Need help with Darkstar's follower!

[MagnusTheReD]

So I was having a SW vs ST exchange with this guy over DeviantArt.com.
He was rather nice and polite, and his arguments weren't so strong, so I had no problem taking on him by myself.
Till he started massively quoting Mr. Stars firepower calcs!

The problem is that I'm not much of a physics genius (in other words the numbers were to big and started to hurt my brain ), and that I'm relatively new to this site, and to the whole SW vs. ST thing, so I don't know what's up with said Mr. Star, other than the fact that he's mentally unstable!
The only thing I remember from my short visits to his site is the conclusion that since phasers don't seem to have any obvious aiming devices, redshirts probably have some kind of sensors in their eyes that automatically direct their phaser beams! Go figure ...

Here's my frined's last reply. Since he screwed up quoting me properly, I'll put his replies in bold.

"It's from the novels and comics. They are "C" grade canon."

Indeed. Cloaking devices are never actually seen in the movies and/or novelizations. However, Needa infers that only larger ships can use them (or have the power to).

"There's no way they're gonna dodge TL bolts."

If their weapons are accurate enough. Maximum range for the Falcon's small quad laser seems to be about 200-500 meters. The cap ships, of course, ahve much longer ranges, probably a few dozen klicks (maximum range we've ever seen them engage in at all in the movies and novelizations). Even then, the Trade Federation droid gunners couldn't his a 76-meter long, shiny yacht with virtually no ECM capabilities that was right on top of them.

"There's a difference between "less effective" and "less automated".
It's a very bad thing for a warship to be as heavily automated and as centralized as an UFP ship.
Computer can be hacked, destroyed, and infected by viruses. A human operator is far more reliable. There was an episode when a Galaxy class vessel was destroyed when a computer virus disabled the anti-matter containment fields.
Nothing like this could ever happen onboard of an Imperial vessel, since it's main functions are solely depended on human operators.

It's even a bigger problem when the computer is linked throughout the whole ship.
In that case the enemy has to take over a very small portion of the ship in order to gain control over it. How many times do we see a ship in ST being captured by a handful of men who take over the bridge?
Obviously, there is no such threats for the Imperial ships- their computers are decentralized and are not depended from each other.
A decentralized vessel could continue operating even if one section have fallen to the enemy.
So thousands of men running your ship is better than one computer."

However, the ST computers can be locked out efectively, as seen in episodes and in FIrst Contact. I fail to see how automation is a problem. There have been only a few examples of that working against the Federation's advantage. All the other times it gives them a massive computing, communications and sensor advantage, as it can process tons of information at once.

"Proof? Every time there is a major naval battle in, there is combat jamming mentioned. The movie novelizations mention it. The ICS mentions it."

Do you have specific passages, etc? Although I seem to remember something from the Battle of Yavin...Not sure, though.

"ICS. The Acclamator heacy TL' produce 200 gigatos per shot for every of it's twelve barrels.
And that's a simple troop carrier. Actual capships are far, far more powerful!"

False. According to the movie novelization (and hence higher canon) the turbolaser blasts exchanged in the battle over Couruscant were 'powerful enough to vaporize small towns'. Of course, you have to define a small town. Since we're talkinrea of abog about American writers, we'll use the American definition. Let's say a circle with a diameter of 6 kilometers.

Let's then start by seeing how much energy it would take to vaporize someone standing at the edge of this town. It takes about 162 megajoules (equivalent to about 39 kilos of TNT) to vaporize an average human being of about 60 kilograms.

Well, this oculd take awhile, so I'm going to quote from st-v-sw.net, who's arguement I am currently borrowing for this. As such:

'The frontal area of a human being is roughly 1.8 meters times .5 meters, or .9m². However, since not everyone would be facing the center of the blast or standing, we'll use an average value of .7 meters squared.

