The planetkiller was obviously a chain reaction
And where do you get that from?
The same argument could be brought up for the death star.
A nuclear Bomb is a chain reaction too, you know?
If you were referring to ESB, those asteroids were vapourized by light turbolasers and I'm still awaiting your evidence for photon torpedoes even shattering larger asteroids in one shot.
Quick google search and allready found someone who crunched the numbers. So you do not just get the video this time.http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html
I do not want to get into detail about that one or any other, because it is quite beside the point I am trying to make.
You may arguee up and down. But this is can be said about the SW scence too. So there can't be any contradiction to what I am trying to say.
I linked the damn vid.
Um, how does one invalidate the other? Having a refire rate does not automatically mean that the Death Star stops being a threat to capital ships. There weren't that many ships present at endor. If it toko only seconds to refire the entire fleet would be blasted out of space pretty damn quick, wouldn't you say? Or at the very least, the big ships.
So there are two options?
First: It takes as long to recover from a high power shot as it takes from a low power shot.
Second: The planet was not destroyed by brute force.
The importance of the "move into range of the Star Destroyers" was to make it harder for the DS to use its guns, thereby giving the ground team more time to disable the shield (and to give the fighters eventually enough time to attack the reactor.) That won't change regardless of what the recharge rate is.
Yes, it will. If the recharge rate is about a day, you do not have to take cover, because it won't refire.
So to stay consistant I would go the way of saying there is some mojo to make it blow up planets and to reload this mojo takes around a day. (Would not have any impact on lesser shots, which could be fired at any rate you need for the story)
Dude, I'm having a very HARD time following what you're trying to say here. you need to do a better job of explaining what exactly you're trying to get across. I understand english isn't your first language, but I can't argue if we're having trouble communicating.
I do not think my english is the problem, since you tend to understand my sentences quite well.
I have to admit, that my point is quite hard to grasp since it is quite a meta topic of the VS debate.
But the essance is quite an easy one: Sifi TV shows tend to be drawn to higher and higher power levels.
The best example here is StarGate. Started out with a punch of guys with MPs shooting up a bunch of guys looking like big iron snakes.
Ended up with a bunch of guys having ships arguably far superior to StarWars and StarTrek.
In StarTrek you find this mostly in Voyager. Started with a little ship lost in space. (Well, they had to take back some travel time from the movies, but was a nice concept) ended with a little ship having the punch to blow up borg cubes or even planets in the end.)
StarWars on the other hand is mainly based on the six films. So due to amount of material it is quite likely you find everything in StarWars also in StarTrek. If you are looking for on screen evidence.
This leads to my question why there is any merit in trying to establish the superiority of StarWars by holding up some numbers from calculations based on stuff which is mostly down in StarTrek too.
This had some merit if you looked at TOS, granted.
EG how many ships are involved, what mechanisms are used to blow it up, how much in terms of resources, effort, and time are needed to do so, etc.
Of course. The awnsers for voyager are nine (combined far smaller thand the death star), powerful shot, none, minimal, short. Drop in blow up planet move to next.
But this is besides the point anyway. The point was, that the calculation of the death star was used to show who mighty StarWars ships are. Well, now you would assume this (and arguably even worse*) for much smaller StarTrek ships.
*Since the sxplosion of the planet was much more violent and destructive to the ships around. (I could now start to argue about how far away the cubes where and how much energy is needed to vaporise everything even in this distance, but that is not the point)
Simlpy but I am trying to ask a question, thats i bugging me the second I found this site.
especially as there was not a large amount of appreciable debris, though there was apparently enough to destroy two Borg cubes.
Radiation would be enough to vaporise those cubes. Given the imagery it is the most likely assumption. But well, the energy requirements for that will go through the top though.
And I don't deny this. However, I do dispute the idea that something which uses a chain reaction, as it appeared to be with the S8472 bioships, can be readily analysed as the chain reaction's energy does have to come from somewhere, but the problem is finding out where it comes from, without, say, breaking thermodynamics.
From the bioships, most likely. (The huge beam made it quite a give away.)
I'm going to hazard a guess here, but I'd say that the weapon either wouldn't work, or would work at vastly reduced efficiency and/or speed if one were to start firing on the bioships.
Well, same is true for everything.
You just would have to find something you could fire at them, as they tend to not care about energy weapons at all.