Spacedocks take on the versus debate

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-05 11:43pm

1. We can see it much more than a 1000 km away from Yavin.
2. In this very thread you have lied several times.
3. Ok, sure.
4. Question. Can you go one comment without attacking Wong, or dismissing my comments because they're sourced by Wong, or other shit like that. If you hate the man so much, maybe you shouldn't be on this site.
1. prove it.
2. prove it.
3. got it? good.
4. even without my math mistake, I have probably cast enough doubt on his calculations to prove my point. I can straight up prove that he lied on his pages at least twice, one by omission. and I can definitely prove bias. that is the easiest one, TBH, since his site was created just to piss off trekkies in the first place. that much is obvious just by his choice of words on almost every page. I could explain it to you in detail, but you don't want to hear it. its not that I hate wong, hes just not a reliable source for SW stuff. especially since almost all of his stuff is now non canon and has been for well over a decade.

1. The BDZ thing.
2. They were not heavy turbolasers. They might have been light, they might have been PDLs.
3. The rule by fear thing explictly started in ANH.
4. On the previous thread, where I had a wong article with canon sources, and you insisted it was sourced from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary.
5. Droid Trifighters. Droid brains that control ships, and manuever very quickly on their own. Not the Roger Roger droids.
6. . They aren't fired at that range not because they can't do damage, but because the other ships will dodge.
7. That might be an honest misunderstanding. The malevolence is much smaller and faster than a planet.
8. Scene?


1. first of all, whats the time frame? thats why that article isn't nearly equal to on screen examples. with on screen examples, we can actually judge firepower somewhat. given enough time, the millennium falcon could do the same thing. and thats not a BDZ. the current canon version is simple population extermination. it doesn't go as far as the old definition.
2. in other words, you don't know. and we have never seen PDLs that big. if they were PDLs they would be able to at least track the TIE to get a bead on it. they didn't.
3. the "rule by fear" existed long before the events of ANH. ever watched SWR? point proven. most planets were terrified of the ISDs when they came into orbit.
4. "Mike Wong wrote:
Turbolasers

Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. blah blah" the swvd was written in 1998 and was created for the old EU. as of 4/24/14 is is legends. that is from the article that YOU posted and stated by wong himself. you even repeated that section at least once. ill wait for your apology for calling me a liar.
5. the "roger roger" droids are the ones that control the capital ships like the malevolence. the tri-fighters had no relevance whatsoever to weapons range. and you didn't even mention tri-fighters until this thread. you didn't mention them at all in the last thread. you just kept trying to convince me that the malevolence was controlled by a droid brain. when I called bullshit, you switched to "a cyborg with inhumanly fast reflexes" aka Grievous. except that he wasn't the one controlling the ship. the "roger roger" battle droids were.
6. you keep telling yourself that. whatever floats your boat. if you wanna look like an idiot, you go right ahead.
7. and the only time we have seen anybody fire at the planet was from orbit. and even then they couldn't aim worth a damn. they had to blanket the area to hit the target at all.
8. this one. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARR0RPrr_rg&t=25s[/youtube]

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 12:26am

texanmarauder wrote:
1. We can see it much more than a 1000 km away from Yavin.
2. In this very thread you have lied several times.
3. Ok, sure.
4. Question. Can you go one comment without attacking Wong, or dismissing my comments because they're sourced by Wong, or other shit like that. If you hate the man so much, maybe you shouldn't be on this site.
1. prove it.
2. prove it.
3. got it? good.
4. even without my math mistake, I have probably cast enough doubt on his calculations to prove my point. I can straight up prove that he lied on his pages at least twice, one by omission. and I can definitely prove bias. that is the easiest one, TBH, since his site was created just to piss off trekkies in the first place. that much is obvious just by his choice of words on almost every page. I could explain it to you in detail, but you don't want to hear it. its not that I hate wong, hes just not a reliable source for SW stuff. especially since almost all of his stuff is now non canon and has been for well over a decade.

1. The BDZ thing.
2. They were not heavy turbolasers. They might have been light, they might have been PDLs.
3. The rule by fear thing explictly started in ANH.
4. On the previous thread, where I had a wong article with canon sources, and you insisted it was sourced from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary.
5. Droid Trifighters. Droid brains that control ships, and manuever very quickly on their own. Not the Roger Roger droids.
6. . They aren't fired at that range not because they can't do damage, but because the other ships will dodge.
7. That might be an honest misunderstanding. The malevolence is much smaller and faster than a planet.
8. Scene?


1. first of all, whats the time frame? thats why that article isn't nearly equal to on screen examples. with on screen examples, we can actually judge firepower somewhat. given enough time, the millennium falcon could do the same thing. and thats not a BDZ. the current canon version is simple population extermination. it doesn't go as far as the old definition.
2. in other words, you don't know. and we have never seen PDLs that big. if they were PDLs they would be able to at least track the TIE to get a bead on it. they didn't.
3. the "rule by fear" existed long before the events of ANH. ever watched SWR? point proven. most planets were terrified of the ISDs when they came into orbit.
4. "Mike Wong wrote:
Turbolasers

Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. blah blah" the swvd was written in 1998 and was created for the old EU. as of 4/24/14 is is legends. that is from the article that YOU posted and stated by wong himself. you even repeated that section at least once. ill wait for your apology for calling me a liar.
5. the "roger roger" droids are the ones that control the capital ships like the malevolence. the tri-fighters had no relevance whatsoever to weapons range. and you didn't even mention tri-fighters until this thread. you didn't mention them at all in the last thread. you just kept trying to convince me that the malevolence was controlled by a droid brain. when I called bullshit, you switched to "a cyborg with inhumanly fast reflexes" aka Grievous. except that he wasn't the one controlling the ship. the "roger roger" battle droids were.
6. you keep telling yourself that. whatever floats your boat. if you wanna look like an idiot, you go right ahead.
7. and the only time we have seen anybody fire at the planet was from orbit. and even then they couldn't aim worth a damn. they had to blanket the area to hit the target at all.
8. this one. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARR0RPrr_rg&t=25s[/youtube]
1. You can prove Yavin by looking.
2. What is your evidence of bias?
3. That it is a BDZ means a fairly short time frame, which gives order of magnitude estimates of firepower.
4. They tried to track it.
5. They didn't have a rule by fear over the senate before ANH.
6. You really can't take a hint. :banghead:. That is literally the most deceptive possible way to quote mine it. I called you out for this before. Here is the full paragraph.
Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid. However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:

In other words, fuck off.
7. Whether I meant the roger roger droids, or the actual droid brain in actual seppie ships is irrelevant and impossible to prove. What is relevant is the fact that the separtists have droid brains controlling some ships, which means that interpreting the range quote as referring to effective range is reasonable.
8. Huh, no counterargument.
9. That's at what looks to be a kms wide at most shield. Not an entire planet. They're all easily hitting the planet. Some are missing the much smaller shield.