Since we already know the desired amount of energy to throw at this .7m² target, all we have to do is work backward via the inverse square law to know the total energy of the turbolaser. Using S / 4r² = I (where S is the energy at the center of the expanding sphere and I is the intensity), or for our purposes S = I (4r²), let's ponder the data. The intensity at 3000 meters is 162MJ divided by .7m², or 231.4 MJ/m². The square of 3000 meters is 9,000,000 m². That figure times 4 equals 113,097,335.53, and we thus multiply this figure times 231.4 MJ to determine the energy at the center. That value is:

26,170,723,441.5 MJ
26,170,723.4 GJ
26,170.7 TJ

That figure represents an enormous amount of energy. Deposited in one second, it would be the equivalent of 261,707,000,000,000 (261.7 trillion) 100 watt light bulbs.

However, compared to more energetic objects it seems rather less impressive. After all, a ton of TNT releases an estimated 4.184 gigajoules, and this is the figure used when calculating the explosive tonnage of an item. Converting our result from earlier into tons, we find that the energy required to vaporize a person at three kilometers is just 6.25 megatons. To be sure, this is nothing to sneeze at, and it seems more than a little absurd to find such a value disappointing.'

So, your turbolaser blasts are in fact in the megaton range, not the gigaton as you like to claim. Even if we consider twenty years of tech advancement, I doubt the power would have increased much beyond 7 or 8 megatons.

My thanks to [link]

"Yes, but where do we see them actually do it?"

I again refer you to Memory Alpha, wherein all information is based entirely on the Star Trek canon.

[link]

"But we still don't see them being used at any significant ranges or being very accurate, nor do we see those things on top of it ever being used as scopes. And they still don't have full auto."

Who needs full auto when you can set your beam to a cone or a flat plane and kill everyone in front of you?

Furthermore, I might add that a small team armed only with phaser pistols wiped out hundreds (if not thousands) of enemy troops in the TOS episode "Omega Glory". Of course, they were primitives armed with short range weapons, but the mass charge tactics of the Clone Wars certainly wouldn't work against Federation ground troops.

"It just says it can damage alloys. Nowhere does it says where do we see such an effect."

It says it can 'vaporize'.

"In fact, in several episodes we see people hide behind light cover, packing crates, etc., and no one ever tries to set the phasers to higher setting in order to cut through the cover."

Ah, this arguement. In fact, in a DS9 episode by the name of "Who Mourns for Morn" a character jumps into a packing crate to use as cover and is disconcerted to find phaser blasts coming through the sides.

"Blaster on the other hand are far more consistent- they burn through metal and flash alike."

They don't burn through them they just leave scorch marks on the walls. Or blow up control panels.

"But the problem is not the phasers, but the lack of any kind of support weaponry- no machineguns, no grenades, no mortars, no armed ground vehicles, no air support, no nothing!"

They actually have artillery in the form of photon grenades and a photon grenade launcher (much like a mortar). Photon grenades can be used to either stun or kill and seem to pack quite a punch.

There is also evidence of personal and portable force fields (discussed in DS9) and used on screen in both movies and in several TV series. In addition, Federation troops do appear to wear some sort of armor (See DS9) that can at least absorb some of the energy fro ma disruptor shot.

In Star Trek V Federation crewmembers also use portable blast shields ( much like moder day police tactical shields). We have also seen them use binoculars, etc. I naddition, they have the tricorder, which combines amnye elements of modern day GPS, tracking devices, sensors etc in to one neat little package.

"It's not home to ST canon, it's just a Wiki section dedicated for ST!"

All information on Memory-Alpha is taken from the movies and TV shows, hence it is canon. Memory-Beta includes information from liscensed but not canon novels, games, etc.


