Discussion of proposed new arguments

[Batman]

Why would a hit to the torso cause a concussion (unless you were trying to say that the fall would)?
Given the lack of so much as a scorch mark on the armour, however, I'm inclined to agree that the guy was knocked over and that's it. Definitely no penetration. Useless against blasters like hell.[/i]

[Vympel]

I'm not sure about that screenshot- I think the Stormtrooper in question got hit in the bodyglove between his chest and shoulder plates. I'll look into it.

[Batman]

The screenshot to me looks like a clean hit on the breastplate.

[Mange]

I'm not sure about that screenshot- I think the Stormtrooper in question got hit in the bodyglove between his chest and shoulder plates. I'll look into it.

Yes, that's how I remember it also.

[Vympel]

Actually I was wrong too, he wasnt' hit in the body glove, he was hit in the armor, but Han's bolt does create a small, sparking hole:

Here's the hole, non-sparking, circled:



Sparking hole, a few frames later:



Paint messes the image quality up slightly, so here's the original screencap, without my circle, in terms of the non-sparking hole:

[Balrog]

Hmm, you're right, bolt did pierce the armor. I'm almost positive there's at least another example from the OT where ST armor does stop a blaster bolt. Might've been in Cloud City, don't have the movies with me to check unfortunately.

[Darth Servo]

Hmm, you're right, bolt did pierce the armor. I'm almost positive there's at least another example from the OT where ST armor does stop a blaster bolt. Might've been in Cloud City, don't have the movies with me to check unfortunately.

Try on the Taintive IV when Leia shoots one.

[Vympel]

Hmm, you're right, bolt did pierce the armor. I'm almost positive there's at least another example from the OT where ST armor does stop a blaster bolt. Might've been in Cloud City, don't have the movies with me to check unfortunately.

Try on the Taintive IV when Leia shoots one.

Nope, there's a clear blast mark on his chest.

[OmegaGuy]

Another thing that should be mentioned is that stormtroopers are not the Empire's only ground forces. They have snow troopers, swamp troopers, even space troopers, and their supersoldiers: Dark Troopers. (I seem to remember something in the EU about the Dark Troopers being brought back into production after Mohc's defeat, I could be wrong though).

[Aaron]

Another thing that should be mentioned is that stormtroopers are not the Empire's only ground forces. They have snow troopers, swamp troopers, even space troopers, and their supersoldiers: Dark Troopers. (I seem to remember something in the EU about the Dark Troopers being brought back into production after Mohc's defeat, I could be wrong though).

There's also the bog standard Imperial Army.

[Batman]

Another thing that should be mentioned is that stormtroopers are not the Empire's only ground forces. They have snow troopers, swamp troopers, even space troopers, and their supersoldiers: Dark Troopers..

The space troopers aren't exactly ground forces and all those are, guess what, specialised stormtroopers.
You're still right as there's the regular Imperial Army as pointed out by the Cpl, but those examples don't hack it.

[Balrog]

Hmm, you're right, bolt did pierce the armor. I'm almost positive there's at least another example from the OT where ST armor does stop a blaster bolt. Might've been in Cloud City, don't have the movies with me to check unfortunately.

Try on the Taintive IV when Leia shoots one.

Nope, there's a clear blast mark on his chest.

Bah, I was sure there was at least one example, and I don't have the movies with me to go looking

[Invictus ChiKen]

Is it just me or is there traces of red glow UNDER the armor in some of those pics?? (I've yet to find anything that'll let me post screen caps)

But look right under the belt where the left leg joins with the rest of the body.

[Vympel]

Is it just me or is there traces of red glow UNDER the armor in some of those pics?? (I've yet to find anything that'll let me post screen caps)

But look right under the belt where the left leg joins with the rest of the body.

It's just a flying spark.

Bah, I was sure there was at least one example, and I don't have the movies with me to go looking

A Stormtrooper that Chewie shoots in TESB comes to mind, but it's really too far away to be seen properly.