You know, I will give you credit for merging the two parallel arguments. And then take it away a hundred times over for the blatant and utterly pointless lying. If you had just said that you misread that paragraph, I would have let it go. You are pressing it against all reason because of some stupid vendetta against someone I don't think you've ever even talked to. Please stop.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 01:25am

Rhadamantus wrote:
1. You can prove Yavin by looking.
2. What is your evidence of bias?
3. That it is a BDZ means a fairly short time frame, which gives order of magnitude estimates of firepower.
4. They tried to track it.
5. They didn't have a rule by fear over the senate before ANH.
6. You really can't take a hint. :banghead:. That is literally the most deceptive possible way to quote mine it. I called you out for this before. Here is the full paragraph.
Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid. However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:

In other words, fuck off.
7. Whether I meant the roger roger droids, or the actual droid brain in actual seppie ships is irrelevant and impossible to prove. What is relevant is the fact that the separtists have droid brains controlling some ships, which means that interpreting the range quote as referring to effective range is reasonable.
8. Huh, no counterargument.
9. That's at what looks to be a kms wide at most shield. Not an entire planet. They're all easily hitting the planet. Some are missing the much smaller shield.

You know, I will give you credit for merging the two parallel arguments. And then take it away a hundred times over for the blatant and utterly pointless lying. If you had just said that you misread that paragraph, I would have let it go. You are pressing it against all reason because of some stupid vendetta against someone I don't think you've ever even talked to. Please stop.
1. sure you can. in other words you have no argument.
2. a couple of examples. first of all, most of, if not all of his ST info comes from the TNG technical manual, which is not canon. yet he cites the AOTC ICS, which was also not canon and for much of the same reasons, extensively throughout the site due to the super inflated numbers. he uses terms like "First, Star Wars vs Star Trek normally means "could the Empire kick the Federation's ass". phrases like that are used throughout his site as well. he lies by omission. for example, he mentions that the proton torpedoes that killed the death star executed a 72,000g turn. I'm not going to do the math on that and I don't care. what he leaves out is that it takes a force user to get that turn. a much older and far more experienced pilot than luke took the first shots and they didn't come near the port. luke was able to use the force to guide the torpedo in. hell, that was emphasized in the plot by the voice overs from Kenobi "use the force luke". he even turned off his targeting computer. so the onboard targeting systems weren't even a factor. his sw vs st in five minutes page is a joke and full of omissions and exaggerations plus it ignores a good deal of on screen canon. I could go on all day. 3 undeniable facts.

a. 99% of his site no longer applies due to Disney canon changes and some didn't even apply at the time.
b. its clear that he was heavily biased against st by using a non canon tech manual in favor of on screen canon.
c. what on screen canon he did use he either omitted parts that would make sw look bad (like the weapon ranges from "the wounded" which occurred at warp speed with maneuvering) or brushed facts off as "semantics" (like the sensor readings that said 30% of the crust was destroyed in "the die is cast").

you asked for evidence. here it is backed up by facts.
3. and the old BDZ took place over the course of an entire day, so thats not saying much compared to what we have seen ST weapons do.
4. and ended up having to use a missile since all their turbolasers were inoperative.
5. they had a rule by fear over the whole galaxy. trying to twist things around wont change that.
6. still full of shit I see. the rest of the quote had no relevance. I said that wongs article wasn't canon or reliable because it relied on outdated non canon sources. I was right. I never lied about that. you can go back and check. and I'm still waiting for that apology.
7. thats not even bullshit, thats horse shit. first off, the only "droid controlled ships" aren't even ships. they are fighters. none of the cap ships are "droid controlled" like the tri-fighter. definitely not the malevolence. so your whole argument just met a terrible end right there. and its very possible to prove because none of the cap ships are huge droids controlled by programming. they actually require somebody or something to operate work stations and such. like the malevolence. and no matter how you try to twist that around or change your argument to save face is going to change that. so your range argument just got kaboshed too. the point is, if its out of range, they cant fire. your little ever changing "theoretical range" theory went down the shitter some time ago. now you are just embarrassing yourself.
8. agreed.
9. anybody can hit a planet from orbit. hitting a specific target, thats another story. and that accuracy was piss poor at best. they hit the shield and everything around it so if their accuracy suffers that much from orbit, the "theoretical" ranges that you ripped from AOTC ICS pretty much guarantee that anything over 1000km would probably never be hit. the odds of hitting what you are aiming at would be astronomical. not that it matters since they cant fire at something out of range anyway.

you keep accusing me of lying yet haven't proved a damn thing despite me asking for proof multiple times. you just need a mute button :lol:

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 05:56am

texanmarauder wrote:
Batman wrote:I think one of issues is Trek HAS to break out the quasiomnipotentials to stand against Wars, and many Trek fans don't like that.
if we compare firepower seen on screen (conventional weapons, not superweapons from the franchises), ranges, shields, sublight speeds, sensors, and targeting, one galaxy class cruiser could devastate even a fleet of ISDs. the only sources that ever gave biggaton yields and ranges for SW ships was the non canon ICS books and wongs website. one is non canon, and the other is useless. ST on the other hand, has multiple examples of high yields. the only advantages that SW might have in combat is hyperdrive and sheer numbers.
And body armour, sights on their guns, scopes on their guns, trigger-guards, SAWs, IFVs, tanks, emplaced weapons, jetbikes, rocket packs...
Rhadamantus wrote:You're really going to try to pull this again?
He's not wrong. In fact Curtis Saxton himself points out that firepower is far (far far) lower than engine power would suggest.
texanmarauder wrote:ok. give me an example of turbolasers doing at least 50,000Tj on screen?
I can give you 30,000 - from the Turbolaser commentaries, where they vapourise asteroids in Empire Strikes Back.
or a ship crossing 90,000,000km + in minutes with sublight engines? (just FYI the impulse engines were only at 60%) ? I can give canon examples of those. can you?
No one, literally no one, says that Star Trek sublight engines are slower. That's why, if you look at the comparisons made on the main website, that topic isn't mentioned, because it's one of the areas where Star Trek is in fact, competitive.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 10:09am