To return to space combat for a moment:

In the Voyager episode "Rise" Voyager destroys a asteriod which (when measured by scaling from the torpedo used) appears to be 390 meters long and about 200-250 meters wide. It is not totally destroyed by the torpedo, but that is only because it was not (as expected by the crew) to be nickel-iron composite but was articially made with tritanium as well as the standrd nickel-iron composite (this implys that without the triatnium it would have been totally vaporized). If you do the math neccessary to figure out how much energy is needed to vaporize a asteriod aactually made of nickel-iron (as was expected by the crew) you arrive at a low-end yield of roughly 100 gigatons.

Even if we accept the widly inflated claim of 200 gigaton turbolaser shots, the phonto torpedo can compete with that quite easily (not to mention the quantum torpedo, which has roughly twice the power of a photon and is currently replacing the photon torpedo in Starfleet servce).

Explaining the hyperdrive would take way too long, so here's a site that can:

[link]



Much thanks to this site and its author for providing me with information and counters to the typical arguements presented by the pro-Wars side (including the detestable SD.net).

Also much thanks to Memory-Alpha and its contributors.

Any help with this mess would be appreciated!
Especially with Darkstar's quotes...

I have to admit that before he started using Darkstar's quotes he sounded
a lot more reasonable and his arguments were better thought-out.
Here's a link
to the original containing our exchange, but the message boards on that site are a mess!
If you really have to see how it started, I can only advise you to look for the longest posts, or to stay away from it completely.

I'm really sorry for this horrible, long and boring mess, and thank you in advance!

[MagnusTheReD]

Oh, and I completely forgot to tell you: the OP is completely unrelated to our exchange!
It (the OP) was started by me, but regarding a completely different issue.

[Surlethe]

Ranges: Venators can target accurately at ranges up to 10 light-minutes (ROTS: ICS).

Weapon outputs: Your little friend is engaging in a rather disingenuous hidden assumption: namely, that the shots being exchanged in orbit above Coruscant were full power. In fact, the engaged fleets had been battling for hours and hours, and, as I recall, the novelization mentions something about overheating guns. Think of them as boxers entering the fifteenth round: battered, bloody, and worn out. There's no reason to assume that they're anything near what the Federation would be facing in a war.

Hyperdrive speeds: Darkstar's site speaks for itself. I suggest reading it and taking the arguments apart as an exercise in critical reading and thinking.

[Lost Soal]

I remember reading the thread as regarding the Coruscent battle as they tried to determine the energy output required to vapourise a small town.
It struck me as rather comical, they were getting all flustered over how many people there would be so they could calculate the amount to vapourise all the people. Not once, do I recall anyone ever thinking about the buildings, bridges, machinery or any other infastructure which would need to be vapourised, and would greatly increase any figures.

Also, I don't think they took into account that a Turbolaser doesn't airburst like a bomb will, meaning their idea of a 6 megatonne blast would actually be much greater since any directed energy blast which could affect an area that great would also be blasting the ground for much, if not all of that distance.

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar's hyperdrive argument is,perhaps, the funniest part of his entire website. Implicit in its argument is the assumption that Luke was standing there in front of Palpatine for an ENTIRE FUCKING DAY, and that Leia's comment that the fleet could "be here any moment" actually meant that it wouldn't arrive for hours.

[Batman]

Excuse for not quoting you introductory statement, but it's easier for me to quote your moronic aquaintance's baseless assertions that way.

"It's from the novels and comics. They are "C" grade canon."
Indeed. Cloaking devices are never actually seen in the movies and/or novelizations. However, Needa infers that only larger ships can use them (or have the power to).

So? Not overridden by higher canon. Blatantly false to boot as IIIRC the TPM novelisation DOES mention Darth Maul's ship being cloaked.

"There's no way they're gonna dodge TL bolts."
If their weapons are accurate enough. Maximum range for the Falcon's small quad laser seems to be about 200-500 meters. The cap ships, of course, ahve much longer ranges, probably a few dozen klicks (maximum range we've ever seen them engage in at all in the movies and novelizations).