[Darth Servo]

damn, wish I had an edit button.

Estimating that to be about a 2000-3000 mile trip or 3200-4800 km, that works out to an average speed of about 4.4 to 6.7 kps.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

With regard to speed, I read in the Star Trek Fact Files that warp one was the speed of light and that full impulse was a quarter of the speed of light, I don't know where they got that info.

[Bounty]

Of course, there's the leaving the spacedock scene from ST VI, where 1/4 impulse amounts to about 2 gees or thereabouts...

STIII, and that pretty much proves there's no direct correlation between the called-out impulse speed and c, otherwise ships wouldn't even be able to break orbit.

[Darth Servo]

Of course, there's the leaving the spacedock scene from ST VI, where 1/4 impulse amounts to about 2 gees or thereabouts...

STIII, and that pretty much proves there's no direct correlation between the called-out impulse speed and c, otherwise ships wouldn't even be able to break orbit.

Not to mention leaving the refit facility in TMP and TWOK, the latter of which was also 1/4 impulse.

[Bounty]

Not to mention leaving the refit facility in TMP and TWOK, the latter of which was also 1/4 impulse.

TMP was thrusters. There's a brief bit after the ship clears the dock where Scotty says they've got impulse power, the engines light up and the ship zaps away. Confusingly, they recycled the same drydock shot in TWOK, only this time with dialogue from Saavik saying the ship was going at impulse...while the impulse engines weren't even lit in the exterior shots

STVI also has the ship leaving Spacedock on impulse, faster than in STII but still magnitudes slower than 1/4c.

[Bounty]

Ah crap, missed your "latter". Ignore that post.

[Darth Wong]

Here are a few more arguments I hear often, these particular quotes come from Starfleetjedi page:

Romulan plasma torpedo from "Balance of terror"

The plasma torpedo, seen in "Balance of Power," disintegrated quite thoroughly the fourth UFP outpost it attacked; this outpost was "a mile deep on an asteroid. Almost solid iron." With the first shot, the Romulan ship took out the deflectors and damaged the station severely; the second shot then disintegrated the asteroid and outpost into "dust and debris" - by "forcing an implosion." To crush a two mile diameter asteroid mostly comprised of iron into dust using glowing hot plasma requires a great deal of work. Considering the presence of some debris, the yield could be guessed at being perhaps only a hundred gigatons or so - a truly impressive sum, particularly for a ship as small as the Romulans'. It is not surprising in the least that the ship appears to have the capability to fire only 5-10 (probably 9) shots before needing to refuel.

Enterprise firepower from "Taste of armageddon"

In "A Taste for Armageddon," Kirk states bluntly: "In two hours, the Enterprise will destroy Eminiar 7." In this particular context, it appears as though the Enterprise has quite enough firepower to level all civilization of Eminar 7, which has been fortifying and stockpiling weapons for the past 500 years, in a fairly short span of time. Similar reference to this capability occur in "Bread and Circuses" and "Operation: Annihilate!" Kirk agonizes over obliterating a human colony with a million people in order to destroy the neural parasites that have infested it in the latter, while in the former, an ex-captain, worried, notes that the Enterprise would be able to wipe out the 20th century version of a planetary Roman Empire.

Incidentally, we could use this to check our yield estimates. We may estimate that destroying Eminar 7 involves levelling reinforced concrete buildings over perhaps a total of 1-25% of the planet's surface; with efficient thermal weaponry, this may be somewhere around ~20kt per square kilometer. With a surface area for an Earthlike planet of about a half billion, this gives us - very generally - 100 gigatons to perhaps 2.5 teratons or so that the U.S.S. Enterprise is expected to deliver in short order. This is generally agreeable with our rough estimates of phaser and photon torpedo yields from various episodes.

