Fully Built Borg Assimilated Death Star II vs Star Wars

[Darth Tedious]

It may have been the authors intent but that doesn't mean it cannot be interpreted as a figure of speech just like vaporization can be.

Vapourisation can be interpreted as a figure of speech because the visuals tell us vapourisation isn't actually occurring.

Gigaton and teraton measurements in RL science-based articles such as this one, this one and in the ICS are evidenced by what the visuals are showing us.

If you would like to dispute the ICS' numbers (or Mike Wong's numbers), I suggest you open a thread and do so.

[Vympel]

It may have been the authors intent but that doesn't mean it cannot be interpreted as a figure of speech just like vaporization can be.

Vapourisation can be interpreted as a figure of speech because the visuals tell us vapourisation isn't actually occurring.

Gigaton and teraton measurements in RL science-based articles such as this one, this one and in the ICS are evidenced by what the visuals are showing us.

If you would like to dispute the ICS' numbers (or Mike Wong's numbers), I suggest you open a thread and do so.

Err - there's no teraton figures in the second article. There's terajoule. Which is kiloton-range.

And then there's the Death Star's superlaser

And by the way darthy - I noted already that your attempt to pretend that the 'vaporization' observed in Trek is actual vaporization mitigated by technobabble in no way addresses the continuance of the reaction after the cessation of beam input.

[Darth Tedious]

Err - there's no teraton figures in the second article. There's terajoule. Which is kiloton-range.

Now, now. The said that medium TL batteries easily exceed 6700 TJ- which is in the low megaton range. And I'm pretty those terms weren't being used as figures of speech.

And then there's the Death Star's superlaser

There is that, too... 2.4E32J (lower limit estimate), wasn't it?

[darthy]

I've debunked the asteroid thing before.



The asteroid is at most 3 meters by scaling the width of the lasers and accounting for margin of error. I forgot what I figured it out to be... maybe it was a kiloton of firepower or lower.

[darthy]

quad lasers are supposed to have 200 gigatons of firepower per shot.

Here's the blast radius of what a 200 gigaton nuclear weapon would cover



Everything in red would be totally destroyed. Everyone outside of the red but inside the circle would receive 3rd degree burns. This would include almost all of mexico and the united states and a good portion of canada. All of north america would be crippled in pretty much one shot from this first version of star destroyer that we see in star wars episode 2.

I've seen these quad lasers shoot at maximum firepower, shoot in space, shoot in an atmosphere, shoot at droids in an atomosphere. I saw nothing even close to 200 gigatons. Granted it's not necessarily a nuclear effect but that energy has to go somewhere whether it be by sound, heat, or light. I saw nothing. Absurd.

[Vympel]

I've debunked the asteroid thing before.

Because lasers firing at the Falcon are the exact same weapons as those fired at an asteroid? Think again.

I've seen these quad lasers shoot at maximum firepower, shoot in space, shoot in an atmosphere, shoot at droids in an atomosphere.

Interesting claim, since the Acclamator quads have never been observed shooting in any visual medium apart from one time in Republic Commando (the video game) in space. Its not hard to make up arguments as to why one doesn't accept such firepower claims, but this is just comically bad lying. Stop it.

[Vympel]

Oh, I forgot:-

Here's the blast radius of what a 200 gigaton nuclear weapon would cover

Evidence, please. Based on the information at my disposal, this drawing of yours is absurd.

[Serafina]

Oh, I forgot:-

Here's the blast radius of what a 200 gigaton nuclear weapon would cover

Evidence, please. Based on the information at my disposal, this drawing of yours is absurd.

Plus, it somehow reaches the north-eastern edge of Alaska and covers the entirety of Hawaii - but doesn't even touch most of Canada or all of the west-coast.
Yes, i know that that is due to the map used, it's still hillarious.

[darthy]

I've debunked the asteroid thing before.

Because lasers firing at the Falcon are the exact same weapons as those fired at an asteroid? Think again.

I've seen these quad lasers shoot at maximum firepower, shoot in space, shoot in an atmosphere, shoot at droids in an atomosphere.

Interesting claim, since the Acclamator quads have never been observed shooting in any visual medium apart from one time in Republic Commando (the video game) in space. Its not hard to make up arguments as to why one doesn't accept such firepower claims, but this is just comically bad lying. Stop it.

I was even being conservative and measuring the laser widths when they were closer to the camera and using their pixel lengths against the falcon to get a range of possible widths based on the width of each laser I measured. I compared this to the laser width firing at the asteroids. The asteroid was closer to the camera than the lasers, making it look bigger than it was supposed to compared to the laser width.