Blatant lie, as the battle in RotJ was at FAR longer ranges than that. Not that it matters in any way shape or form as the EU has LIGHTHOUR ranges for TLs and is not overridden by. Hell the constantly referred to and occasionally actually executed on-page orbital bombardments require 100s to 1000s of km ranges already. Plug in Wars ship accelerations and Trek spacewhales that manage to miss each other at WW2 dogfighting ranges...

Even then, the Trade Federation droid gunners couldn't his a 76-meter long, shiny yacht with virtually no ECM capabilities that was right on top of them.

Are we talking about the same gunners that managed to a)take out the shield generators and b) pick off the droids that were trying to repair them?
Not that Trek accuracy is anything to brag about. Cue in the trekmiss videos by Mr Poe.

"There's a difference between "less effective" and "less automated".
It's a very bad thing for a warship to be as heavily automated and as centralized as an UFP ship.
Computer can be hacked, destroyed, and infected by viruses. A human operator is far more reliable. There was an episode when a Galaxy class vessel was destroyed when a computer virus disabled the anti-matter containment fields.
Nothing like this could ever happen onboard of an Imperial vessel, since it's main functions are solely depended on human operators.
It's even a bigger problem when the computer is linked throughout the whole ship.
In that case the enemy has to take over a very small portion of the ship in order to gain control over it. How many times do we see a ship in ST being captured by a handful of men who take over the bridge?
Obviously, there is no such threats for the Imperial ships- their computers are decentralized and are not depended from each other.
A decentralized vessel could continue operating even if one section have fallen to the enemy.
So thousands of men running your ship is better than one computer."
However, the ST computers can be locked out efectively, as seen in episodes and in FIrst Contact.

And as seen in countless OTHER episodes, it is ludicrously easy to circumvent their safety measures. Starfleet computer security makes Win95 look brilliant. Besides what happens when I BLOW UP the computer, which given the Starfleet adherance to the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, might happen via a phaser hit to the galleys?

I fail to see how automation is a problem.

It isn't. Overcentralization, however, IS.

There have been only a few examples of that working against the Federation's advantage.

Every single episode where some intruder or other managed to take over part if not all of the ship's systems is. Which is a staggering lot of them.

All the other times it gives them a massive computing, communications and sensor advantage,

Why don't you show me the causal relationship between that and their hopelessly centralized and irrevocably interconnected designs as opposed to simply meaning their computers, sensors and comms not being too shabby.

"Proof? Every time there is a major naval battle in, there is combat jamming mentioned. The movie novelizations mention it. The ICS mentions it."
Do you have specific passages, etc? Although I seem to remember something from the Battle of Yavin...Not sure, though.

Jamming so heavy it warped spacetime. Numerous mentions throughout the EU.

"ICS. The Acclamator heavy TL' produce 200 gigatos per shot for every of it's twelve barrels.
And that's a simple troop carrier. Actual capships are far, far more powerful!"
False. According to the movie novelization (and hence higher canon) the turbolaser blasts exchanged in the battle over Couruscant were 'powerful enough to vaporize small towns'.

That involves Acclamators where, if you could be cared to elaborate? Canon composition of Wars small towns? Evidence that those were full power blasts?

Of course, you have to define a small town. Since we're talkinrea of abog about American writers, we'll use the American definition. Let's say a circle with a diameter of 6 kilometers.
Or, we could do the REASONABLE thing and assume as they're writing about Star Wars, they're talking about a Star Wars small town.
Actually the REALLY reasonable thing would be to assume that was just a figure of speech but heaven forbid such a thing.

So, your turbolaser blasts are in fact in the megaton range, not the gigaton as you like to claim. Even if we consider twenty years of tech advancement, I doubt the power would have increased much beyond 7 or 8 megatons.

Patently false once more as there is a) no evidence for those being full-power blasts, b)that being an actual quantified statement instead of a figure of speech, c)it's overriden by ESB LTL/MTL yields, d) AOTC ICS figures and e) simply downscaling from the Alderaan incident leave alone the literary EU figures.