NecronLord wrote:I can give you 30,000 - from the Turbolaser commentaries, where they vapourise asteroids in Empire Strikes Back.
if thats the page that I think you are talking about, then that would be for a 100m asteroid that the author cant even prove was 100m. he keeps saying "if the asteroid was XX meters then it would take XXXTj to vaporize." plus, the only scene that we see asteroids being vaporized is the one with the Avenger firing on 3 asteroids in the space of a few seconds. the falcon is not present in this scene. there is no reference beyond the Avenger in the background and therefore no way to know how small they asteroids were except for the size of the turbolaser bolt. they certainly were nowhere near 40+ meters. they weren't even 20 like he initially calculated. in fact, they were barely, and I mean barely, larger than the bolt itself. the shot that hit the falcon was from the same turbolasers and it was only a fraction of a square meter. so 20 meters is a ridiculously high end measurement. the rest of his "examples" weren't even asteroids. they were the "flak burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the shields. this is evident to anybody who actually watched the movie and paid attention. plus, half of his screenshots showing "vaporized asteroids" were taken when the falcon made its attack run on the avenger. OUTSIDE the asteroid field. meaning no asteroids were present. again, flak burst effect. and to clarify, brian young, which I think is the person who made those videos defending the ICS books, (I could be wrong) is the one who created the page for wong. it is filled with flat out lies and many many assumptions to the point of being almost useless. not to mention a good portion of it is also made using non canon sources. wong did some of his own work on the fighter calcs. he claimed 60Gj for fighter power based on lukes X-wing getting cooked during ANH after vaporizing a square meter of the hull of the DS. thats the equivalent of 14 tons of TNT. again, this is why I don't use wongs site as a source.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 10:19am

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
1. You can prove Yavin by looking.
2. What is your evidence of bias?
3. That it is a BDZ means a fairly short time frame, which gives order of magnitude estimates of firepower.
4. They tried to track it.
5. They didn't have a rule by fear over the senate before ANH.
6. You really can't take a hint. :banghead:. That is literally the most deceptive possible way to quote mine it. I called you out for this before. Here is the full paragraph.
Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid. However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:

In other words, fuck off.
7. Whether I meant the roger roger droids, or the actual droid brain in actual seppie ships is irrelevant and impossible to prove. What is relevant is the fact that the separtists have droid brains controlling some ships, which means that interpreting the range quote as referring to effective range is reasonable.
8. Huh, no counterargument.
9. That's at what looks to be a kms wide at most shield. Not an entire planet. They're all easily hitting the planet. Some are missing the much smaller shield.

You know, I will give you credit for merging the two parallel arguments. And then take it away a hundred times over for the blatant and utterly pointless lying. If you had just said that you misread that paragraph, I would have let it go. You are pressing it against all reason because of some stupid vendetta against someone I don't think you've ever even talked to. Please stop.
1. sure you can. in other words you have no argument.
2. a couple of examples. first of all, most of, if not all of his ST info comes from the TNG technical manual, which is not canon. yet he cites the AOTC ICS, which was also not canon and for much of the same reasons, extensively throughout the site due to the super inflated numbers. he uses terms like "First, Star Wars vs Star Trek normally means "could the Empire kick the Federation's ass". phrases like that are used throughout his site as well. he lies by omission. for example, he mentions that the proton torpedoes that killed the death star executed a 72,000g turn. I'm not going to do the math on that and I don't care. what he leaves out is that it takes a force user to get that turn. a much older and far more experienced pilot than luke took the first shots and they didn't come near the port. luke was able to use the force to guide the torpedo in. hell, that was emphasized in the plot by the voice overs from Kenobi "use the force luke". he even turned off his targeting computer. so the onboard targeting systems weren't even a factor. his sw vs st in five minutes page is a joke and full of omissions and exaggerations plus it ignores a good deal of on screen canon. I could go on all day. 3 undeniable facts.

a. 99% of his site no longer applies due to Disney canon changes and some didn't even apply at the time.
b. its clear that he was heavily biased against st by using a non canon tech manual in favor of on screen canon.
c. what on screen canon he did use he either omitted parts that would make sw look bad (like the weapon ranges from "the wounded" which occurred at warp speed with maneuvering) or brushed facts off as "semantics" (like the sensor readings that said 30% of the crust was destroyed in "the die is cast").

you asked for evidence. here it is backed up by facts.
3. and the old BDZ took place over the course of an entire day, so thats not saying much compared to what we have seen ST weapons do.
4. and ended up having to use a missile since all their turbolasers were inoperative.
5. they had a rule by fear over the whole galaxy. trying to twist things around wont change that.
6. still full of shit I see. the rest of the quote had no relevance. I said that wongs article wasn't canon or reliable because it relied on outdated non canon sources. I was right. I never lied about that. you can go back and check. and I'm still waiting for that apology.
7. thats not even bullshit, thats horse shit. first off, the only "droid controlled ships" aren't even ships. they are fighters. none of the cap ships are "droid controlled" like the tri-fighter. definitely not the malevolence. so your whole argument just met a terrible end right there. and its very possible to prove because none of the cap ships are huge droids controlled by programming. they actually require somebody or something to operate work stations and such. like the malevolence. and no matter how you try to twist that around or change your argument to save face is going to change that. so your range argument just got kaboshed too. the point is, if its out of range, they cant fire. your little ever changing "theoretical range" theory went down the shitter some time ago. now you are just embarrassing yourself.
8. agreed.
9. anybody can hit a planet from orbit. hitting a specific target, thats another story. and that accuracy was piss poor at best. they hit the shield and everything around it so if their accuracy suffers that much from orbit, the "theoretical" ranges that you ripped from AOTC ICS pretty much guarantee that anything over 1000km would probably never be hit. the odds of hitting what you are aiming at would be astronomical. not that it matters since they cant fire at something out of range anyway.

