.
    You recall incorrectly, and this example is invalidated by other examples anyway. But it does show your double standards quite nicely, I'll say.

    On the bright side, it seems you've learned something about neutronium, since you've ceased to argue about it :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Forgive the sarcasm (to lighten the tone), but...

    What is hyperspace domain?

    What is turbolaser? What is phaser? What is Force? What is hypderdrive?


    What is love?

    http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com/

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  75. Actually, no. Is your understanding of the written word so poor?
    Then you admitt that "artificial sun" was not a literal description of the mechanism? Concession accepted.

    According to your greatest enemy, literal meaning, that is... :D
    Yes that is my point. A vauge quote can be interpreted in many ways. This is why they are useless.

    Gee, I don't know... maybe hull getting damaged would give you that clue?
    Of course you haven't considered the possibility that shields were on but a certain percentage was overpowering the shields.

    Oh, but do remind us :D
    "Set your batteries to 0.000001% of power. We wouldn't want to risk damaging ship holding Chancellor, now, would we?"

    Exactly.

    It may shock you, but it's certainly a viable theory as much as "Death Star blew up the planet" is.
    No it isn't you idiot since conventional theory actually explains that planet is being heated thus increasing the kinetic energy of it's atoms resulting in it's rapid expansion.

    >>It doesn't explain a damned thing and it offers no equations or predictions through which we could test it.
    False, false, and false. And thus your ignorance has been proven.

    Hmmm what do we have here? Claims without any explanations. Thanks Kazeite but I already knew you were an idiot.

    What is turbolaser? What is phaser? What is Force? What is hypderdrive? Or maybe you'd like to explain to us all what is this hypermatter, huh? Do you catch my drift, or do I have to break it down for you again?
    All those technologies were mentioned in canon films or official material therefore we must accepet them. "Superlaser theory" is nothing but ramblings of a fan therefore we don't have to accept them without him explaining it. Do you get it idiot?

    >>White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.
    ROTS novelisation disagrees with you.

    ROTS novelisations states that neutron stars are powered by fusion? Do tell.

    >>The only evidence you have is your insistence to interpret "small artifical sun" as nuclear fusion which conveniently has the same power limitations as real fusion but at the same time can mimic sun's mechanism at the diameter of 10km.
    Yup. So, I see that you have no actual response for that...

    Respones to what? Your idiotic claim that the reactor can mimic sun at 10km? You need to prove those claims moron.

    Use your head. It doesn't hurt, I assure you. Do you honestly believe that optical array (or whatever was that conduit powering) would be the most powerful machine on the entire ship?
    How come that every Starfleet ship can fly at warp, use weapons, mantain shields and sensors without running out of energy? More usual Warsie made up bullshit.

    Calculations moron. Give me calculations that prove Voyager can produce orders of magnitude more than 5000TW.

    You recall incorrectly, and this example is invalidated by other examples anyway. But it does show your double standards quite nicely, I'll say.
    No I recall correctly you lying idiot. And nowhere has it been proven incorrect.

    On the bright side, it seems you've learned something about neutronium, since you've ceased to argue about it :)
    I have stopped debating it since it soesn't affect my argument. SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Then you admitt that "artificial sun" was not a literal description of the mechanism?
    No. I admit it's less literal that "artificial fusion furnance" :)

    A vauge quote can be interpreted in many ways.
    But those quotes are anything but vague, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.

    Of course you haven't considered the possibility that shields were on but a certain percentage was overpowering the shields.
    I believe it's the first time you are actually right. Yeah, I haven't considered that possibility, since, well, it's a claim without any evidence to back it up.

    Exactly.
    "And let's use those dialed down weapons to hit other targets, in case the chancellor is being held here as well!" :D

    Get real.

    "Superlaser theory" is nothing but ramblings of a fan therefore we don't have to accept them without him explaining it.
    And we're not accepting it without explanation. So, what's the deal?

    Hmmm what do we have here? Claims without any explanations.
    Yes, that's precisely why I called your claims false. So, care to provide explanations this time?

    Respones to what? Your idiotic claim that the reactor can mimic sun at 10km? You need to prove those claims
    Canon materials tell us so. That's all the proof I need.