Evidence, please. Based on the information at my disposal, this drawing of yours is absurd.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro ... s-calc.htm

The solid red circle = 405.5km radius of destruction
outer circle = 1738.9km thermal radiation radius where people would get 3rd degree burns which includes most of the United States, most of Mexico, and most of southern Canada.
fireball duration = 18 minutes.

[Darth Tedious]

Estimating the size of a luminous object can be very difficult.
Example:

The lightning striking behind the Statue of Liberty's arm clearly appears to be wider than her her arm. Her arm is 3.66 meters wide. Average width for a bolt of lightning is roughly 0.01 meters (1 centimeter). Looks can be very deceiving.

Sorry for the MASSIVE picture.
(photo source: http://wsmweather.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... Strike.jpg)

[Vympel]

I was even being conservative and measuring the laser widths when they were closer to the camera and using their pixel lengths against the falcon to get a range of possible widths based on the width of each laser I measured. I compared this to the laser width firing at the asteroids. The asteroid was closer to the camera than the lasers, making it look bigger than it was supposed to compared to the laser width.

Totally missing the point. On what basis do you justify your assumption that the lasers shooting at the Falcon are the same weapons as those shooting at the asteroids? ISDs don't just have one class of weapon. There's several ways to scale the asteroids (for example, the trench scaling method) that result in quite different lower limits - though the original point was your stupid attempt to pretend attempted quantification of an observed event was equivalent to rubbishing nonsense about 'vaporization' that is clearly nothing of the sort.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro ... s-calc.htm

The solid red circle = 405.5km radius of destruction
outer circle = 1738.9km thermal radiation radius where people would get 3rd degree burns which includes most of the United States, most of Mexico, and most of southern Canada.
fireball duration = 18 minutes.

Yes, I'm aware of that, we have that calculator on SDN. I'm more concerned with the competence of your drawing, as Serafina highlighted. But in any event, the main thrust is that your claim that you had observed the quads firing at maximum yield in atmosphere (or at all, really) is a fabrication. Of course, Connor Macleod has noted this many times, but the ICS tells us little about what circumstances the maximum yields of weaponry is actually used - fuel consumption, recoil, etc are all factors.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Evidence, please. Based on the information at my disposal, this drawing of yours is absurd.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro ... s-calc.htm

The solid red circle = 405.5km radius of destruction
outer circle = 1738.9km thermal radiation radius where people would get 3rd degree burns which includes most of the United States, most of Mexico, and most of southern Canada.
fireball duration = 18 minutes.

In fairness Vympel, those are also the numbers you get from Mike's calculator on the scince page of the main site. Much as it pains me to back up darthy.

But you are right, the 200 gigaton quad guns are only seen firing in Republic Commando (I played that mission yesterday). And geuss what? It still takes two Acclamators worth to punch through a Lucrehulk's shield.

[darthy]

Totally missing the point. On what basis do you justify your assumption that the lasers shooting at the Falcon are the same weapons as those shooting at the asteroids? ISDs don't just have one class of weapon. There's several ways to scale the asteroids (for example, the trench scaling method) that result in quite different lower limits - though the original point was your stupid attempt to pretend attempted quantification of an observed event was equivalent to rubbishing nonsense about 'vaporization' that is clearly nothing of the sort.

i'm being even more conservative when you take this into account. Tech manuals of sw indicate that the star destroyer is using it's light turbolasers against the asteroids. If we assuming they are using the same kind of thing against the falcon then the assumption is accurate. If we assume the star destroyer is firing something bigger at the falcon then the asteroids would be considerably smaller from an exaggerated size of the laser width.

Yes, I'm aware of that, we have that calculator on SDN. I'm more concerned with the competence of your drawing, as Serafina highlighted. But in any event, the main thrust is that your claim that you had observed the quads firing at maximum yield in atmosphere (or at all, really) is a fabrication. Of course, Connor Macleod has noted this many times, but the ICS tells us little about what circumstances the maximum yields of weaponry is actually used - fuel consumption, recoil, etc are all factors.

I used the scale which was on the map to figure out pixels per km then drew the circles of that radius. I never said I saw them fire at maximum yield in an atmosphere. I've seen them fire a maximum yield at the malevolence. I've seen them fire many times in an atmosphere. I don't even see a ton of firepower much less a gigaton. We see things to suggest that they do not have this firepower. For example, in the second battle of Geonosis the republic sends 14 star destroyers that enter the atmosphere and deploy troops to fight through an army. If the star destroyers had such firepower they could have easily have taken care of the defense line of the separatists for them.