you keep accusing me of lying yet haven't proved a damn thing despite me asking for proof multiple times. you just need a mute button :lol:
1. No, if you look at where the DS is in relation to Yavin, and with the known diameters, it is much more than 1000 km away.
2. Luke used the force to make the shot, not to forcibly guide the torpedoes.
3. Petaton scale firepower is not much compared to ST firepower?
4. If you weren't lying, you would have realized they had for some reason turned some of their guns off.
5. :banghead:. NO. They still had to justify things to the imperial senate. They honestly believed that the Imperial Senate would easily buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.
6. You're wrong, and lying for literally no reason. His article said "non canon sources say one thing. But if we look at the films, we see another." If you want to dispute the facts of his conclusions, be my guest. If you would like to repeatedly lie about what sources he used, fuck off.
7. Can you explain why it would be impossible for a droid brain to control a large ship, given we have seen them controlling small ships? No. You can't.
9. A. They were at further range than the Malovolence, so that insistence is in the trash. B. They were from ~25,000 km hitting a km wide target half the time, which means that they could reliably hit a planet from much further range.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 10:41am

texanmarauder wrote:
NecronLord wrote:I can give you 30,000 - from the Turbolaser commentaries, where they vapourise asteroids in Empire Strikes Back.
if thats the page that I think you are talking about, then that would be for a 100m asteroid that the author cant even prove was 100m. he keeps saying "if the asteroid was XX meters then it would take XXXTj to vaporize." plus, the only scene that we see asteroids being vaporized is the one with the Avenger firing on 3 asteroids in the space of a few seconds. the falcon is not present in this scene. there is no reference beyond the Avenger in the background and therefore no way to know how small they asteroids were except for the size of the turbolaser bolt. they certainly were nowhere near 40+ meters. they weren't even 20 like he initially calculated. in fact, they were barely, and I mean barely, larger than the bolt itself. the shot that hit the falcon was from the same turbolasers and it was only a fraction of a square meter. so 20 meters is a ridiculously high end measurement. the rest of his "examples" weren't even asteroids. they were the "flak burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the shields. this is evident to anybody who actually watched the movie and paid attention. plus, half of his screenshots showing "vaporized asteroids" were taken when the falcon made its attack run on the avenger. OUTSIDE the asteroid field. meaning no asteroids were present. again, flak burst effect. and to clarify, brian young, which I think is the person who made those videos defending the ICS books, (I could be wrong) is the one who created the page for wong. it is filled with flat out lies and many many assumptions to the point of being almost useless. not to mention a good portion of it is also made using non canon sources. wong did some of his own work on the fighter calcs. he claimed 60Gj for fighter power based on lukes X-wing getting cooked during ANH after vaporizing a square meter of the hull of the DS. thats the equivalent of 14 tons of TNT. again, this is why I don't use wongs site as a source.
Brian Young is a friend of mine. Do not insult him.

Learn to use paragraphs, and re-state your points using them.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 11:01am

NecronLord wrote: Brian Young is a friend of mine. Do not insult him.

Learn to use paragraphs, and re-state your points using them.
no offense, but I don't care whose friend he is. I called a spade a spade. really look at the page and tell me I'm wrong.

if thats the page that I think you are talking about, then that would be for a 100m asteroid that the author cant even prove was 100m. he keeps saying "if the asteroid was XX meters then it would take XXXTj to vaporize." plus, the only scene that we see asteroids being vaporized is the one with the Avenger firing on 3 asteroids in the space of a few seconds. the falcon is not present in this scene, so it cant be used as a reference as claimed.

there is no reference beyond the Avenger in the background and therefore no way to know how small they asteroids were except for the size of the turbolaser bolt. they certainly were nowhere near 40+ meters. they weren't even 20 like he initially calculated. in fact, they were barely, and I mean barely, larger than the bolt itself. the shot that hit the falcon was from the same turbolasers and it was only a fraction of a square meter. so 20 meters is a ridiculously high end measurement.

the rest of his "examples" weren't even asteroids. they were the "flak burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the shields. this is evident to anybody who actually watched the movie and paid attention. plus, half of his screenshots showing "vaporized asteroids" were taken when the falcon made its attack run on the avenger. OUTSIDE the asteroid field. meaning no asteroids were present. again, flak burst effect.

and to clarify, brian young, which I think is the person who made those videos defending the ICS books, (I could be wrong) is the one who created the page for wong. it is filled with flat out lies and many many assumptions to the point of being almost useless. not to mention a good portion of it is also made using non canon sources.

wong did some of his own work on the fighter calcs. he claimed 60Gj for fighter power based on lukes X-wing getting cooked during ANH after vaporizing a square meter of the hull of the DS. thats the equivalent of 14 tons of TNT. again, this is why I don't use wongs site as a source.

is that better? also, the author claims that the turbolasers that vaporized those 3 asteroids were medium or middle sized lasers, but refers to them as PDLs in other pages.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 11:44am