    Give me calculations that prove Voyager can produce orders of magnitude more than 5000TW.
    Give me calculations that prove that Acclamators can produce 200 gigatons, old man.

    ROTS novelisations states that neutron stars are powered by fusion? Do tell.
    ROTS novelisation states that suns are powered by fusion, gramps.

    No I recall correctly
    No, you don't recall correctly. Really. Riker was talking about being unable to generate signal from terawatt source. Do you see any "1"s there?

    And nowhere has it been proven incorrect.
    The only thing that's incorrect here are your informations.

    I mean, honestly - your were given examples in this very "thread". You even responded to them. Is your memory so weak?

    SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.
    Again: even on wreckages and half-destroyed ships?

    ReplyDelete
  77. What is love?

    http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com/

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous


    http://www.devilducky.com/media/41727/

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  78. // There is no way that it could refer to the amount of energy.

    Actually, it might. But it would then tell us that the debris were scattered by the level of energy of a small artificial sun, which wouldn't be that much in comparison to what is claimed, imho.

    ReplyDelete
  79. No. I admit it's less literal that "artificial fusion furnance" :)
    Concession accepted.

    But those quotes are anything but vague, despite your best efforts to claim otherwise.
    Right beacuse "small artificial sun" accuratley describes a nuclear fusion reactor. Get real.

    I believe it's the first time you are actually right. Yeah, I haven't considered that possibility, since, well, it's a claim without any evidence to back it up.
    And you have no evidence to disprove it. I guess that leaves us with ICS. Though break kiddo.

    "And let's use those dialed down weapons to hit other targets, in case the chancellor is being held here as well!" :D
    Get real.

    What other targets? Other ships were destroyed kid. Stop making stuff up.

    And we're not accepting it without explanation. So, what's the deal?
    There are no explanations idiot. He doesn't explain what superlaser particles are nor how do they create the energy field thet "sets off" a mass energy conversion.

    >>Respones to what? Your idiotic claim that the reactor can mimic sun at 10km? You need to prove those claims
    Canon materials tell us so. That's all the proof I need.

    Where doesn canon material state that? Provide me a quote that states "nuclear fusion in all reactors is the same as in a sun".

    Give me calculations that prove that Acclamators can produce 200 gigatons, old man.
    I don't need to dipshit because it comes from an offcial source. I don't ask you to provide calculations for 5000TW do I? Only for your claims that total power will be much greater which does not come from canon material.

    ROTS novelisation states that suns are powered by fusion, gramps.
    So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy? Are you that much of an idiot?

    No, you don't recall correctly. Really. Riker was talking about being unable to generate signal from terawatt source. Do you see any "1"s there?
    Don't lie you piece of shit. They needed to send a signal to the surface of the planet and Data said it would take a terrawat to do so.

    The only thing that's incorrect here are your informations.
    I mean, honestly - your were given examples in this very "thread". You even responded to them. Is your memory so weak?

    More pathetic evasions eh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you are after all an idiot.

    >>SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.
    Again: even on wreckages and half-destroyed ships?

    As long there is power why not?
    Let me repeat it since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake: When you make a claim you must back up that claim with evidence.
    In this case you are claiming that Invisible Hand crash disproves neutron inside a hull therefore you must prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Actually, speaking of treating the ST EU as canon, one of the negative consequences of that is the power generation. In the ST:TMP novelization, Kirk muses in astonishment that the power required to generate the 12th power energy field around the V'Ger ship would be comparable to the output of the sun itself (4 x 10^26 watts). If as Decker said that it would take more than "thousands of starships", let's say 1,000,000 starships. Then you still wind up with a pretty astounding amount of power output for the warp core, or about 4 zetawatts for a 23rd century Constitution class starship.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yet Another AnonymousThu May 25, 06:26:00 PM 2006

    About "artificial sun"
    You claim that articial sun quote is literal and then go on to claim that we should assume that the same mechanism is found in Death Star reactor. When I point out that sun cannot possibly be scaled down to a size of 10km or so you retort that the mechanism actually isn't the same thereby admitting that we shouldn't use that quote literaly in the first place.


