Spacedocks take on the versus debate

[texanmarauder]

Insisting on low speeds, acclerations, and firepower despite evidence on this very thread. Arguing via a combination of willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks.

ok. give me an example of turbolasers doing at least 50,000Tj on screen? or a ship crossing 90,000,000km + in minutes with sublight engines? (just FYI the impulse engines were only at 60%) ? I can give canon examples of those. can you?

We have already had this argument. Yavin and Endor demonstrated accelerations at 1000+g. We know that they can keep their engines on for hours. Therefore, they can travel that fast. For firepower numbers, we have a. the TFA ics, which states that resurgents can conduct a base delta zero [quote="TFA ICS'] owerful turbolaser batteries allowed for overloading enemy shields and punching through thick armor, along with orbital bombardments capable of reducing planetary surfaces to molten slag

. and b. the fact that a 100 teraton plus explosion could be easily passed off as a mining accident.[/quote][/quote][/quote] you still didn't answer me. as usual you give some bullshit wiki quote from a book or your precious ICS. I said examples. we have never seen a resurgent class fire on a planet or another ship. plus, it never gives a time frame for your little BDZ. only one little fighter that managed to disable their turbolasers by taking out 2 turrets. as for the mining accident, that was done by the death star which I excluded for a reason. nobody wanted to openly call the empire liars for fear of retaliation. ill see your 100 teraton crap and raise you praxis. and nobody has given a good answer as to how they demonstrated said accelerations. so far all we have is wongs spiel which is questionable at best. and instead of actually giving an answer, you just scream "its in the movies" or "wong said so". and you still haven't given examples of ranges over 1000km or pinpoint precision at any range or sensors. if you are going to "debate", or in your case just make an ass of yourself, then at least pay attention.

[texanmarauder]

A. Read the thread. People have provided evidence literally on this page.

evidence of what?

B. Whenever I use Mike Wong's site, instead of disputing his numbers, you attack him personally. That's an ad hominem.

I have disputed his numbers multiple times and explained my reasons for doing so. I did just that on the first fucking page. you just ignore it. plus you just don't like people proving your hero to be an imperfect human with bias and human failings.

if we compare firepower seen on screen (conventional weapons, not superweapons from the franchises), ranges, shields, sublight speeds, sensors, and targeting, one galaxy class cruiser could devastate even a fleet of ISDs.

I have never questioned firepower yet.

whats your point here?

[Rhadamantus]

ok. give me an example of turbolasers doing at least 50,000Tj on screen? or a ship crossing 90,000,000km + in minutes with sublight engines? (just FYI the impulse engines were only at 60%) ? I can give canon examples of those. can you?

We have already had this argument. Yavin and Endor demonstrated accelerations at 1000+g. We know that they can keep their engines on for hours. Therefore, they can travel that fast. For firepower numbers, we have a. the TFA ics, which states that resurgents can conduct a base delta zero [quote="TFA ICS'] owerful turbolaser batteries allowed for overloading enemy shields and punching through thick armor, along with orbital bombardments capable of reducing planetary surfaces to molten slag

. and b. the fact that a 100 teraton plus explosion could be easily passed off as a mining accident.

[/quote][/quote] you still didn't answer me. as usual you give some bullshit wiki quote from a book or your precious ICS. I said examples. we have never seen a resurgent class fire on a planet or another ship. plus, it never gives a time frame for your little BDZ. only one little fighter that managed to disable their turbolasers by taking out 2 turrets. as for the mining accident, that was done by the death star which I excluded for a reason. nobody wanted to openly call the empire liars for fear of retaliation. ill see your 100 teraton crap and raise you praxis. and nobody has given a good answer as to how they demonstrated said accelerations. so far all we have is wongs spiel which is questionable at best. and instead of actually giving an answer, you just scream "its in the movies" or "wong said so". and you still haven't given examples of ranges over 1000km or pinpoint precision at any range or sensors. if you are going to "debate", or in your case just make an ass of yourself, then at least pay attention.[/quote]
You are really an asshole, aren't you. Let's break this massive steaming pile of shit down.

you still didn't answer me. as usual you give some bullshit wiki quote from a book or your precious ICS. I said examples.

I'm not sure you know this, but the TFA ICS book is canon. It is evidence.

only one little fighter that managed to disable their turbolasers by taking out 2 turrets.

. That sentence is nonsensical. But as far as I can tell, you are arguing that since a fighter took out anti-fighter weapons, they can't have proper guns.

as for the mining accident, that was done by the death star which I excluded for a reason. nobody wanted to openly call the empire liars for fear of retaliation.