Rhadamantus wrote: 1. No, if you look at where the DS is in relation to Yavin, and with the known diameters, it is much more than 1000 km away.
2. Luke used the force to make the shot, not to forcibly guide the torpedoes.
3. Petaton scale firepower is not much compared to ST firepower?
4. If you weren't lying, you would have realized they had for some reason turned some of their guns off.
5. :banghead:. NO. They still had to justify things to the imperial senate. They honestly believed that the Imperial Senate would easily buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.
6. You're wrong, and lying for literally no reason. His article said "non canon sources say one thing. But if we look at the films, we see another." If you want to dispute the facts of his conclusions, be my guest. If you would like to repeatedly lie about what sources he used, fuck off.
7. Can you explain why it would be impossible for a droid brain to control a large ship, given we have seen them controlling small ships? No. You can't.
9. A. They were at further range than the Malovolence, so that insistence is in the trash. B. They were from ~25,000 km hitting a km wide target half the time, which means that they could reliably hit a planet from much further range.
1. only to you. they were in orbit. any more than 1000km and they would have had line of sight long before 15 minutes. duh.
2. he used the force to make the shot, which is making the torpedo hit a target that it normally cant hit. what, do you think he used the force to pull the trigger?
3. how many shots would it take? how long would they have to sustain bombardment? max yield? does it give that info? no. like I said, the falcon could glass a planet if given enough time.
4. wow. and you accuse me of lying. lets see. "sir, they've taken out our turbolasers". that leaves two possibilities. either they only have 2 turbolaser cannon turrets capable of taking out a fighter, or destroying two turrets disabled all of them. they didn't "turn them off" and the fact that you even suggested that insults everybodys intelligence, not just mine. not to mention makes you look like a fucking moron.
5. do you think the senate would oppose them based on what they call a "mining accident"? nope. why? because they were already afraid of the empire. thats part of the reason why the rebellion already existed.
6. does he use the SWVD in his article? yes. therefore I didn't lie. and I might add that the SWVD was in the same boat as the ICS books. so you just admitted that they were non canon too. so suck it.
7. its your job to prove your claim, not mine to disprove it. thats even in the forum rules you idiot. but just for the tally books, there is not one single canon example of a starship larger than a fighter being controlled by a droid brain. used as processors, yes. controlled by, no. and even then, they are following programming, not independent thinking or anything remotely resembling sentience.
9. (you skipped 8 ) you ate paint chips as a baby didn't you? you are obsessed with turbolasers being able to hit a planet. they were in orbit of atallon. which means hundreds of kilometers, not thousands. and if somebody wanted to blind fire at a planet, then sure, they could hit the planet. but hitting a target thats not even a kilometer wide reliably and accurately? thats a different animal. if they could do that, they wouldn't have had to resort to blanketing the area. if you notice, those turbolasers didn't do jack shit at that range either. they burnt the ground a bit, but thats it. plus, those are ISDs, not venators. they are more advanced, so reasonable to assume they have a slightly longer range. but 25,000 is ludicrous at best.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 11:53am

Okay Texan, here's how this goes.

You have posted varieties of 'it's obvious' for contesting the commentaries' 30 Pj figure.

I contest this.

As there is substantive evidence with workings you are disagreeing, under DR5 you are now obliged to back up your claims.

That means I want either a concession that you've not done the math, or I want you to present your workings, your screencaps, and evidence of your claims. I'm happy to defend Brian's workings and figures.

Show your working, or concede.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 12:06pm

NecronLord wrote:Okay Texan, here's how this goes.

You have posted varieties of 'it's obvious' for contesting the commentaries' 30 Pj figure.

I contest this.

As there is substantive evidence with workings you are disagreeing, under DR5 you are now obliged to back up your claims.

That means I want either a concession that you've not done the math, or I want you to present your workings, your screencaps, and evidence of your claims. I'm happy to defend Brian's workings and figures.

Show your working, or concede.
in other words, you don't want to look at the page yourself. gotcha. fine.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 12:08pm

I have looked at the page many times, but to comply with DR5 you must now back up your claim with the maths, show me the maths.

Is that your concession?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 12:27pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote: 1. No, if you look at where the DS is in relation to Yavin, and with the known diameters, it is much more than 1000 km away.
2. Luke used the force to make the shot, not to forcibly guide the torpedoes.
3. Petaton scale firepower is not much compared to ST firepower?
4. If you weren't lying, you would have realized they had for some reason turned some of their guns off.
5. :banghead:. NO. They still had to justify things to the imperial senate. They honestly believed that the Imperial Senate would easily buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.
6. You're wrong, and lying for literally no reason. His article said "non canon sources say one thing. But if we look at the films, we see another." If you want to dispute the facts of his conclusions, be my guest. If you would like to repeatedly lie about what sources he used, fuck off.
7. Can you explain why it would be impossible for a droid brain to control a large ship, given we have seen them controlling small ships? No. You can't.
9. A. They were at further range than the Malovolence, so that insistence is in the trash. B. They were from ~25,000 km hitting a km wide target half the time, which means that they could reliably hit a planet from much further range.
1. only to you. they were in orbit. any more than 1000km and they would have had line of sight long before 15 minutes. duh.
2. he used the force to make the shot, which is making the torpedo hit a target that it normally cant hit. what, do you think he used the force to pull the trigger?
3. how many shots would it take? how long would they have to sustain bombardment? max yield? does it give that info? no. like I said, the falcon could glass a planet if given enough time.
4. wow. and you accuse me of lying. lets see. "sir, they've taken out our turbolasers". that leaves two possibilities. either they only have 2 turbolaser cannon turrets capable of taking out a fighter, or destroying two turrets disabled all of them. they didn't "turn them off" and the fact that you even suggested that insults everybodys intelligence, not just mine. not to mention makes you look like a fucking moron.
5. do you think the senate would oppose them based on what they call a "mining accident"? nope. why? because they were already afraid of the empire. thats part of the reason why the rebellion already existed.
6. does he use the SWVD in his article? yes. therefore I didn't lie. and I might add that the SWVD was in the same boat as the ICS books. so you just admitted that they were non canon too. so suck it.
7. its your job to prove your claim, not mine to disprove it. thats even in the forum rules you idiot. but just for the tally books, there is not one single canon example of a starship larger than a fighter being controlled by a droid brain. used as processors, yes. controlled by, no. and even then, they are following programming, not independent thinking or anything remotely resembling sentience.
9. (you skipped 8 ) you ate paint chips as a baby didn't you? you are obsessed with turbolasers being able to hit a planet. they were in orbit of atallon. which means hundreds of kilometers, not thousands. and if somebody wanted to blind fire at a planet, then sure, they could hit the planet. but hitting a target thats not even a kilometer wide reliably and accurately? thats a different animal. if they could do that, they wouldn't have had to resort to blanketing the area. if you notice, those turbolasers didn't do jack shit at that range either. they burnt the ground a bit, but thats it. plus, those are ISDs, not venators. they are more advanced, so reasonable to assume they have a slightly longer range. but 25,000 is ludicrous at best.
1. NO. You can look at it. If they were in that low of an orbit, we would see something different.
2. He used the force to know when and where to shoot. Force controlling objects was not a skill he had yet.
3. :banghead: It is a BDZ. Which is still canon. There is no reason at all to suspect that they changed anything about what it is.
4. Again, quote mining. They ten seconds talk about putting the ventral cannons on line. "Use the ventral cannons." "Yes sir, bringing them online." :finger: The cannons were clearly powered down.
5. FUCK OFF, YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY AFRAID OF THE SENATE IN THIS, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF THEY YOU WEREN'T A SERIAL LIAR.
6. JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. HELL WOULD BE TOO GOOD FOR YOU. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You blatantly quote mined, and are all against all reason and logic trying to insist he used the Star Wars Visual Dictionary as his source to make his conclusions, despite that specifically being what he was not doing.
7. Just to clarify, I am not saying that the seppies had large ships controlled by droid brains. I am not saying that the Malevolence was controlled by a droid brain. I am saying that the republic knew the seppies had some ships controlled by droid brains that could manuever quickly and independently. And so they couldn't assume that the Malevolence wasn't one, especially given they had never seen a ship before, and so the clone assuming that it was out of range because it might dodge was reasonable.
9. First, what? Do you know how numbers work? Or orbits? Or anything whatsoever? When Thrawn looks at it through the viewscreen, it does not cover the entire sky, as it would if they were hundreds of kilometers away from a planet. It covers an amount consistent with them being in the low tens of thousands. I was talking about the planet because of your repeated insistence that death stars were not relevant because they had different range. Which you can see they don't. And ISDs being more advanced would not account for them having 25 times longer range. The obvious fucking conclusion is that the effective range against a fast unknown warship is not that high.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 12:30pm