[Serafina]

If the star destroyers had such firepower they could have easily have taken care of the defense line of the separatists for them.

You're a moron. We could have done that with modern-day nukes. But if you take out these defenses with such huge amounts of firepower, then you will also destroy your objective. There is a reason why modern armies still have "boots on the ground" - firepower is indiscriminate, and there is more to warfare than just "hurr, stuff blows up".
It's obvious that they did not take out those defenses with their ships for some reason other than firepower. Unless you want to claim that a civilisation which can blow up planets can't put out a few megatons with their ships.

[Vympel]

In fairness Vympel, those are also the numbers you get from Mike's calculator on the scince page of the main site. Much as it pains me to back up darthy.

That wasn't the point. As I said before you did:- "Yes, I'm aware of that, we have that calculator on SDN"

i'm being even more conservative when you take this into account. Tech manuals of sw indicate that the star destroyer is using it's light turbolasers against the asteroids. If we assuming they are using the same kind of thing against the falcon then the assumption is accurate. If we assume the star destroyer is firing something bigger at the falcon then the asteroids would be considerably smaller from an exaggerated size of the laser width.

There's no tech manual that indicates what weapon is being used against the asteroids- your penchant for making shit up on the fly is starting to annoy. And if we assume the star destroyer is firing something smaller at the Falcon (i.e. laser cannons, as opposed to light turbolasers) then the asteroids would be larger. I'm pointing out that your assumptions are unjustified.

I used the scale which was on the map to figure out pixels per km then drew the circles of that radius. I never said I saw them fire at maximum yield in an atmosphere. I've seen them fire a maximum yield at the malevolence.

An Acclamator isn't a Venator. Furthermore, seeking to derive conclusions of firepower based on weapopns fire seen in a cartoon caricature that isn't photoreal is absurd on its face. The explosions in TCW look the same in space as they do in atmosphere. They are not valid evidence, fly in the face of the G-canon lower limits, and are wildly inconsistent even with themselves - e.g. like in the premiere of Season 3 where Asajj Ventress' fighter kicks up comparatively enormous explosions on warship hulls but the very same weapons i nthe same battle causes only minor inconvenience to the hull of Obi-Wan's starfighter.

I've seen them fire many times in an atmosphere. I don't even see a ton of firepower much less a gigaton. We see things to suggest that they do not have this firepower. For example, in the second battle of Geonosis the republic sends 14 star destroyers that enter the atmosphere and deploy troops to fight through an army. If the star destroyers had such firepower they could have easily have taken care of the defense line of the separatists for them.

Further to Serafina's accurate characterization of this statement as moronic, I'll note that the 'argument from Geonosis' is one of the most fucktarded arguments in vs debating. No weapons fire is observed from the ships at all, when firepower of any scale (even a few gigajoules) would've been of assistance to destroy 'the defence line of the separatists'. Clearly, the ships neglected to fire for reasons that have nothing to do with firepower - though its ridiculous that someone even has to point out that lobbing WMD scale weapons on an inhabited planet might just be seen as undesireable.

[darthy]

If the star destroyers had such firepower they could have easily have taken care of the defense line of the separatists for them.

You're a moron. We could have done that with modern-day nukes. But if you take out these defenses with such huge amounts of firepower, then you will also destroy your objective. There is a reason why modern armies still have "boots on the ground" - firepower is indiscriminate, and there is more to warfare than just "hurr, stuff blows up".
It's obvious that they did not take out those defenses with their ships for some reason other than firepower. Unless you want to claim that a civilisation which can blow up planets can't put out a few megatons with their ships.

the objective was behind an energy shield in that episode. They needed to get through an army to reach the energy shield.

There's no tech manual that indicates what weapon is being used against the asteroids- your penchant for making shit up on the fly is starting to annoy. And if we assume the star destroyer is firing something smaller at the Falcon (i.e. laser cannons, as opposed to light turbolasers) then the asteroids would be larger. I'm pointing out that your assumptions are unjustified.

Is there reason to believe they would fire something more powerful at these pebbles than at the falcon though? This is one argument I've already had. I don't feel like digging through tech manuals, old posts, and marking where the bolts come from on the star destroyer again if it can be avoided. The point is that the methods used to establish how big the asteroids are in sw estimates has flaws by their own admission. They assume that where a falcon is at a certain point in another scene can be used to estimate the asteroid sizes in that scene. They admit this when doing the calculations that they don't know how far away the camera is to the asteroids so that it would be impossible to determine how big the asteroids are. Other estimates like the one I showed you conclude they're 3 meters or less in size, not 20 or 30 meters.