You seem to misunderstand this scene. Tarkin thought that the senate would buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.

and nobody has given a good answer as to how they demonstrated said accelerations.

READ THE FUCKING THREAD.

so far all we have is wongs spiel which is questionable at best. and instead of actually giving an answer, you just scream "its in the movies" or "wong said so". and you still haven't given examples of ranges over 1000km or pinpoint precision at any range or sensors. if you are going to "debate", or in your case just make an ass of yourself, then at least pay attention.

[/quote][/quote]

I have presented evidence. You have ignored it, lied about, and misinterpreted it. We had an entire argument in which you manage to interpret a quote against all reason and logic to insist that effective range and actual range were identical. Your arguing tactics are nothing but lying and ad hominems.

[Rhadamantus]

A. Read the thread. People have provided evidence literally on this page.

evidence of what?

B. Whenever I use Mike Wong's site, instead of disputing his numbers, you attack him personally. That's an ad hominem.

I have disputed his numbers multiple times and explained my reasons for doing so. I did just that on the first fucking page. you just ignore it. plus you just don't like people proving your hero to be an imperfect human with bias and human failings.

if we compare firepower seen on screen (conventional weapons, not superweapons from the franchises), ranges, shields, sublight speeds, sensors, and targeting, one galaxy class cruiser could devastate even a fleet of ISDs.

I have never questioned firepower yet.

whats your point here?

People have provided evidence. You have insulted them and lied about their sources. In the quoted text, you just blatantly lied for literally no reason.

[texanmarauder]

part of the reason I question wongs site is for reasons like this. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... sion2.html

"This means that the Death Star could cover ~200,000km in 5 minutes, for an average velocity of 670 km/s (2.4 million km/h). "

670km/s is 40,200km/h, not 2.4 million.

X-wing starfighters easily traversed a 400,000km distance in less than five minutes before the Battle of Yavin, suggesting accelerative capabilities on the order of at least 17,000 m/s² (1700 g's)

how accurate is "less than 5 minutes"? as I said before, the rebel fighters are taking off before the 15 minutes to FR mark. it then cuts from the nav table to the squadron most of the way to the death star. given how compressed cinematic time is in the OT, how long between takeoff and the 15 min mark? we know right after the attack starts we hit the 7 min mark. plus, how accurate is 400,000? the only clue we have is a nav table that may or may not be to scale or accurate. we know from the novel that yavin is almost 200,000km in diameter. 200,000km is a circumference of 628318.5 km. at the 15m mark the DS is slightly over halfway around yavin on the nav table. wong clearly says that the DS travels 200,000km. thats over 1/4 the circumference of yavin, but according to his own screenshots the DS only traveled about 1/4 of the circumference, or 157079.625. the ds goes from this to this thats not even a full quarter. that's more like 140,000km. thats a 60,000km difference.

The Battle of Endor demonstrated the accelerative capabilities of Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s.

liarsville, population: wong. the following is an image showing the bunker display courtesy of theforce.net. anybody see 2 fleets there? I see one fleet and the DS. and that must be the imperial fleet because at that point THE REBEL FLEET HADNT ARRIVED YET plus, the DS was 200km in diameter. the grid lines show the ds is 9 lines wide, meaning 25km between lines. that fleet is presumably on its way to the far side of endor per the emperors orders. in the video version, it takes about 3 seconds to cross 2 lines, meaning they are traveling at about 8-9km/s, far less than the 60km/s claimed by wong. and still only one fleet and no rebel fleet yet. his last example of sublight on that page is a non canon book and not worth mentioning.

and people wonder why I question wong.

[texanmarauder]

People have provided evidence. You have insulted them and lied about their sources. In the quoted text, you just blatantly lied for literally no reason.

funny, you are the only one saying that. you say I lied? for once, back up your claims and prove it.

[Rhadamantus]

People have provided evidence. You have insulted them and lied about their sources. In the quoted text, you just blatantly lied for literally no reason.

funny, you are the only one saying that. you say I lied? for once, back up your claims and prove it.

The whole thing where you said you weren't debating firepower in the comment after you did.

[Rhadamantus]

part of the reason I question wongs site is for reasons like this. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... sion2.html

"This means that the Death Star could cover ~200,000km in 5 minutes, for an average velocity of 670 km/s (2.4 million km/h). "

670km/s is 40,200km/h, not 2.4 million.