"Yes, but where do we see them actually do it?"
I again refer you to Memory Alpha, wherein all information is based entirely on the Star Trek canon.
[link]

Why don't you quote me where Paramount rates that site in its canon policy, and were Wikipedia's assesment of that site's RELIABILITY does. MA CLAIM they do.

"But we still don't see them being used at any significant ranges or being very accurate, nor do we see those things on top of it ever being used as scopes. And they still don't have full auto."

Who needs full auto when you can set your beam to a cone or a flat plane and kill everyone in front of you?
Furthermore, I might add that a small team armed only with phaser pistols wiped out hundreds (if not thousands) of enemy troops in the TOS episode "Omega Glory". Of course, they were primitives armed with short range weapons, but the mass charge tactics of the Clone Wars certainly wouldn't work against Federation ground troops.
Yes they would on account of their weapons outranging phasers something fierce .Evidence of phasers having any effect whatsoever on Clonetrooper armour BTW would be? Oh and UNLIKE the Feds the Clones have artillery and air support. Which we have yet so see it do ONCE. Phasers have never vaporized anything in the entire history of Star Trek. So it worked one throughout how many seasons worth of TNG and this evidence of that working reliably how? The bulkhead in ANH, the grating in the detention block, football-sized pits in Docking Bay 96's walls, but yeah, they only scorch stuff on the surface.
Or they did so during TOS, anyway.
As evidenced by? The Klingon mortars in DS9 were apparently firing bags of flour. And they're going to live in the face of a real military why? The resilience of which is (not that I recall any evidence of this)? Again, how much energy would that be, given that disruptors rely on NDF just as phasers do? Against people effectively hurling stones at them. Oh PLEASE. And is an easily detected active sensor. Or so says Memory Alpha. Just because they CLAIM it is lifted straight from the episode doesn't mean it is. No it isn't, the information it's based on might be but that's it. Which is suspect already thanks to it being damn near impossible to tell a) how far the torpedo is from the asteroid at any given time and b) it being flat out impossible to judge the size of the torpedo PERIOD thanks to the glow once it's underway.
SNIPPY a million times before debunked garbage) needless to say no you don't. Which are supported by both the AOTC ICS and downscaling from DS1, No it couldn't even if we accept that completely unsupported yield because the vast majority of that yield would never impact the target in the first place. Incidentally, a 100GT PT with 100% efficiency would require 4.6+ tons of reactant, yet they can apparently be moved by hand...

Which, again, is evidenced by nothing whatsoever.

But then, the guy's using Darkstar's site for support. I rest my case.

[MagnusTheReD]

Ranges: Venators can target accurately at ranges up to 10 light-minutes (ROTS: ICS).

Weapon outputs: Your little friend is engaging in a rather disingenuous hidden assumption: namely, that the shots being exchanged in orbit above Coruscant were full power. In fact, the engaged fleets had been battling for hours and hours, and, as I recall, the novelization mentions something about overheating guns. Think of them as boxers entering the fifteenth round: battered, bloody, and worn out. There's no reason to assume that they're anything near what the Federation would be facing in a war.

Hyperdrive speeds: Darkstar's site speaks for itself. I suggest reading it and taking the arguments apart as an exercise in critical reading and thinking.

Thanks, man!
The thing about non-full power shots on Coruscant was suspicious to me, but I had no idea how to prove it.
I'll use it in my rebuttal if you don't mind.

[MagnusTheReD]

Snip... To long to quote.

Much thanks, man!
This one long tard smacking you got yourself over there!
Thanks for your time, it was of much help to me, as some of those things weren't known to me.
I'll quote some of it tomorrow when I'll be responding to him.
If you don't mind, that is.
Thanks again.