NecronLord wrote:I have looked at the page many times, but to comply with DR5 you must now back up your claim with the maths, show me the maths.

Is that your concession?
the math isn't required in this case since there is not much to calculate if you eliminate the false examples he used. his math isn't the problem. its the cherry picked screenshots that he uses to falsify "examples' of asteroids being destroyed.

Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Prometheus Unbound » 2017-07-06 01:00pm

What are you guys arguing over, anyway. I've re-read the last two pages 2-3 times now and I still don't get the underlying argument.
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 01:13pm

Basically all the old versus arguments.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 01:33pm

if thats the page that I think you are talking about, then that would be for a 100m asteroid that the author cant even prove was 100m. he keeps saying "if the asteroid was XX meters then it would take XXXTj to vaporize." plus, the only scene that we see asteroids being vaporized is the one with the Avenger firing on 3 asteroids in the space of a few seconds. the falcon is not present in this scene, so it cant be used as a reference as claimed. Image this is the only scene where asteroids are destroyed by turbolasers. the avenger is the only reference point in the scene. the asteroid is a good distance from the ISD.

there is no reference beyond the Avenger in the background and therefore no way to know how small they asteroids were except for the size of the turbolaser bolt. they certainly were nowhere near 40+ meters. they weren't even 20 like he initially calculated. in fact, they were barely, and I mean barely, larger than the bolt itself. the shot that hit the falcon was from the same turbolasers and it was only a fraction of a square meter. Image so 20 meters is a ridiculously high end measurement. Image see? the bolt is larger than the asteroid itself. as for the claim of the falcon being used to scale size... ""In this picture, an obviously middle-sized bolt is about to strike the asteroid. These asteroids were at least on the order of 20 meters in diameter. The asteroids appear to be slightly shorter than the diameter of the Millennium Falcon. Several asteroids were also vaporised when in close proximity to the Falcon itself in later scenes by long TL bolts" "

the rest of his "examples" weren't even asteroids. they were the "flak burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the shields. this is evident to anybody who actually watched the movie and paid attention. plus, half of his screenshots showing "vaporized asteroids" were taken when the falcon made its attack run on the avenger. OUTSIDE the asteroid field. meaning no asteroids were present. again, flak burst effect. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJDItC6tE0&t=45s[/youtube] 1:13 in this video and you see that same flak effect. that was BEFORE they entered the asteroid field.

Image flak effect, not an asteroid. it is the exact same effect seen outside the asteroid field. there is no visible asteroid hit by that turbolaser. Image somebody was nice enough to make a GIF for ya. this illustrates the point I was making perfectly. you see many flak bursts with no asteroids being destroyed as claimed. at this point they are about to exit the asteroid field.

oh look, another GIF Image this was immediately before Han's "attack run" on the Avenger. AFTER they left the asteroid field. as you can see, no asteroids, only turbolaser flak effect. the author claimed that this was a 60m asteroid. "This is a later scene. The Falcon is leaving the asteroid field, and the Star Destroyer behind is about to. The Falcon is 18 pixels wide, and the more distant asteroid (the large-sized bolt came from the dorsal surface of the ship, and was fired in a starboard direction - not in a ventral direction) is 27 pixels in diameter. Thus, the asteroid is more than 60 meters in diameter" the asteroid he claims is in this scene is not shown. at this point in the movie, they have already exited the asteroid field with the Avenger just behind.

is that enough pictures and such for ya? so lets recap. the author undeniably lied about large asteroids being vaporized by turbolasers. said author also cherry picked screenshots to use to falsify his examples not once, but several times. also, the author claims that the turbolasers that vaporized those 3 asteroids were medium or middle sized lasers, but refers to them as PDLs in other pages.


is that better?

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 02:33pm

No, simply posting pictures isn't enough. Show me side-by-side, where Brian has been duplicitous, show your scaling, not simply a picture of an asteroid that may be foreground or background relative to the Falcon.

Of course, you are harping at significant length about this supposed reliance on 100m wide asteroids, without noticing that the 30 TJ figure is actually referring to the twenty meter estimate.
Turbolaser Commentaries wrote:Therefore, if we are conservative and use the melting point (more specific figure than boiling point), and use 20 meter asteroids, with the melting figure of ~30 TJ:
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 02:59pm

Wait a minute... did you just say that being in orbit means you can't be thousands of kilometers in altitude of an Earthlike planet, Texan?