X-wing starfighters easily traversed a 400,000km distance in less than five minutes before the Battle of Yavin, suggesting accelerative capabilities on the order of at least 17,000 m/s² (1700 g's)

how accurate is "less than 5 minutes"? as I said before, the rebel fighters are taking off before the 15 minutes to FR mark. it then cuts from the nav table to the squadron most of the way to the death star. given how compressed cinematic time is in the OT, how long between takeoff and the 15 min mark? we know right after the attack starts we hit the 7 min mark. plus, how accurate is 400,000? the only clue we have is a nav table that may or may not be to scale or accurate. we know from the novel that yavin is almost 200,000km in diameter. 200,000km is a circumference of 628318.5 km. at the 15m mark the DS is slightly over halfway around yavin on the nav table. wong clearly says that the DS travels 200,000km. thats over 1/4 the circumference of yavin, but according to his own screenshots the DS only traveled about 1/4 of the circumference, or 157079.625. the ds goes from this to this thats not even a full quarter. that's more like 140,000km. thats a 60,000km difference.

The Battle of Endor demonstrated the accelerative capabilities of Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s.

liarsville, population: wong. the following is an image showing the bunker display courtesy of theforce.net. anybody see 2 fleets there? I see one fleet and the DS. and that must be the imperial fleet because at that point THE REBEL FLEET HADNT ARRIVED YET plus, the DS was 200km in diameter. the grid lines show the ds is 9 lines wide, meaning 25km between lines. that fleet is presumably on its way to the far side of endor per the emperors orders. in the video version, it takes about 3 seconds to cross 2 lines, meaning they are traveling at about 8-9km/s, far less than the 60km/s claimed by wong. and still only one fleet and no rebel fleet yet. his last example of sublight on that page is a non canon book and not worth mentioning.

and people wonder why I question wong.

Ha. HA. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Do you not own a calculator? 670 km/s is 40,200 km per minute. There are 3600 seconds in an hour.

[Rhadamantus]

Oh, and your circumfrence numbers don't account for the fact that the DS is above the atmosphere. In an orbit. And at Endor, you are for some reason denying that the Imperial fleet disappeared behind Endor and then came back, in the space of minutes. Or the many other canon examples of very high acceleration ON THIS VERY PAGE.

[texanmarauder]

I'm not sure you know this, but the TFA ICS book is canon. It is evidence.

show me on screen where their turbolasers can do that. like I asked in the first place.

But as far as I can tell, you are arguing that since a fighter took out anti-fighter weapons, they can't have proper guns.

the officer said turbolasers, not just the PDLs. nice try. epic fail.

You seem to misunderstand this scene. Tarkin thought that the senate would buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.

irrelevant. and not an example of conventional firepower. it has nothing to do AT ALL with conventional firepower.

I have presented evidence.

wikis, AOTC ICS, and wong. none of which are evidence.

You have ignored it, lied about, and misinterpreted it.

prove it

We had an entire argument in which you manage to interpret a quote against all reason and logic to insist that effective range and actual range were identical.

they ARE. the effective range is the range at which you can hit a moving or stationary target and still do damage. the actual range is the existing range.

Your arguing tactics are nothing but lying and ad hominems.

on screen sources vs variations of "because this person or wiki or non canon book said so!". grow up kid.

[Rhadamantus]

I'm not sure you know this, but the TFA ICS book is canon. It is evidence.

show me on screen where their turbolasers can do that. like I asked in the first place.

But as far as I can tell, you are arguing that since a fighter took out anti-fighter weapons, they can't have proper guns.

the officer said turbolasers, not just the PDLs. nice try. epic fail.

You seem to misunderstand this scene. Tarkin thought that the senate would buy an explosion that large as a mining accident.

irrelevant. and not an example of conventional firepower. it has nothing to do AT ALL with conventional firepower.

I have presented evidence.

wikis, AOTC ICS, and wong. none of which are evidence.

You have ignored it, lied about, and misinterpreted it.

prove it

We had an entire argument in which you manage to interpret a quote against all reason and logic to insist that effective range and actual range were identical.

they ARE. the effective range is the range at which you can hit a moving or stationary target and still do damage. the actual range is the existing range.

Your arguing tactics are nothing but lying and ad hominems.

on screen sources vs variations of "because this person or wiki or non canon book said so!". grow up kid.

