More Trektardism

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-09-26 10:43pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:Just so you know, your link is broken.

Darth Servo wrote:damn, having trouble with the link. Give me a bit to upload it to photobucket (or you can just click your 'refresh' button. That seems to solve the problem too)

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-09-26 10:46pm

Also keep in mind, those numbers are for if the ships are at ground level. Factoring in their orbit (can't really get good numbers for that) makes the figure even higher.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-09-26 10:52pm

New link

This one should work better.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-26 11:08pm

Darth Servo wrote:Also keep in mind, those numbers are for if the ships are at ground level. Factoring in their orbit (can't really get good numbers for that) makes the figure even higher.

Just eyeballing it, it looks like they're in low orbit -- about 800 km up. If the ships are 30 km apart, with 900 km^2/ship (I'm not sure if that's the proper math for this, but I'm tired so it'll do), then the area they cover is 6.5e8 km^2 and the number of ships is a little over 700,000.

EDIT: I used 800 km in my calcs, not 2000. Whoops. 2000 km is an upper limit.

Darth Holbytlan · Post by **Darth Holbytlan** » 2007-09-27 02:02am

My calculation based on the above numbers:

Ships 30 km apart means that each ship is roughly covering a disk 15 km in radius, or a bit over 700 km^2/ship. At 2000 km up, they are at a radius of about 8400 km (assuming Earth radius) or 8.8e8 km^2. This makes the blockade over 1.2 million ships.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-27 04:59am

SSFPheonix wrote: that and they B***h about how "trektards are so retarded" and they tend to be racist towards others that don't bend toward their views.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, did he just redefine racism as any kind of persecution? Who wants to start taking bets he's theistic, that's the only people I've heard that do this.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-09-27 05:13am

Note that if one does go for lower numbers for the blockade, then the ships in question have to be able to cover/target a wider area with their weapons to ensure that noone could escape. This would imply a range of many thousands or tens of thousands of kilometers, given that the blockade wasn't completely englobing the planet (someone launching from higher up "above" or "below" the blockade ring would naturally be further away, and would need to be within weapons range to be stopped.

Ranges could drop some if the number of ships increases, but there would still be limits on range since they still AREN'T englobing the entire planet, so they'd still probably need thousands/tens of thousands of km. (The firing on the Naboo cruiser reinforces this.)

Given that those were lighter weapons and not heavy guns (the cruiser is a fairly small target) is another factor.

Peptuck · Post by **Peptuck** » 2007-09-27 12:07pm

General Schatten wrote:
SSFPheonix wrote: that and they B***h about how "trektards are so retarded" and they tend to be racist towards others that don't bend toward their views.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, did he just redefine racism as any kind of persecution? Who wants to start taking bets he's theistic, that's the only people I've heard that do this.

Ironic, as Servo pointed out that he aparently got pissed at Wong for criticizing whie supremacists.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-09-27 04:19pm

General Schatten wrote:
SSFPheonix wrote: that and they B***h about how "trektards are so retarded" and they tend to be racist towards others that don't bend toward their views.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, did he just redefine racism as any kind of persecution? Who wants to start taking bets he's theistic, that's the only people I've heard that do this.

I didn't see THAT one. Did phoenix edit his post or something.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-27 05:00pm

Darth Servo wrote: I didn't see THAT one. Did phoenix edit his post or something.

These kinds of fuckers always edit their old posts to cover up glaring errors after you point them out. I ran into the same shit on sciforums.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-27 06:38pm

It's not uncommon for people to cry "persecution" when you start picking their shit apart. They're taking a page from Bill O'Reilly's playbook: whenever someone tells you that you're full of shit, cry "fascism".

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-27 07:57pm

Darth Servo wrote:
General Schatten wrote:
SSFPheonix wrote: that and they B***h about how "trektards are so retarded" and they tend to be racist towards others that don't bend toward their views.
Jesus titty-fucking Christ, did he just redefine racism as any kind of persecution? Who wants to start taking bets he's theistic, that's the only people I've heard that do this.
I didn't see THAT one. Did phoenix edit his post or something.