Firepower from "Whom Gods destroy"

"The Paradise Syndrome" shows Spock trying to split into pieces an asteroid stated to be nearly the size of Earth's moon using phasers after failing to deflect it sufficiently using the ship's deflector screens. Even considering that he was attempting to take advantage of a "weak spot" in the asteroid, as well as the asteroid being somewhat less than actually moon-sized, this would require zettajoules of imparted energy if not yottajoules to pull off - i.e., the equivalent of gigatons to teratons of TNT. The actual effect achieved is somewhat less impressive; the first normal phaser blast used on the asteroid produces a splash of glow about a third the diameter of the asteroid; a full broadside with the phasers only causes a small square of the asteroid to glow molten red.

++http://www.starfleetjedi.net/Square_Blast.jpg

If the asteroid's longer dimension is a bit over 1700 km, then the area melted is about 70 km across and roughly square. The heat of fusion for lava is generally similar to the energy required to heat the rock ~300 kelvins; granite generally melts at about 925 kelvins; if we approximate it as being granite chemically and having a bulk density of 2 tons per cubic meter, melting a 70 km cube out of the asteroid gives only ~130-160 exajoules for a full power broadside by the Enterprise. With four phasers being fired on full power here, that's a maximum strength blast of 30-40 EJ per phaser - 7-10 gigatons. Considering that it may not have truly been an entire 70 km cube melted, but likely a smaller fraction, we should call it perhaps 1-10 gigatons for a ship's phaser on full blast.

Do these imbeciles ever explain how they calculate these figures, including a list of all the necessary assumptions incorporated into them?

[Batman]

The word 'No' comes to mind. After all that would require them to understand what they're talking about.

[Kane Starkiller]

Do these imbeciles ever explain how they calculate these figures, including a list of all the necessary assumptions incorporated into them?

Those quotes come from the main page and those quotes are all the explanation they provided. I can only imagine that in the first example they assume that most of the asteroid was vaporized (naturally) but they generously allow for a certain percentage of it not being vaporized.

The second of course is pure desparation where they pretend that Kirk's bluff can be used to calculate the weapons power output. Of course Scotty seemed to take his orders seriously but that still doesn't mean Kirk didn't embellish the scope of the attack.

As for the third if someone has the clip I would be interested to see just how long that glow at the impact point lasts since cubic kilometers of molten rock shouldn't cool off after a few frames. Of course the very appearance of the asteroid which is very irregular suggests that it was nowhere near the size of the Moon.

[Darth Wong]

Do these imbeciles ever explain how they calculate these figures, including a list of all the necessary assumptions incorporated into them?

Those quotes come from the main page and those quotes are all the explanation they provided. I can only imagine that in the first example they assume that most of the asteroid was vaporized (naturally) but they generously allow for a certain percentage of it not being vaporized.

The second of course is pure desparation where they pretend that Kirk's bluff can be used to calculate the weapons power output. Of course Scotty seemed to take his orders seriously but that still doesn't mean Kirk didn't embellish the scope of the attack.

As for the third if someone has the clip I would be interested to see just how long that glow at the impact point lasts since cubic kilometers of molten rock shouldn't cool off after a few frames. Of course the very appearance of the asteroid which is very irregular suggests that it was nowhere near the size of the Moon.

Honestly, it's not even worth refuting all of the potential arguments out there in which people pull numbers out of their asses without showing their derivations or at least demonstrating that they have some particular scientific or engineering qualifications to be making those calculations. Any moron can say "this would take at least fifty gazillion yottatons" without showing how he derived that figure or proving that he has any qualifications.

[Vympel]

I'd say your handy Asteroid Destruction Calculator has helped these fools immensely. Imagine if it wasn't there- heck, if you look at Darkstar's idiotic attempts to "refute" the ICS, he plugs in 10m asteroids into your calculator to "prove" that Slave I's guns are weaker than the ICS says (of course, he never bothered to read your notes about the calculator on the same page). Without it, he'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

As far as I know, there are no technical pages on those morons websites. Just bald claims and not a piece of hard data in sight. The "SW ships are fueled by the fusion of diesel" or some such nonsense is a particularly laughable example.