1. Canon is not just the movies.
2. When they're clearly shooting at them with point defense lasers, we can guess that they're talking about those turbolasers.
3. Yes it clearly is.
4. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON.
5. The several cases where you outright lied.
6. No. The effective range is the range at which you can reliably hit them. The theoretical range is the range at which your shells, or bullets, or lasers, or whatever, can travel. If you're firing at a PT boat with a 18 inch gun, the effective range is well less than a kilometer. The theoretical range is 20+.
7. You managed to fuck up simple math and continually lie about what my sources are.

[texanmarauder]

Oh, and your circumfrence numbers don't account for the fact that the DS is above the atmosphere. In an orbit.

ok. lets do the math. an orbit of 1000km would add 2000km to the diameter. so we will say 202,000km. so instead of 628,318km circumference, we get 634,601km. 1/4 = 158,650.25 instead of 157,079.5. the difference is less than 2,000km. point still stands.

And at Endor, you are for some reason denying that the Imperial fleet disappeared behind Endor and then came back, in the space of minutes. '

considering that we never actually SEE this happen, and given the slow speed of the imperial fleet on the bunker display, what actually seems to have happened is that the rebel fleet detected the imperial fleet as they came out from behind the planet. meaning, well before they got completely around the planet and into position. hence the infamous line "its a trap!". while this makes sense, wongs interpretation of it does not.

Or the many other canon examples of very high acceleration ON THIS VERY PAGE.

while I don't doubt that fighters have high acceleration, wongs page depends on having a time of travel being 5 minutes or less. the scene he describes is not very specific on that point, to say the least, as I have already pointed out.

Ha. HA. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Do you not own a calculator? 670 km/s is 40,200 km per minute. There are 3600 seconds in an hour.

your lack of response to the other points aside, I can admit a mistake. kinda hard to do much of anything with a sleeping baby in your arms. my mistake.

[Rhadamantus]

Oh, and your circumfrence numbers don't account for the fact that the DS is above the atmosphere. In an orbit.

ok. lets do the math. an orbit of 1000km would add 2000km to the diameter. so we will say 202,000km. so instead of 628,318km circumference, we get 634,601km. 1/4 = 158,650.25 instead of 157,079.5. the difference is less than 2,000km. point still stands.

And at Endor, you are for some reason denying that the Imperial fleet disappeared behind Endor and then came back, in the space of minutes. '

considering that we never actually SEE this happen, and given the slow speed of the imperial fleet on the bunker display, what actually seems to have happened is that the rebel fleet detected the imperial fleet as they came out from behind the planet. meaning, well before they got completely around the planet and into position. hence the infamous line "its a trap!". while this makes sense, wongs interpretation of it does not.

Or the many other canon examples of very high acceleration ON THIS VERY PAGE.

while I don't doubt that fighters have high acceleration, wongs page depends on having a time of travel being 5 minutes or less. the scene he describes is not very specific on that point, to say the least, as I have already pointed out.

Ha. HA. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Do you not own a calculator? 670 km/s is 40,200 km per minute. There are 3600 seconds in an hour.

your lack of response to the other points aside, I can admit a mistake. kinda hard to do much of anything with a sleeping baby in your arms. my mistake.

1. It wasn't orbiting that low.
2. Have you ever actually watched that movie?
3. That's the same interpretation.
4. Also the several other scenes with very high acceleration.

[texanmarauder]

1. Canon is not just the movies.

never said it was, but the movies are the immovable rocks that all other material must align to. if it doesn't, its considered contradicting and the movies will trump it.

2. When they're clearly shooting at them with point defense lasers, we can guess that they're talking about those turbolasers.

the key word in that sentence is "guess" and i seriously doubt turbolaser turrets much bigger than a TIE fighter are point defense. after all, we have seen those before. those turrets resembled the heavy turrets on an ISD or venator way more than they did PDLs.

3. Yes it clearly is.

be nice if I knew what you were talking about. care to elaborate?

4. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. snip

I never said it wasn't. I asked you to show me an example of ON SCREEN FIREPOWER. not some bullshit article in a book with big pictures meant for kids. do you comprehend ON SCREEN? and repetition is not your friend.

5. The several cases where you outright lied.

prove it.