    Does the word "artifical" have any meaning to you? No one is saying a natural sun can be scaled down to 10km but an artifical one can, like that one in spiderman 2 that was less than 10m.

    Read the novel again it said liberated energy. That means total energy not what it produced inside one second. A sun does indeed have a power output of 4*10^26W but it takes about a million years for the created energy to exit to the surface which means that our sun contains some 10^40J. Which means that "liberated energy" of our sun would be 100 times greater than 10^38J leaving plenty of room for a "small artifical sun" to have 10^38J.
    Another one bites the dust. Commence Trekkie whining.


    Did the explosion in ANH look any thing like 1e40 joules to you. Saying it has the energy of a single second of sun's power is generous.

    And evidence that shield were down is?

    Turbolasers blasting chunks out of the ship.

    Evidence that turbolasers were on full power was?

    They are in the middle of a f*cking battle. Of course by your logic it would be like two WWII battle ships shotting 9mm pistol rounds at each other and tearing through each other's armour.

    Need I remind you that Palpatine the mastermind behind the attack was aboard Invisible Hand at that time?

    Read the novel at the time Needa though that the General was bluffing and Palpatine was not on the IH.

    Because he has no theory which I could attack imbecile. You migth find this shocking but "The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain." is not a theory. It doesn't explain a damned thing and it offers no equations or predictions through which we could test it. What are these superlaser particles? How do they create this energy field? Why does this energy field sets of a mass-energy conversion? How is this related to hyperspace domain? What is hyperspace domain?

    Read the link then bring up the points you find objectable:

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

    Actually we do you moron. White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.

    But neither are described as suns, but as stars. All suns may be stars but not all stars are suns.

    And you of course have evidence that other power systems will come anywhere close to 200 billion TW? More usual Trekkie made up bullshit.

    Riiiiiiight, because one conduit to one minor sub system is representitive of the total power of the ship. Considering that Voyager can fly at warp 9, use phasers, shields, holodecks, replicators and transporters as well as numberous advanced sensor arrays at once with out any mention of runing lower on power I can saftly say that a ship should be able to generat thousand, if not millions of times more power than what is running through one minor conduit at cruising speed.

    By the way I seem to recall a certain XO who said that entire Enterprise couldn't generate more than 1TW.

    That was the comm system you ignorant warsie.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Oh this is getting insane!

    Okay you moron Warsies, here is HOW we know that the Death Star was using a FUSION reactor:

    1) suns are powered by FUSION reactions.

    2) novelizations compare the reactors to "small artificial suns" and whatnot.

    whether the author is being literal or being pretty with his words is IRRELEVANT - it is DESCRIBED as an ARTIFICIAL SUN.

    Fusion reactors IN REAL LIFE use the SAME PRINCIPALS to generate energy as the SUN DOES NOW:

    http://ippex.pppl.gov/fusion/fusion4.htm

    THEREFORE:
    ARTIFICIAL SUN = FUSION REACTOR
    DEATH STAR + ARTIFICIAL SUN = DEATH STAR + FUSION REACTOR

    Apply the logic to the description of the reactors used by vessels and pod racers in the SW universe.

    AS FOR NEUTRONIUM:

    1) neutronium is formed by massive gravitional and pressure forces (almost that of a black hole)

    2) without the forces, neutronium decays quickly

    If SW hulls had been made with neutronium, they would have required SO MUCH FREAKING gravity to KEEP THE NEUTRONIUM (well, neutronium) that the energy required would have NEGATED THE NEED FOR NEUTRONIUM HULLS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    That and the fact simply standing within a million miles of the hull would have pulled you towards it! But that is what happens when you have super dense materials, they generate a GRAVITY WELL!

    oh, for fun, keep in mind that in the ST universe, maintaining super dense materials is apparently not a problem as Romulans power their warp reactors with small, artificial quantum singularities - in other words, BLACK HOLES!

    So, bring on your SW neutronium hulls, we in the ST universe will just start tossing black holes at it!

    god, I hope you Warsies don't vote or breed.

    ReplyDelete
  83. 'Kay, my turn again.