Image

How far away do you think the moon is, Texan?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 03:31pm

[quote="Rhadamantus
1. NO. You can look at it. If they were in that low of an orbit, we would see something different.
2. He used the force to know when and where to shoot. Force controlling objects was not a skill he had yet.
3. :banghead: It is a BDZ. Which is still canon. There is no reason at all to suspect that they changed anything about what it is.
4. Again, quote mining. They ten seconds talk about putting the ventral cannons on line. "Use the ventral cannons." "Yes sir, bringing them online." :finger: The cannons were clearly powered down.
5. FUCK OFF, YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY AFRAID OF THE SENATE IN THIS, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF THEY YOU WEREN'T A SERIAL LIAR.
6. JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. HELL WOULD BE TOO GOOD FOR YOU. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You blatantly quote mined, and are all against all reason and logic trying to insist he used the Star Wars Visual Dictionary as his source to make his conclusions, despite that specifically being what he was not doing.
7. Just to clarify, I am not saying that the seppies had large ships controlled by droid brains. I am not saying that the Malevolence was controlled by a droid brain. I am saying that the republic knew the seppies had some ships controlled by droid brains that could manuever quickly and independently. And so they couldn't assume that the Malevolence wasn't one, especially given they had never seen a ship before, and so the clone assuming that it was out of range because it might dodge was reasonable.
9. First, what? Do you know how numbers work? Or orbits? Or anything whatsoever? When Thrawn looks at it through the viewscreen, it does not cover the entire sky, as it would if they were hundreds of kilometers away from a planet. It covers an amount consistent with them being in the low tens of thousands. I was talking about the planet because of your repeated insistence that death stars were not relevant because they had different range. Which you can see they don't. And ISDs being more advanced would not account for them having 25 times longer range. The obvious fucking conclusion is that the effective range against a fast unknown warship is not that high.[/quote]

1. if thats the only thing you can come up with, then you are in trouble. I did look at it. I don't see it being any more than hundreds, 1000km tops, from yavin. even the nav display disagrees with you.
2. the fact still remains that we have never, in all the movies, seen torpedoes hit that small of a target or make a turn like that. the torpedoes fired by red leader couldn't hit it. luke "used the force" to make the shot. that introduces an element that wasn't present in any other example. therefore the only explanation is that if he wasn't a force user, lukes torpedoes would have impacted the surface as well. plus, as I said before, his targeting computer was off. so there was nothing to tell the torpedoes to suddenly make a 90 degree turn downward. the ONLY explanation is the force.
3. the old non canon BDZ was to bombard the surface of a planet. it also required several cap ships, smaller escorts and their fighter/bomber compliments almost a full day to accomplish, followed by stormtrooper mop up. current canon is simply to kill off the population, no special quantifiers beyond that. so you might want to be more specific as to which BDZ you are talking about because they are entirely different.
4. ventral cannons, AKA missile launcher, not a turbolaser. fired four missiles with one shot down and 2 missing entirely. interesting point, while dodging those missiles, we see a couple of pot shots from the turbolasers. so it must have only taken out the ventral turbolasers.
5. blah blah blah. once again, the liar bit. you definitely have broken record syndrome. no matter how many times you say it, its not going to magically make it true.
6. that wasn't the only example pal. the AOTC ICS wasn't canon either, along with a number of EU books that he used throughout his whole site. again, you missed the point. I'm still waiting on that apology.
7. that is exactly what you said before. they had no cap ships "controlled by droid brains". never seen a ship before? look up the words speculation and conjecture. because thats all you have. back here, in reality, out of range means exactly that. out. of. range. as in, not in the range of available weapons.
9. you forgot 8 again. the range from the death star to alderaan was well outside of high orbit. it was several planetary diameters at least. thats well over 50,000km. hell, they couldn't even fit alderaan and the death star in the same frame when alderaan was destroyed. as for thrawns fleet, they were in orbot of atollon. 25,000km is not orbit. and there is no canon evidence that they could fire at extreme range like you are suggesting. hell, a TIE fighter was less than 100m in front of the falcon and was "too far out of range". plus, how big is atollon? do you know? I didn't think so. you are nothing but speculation and conjecture. even if it was over 1000km, those turbolasers had terrible accuracy and barely scorched the ground. hell, one landed within inches of kanan and only knocked him off his speeder. at that distance, it should have incinerated him at the very least. again, you have nothing.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27122
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 03:38pm

Texan, are you aware that the most up to date opinions of most people here actually rate Star Trek planetary bombardment as tactically superior?

We know that the Atollon bombardment is a shitshow. We even parodied it here a while back.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 03:58pm