Must have, because it was there when I posted that. I've found a new reason I dislike that board, it doesn't record edits.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-27 10:14pm

General Schatten wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
General Schatten wrote: Jesus titty-fucking Christ, did he just redefine racism as any kind of persecution? Who wants to start taking bets he's theistic, that's the only people I've heard that do this.
I didn't see THAT one. Did phoenix edit his post or something.
Must have, because it was there when I posted that. I've found a new reason I dislike that board, it doesn't record edits.

Is that a weakness in the software, or did they intentionally modify it? Our software records the time of editing unless you get to it before anyone else responds to the thread.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-27 11:48pm

I have no clue, but there's a page or two of replies by the time I found it.

EnterpriseSovereign · Post by **EnterpriseSovereign** » 2007-09-28 04:32pm

Damn, one of the guys there, when asked to provide examples in TNG of individual unaided speed not being around 1,000c named "Where no-one has gone before", and "Q-who", obviously forgetting the presence of the Traveler and Q, respectively

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-28 11:05pm

*flails wildly*
I am NOT going to create yet another forum account to 'debate' someone who isn't going to change his mind regardless of the pile of logic and evidence against him. However that won't stop me from mocking him here.

The ICS, as I have pointed out, are not consistent with the higher canon, nor do their firepower figures bear any relationship to the actual firepower of Star Wars ships.

Where are the specific examples of this inconsistency? I have yet to see proof of any from you.

We've seen the successors to the Acclamator battling in the skies of Coruscant; we do not see the giant incandescent fireballs that would be associated with the firepower the ICS claims.

Please show us how a 200GT turbolaser blast would produce a huge fireball, and how large they would be. I've been curious about this for a while anyway. Does the fact that this is an exotic particle acceleration weapon have any bearing on this?

We see (and, in other EU sources, it is drummed into the ground) hyperdrive that is (although - again according to most EU sources - one of the most power-intensive systems of the ship) not strong enough to go to lightspeed too close to a planet.

you DROOLING MORON. Has it ever occurred to you that the limitation in a gravity well is purely a navigational/safety one? Of course not. You immediately assume it's a power generation issue. JEEZUS.

The ICS, plainly speaking, do not fit with the rest of the Star Wars material out there.

I still haven't seen any upper-limit examples from G canon that disprove it. [/quote]

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-28 11:11pm

Why do people assume that if the maximum firepower for a TL is 200 gigatons, then every shot must be 200 gigatons? There are so many unknowns here; for example, does it take a while to charge up for a max-yield shot? That would hardly be out of the question, but nooooo, Trekkies ignore that and every other possibility. They don't look for rational explanations; they look for excuses to dismiss things they don't like.

Peptuck · Post by **Peptuck** » 2007-09-28 11:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why do people assume that if the maximum firepower for a TL is 200 gigatons, then every shot must be 200 gigatons? There are so many unknowns here; for example, does it take a while to charge up for a max-yield shot? That would hardly be out of the question, but nooooo, Trekkies ignore that and every other possibility. They don't look for rational explanations; they look for excuses to dismiss things they don't like.

I want to say it has something to do with comparing these weapons with modern weapons, which, by their very nature as projectile or chemical-explosive weapons, have set yields. You can pretty easily guess the yield of an M1 Abrams' 120mm cannon when it fires an APFSDS shell; nothing the operators can do will change how much energy that kind of weapon emparts.

Of course, this can be completely ignored when one deals with energy weapons or any other weapon which can vary its yield, like turbolasers or phasers. One of the advantages these kinds of weapons can potentially provide is their dial-a-yield nature; after all, Trek phasers can be adjusted to have various yields, why can't other energy or powered weapons do it? Since they draw their weapons' power from an adjustable source instead of raw kinetic or chemical power, its perfectly reasonable.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-09-29 12:49am

Peptuck wrote: Of course, this can be completely ignored when one deals with energy weapons or any other weapon which can vary its yield, like turbolasers or phasers. One of the advantages these kinds of weapons can potentially provide is their dial-a-yield nature; after all, Trek phasers can be adjusted to have various yields, why can't other energy or powered weapons do it? Since they draw their weapons' power from an adjustable source instead of raw kinetic or chemical power, its perfectly reasonable.