6. No. The effective range is the range at which you can reliably hit them. The theoretical range is the range at which your shells, or bullets, or lasers, or whatever, can travel. If you're firing at a PT boat with a 18 inch gun, the effective range is well less than a kilometer. The theoretical range is 20+.

first off, you said actual in your last post, not theoretical. those two words have completely different meanings. second, a bullet is not an accurate analogy for beam weapons in space. even then the definition of theoretical is this. "1:  existing only in theory :  hypothetical gave as an example a theoretical situation
2a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract
b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative theoretical physics
3:  given to or skilled in theorizing a brilliant theoretical physicist" key words, theory, speculation. key phrase, practical applications. synonyms of theory? hypothesis, proposition, supposition, thesis
Related Words: assumption, concession, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, theorem; conjecture, generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception, construct
Antonyms: certainty, demonstration, discovery, evidence, fact, proof.
in other words, your theoretical ranges aren't worth spit. that was proven when the triumphant couldn't fire on the malevolence.

7. You managed to fuck up simple math and continually lie about what my sources are.

I made one mistake and prove it.

[texanmarauder]

1. It wasn't orbiting that low.

prove it. 1000km was generous.

2. Have you ever actually watched that movie?

I own them all. I am also very familiar with all of them.

3. That's the same interpretation.

since you don't seem to know how to use quotes, I don't know what you are referring to.

4. Also the several other scenes with very high acceleration.

name them instead of giving a vague statement. be specific. and then back it up with actual proof instead of a fan site or a non canon source. you seem to have real problems with that.

[Rhadamantus]

1. Canon is not just the movies.

never said it was, but the movies are the immovable rocks that all other material must align to. if it doesn't, its considered contradicting and the movies will trump it.

2. When they're clearly shooting at them with point defense lasers, we can guess that they're talking about those turbolasers.

the key word in that sentence is "guess" and i seriously doubt turbolaser turrets much bigger than a TIE fighter are point defense. after all, we have seen those before. those turrets resembled the heavy turrets on an ISD or venator way more than they did PDLs.

3. Yes it clearly is.

be nice if I knew what you were talking about. care to elaborate?

4. The The Force Awakens ICS is CANON. snip

I never said it wasn't. I asked you to show me an example of ON SCREEN FIREPOWER. not some bullshit article in a book with big pictures meant for kids. do you comprehend ON SCREEN? and repetition is not your friend.

5. The several cases where you outright lied.

prove it.

6. No. The effective range is the range at which you can reliably hit them. The theoretical range is the range at which your shells, or bullets, or lasers, or whatever, can travel. If you're firing at a PT boat with a 18 inch gun, the effective range is well less than a kilometer. The theoretical range is 20+.

first off, you said actual in your last post, not theoretical. those two words have completely different meanings. second, a bullet is not an accurate analogy for beam weapons in space. even then the definition of theoretical is this. "1:  existing only in theory :  hypothetical gave as an example a theoretical situation
2a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract
b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative theoretical physics
3:  given to or skilled in theorizing a brilliant theoretical physicist" key words, theory, speculation. key phrase, practical applications. synonyms of theory? hypothesis, proposition, supposition, thesis
Related Words: assumption, concession, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, theorem; conjecture, generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception, construct
Antonyms: certainty, demonstration, discovery, evidence, fact, proof.
in other words, your theoretical ranges aren't worth spit. that was proven when the triumphant couldn't fire on the malevolence.

7. You managed to fuck up simple math and continually lie about what my sources are.

I made one mistake and prove it.

1. It doesn't contradict the movies.
2. The actual heavy turrets we have seen are much bigger.
3. The "mine explosion"
4. The Star wars visual dictionary incident. The firepower thing.
5. I meant theoretical, and your excuses are incredibly fucking stupid. . It is obvious to anyone with a brain that they were referring to effective range, which I have shown they were not in. Effective range varies.
6. The Star wars visual dictionary incident.

[Rhadamantus]

[Don't quote images or videos ~ NL]

1. It wasn't orbiting that low.

prove it. 1000km was generous.

2. Have you ever actually watched that movie?

I own them all. I am also very familiar with all of them.

3. That's the same interpretation.

since you don't seem to know how to use quotes, I don't know what you are referring to.

4. Also the several other scenes with very high acceleration.

name them instead of giving a vague statement. be specific. and then back it up with actual proof instead of a fan site or a non canon source. you seem to have real problems with that.

1. Its orbit is very obviously higher.
2. Then why do you keep lying about them.
3. My responses are numbered and in order.
4. ON THIS FUCKING THREAD YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. YOU DON'T GET TO EVADE EVIDENCE BY SAYING IT'S NON-CANON WHEN IT CLEARLY ISN'T. THERE ARE MULTIPLE CANON EXAMPLES OF 1000+G ACCELERATION ON THIS FUCKING THREAD. WATCH-MAN WAS SCHOOLED ON THIS LESS THAN A DAY AGO, AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SERIOUSLY GET AWAY WITH PRETENDING TO HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD.