He was the first one to start quoting huge portions of other sites without understanding a single word out of it- I don't see a single reason why shouldn't I resort to outside help!
He asked for it!:evil:

Hyperdrive speeds: Darkstar's site speaks for itself. I suggest reading it and taking the arguments apart as an exercise in critical reading and thinking.

I'll do that.
Tomorrow. Gotta get some sleep. Thanks again!

[Batman]

By all means do, that's what I posted it for.

Incidentally, the vapourization energy for a 400m diameter nicel-iron asteroid, slightly larger than the completely baseless scaling by Dorkstar, is a whopping 479 megatons. None too shabby by Trek standards but nowhere NEAR 100GT.

[MagnusTheReD]

By all means do, that's what I posted it for.

Thanks. I'll do that tomorrow.

Incidentally, the vaporization energy for a 400m diameter nickel-iron asteroid, slightly larger than the completely baseless scaling by Dorkstar, is a whopping 479 megatons. None too shabby by Trek standards but nowhere NEAR 100GT.

Yeah, I know, the 100gt figure freaked me out for a sec!
Then I actually ran the numbers using Mr. Wong's calculator for a 350m diameter rock...
Guess what, he lied! Or, most likely he just quoted Darkstar again...

[MagnusTheReD]

Here's another gem by this guy.
I think he's running out of brain-span, since this one is just playing brain-dead! We were talking about protorps firepower, and he started an argument about the validity of ICS canon.
Here's what he said:

The same Curtis Saxon who thanks Wong of SD.net in the book for helping him out?

The figures in that book are vastly over-rated (and sometimes contradicted) by actual canon information. From all information coming from the movies and novelizations of the movies (which are higher 'canon') the firepower is never stated to be that immense. In fact, we're talking hiroshima level explosions here. If the main weapons of the Star Destroyers were that powerful then the Tantive IV would have been a quickly expanding cloud of gasses.

In addition, to say that the main laser cannons of Slave I have that kind of firepower directly ocntradicts the information seen in the movie and in the AoTC movie. Boba fires at Obi-Wan and the explosion merely knocks Obi back. He's not vaporized in a ginormous explosion.

And my reply to him:
(Again, his replies in bold)

Now you are just pissing me off!

"The same Curtis Saxon who thanks Wong of SD.net in the book for helping him out? "
Yes, the same, Dr. Curtis Saxton, the qualified astrophysicist, and the Same Wong from SD.net, the qualified engineer!
Or do you think there is something wrong with that? Considering how you used Darkstar's lame site to help you out, this would be extremely hypocritical of you to claim that Mr. Wong's site is somehow worse!

"The figures in that book are vastly over-rated (and sometimes contradicted) by actual canon information."
They are not overrated- do I have to say Delta Base Zero? And are not contradicted by any canon information. In fact, it was written, on the basis of said canon materials.
Of course, if you feel otherwise, by all mean, DO provide us with the detailed calculation showing that ICS firepower figures are wrong!
Until then, you will accept the canon source which is the ICS!

"If the main weapons of the Star Destroyers were that powerful then the Tantive IV would have been a quickly expanding cloud of gasses."
Are you really so dumb, or are you using Darkstars quotes again?
Watch ANH again- the ISD wasn't using it's main cannons! What's wrong with you?!

"In addition, to say that the main laser cannons of Slave I have that kind of firepower directly ocntradicts the information seen in the movie and in the AoTC movie. Boba fires at Obi-Wan and the explosion merely knocks Obi back. He's not vaporized in a ginormous explosion."
Again, you forgot to imply simple, common sense over here.
Do you really think Boba would fire a kiloton worth nuke, thus killing his own father, only to kill Obi-Wan? Besides, in the novelization it clearly states that the weapon wasn't fully charged, since they've started the ship a few seconds ago.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You might want to remind him that they wanted to capture the Tantive IV, not blow it up, and the Tantive IV would have shielding at least comparable to the Senator Amidala's Yacht or her former Royal Starship, perhaps slightly less since they don't have any weapons to divert power to.