    First, I want to apologize for my earlier ad hominim attack. It was unnecessary and was a flawed debate tactic.

    Second, I must comment on my abhorrance for the Warsie debating his points. Mr. Warsie, you do not need to be so violent and hostile. This is a debate, not a personal argument. Furthermore, it has been proven that people who tend to insult in debates are often either unsure of their positions or know they are wrong but argue them anyway due to beliefs or outright stubborness. One can see this demonstrated in creationist/intelligent design vs. evolution arguments.

    Third, Mr. Voxrepublicanis, you are also out of line. You may be giving solid points, but you are scattering ad hominim attacks throughout it, which are entirely unnecessary.

    In fact, noone should let loose a single insult in this debate. It's not personal, gang! It's just fun debate. Or so I would hope, at least. I'm a reasonable man, and I would like to think the rest of you are as well.

    Finally, I'll part with this:

    http://anightatthehothberry.ytmnd.com/

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yet Another Anonymous:
    Concession acepted. A small sun at the very most would have 1e26w, too little to produce 1e38j in any resonable time. So by your own words DET superlasers are impossible. pwned.
    I wouldn't be accepting it because the artificial sun powering the Death Star was specifically stated to be small therefore meaning it would have a lower power output and total energy when compared to a G type main sequence star.

    Yet Another Anonymous:
    When it is a single power conduit to a single sub system that is in no way related to tactical systems on a light cruiser/
    I think Voyager was actually a medium cruiser, it seemed a bit too well armed to be a light cruiser (old ships would fill that role).

    Because he has no theory which I could attack imbecile.
    Well you do have a conjecture called Direct Energy Transfer but the problem with that is that it says too much. So much so that we can even predict what would happen and when we compare those predictions we find that they are wrong.

    Actually we do you moron. White dwarfs and neutron stars are not powered by fusion and they can just as easily be suns.
    White Dwarfs and Neutron Star are not suns.

    What evidence? The only evidence you have is your insistence to interpret "small artifical sun" as nuclear fusion which conveniently has the same power limitations as real fusion but at the same time can mimic sun's mechanism at the diameter of 10km.
    Do you not read?

    It has been stated before why an artificial sun can be so much smaller than a natural one.

    I have stopped debating it since it soesn't affect my argument. SW posseses gravity technology with which they could easily maintain neutronium blobs inside their hulls.
    Yet there is no evidence that they actually have blobs of neutronium inside their hulls.

    The more advanced United Federation of Planets can't use neutronium so why would we expect the backward 'Galactic' Empire to be able to?

    So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy? Are you that much of an idiot?
    Are you so much of an idiot as to actually believe that was said?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Concession accepted.
    :blink, blink: Ok, so, now that you agree that "small artificial sun" quote is still literal, then... well, concession accepted.

    Right beacuse "small artificial sun" accuratley describes a nuclear fusion reactor.
    Yup. Glad you agree.

    And you have no evidence to disprove it.
    I don't have to - it haven't been proven yet. Though break gramps.

    What other targets?
    Other ships, gramps. The one that were destroyed, as you yourself admit. Not to mention that, as mentioned above, Republic Forces weren't aware that the Chancellor is there. Stop making stuff up.

    There are no explanations.
    Yes there is.

    He doesn't explain what superlaser particles are
    Because he doesn't have to. DET theory doesn't explain any mechanism either, but somehow you think it is a viable theory... Nice double standard you have here.

    Where doesn canon material state that?
    I've already told you that. Twice.

    I don't need to because it comes from an offcial source.
    Even official sources can be wrong, when based on faulty data.

    So you are saying that there are no white dwarfs or neutron stars in SW galaxy?
    And thus your poor undestanding of written word is revealed. Again.

    Don't lie
    I don't.

    They needed to send a signal to the surface of the planet and Data said it would take a terrawat to do so.
    Incorrect. Data said it originates from terawatt source. Again, see any "1"s here?

    More pathetic evasions eh?
    No. At this point I'm only reminding you what has been said for you to remember.

