texanmarauder wrote:I'm sorry. how was that analysis wrong? he clearly said there were two fleets on the tactical display. visual confirms this wrong. at the point that we even see the tactical display, the rebel fleet hadn't even arrived yet. therefore there couldn't have been two fleets. this is a pathetic ad hominem with a side of red herring.
You don't know how to read the tactical display. Its a fictional display in a fictional language and a fictional UI. I think what Mike intended was that the Rebel fleet was on top of the Death Star at the time, so it wouldn't actually appear on that display; or it was in hyperspace, but known about by the Imperials because it was a trap and all that. But besides that, we also later see the Imperial fleet from the POV of the Falcon and Admiral Ackbar's flagship, and at that point the context of the film clearly indicates that the Imperial fleet was hiding on the other side of the forest moon. That's actually the important part of the analysis. So at best you are nitpicking, at worst you are cherrypicking, but either way you haven't shown Mike's analysis of Star Wars acceleration speeds to be wrong.
I didn't lie. I told him the same thing I told you with slightly different wording. more ad hominem.
That's backpedaling. By the time you told me this, you had already responded to Crazedwraith, ergo you should know better than to repeat yourself. Doing so can be considered Broken Record debating; or in other words, dishonest, a lie.
most of those "inconsistent measurements" are nothing more than fan calcs. not official numbers.
This whole debate is over fan calcs, dipshit. You are doing fan calcs when you scale asteroids against turbolaser bolts! Imperial528 is not wrong, you have no sense of integrity, you are just here to troll. When you front load your argument with an argument against the validity of fan calcs, then proceed to do your own fan calcs, you are proving that no argument you make can be taken seriously.
I'm really leaning more towards lie since even with the old VHS tapes, which I own, its glaringly obvious that the flak burst is seen outside the asteroid field. so there is really no excuse for it.
Yes there is. Anyone can look at the screenshots provided and see that the quality of VHS is low enough that such mistakes are quite easy to make. As I understand it, they did not even have the Special Editions, and despite all the jokes about Han shooting first, the Special Editions were legitimately an improvement quality wise over the tapes that were previously avaliable. They certainly didn't have DVD or Blu-ray quality screenshots back in the 90's when Brian Young did the analysis, and the pages where Mike analyzes the prequels show a huge improvement in picture quality. Admit it, you are just here to troll and throw out asinine acusations that no one who knows Mike or Brian can possibly respect.
it mentions the ICS yield and then says that this would be enough to "pulverize a well-consolidated 100-150 metre wide asteroid, assuming that the force-coupling efficiency of an energy bolt is equal to the force-coupling efficiency of a centrally buried chemical explosive. " we always hear words like "presuming", "assuming", estimation" a lot. he also goes on to say that this isn't the case, and "Realistically, a 2 kiloton energy beam of perhaps 0.01 second duration would probably be limited to fragmenting an asteroid of only a few dozen metres in size rather than 100-150 (with a lot of heating, melting, and vapourization), which is closer to what we see in the film." that's not exactly specific.
All fan calcs are estimations, idiot. Not that it matters if you consider fan calcs inherently invalid. The degree of accuracy in our measurements are limited by the fact that it is a film, not a laboratory. Even when that asteroid exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, all they could do was give an estimate of the force of the explosion. More to the point, Mike takes the time to explain how the destructive mechanism is different when you point a laser at a rock than when you bury a chemical explosive in the same rock, and why that would result in the laser needing more energy to blow up a smaller rock than the buried chemical explosive. He isn't more specific because the calculations needed to prove it are presumably quite complicated and difficult to understand unless you have the same credentials that Mike has. I certainly wouldn't be able to keep up with them what with opting for a psychology degree instead of physics or engineering. So he gets to the important point because its supposed to supplement earlier writings rather than obsolete them. The explanation makes sense, its consistent with the power of the other weapons shown in the same exact scene (the seismic charges), and its consistent with everything else that was canon at the time like the ICS. Its a brief analysis intended to confirm that the scene is consistent with what is already known, and it does its job perfectly fine once you understand its purpose.
At this point however I am convinced that you don't understand the nature and methodology of these kinds of articles. You want everything to be more precise than its intended to be, are unforgiving of honest mistakes, are unforgiving of limiting factors like image quality, and will dismiss any analysis of a visual on "canon" grounds despite the saying "a picture is worth a thousands words"-- and these pictures are the ultimate in Star Wars canon. If you keep insisting otherwise, I will simply stop responding with arguments because arguments will be unnecessary.
I never said that they weren't antimatter warheads so that statement is totally irrelevant. show me where I said that they weren't antimatter warheads? you cant. I said that he uses non canon materials to limit canon weapons. and I was right. get your head out of your ass.
You want to play the backtracking game, lets go right the hell back to where this started:
right here wrote:
in his vs pages he ignores on screen ST feats in favor of non canon source books that even state in the cover that the information inside isn't true.
And later you say this:
Emphasis mine wrote:
yes, I read it. and the first thing he does is quote (surprise surprise) FROM THE FUCKING TECH MANUAL. that automatically limits whatever he comes up with. he does this throughout that whole page, which just proves my point even more. he does his own calcs yes, but he does em loaded down with preconceptions and limits implied from a non canon source that states in the flap that it contains false info.
And yet, Star Trek canon states that Photon Torpedoes are antimatter bombs
. Just because the manual is non-canon does NOT mean everything in it is FALSE. The words you should be lookin for are "unconfirmed," but the only thing that is unconfirmed is the part of the book that states the actual ammount of antimatter contained within the torpedo. But its all irrelevant because Mike states at the top of the analysis that:
emphasis mine wrote:It is difficult to estimate photon torpedo yields because there has never been a substantive quantification of their output.
However, the TM indicates that a photon torpedo carries 1.5kg of antimatter which presumably reacts with an equal amount of matter. This allows us to determine that the upper limit for photon torpedo yield is 2.7E17 joules (64.3 megatons), since Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts that E=mc²
Naturally, Federation cultists use this figure as a benchmark, assuming (for example) that if a GCS fires 10 photon torpedoes at a ship, then the target vessel will be hit with 643 megatons of energy. However, this is incorrect.
The 64.3 megaton figure is an upper limit, and not necessarily a realistic estimate.
In other words, he is NOT saying that the number cited in the Technical Manual is canon or correct like you accuse him of doing, he is saying that other people in the debate treat it as canon and come to faulty conclusions out of ignorance. That you strawman him means you are either dishonest, or do not understand the concept of a dialectic
. Frankly, I am leaning toward you being a liar. I do not have any reason to believe you bothered to read the essay thoroughly, yet you insist it contains false information. It. Does. Not.
Either way, you also put your foot in your mouth when you said:
not to mention, as you said, on screen canon is always going to be canon, yet in his vs pages he ignores on screen ST feats in favor of non canon source books that even state in the cover that the information inside isn't true.
When in fact, Mike DOES analyze the visuals regarding torpedo guidance systems, citing exact episodes of relevance such as "The Changling." Meaning, your accusation is bullshit with no basis in reality.
So, how about you apologize for telling to "get my head out of my ass" AND apologize for all the accusations of dishonesty you have been throwing around? Also, as a friendly suggestion, you should also apologize to Queue. He's just doing his job as admin, and if you disagree with his judgement you are supposed to take it up in private rather than publicly insulting him over it. After all, I was the one who suggested it be moved here. I won't apologize for that, however. It does