[Ted C]

Need we remind him that the firepower used in a given situation will always be dictated by the military objective. Trekkies love to trot out the "adjustable power" argument when you point out how poorly their weapons perform, but for some reason they always claim that Imperial weapons are at full power during their lowest benchmarks of performance.

[Darth Wong]

"Contradicting a high example with a low one"- classic mentality of the unscientific idiot. It's not as if you're supposed to explain both, right? Oh no, pick one of them and run with it!

And accusations of "bias" are the last resort of the idiot who doesn't have a real argument. You see it all the time in religion and politics debates. The better debaters go after your argument's logic or premises. The shitty ones just accuse you of "bias".

[MagnusTheReD]

"Contradicting a high example with a low one"- classic mentality of the unscientific idiot. It's not as if you're supposed to explain both, right? Oh no, pick one of them and run with it!

I don't think he got any kind of mentality!
Basically, I don't think that any of the above are his own ideas.

And accusations of "bias" are the last resort of the idiot who doesn't have a real argument. You see it all the time in religion and politics debates. The better debaters go after your argument's logic or premises. The shitty ones just accuse you of "bias".

He's pretty hypocritical. In his first reply he said that you got some good points, but you assume total competence on the side of SW and total incompetence on the side of ST.
When I asked him to elaborate, he just ignored me as if no one said anything! And now he's using Darkstar's quotes! Can you believe this guy?!
Damn, I feel like bitchslapping him for his dishonesty!

[Dooey Jo]

That's pretty funny of him, to think that some quote from a novelisation proves that the infamous asteroid scene from TESB is wrong. Nevermind that a 200 GT shot would vaporise a small town just fine... And why in the fuck would he calculate vaporisation based on a person standing at the edge of the town? You'd think a good way to calculate something based on that quote would be to see how much energy it would take to vaporise a given area down to a certain depth, assuming a certain composition, considering the quote didn't say "vaporise the population of small towns". But oh no, not our DorkStar. Use the weirdest way, using as many distracting formulas as possible, to give an appearance of science, and arrive at a deliberately low figure. Hell, I'm almost surprised he didn't just say turbolasers can't be more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, because that one destroyed a small town...

The same Curtis Saxon who thanks Wong of SD.net in the book for helping him out?

Oh noes, he thanks teh ebal Warsie Satan, he is automatically wrong!

[MagnusTheReD]

...And why in the fuck would he calculate vaporisation based on a person standing at the edge of the town? You'd think a good way to calculate something based on that quote would be to see how much energy it would take to vaporise a given area down to a certain depth, assuming a certain composition, considering the quote didn't say "vaporise the population of small towns". But oh no, not our DorkStar. Use the weirdest way, using as many distracting formulas as possible, to give an appearance of science, and arrive at a deliberately low figure. Hell, I'm almost surprised he didn't just say turbolasers can't be more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, because that one destroyed a small town...

Yeah, regarding that: is it right to say that "vaporising a small town" means vaporising a hemisphere of soil 6 kilometers in diameter (that's the size of the town he uses)?
Or you don't have to vaporise the ground on which the town stand on to qualify it as "town vaporisation"?

[Ted C]

The same Curtis Saxon who thanks Wong of SD.net in the book for helping him out?

When in doubt, emulate Joseph McCarthy. Assign guilt by association (even if there's nothing guilty about the associate, either).

[Batman]

Yeah, regarding that: is it right to say that "vaporising a small town" means vaporising a hemisphere of soil 6 kilometers in diameter (that's the size of the town he uses)?
Or you don't have to vaporise the ground on which the town stand on to qualify it as "town vaporisation"?