    As long there is power why not?
    Now this is ironic...
    "Let me repeat it since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake: When you make a claim you must back up that claim with evidence."
    In this case you are claiming that neutronium is being held in hull by gravity control, even in wreckages. Never mind that EU claims that neutronium forms alloy with two other metals...

    Invisible Hand crash disproves neutron inside a hull therefore you must prove it.
    Invisible Hand crash itself proves it. Haven't you watched the movie?

    ReplyDelete
  86. And there is that little piece of hull that mustn't have had neutronium in it, that piece that got bent by GG's foot claw, as well as the other piece that got shot with GG's grappling claw that he fired after geting sucked out the window that he shattered. Isn't it a strange idea that the window could be shattered by just having something thrown hard at it, yet is supposed to be able to repel gigatons (presumably without being distorted) and presumably by the armor pieces by the windows, too, or it'd just really suck for the crew. Uncontrolled atmo re-entry thermal energy and multiple gigaton blasts are not the same. If GG really was super strong, to break through neutronium laced glass or transparent neutronium that cracks like glass and bend neutronium metal that had no apparent damge until he actualy gripped the damn thing, he would have killed Ben with one punch. Or stomp on the ground hard enough and Ben stumbles and then, slash at him with a lightsabre.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I goofed up some with the ST:TMP novelization quote; it actually is Kirk musing in astonishment over the fact that to generate a 12th power energy field requires enough power to STOP THE SUN ROTATING, noy equivalent to it's energy output. Considering that Sol masses out at something like 2 x 10^30 kg, and rotates at around 600m a second 4 zetawatts would be a rather extremely conservative estimate for a refit Connie's power output.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ack! Goofed again! It's not 600m a second, but 1,885 m a second since I estimated based on the suns diameter, not it's circumference. Again, my apologies.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  89. That's ok. We like you anyway :)

    ReplyDelete
  90. Well I think we sacared that warsie away.

    Mike I would be interested in see some more detailed calculations from TMP novel.

    Finally I was looking through SD.net's forum :shudder: and came a cross this:

    http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=2096040#2096040

    Remember copy and paste into the adress bar because Wong links every thing from this site to a porn site. Anyway does anyone else notice the overwelming irony in that post by Wong?

    ReplyDelete
  91. YAA,

    I'm not much of a debater, but as an observer (which I'd rather be as) of the debate, I can safely say yes.

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  92. Mike Wong ignoring canon for anticanon nonsense.

    <SARCASM>What a suprise!</SARCASM>

    ReplyDelete
  93. Well, let's see here back-of-the-envelope time here; using KE=.5 * m * v^2 would give us 3.55e37 joules as the energy necessary to stop good old Sol from rotating. This higher than the 1e36 joules necessary to blow up an Earth-sized planet.

    Now let's see what that gets us from there... Assuming a billion starships, instead of tens of thousands as may be infered from Decker's "thousands of starships" comment, divided into that number, each starship is now "only" generating something like 35,532 yotawatts. A single "primitive" 23rd century Connie would could readily take on AoTC ICS-level ISDs (or Venators), at least from a raw power generation standpoint.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  94. Could you go into more detail about how you calculated the kinetic energy of sol's rotation?

    ReplyDelete
  95. It's pretty simple. I just plugged in the rate of Sol's rotation of 1,885 meters a second (the sun rotates on axis once every 27 days), and plugged those numbers into the KE = 1/2 mv2 formula.

    The sun's mass can be found here, and verified using the formulas on this website:

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/mass.html

    So Sol's mass is 2 x 10e30 kg.

    Since we know Sol rotates once every 27 days, and we know it's circumference (diameter of 1.4 million km * pi = 4,398,229 km * 1000 = 4,398,229,715 meters). Divide that by the number of seconds in 27 days and you should get 1,885 meters a second. The rest is simple:

    KE=

    1/2 * 2 x 10e30 kg = 1 x 10e30

    velocity = 1,885 m^2 = 3,553,225

    M (1 x 10e30 kg) * V (3,553,225 m) = 1.42129e+38 joules.