An Acclamator isn't a Venator. Furthermore, seeking to derive conclusions of firepower based on a cartoon caricature that isn't photoreal is absurd on its face. The explosions in TCW look the same in space as they do in atmosphere. They are not valid evidence, and are wildly inconsistent even with themselves.

the calculations done on the animated series outrank what's stated in books since the animated series is T-canon.

Further to Serafina's accurate characterization of this statement as moronic, I'll note that the 'argument from Geonosis' is one of the most fucktarded arguments in vs debating. No weapons fire is observed from the ships at all, when firepower of any scale (even a few gigajoules) would've been of assistance to destroy 'the defence line of the separatists'. Clearly, the ships neglected to fire for reasons that have nothing to do with firepower - though its ridiculous that someone even has to point out that lobbing WMD scale weapons on an inhabited planet might just be seen as undesireable.

Even when the clones requested air support while they were pinned down, the star destroyers told them they couldn't spare it. Not something I'd expect to hear from a ship with that type of weaponry onboard.

[Serafina]

Even when the clones requested air support while they were pinned down, the star destroyers told them they couldn't spare it. Not something I'd expect to hear from a ship with that type of weaponry onboard.

You don't get it, do you?
When someone says "We need close air support" you do NOT throw a nuke in their direction. That would be called "friendly fire", which is not all all friendly, because it sets your friends on fire.
You yourself pointed out the kiloton to gigaton (depending on the gun) firepower of Star Wars ships. Such guns are utterly useless when you want to support your troops in ground combat, just like nukes are useless for the same task.

[darthy]

you can see the numbers more clearly in this one.

[darthy]

Even when the clones requested air support while they were pinned down, the star destroyers told them they couldn't spare it. Not something I'd expect to hear from a ship with that type of weaponry onboard.

You don't get it, do you?
When someone says "We need close air support" you do NOT throw a nuke in their direction. That would be called "friendly fire", which is not all all friendly, because it sets your friends on fire.
You yourself pointed out the kiloton to gigaton (depending on the gun) firepower of Star Wars ships. Such guns are utterly useless when you want to support your troops in ground combat, just like nukes are useless for the same task.

No, I don't get it True they don't need to throw 200 gigatons at them. But surely they can fire something with a low enough yield to take out the army no problem. They shouldn't have had to send the troops down in the first place to fight through the army outside of the energy field. In another episode we saw the star destroyers firing at droids while which were flying toward them. They shouldn't have needed to peck at the droids one by one like that. The effect of the bolts after they hit each droid was nothing.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Oops, sorry Vympel, I loaded the thread before you posted.

Even when the clones requested air support while they were pinned down, the star destroyers told them they couldn't spare it. Not something I'd expect to hear from a ship with that type of weaponry onboard.

They requested air support, not "starship-grade artillery." It's quite reasonable they couldn't spare any fighters or gunships at that time. I can't believe you are thick enough to miss that distinction.

The clones were most likely too close for the SD's to use their guns. The clones realised that, the SD crew realised that, and the audience with the sole exception of you realised that.

[Vympel]

Is there reason to believe they would fire something more powerful at these pebbles than at the falcon though? This is one argument I've already had.

They were trying to capture the Falcon, not blow it up. That's one reason.

I don't feel like digging through tech manuals, old posts, and marking where the bolts come from on the star destroyer again if it can be avoided.

You'll have to if you want to make your argument stick.

The point is that the methods used to establish how big the asteroids are in sw estimates has flaws by their own admission. They assume that where a falcon is at a certain point in another scene can be used to estimate the asteroid sizes in that scene. They admit this when doing the calculations that they don't know how far away the camera is to the asteroids so that it would be impossible to determine how big the asteroids are. Other estimates like the one I showed you conclude they're 3 meters or less in size, not 20 or 30 meters.

And my point is that your own scaling is flawed. As I said, there's a variety of scaling you can use that comes up with a variety of figures. None of them can reasonably go below the terajoule range (and in connection, terawatt power levels). That's perfectly sufficient for several purposes - and it has particular relevance to this sort of rubbish:-

the calculations done on the animated series outrank what's stated in books since the animated series is T-canon.