If you're feeling nitpicky, no, all you have to do is vaporize the town itself. Of course, that begs any number of questions. Does vaporizing the buildings suffice, do you have to vaporize the cellars, too, and what about sewers etc?
Not that you can vaporize a small town with a DET weapon in one shot WITHOUT vaporizing a not inconsiderable amount of the ground it stands on (and the surrounding countryside) anyway.
Your approach certainly makes more sense than dragoon90210's.
I find it mildly amusing that he uses the ANH chase scene as evidence for the ISD's main gun firepower when
a)the object of the entire operation was to CAPTURE Tantive IV, not blow her to space dust and
b) even if it wasn't the Star Destroyer COULDN'T use its main guns on account of its hull being in the way, what with Tantive IV being relatively below it...

[MagnusTheReD]

If you're feeling nitpicky, no, all you have to do is vaporize the town itself. Of course, that begs any number of questions. Does vaporizing the buildings suffice, do you have to vaporize the cellars, too, and what about sewers etc?
Not that you can vaporize a small town with a DET weapon in one shot WITHOUT vaporizing a not inconsiderable amount of the ground it stands on (and the surrounding countryside) anyway.
Your approach certainly makes more sense than dragoon90210's.

Ok, thanks.
At least I was partially right!
Good thing you replied before I was done replying to him.
I'll post my rebuttal soon (at least the portions of it that are actually mine!)

I find it mildly amusing that he uses the ANH chase scene as evidence for the ISD's main gun firepower when
a)the object of the entire operation was to CAPTURE Tantive IV, not blow her to space dust and
b) even if it wasn't the Star Destroyer COULDN'T use its main guns on account of its hull being in the way, what with Tantive IV being relatively below it...

It had me under my desk struggling for a breath of air!
Although I find it somewhat insulting- does this guy takes me for a complete moron by posting such ridiculously stupid rebuttal?

[Batman]

I find it mildly amusing that he uses the ANH chase scene as evidence for the ISD's main gun firepower when
a)the object of the entire operation was to CAPTURE Tantive IV, not blow her to space dust and
b) even if it wasn't the Star Destroyer COULDN'T use its main guns on account of its hull being in the way, what with Tantive IV being relatively below it...

It had me under my desk struggling for a breath of air!
Although I find it somewhat insulting- does this guy takes me for a complete moron by posting such ridiculously stupid rebuttal?

You're working on the probably mistaken assumption that he RECOGNIZES it's ridiculously stupid. He uses Dorkstar's site for evidence so he either IS stupid enough to think those are actually valid arguments, or he's in willful denial.

[MagnusTheReD]

I find it mildly amusing that he uses the ANH chase scene as evidence for the ISD's main gun firepower when
a)the object of the entire operation was to CAPTURE Tantive IV, not blow her to space dust and
b) even if it wasn't the Star Destroyer COULDN'T use its main guns on account of its hull being in the way, what with Tantive IV being relatively below it...

It had me under my desk struggling for a breath of air!
Although I find it somewhat insulting- does this guy takes me for a complete moron by posting such ridiculously stupid rebuttal?

You're working on the probably mistaken assumption that he RECOGNIZES it's ridiculously stupid. He uses Dorkstar's site for evidence so he either IS stupid enough to think those are actually valid arguments, or he's in willful denial.

C'mon, he can't be THAT stupid!
Unless he never actually watched AHN, I can't see how any man in his right mind could actually believe that crap!

[Batman]

C'mon, he can't be THAT stupid!
Unless he never actually watched ANH, I can't see how any man in his right mind could actually believe that crap!

That'd be the 'willful denial' part of my post (and frankly I think you underestimate the human mind's capacity for stupidity).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's cognitive dissonance at work. What he sees on screen and what he believes must be consistent. Hence, he will find any rationale to make his beliefs and observations consistent. Because the alternative is to admit he was wrong, which is something that appears to be too painful for him to endure.

[Darth Wong]

American Idol is the number one rated TV show. Why should anyone be surprised at any amount of stupidity they encounter in a sci-fi argument? The general population is full of idiots. Accept this.