    For the sun to be stopped in it's rotation, an equal but opposite force must be applied, which is approximately 1.42e38 joules. So I guess I goofed up earlier yet again and low balled the numbers! So unless I made an error up there somewhere, I guess the power generation of a Connie goes up another order of magnitude...
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well that is all wrong.

    The speed of the gases will not be anything even approaching constant throughout the sun so you can not just just figure out how fast the 'surface' rotates and then put it and the sun's mass into the KE formula (if you do that you'll massively over-estimate).

    The way to do it properly is to calculate the moment of inertia (you'll need the density profile of the sun or at least a decent approximation to it) and then multiply that by the angular velocity squared and divide by two (i.e. T = Iω^2).

    ReplyDelete
  97. All right. So what do you come up with, Anon?
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  98. Forgot a divide by two in the formula. Should be T = Iω^2 / 2.

    All right. So what do you come up with, Anon?
    Having just done it I can understand why you wouldn't want to do it properly yourself (and I've still got lots of approximations).

    Now:

    I = ∫ ρ * R dV where R is the distance from the rotation axis.

    This gives I = ∫∫∫ &rho(r,θ,φ) * r^2 * sin(θ) * r * sin(θ) dr dθ dφ = ∫∫∫ &rho(r,θ,φ) * r^3 * sin^2(θ) dr dθ dφ

    Now assume a spherically symetric sun and exponential pressure profile and use values of 150 Mg/m^3 for the core pressure (r=0) and about 1 Mg/m^3 at 350 Mm radius (r = 3.5e8) from this.

    So ρ(r) = 1.5e5 * exp(-1.43e-8 * r)

    Thus I = ∫∫∫ 1.5e5 * exp(-1.43e-8 * r) * r^3 * sin^2(θ) dr dθ dφ = 1.5e5 ∫ exp(-1.43e-11 * r) * r^3 dr ∫ sin^2(θ) dθ ∫ dφ

    Now the Integrator gives me (after a couple of steps):
    I = (-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + r) * (1.84e16 + r*(9.82e7 + r)))/ exp(1.43e-8*r) * (θ - cos[θ]*sin[θ])/2 * φ

    Limits are r = 0 to 7e9, &theta = 0 to π and &phi = 0 to 2π.

    I = { [(-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + 7e9) * (1.84e16 + 7e9*(9.82e7 + 7e9)))/ exp(1.43e-8*7e9)] - [(-1.05e13 * (1.12e8 + 0) * (1.84e16 + 0*(9.82e7 + 0)))/ exp(1.43e-8*0)] } * { [(π - cos[π]*sin[π])/2] - [(0 - cos[0]*sin[0])/2] } * {2π - 0}

    I = { [(-1.05e13 * (7.112e9) * (1.84e16 + 4.97e19))/exp(1e2)] - [(-1.05e13 * 1.12e8 * 1.84e16)/exp(0)] } * { [(π - -1*0)/2] - [(0 - 1*0)/2] } * 2π

    I = { [(-7.47e22 * 4.97e19)/exp(1e2)] - [-2.16e37] } * { [π/2] - [0] } * 2π

    I = { [-3.71e42 / exp(1e2)] + 2.16e37 } * π/2 * 2π = (-1.38e-1 + 2.16e37) * π^2 = 2.13e38 kg m^2 assuming I did everything right.

    Now let ω = 30 days (rotational period at the sun's equator, good for a lower limit and probably more accurate than the average rotation rate of once every 27 days) which gives ω = 2.424e-6 rad/s angular velocity.

    Now putting into Kinetic Energy Formula:

    T = I * &omega^2 / 2 = 2.13e38 * (2.424e-6)^2 / 2 = 6.28e26 J

    ReplyDelete
  99. If you are correct, Anon, that reduces the Connie non-canon power generation down to about 600 exawatts, assuming a million starships are divided into the above number.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  100. We got a funny thread at SB.com, the unofficial branch of SD.net.

    http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=101793

    Not saying that I'm necessarily agreeing with all of Sharp Thorn's points, I see that the classical Front of Defense of the Wankics has issues understanding that in physics, fusion means nothing else but nuclear fusion.

