"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.
(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.
posted by G2k at 10:48:00 PM
107 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
ss13...care to prove that statement? I find that a little hard to believe.
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.
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.
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... :)
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.
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
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 :)
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
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
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).
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?
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
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...
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."
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
Particularly when anyone extending a dissenting opinion gets quashed. I notice that thread one of our anon posters linked to is locked already.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Those were controlled descents, not crash landings. Obvious the would not be coming down so fast.
// 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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
// 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.
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".
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?).
// 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.
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.
Seems like you've got neutronium confused with adamantium :D
Seems like you've got neutronium confused with adamantium :D
Seems like you don't know shit about neutronium.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
<
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 )
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 )
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.
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."
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.
"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.
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
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.
Yes but other parts of the hull will still get into contact with the atmosphere and be sheared off espec