Many modern nuclear weapons can be dialed to a desired yield. Furthermore, as far as I know, explosions in space don't produce fireballs unless vaporized matter is involved. Is this correct?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-29 12:53am

PeZook wrote:
Peptuck wrote:Of course, this can be completely ignored when one deals with energy weapons or any other weapon which can vary its yield, like turbolasers or phasers. One of the advantages these kinds of weapons can potentially provide is their dial-a-yield nature; after all, Trek phasers can be adjusted to have various yields, why can't other energy or powered weapons do it? Since they draw their weapons' power from an adjustable source instead of raw kinetic or chemical power, its perfectly reasonable.
Many modern nuclear weapons can be dialed to a desired yield. Furthermore, as far as I know, explosions in space don't produce fireballs unless vaporized matter is involved. Is this correct?

They produce a fireball, but it would last milliseconds because the only matter for the expanding gas would be the mass of the bomb itself. In an atmospheric detonation, there's a huge and long-lasting fireball as superheated plasma emits hard radiation which heats up the surrounding atmosphere. Most of the traditional nuclear fireball is superheated atmosphere. So the fireball of a space nuclear detonation would probably be over before the next frame of a 30 fps movie, and you wouldn't see shit.

lord Martiya · Post by **lord Martiya** » 2007-09-29 02:31am

Peptuck wrote:Of course, this can be completely ignored when one deals with energy weapons or any other weapon which can vary its yield, like turbolasers or phasers. One of the advantages these kinds of weapons can potentially provide is their dial-a-yield nature; after all, Trek phasers can be adjusted to have various yields, why can't other energy or powered weapons do it? Since they draw their weapons' power from an adjustable source instead of raw kinetic or chemical power, its perfectly reasonable.

You forget something: Trek can do anything, SW cannot do anything unless Darkstar and/or Graham Kennedy say that SW can do that thing.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-29 04:52am

Darth Wong wrote: They produce a fireball, but it would last milliseconds because the only matter for the expanding gas would be the mass of the bomb itself. In an atmospheric detonation, there's a huge and long-lasting fireball as superheated plasma emits hard radiation which heats up the surrounding atmosphere. Most of the traditional nuclear fireball is superheated atmosphere. So the fireball of a space nuclear detonation would probably be over before the next frame of a 30 fps movie, and you wouldn't see shit.

How different would energy weapons behave? You certainly have less matter involved, the large, micro-duration fireballs may help explain the flashes seen most vividly while the Tantive IV was being disabled.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-09-29 06:16am

Darwin wrote:How different would energy weapons behave? You certainly have less matter involved, the large, micro-duration fireballs may help explain the flashes seen most vividly while the Tantive IV was being disabled.

What do you mean by "energy weapons"? Weren't the flashes shield-turbolaser interactions?

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-09-29 06:26pm

Surlethe wrote:
Darwin wrote:How different would energy weapons behave? You certainly have less matter involved, the large, micro-duration fireballs may help explain the flashes seen most vividly while the Tantive IV was being disabled.
What do you mean by "energy weapons"? Weren't the flashes shield-turbolaser interactions?

directed energy weapons, as opposed to explosives. The flashes were, as I recall, full-screen white flashes with a duration of a single frame.

Peptuck · Post by **Peptuck** » 2007-09-30 12:21am

PeZook wrote:
Peptuck wrote: Of course, this can be completely ignored when one deals with energy weapons or any other weapon which can vary its yield, like turbolasers or phasers. One of the advantages these kinds of weapons can potentially provide is their dial-a-yield nature; after all, Trek phasers can be adjusted to have various yields, why can't other energy or powered weapons do it? Since they draw their weapons' power from an adjustable source instead of raw kinetic or chemical power, its perfectly reasonable.
Many modern nuclear weapons can be dialed to a desired yield.

Well, yeah. That was why I specified kinetic energy weapons and chemical explosives, for those really can't have their force be altered as easily as nuclear or energy weapons would be.