    So, either they accept that, and then we see that high canon sources disagree with the lower ones, notably on how the hypermatter is used.
    Annihilated, says the ICS. Nothing to do with fusion, and of course, not agreeing in the slightest with the fanon retconning of hypermatter fusion.

    Poor thing is that with reasonnable argumentation, the only thing the guy gets is mod warnings (the surprise), half veiled insults and mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  101. None of this terribly suprising, of course. I really have no clue why this Sharp Thorn guy is even bothering anymore, except to make a point that has already been made long ago.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  102. Are saxtonians of the same calibre as Wongies? Especially in terms of... ethics?

    We already know that in terms of data analysis, from time to time, they can be biased towards EU-inflated wank misinterpretations.

    Wed May 10, 08:28:49 AM 2006


    Saxtonians? Wongies? Just what kind of language is this?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous,

    "Saxtonian" or "Saxtonite" I believe is described in the blog entry already. My guess on "Wongies" are followers of Michael Wong in the usage of non-canon Star Wars material (Curtis Saxton's material included) when pitting Star Wars against Star Trek, dare challenging anybody who disagrees with them in their "Pro-Wars" view, perhaps going too far (as referenced before in other comments and blog entries).

    Sincerely,
    Another Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  104. Talking about rabid fans whatever you may say and think about "rabid Warsies" they cannot hold a candle to rabid Trekkies.
    I'm sure that some of the people here are already familiar with this page:
    http://home.att.net/~tomjlee/index.html

    Check out his TIE fighter specs:

    TIE/ln Fighter
    Sienar Fleet Systems
    Length 6.3m, Mass 1 ton
    100 MGLT top speed
    100 degree/sec maneuverability
    2 Type-4 laser cannons (100 watts)
    Titanium single hull with quadanium steel solar panels
    5 J instantaneous directed KE resist
    700 J instantaneous directed KE capacity

    So the firepower of a TIE fighter is less than a lightbulb. I guess those X-wings were made out of styrofoam...and splashed with gasoline.

    Let's see how ISD fares:

    Imperial Star Destroyer
    Kuat Drive Yards
    Length 1600m, Mass 6,500,000 tons
    10 MGLT top speed
    2 degrees/sec maneuverability
    1.4 cochrane hyperdrive core
    48 Type-5 turbolaser cannons (2 kilowatts)
    16 Type-5 ion cannons (1 kilowatt)
    48 Type-4b laser cannons (400 watts)
    8 tractor beam projectors
    Titanium-reinforced alusteel single hull
    30 J instantaneous directed KE resist
    2.4*105 J instantaneous directed KE capacity (hull)
    3*104 J instantaneous directed KE capacity (per deflector tower)
    EM polarized hull plating
    320 watt repolarization rate
    300 J instantaneous directed KE resist
    4.8*105 J instantaneous directed KE capacity
    288 Fighters


    Ouch 131.2 kW for a total ISD firepower. In comparison an average bullet fired from a rifle has energy of of 2kJ. I guess 60 men armed with rifles equal the firepower of a 1.6km long warship built by a space faring civilization.

    Of course his SW ship analysis is nothing compared to his ST ship analysis. Let's take a look of Sovereign class specification:
    Heavy Explorer USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-E
    Launched 2372
    Sovereign Class
    Length 16764m, Mass 4,000,000,000 tons
    0 to Warp 1 in 5.8 seconds
    270 degrees/sec maneuverability
    16 kilocochrane hyperdrive core
    256 megacochrane warp core
    Warp 15 (11,390,625c) Cruise, Warp 24 (191,102,976c) Emergency
    5250 Type-12 megaphasers (7.2 megayottawatts) in 18 arrays
    2500 Type-11 megaphasers (720 kiloyottawatts) in 30 arrays
    6 Type-10 rapid-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@15 torpedoes / s) with @4500 casings
    12 Type-8 rapid-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@10 torpedoes / s) with @3000 casings
    24 Type-6 burst-fire quantum torpedo tubes (@12 torpedoes / 2s) with @1800 casings
    500 isoteraton superheavy quantum torpedoes
    5 isoteraton heavy quantum torpedoes, 100 isogigaton heavy ion torpedoes
    50 isogigaton quantum torpedoes, 1 isogigaton ion torpedoes, 20 isomegaton photon torpedoes
    Castrodium/neutronium triple hull
    710cm active deflector plating, 420cm high-density reactive armor, 245cm multilayer ablative armor
    Subspace-amplified EM/gravitic structural integrity field system
    320 gigayottawatt secondary energy dissipation rate (hull)
    20 terayottawatt primary energy dissipation rate (armor)
    9.75*1055 J instantaneous directed KE capacity
    Subspace-amplified EM/gravitic navigational deflector system
    Triple-redundant automodulating regenerative subspace-amplified EM/gravitic defensive grid
    800 terayottawatt tertiary energy dissipation rate (defense fields)
    32 petayottawatt secondary energy dissipation rate (deflector screens)
    2 exayottawatt primary energy dissipation rate (forcefield shields)
    9.76*1060 J instantaneous directed KE capacity
    Saucer separation capability
    Transhield transporter capability
    "...to boldly go where no one has gone before."