No they do not. They are a sylized caricature of "reality" and the notion that they could ever contradict explicit figures is nonsensical. In any event, I have yet to see anyone actually perform 'calculations' based on the cartoon. When they do, I will be happy to mock them profusely. As I said in my earlier post (which you seemed to have missed):- The explosions in TCW look the same in space as they do in atmosphere- which is impossible. They are not valid evidence, fly in the face of the G-canon lower limits, and are wildly inconsistent even with themselves - e.g. like in the premiere of Season 3 where Asajj Ventress' fighter kicks up comparatively enormous explosions on warship hulls but the very same weapons in the same battle causes only minor inconvenience to the hull of Obi-Wan's starfighter.

Referring back to my comment above re asteroids:- you should realize that even if your asteroid scaling was correct, which is a lower limit for the invisible weapons on an ISD, the lower limit for same is far in excess of anything one would derive from caricature TCW visuals. Holding them up as an accurate representation of anything is no less absurd than trying to 'calculate' the old animated Clone Wars cartoon, or pretending that the version of Anakin Skywalker in TCW is more 'accurate' than that seen in a comic, purely because one is 'T-canon'.

In an interview with Empire Magazine (June 2008), Lucas refers to the film as: “a stylized cartoon...it is not photo-real because the characters look like they have been painted”.

Even when the clones requested air support while they were pinned down, the star destroyers told them they couldn't spare it. Not something I'd expect to hear from a ship with that type of weaponry onboard.

This has already been debunked in detail by others. I find it amazing that you think "we're in a planet wide invasion, we can't spare you any air support" means "we don't have the firepower to support you".

[darthy]

No they do not. They are a sylized caricature of "reality" and the notion that they could ever contradict explicit figures is nonsensical. In any event, I have yet to see anyone actually perform 'calculations' based on the cartoon. When they do, I will be happy to mock them profusely. As I said in my earlier post (which you seemed to have missed):- The explosions in TCW look the same in space as they do in atmosphere- which is impossible. They are not valid evidence, fly in the face of the G-canon lower limits, and are wildly inconsistent even with themselves - e.g. like in the premiere of Season 3 where Asajj Ventress' fighter kicks up comparatively enormous explosions on warship hulls but the very same weapons in the same battle causes only minor inconvenience to the hull of Obi-Wan's starfighter.

Referring back to my comment above re asteroids:- you should realize that even if your asteroid scaling was correct, which is a lower limit for the invisible weapons on an ISD, the lower limit for same is far in excess of anything one would derive from caricature TCW visuals. Holding them up as an accurate representation of anything is no less absurd than trying to 'calculate' the old animated Clone Wars cartoon, or pretending that the version of Anakin Skywalker in TCW is more 'accurate' than that seen in a comic, purely because one is 'T-canon'.

If you want to talk about reality, the base delta zero maneuver isn't even in the films rather some novels. I think there's a picture of a star destroyer performing one on a star wars trading card too. Presumably the ICS's insane figures come from this maneuver. If the animated serious cannot be used to gauge firepower then these other sources cannot either.

In episode "destroy malevolence"

Obi-Wan gave the order to fire at the malevolence at maximum firepower. They show a closeup of the quad laser canons, the ones which are alleged to have 200 gigatons of firepower. The malevolence had its shields disabled and were under constant fire by these 3 star destroyers for at least 3 minutes. No gigaton firepower capability observed.

[Batman]

In episode "destroy malevolence"
Obi-Wan gave the order to fire at the malevolence at maximum firepower. They show a closeup of the quad laser canons, the ones which are alleged to have 200 gigatons of firepower. The malevolence had its shields disabled and were under constant fire by these 3 star destroyers for at least 3 minutes. No gigaton firepower capability observed.

I hate to tell you but there's not a single Acclamator to be seen in that episode, the ships firing on the Malevolence are Venators. Not that you've shown a shred of math on how you determined the firepower involved.

[darthy]

Scaling this tangent back a bit. Darth Tedious suggested that all dialogue which suggests vaporization and incineration was a figure of speech. I then stated that maybe gigaton, teraton, etc.. was a figure of speech too. Then he posted links to the star wars calculations and we began arguing about that. A very worthy argument to be sure but not for this discussion. The yield of star wars weapons compared to star trek weapons is irrelevant in this thread because the borg are using star wars tech and the death star. I can start another thread later debunking the high yield turbolaser fantasies, not here though.

[Vympel]

Alright then, still waiting for a reply to this:-

"And by the way darthy - I noted already that your attempt to pretend that the 'vaporization' observed in Trek is actual vaporization mitigated by technobabble in no way addresses the continuance of the reaction after the cessation of beam input."