texanmarauder wrote:[quote="Rhadamantus]
1. NO. You can look at it. If they were in that low of an orbit, we would see something different.
2. He used the force to know when and where to shoot. Force controlling objects was not a skill he had yet.
3. :banghead: It is a BDZ. Which is still canon. There is no reason at all to suspect that they changed anything about what it is.
4. Again, quote mining. They ten seconds talk about putting the ventral cannons on line. "Use the ventral cannons." "Yes sir, bringing them online." :finger: The cannons were clearly powered down.
5. FUCK OFF, YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY AFRAID OF THE SENATE IN THIS, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF THEY YOU WEREN'T A SERIAL LIAR.
6. JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. HELL WOULD BE TOO GOOD FOR YOU. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You blatantly quote mined, and are all against all reason and logic trying to insist he used the Star Wars Visual Dictionary as his source to make his conclusions, despite that specifically being what he was not doing.
7. Just to clarify, I am not saying that the seppies had large ships controlled by droid brains. I am not saying that the Malevolence was controlled by a droid brain. I am saying that the republic knew the seppies had some ships controlled by droid brains that could manuever quickly and independently. And so they couldn't assume that the Malevolence wasn't one, especially given they had never seen a ship before, and so the clone assuming that it was out of range because it might dodge was reasonable.
9. First, what? Do you know how numbers work? Or orbits? Or anything whatsoever? When Thrawn looks at it through the viewscreen, it does not cover the entire sky, as it would if they were hundreds of kilometers away from a planet. It covers an amount consistent with them being in the low tens of thousands. I was talking about the planet because of your repeated insistence that death stars were not relevant because they had different range. Which you can see they don't. And ISDs being more advanced would not account for them having 25 times longer range. The obvious fucking conclusion is that the effective range against a fast unknown warship is not that high.
1. if thats the only thing you can come up with, then you are in trouble. I did look at it. I don't see it being any more than hundreds, 1000km tops, from yavin. even the nav display disagrees with you.
2. the fact still remains that we have never, in all the movies, seen torpedoes hit that small of a target or make a turn like that. the torpedoes fired by red leader couldn't hit it. luke "used the force" to make the shot. that introduces an element that wasn't present in any other example. therefore the only explanation is that if he wasn't a force user, lukes torpedoes would have impacted the surface as well. plus, as I said before, his targeting computer was off. so there was nothing to tell the torpedoes to suddenly make a 90 degree turn downward. the ONLY explanation is the force.
3. the old non canon BDZ was to bombard the surface of a planet. it also required several cap ships, smaller escorts and their fighter/bomber compliments almost a full day to accomplish, followed by stormtrooper mop up. current canon is simply to kill off the population, no special quantifiers beyond that. so you might want to be more specific as to which BDZ you are talking about because they are entirely different.
4. ventral cannons, AKA missile launcher, not a turbolaser. fired four missiles with one shot down and 2 missing entirely. interesting point, while dodging those missiles, we see a couple of pot shots from the turbolasers. so it must have only taken out the ventral turbolasers.
5. blah blah blah. once again, the liar bit. you definitely have broken record syndrome. no matter how many times you say it, its not going to magically make it true.
6. that wasn't the only example pal. the AOTC ICS wasn't canon either, along with a number of EU books that he used throughout his whole site. again, you missed the point. I'm still waiting on that apology.
7. that is exactly what you said before. they had no cap ships "controlled by droid brains". never seen a ship before? look up the words speculation and conjecture. because thats all you have. back here, in reality, out of range means exactly that. out. of. range. as in, not in the range of available weapons.
9. you forgot 8 again. the range from the death star to alderaan was well outside of high orbit. it was several planetary diameters at least. thats well over 50,000km. hell, they couldn't even fit alderaan and the death star in the same frame when alderaan was destroyed. as for thrawns fleet, they were in orbot of atollon. 25,000km is not orbit. and there is no canon evidence that they could fire at extreme range like you are suggesting. hell, a TIE fighter was less than 100m in front of the falcon and was "too far out of range". plus, how big is atollon? do you know? I didn't think so. you are nothing but speculation and conjecture. even if it was over 1000km, those turbolasers had terrible accuracy and barely scorched the ground. hell, one landed within inches of kanan and only knocked him off his speeder. at that distance, it should have incinerated him at the very least. again, you have nothing.[/quote][/quote]

1. That's is not what a thousand km looks like.
2. The torpedoes may very well have internal computers.
3. :banghead: From what we know a BDZ, it seems very likely to be the exact same operation.
4. Huh. Yeah, I was wrong on that. It is supposed to have thousands of turbolasers, so not sure what was happening there.
5. You have indisputably lied.
6. If you would like to ignore parts of his site because they rely on now non-canon material, be my guest. Lying about what he uses on pages, and quote mining to not be forced to back down is not something I am fine with.
7. I would like you to answer this. Do you realize it is possible that range there referred to the distance at which they could reliably hit that specific ship?
8. "25,000km is not orbit"? What? The moon is much further away than that. What do you think it is doing?
9. I am seriously wondering how you are this stupid. RANGE DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE THEIR PROJECTILES CAN FIRE. It can also, and in many cases does, mean the distance at which they can reliably land hits. Consider the TIE fighter. It is 6.4 meters wide, and can dodge at 4100g. That means it can dodge it's width in 1/80 of a second. Which, with weapons speeds is possibly out of range.
10. Is there any reason to suspect Atollon is significantly smaller than Mars?
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 373
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 04:00pm

NecronLord wrote:Texan, are you aware that the most up to date opinions of most people here actually rate Star Trek planetary bombardment as tactically superior?

We know that the Atollon bombardment is a shitshow. We even parodied it here a while back.
Firepower wise? Or their weirdly bad aim?
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 04:03pm

NecronLord wrote:No, simply posting pictures isn't enough. Show me side-by-side, where Brian has been duplicitous, show your scaling, not simply a picture of an asteroid that may be foreground or background relative to the Falcon.

Of course, you are harping at significant length about this supposed reliance on 100m wide asteroids, without noticing that the 30 TJ figure is actually referring to the twenty meter estimate.
Turbolaser Commentaries wrote:Therefore, if we are conservative and use the melting point (more specific figure than boiling point), and use 20 meter asteroids, with the melting figure of ~30 TJ:
you also quotes from his page correlating to those pictures. short of making a website myself, I have given you the proof needed. no math is needed since the math is not what I had an issue with. and DR5 just says back up your claim. it doesn't require me to produce calculations when the calcs weren't the issue. I have shown you proof of what I was claiming. brian claimed that the flak bursts were asteroids being vaporized. I proved that they weren't. its not that hard. you look at his pictures and his claims, then look at movie itself or clips, youtube, what have you. see? no asteroids.

I'm not jumping through tiny hoops for you. as for the asteroids that were actually destroyed, I did show my scaling. I pointed out the impact of the turbolaser bolt that hit the falcon and compared it to the ones destroying the asteroids.

if you don't want to see me prove your friend to be, shall we say, less than honest, just say so. but don't ignore valid evidence that you asked for just because you don't want to see it.




as for the 30Tj claim, in your earlier post, you said PJ, NOT Tj.
You have posted varieties of 'it's obvious' for contesting the commentaries' 30 Pj figure.{/quote] an excerpt from brains page: " If the Falcon is 53 meters long, then the asteroid must be on the order of 100 meters in diameter. This would require over 31,000 terajoules to vaporise. " so to be fair, he doesn't actually claim that the turbolasers did in fact destroy a 100m asteroid. he does make the claim of a 40m and 60m asteroid being destroyed though.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 04:06pm

NecronLord wrote:Wait a minute... did you just say that being in orbit means you can't be thousands of kilometers in altitude of an Earthlike planet, Texan?

Image

How far away do you think the moon is, Texan?
that is not what I said. I am well aware of the orbit of the moon. I posted those numbers on this thread already.

Post Reply