    Whew! Did you catch all that? A Sovereign can withstand 10^60J worth of kinetic impact. This means that if you flung two Earth sized planets towards each other at 99% speed of light and put Sovereign in the middle it would effortlesly shake off the impact.
    I especially like his ridiculous prefix usage: megayottawatts, petayottawat.
    Oh and yes that is 16km length for Sovereign. Galaxy of course is 5km long but only has 10^41J shields.
    Of course no starship would be complete without it's Triple-redundant automodulating regenerative subspace-amplified EM/gravitic defensive grid and Type-12 MEGAPHASERS so naturally Sovereign has those too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  105. Never heard of satire, have you?

    That was created by a self-described former "anti-Trek Warsie" who was buying into everything the main 'anti-Trek Warsies' were spouting, until he woke up.

    The site itself came about because he wanted to reverse the situation, much as I joked about here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2006/02/moderation-and-extremism.html

    So, he took Star Wars material derived from West End Games (the original SW tech stuff) and related material and aimed for the low end, just as the anti-Trek crowd does with old non-canon ST tech material.

    And then he took canon Trek and aimed for the highest possible end, reason be damned . . . just as the anti-Trek crowd does with SW canon.

    But he did it years ago, and so was rather ahead of his time in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Uhuh sure:
    This webpage is my way of airing my own analysis on the vehicles that routinely accomplish the impossible...whether it be transmitting matter from one point to another in perfect condition, maneuvering and accelerating/decelerating at sublight speeds with a casual disregard of inertia, exiting from the event horizon of a black hole, or traveling at superluminal velocities between the stars.


    And:

    As such, I tend to err on the side of the more powerful technology - my logic being that it's far more plausible to believe that the characters failed to fully utilize what was at their disposal (or that other factors not mentioned onscreen might be responsible for the mitigation), than to presume that the technology has regressed to a much less capable level that what was available a century before.


    Taken directly from his introduction page.

    And to paraphrase Lord Refa from Babylon 5 his page has just the right ring of wank to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  107. It's about time I saw a counterpart to SD.net.

    Thanks for that site.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I have a point about the Superlaser that no one mentioned:

    the quoted energy-figure for the planet's destruction, is MORE than enough to vaporize all of it; and the planet was mostly LIQUID to begin with.

    So why are all the pieces of the planet SOLID?

    This makes NO sense, if it was a DET weapon.

    Likewise, it can't "convert matter to energy," unless it was MADE of anti-matter (like "The Doomsday Machine;" since matter can't be converted to energy without causing an energy-deficit, since matter is the lowest energy-state; and matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

    Rather, it makes more sense that the Superlaser is simply a beam that converts the planet's ambient heat to kinetic energy, dissipating it out into space- under the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. that heat always flows to a colder surface.
    Since the planet's core and mantle are very hot, and outer space is very cold, then the beam would simply create a hyper-field conduit from the the planet to the surrounding space.

    This would cause the planet's entire liquid structure to solidify, while accelerating it outward in all directions.

    As for the "ring" effect, that's the inevitable effect of a planet's Van Allen belt going "nova."

    ReplyDelete