You're operating off of gut instinct. The ships look slow, therefore you won't believe that there's any examples of them clearing their own length in fractions of a second, or accellerating to orbit rapidly.

Skip to 2m 55s

Brian Young did a whole series of examples a few years back for people who questioned that.

You should understand, though, that Star Wars ships aren't really much quicker (if at all) than Star Trek ones, no one seriously claims they are.

What is different, is that Star Trek is more scientifically based, and the writers understood that such speeds could not be accomplished with any fiesable power source. They therefore invented the phrase 'mass-lightening' which is what writers call 'hanging a lantern on it' as a cue to more technical trek fans that they understand this, but that it's solved for plot convenience. Another example of this is the 'Heisenberg Compensator' a component in a transporter which compensates for the Heisenberg Principle, which would IRL make a transporter impossible.

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even the quickest 'TV Sci-Fi Franchises' as regards sublight ships. Stargate's goa'uld motherships can slalom around a star system at 32,000 Gs.

[texanmarauder]

1. It doesn't contradict the movies.
2. The actual heavy turrets we have seen are much bigger.
3. The "mine explosion"
4. The Star wars visual dictionary incident. The firepower thing.
5. I meant theoretical, and your excuses are incredibly fucking stupid. . It is obvious to anyone with a brain that they were referring to effective range, which I have shown they were not in. Effective range varies.
6. The Star wars visual dictionary incident.

since you don't even bother to try to use quotes, so be it.
1. but they do, wongs site and wikis often do. the books do as well.
2. we have established that you don't know the meaning of the word "actual", so ill just say this. the turrets were bigger than the TIE fighter. the PDLs we have seen in the past were much smaller and required a gunner. one such gunner was seen during the death star attack in ANH. and yes, they took out two of those and rendered the turbolasers inoperative. that is canon.
3. the "mine explosion" had nothing to do with conventional weaponry. in any case, the empire ruled by fear. nobody was going to accuse the empire of foul play on jheda or scarif.
4. the VD incident? what is this? and the firepower thing? look up the term specific and learn it.
5. theoretical or actual, if they are out of range at less than ~1000km, then the effective range must be below that. its that simple. as for your "theoretical range", it doesn't mean shit. whatever range that is, it isn't canon and if its over ~1000km then its not theoretical anymore as it has been proven to be less. so you haven't shown anything to disprove that. all you did was quote ranges from the AOTC ICS, which besides being non canon, was proven wrong. boo fucking hoo for you.
6. still don't know what you are referring to.

[texanmarauder]

1. Its orbit is very obviously higher.
2. Then why do you keep lying about them.
3. My responses are numbered and in order.
4. ON THIS FUCKING THREAD YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. YOU DON'T GET TO EVADE EVIDENCE BY SAYING IT'S NON-CANON WHEN IT CLEARLY ISN'T. THERE ARE MULTIPLE CANON EXAMPLES OF 1000+G ACCELERATION ON THIS FUCKING THREAD. WATCH-MAN WAS SCHOOLED ON THIS LESS THAN A DAY AGO, AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SERIOUSLY GET AWAY WITH PRETENDING TO HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD.

1. its only obvious to you.
2. prove it.
3. and ignore the quote system making it difficult to know what the fuck your dumb ass is talking about when you use simple phrase answers like "the mine explosion" or the "star wars visual dictionary incident" with no context.
4. you know how to use the caps lock key. here is you a cookie. you didn't read the thread either or you would know that I addressed my concerns over wong not being a reliable source on the first page of the thread. you had nothing to do with this thread till I got here so fuck you. and you are the one that uses non canon numbers (AOTC ICS for ranges along with other numbers from wongs outdated site). you still didn't answer half of the points I listed off about why I have serious doubts about wongs info. watch-man brought up a lot of interesting points, including your reliance on sources of questionable, if not downright canonicity and reliability. I never said that star wars ships didn't have high acceleration. I just doubted that they were as high as wong stated.

[Rhadamantus]

1. It doesn't contradict the movies.
2. The actual heavy turrets we have seen are much bigger.
3. The "mine explosion"
4. The Star wars visual dictionary incident. The firepower thing.
5. I meant theoretical, and your excuses are incredibly fucking stupid. . It is obvious to anyone with a brain that they were referring to effective range, which I have shown they were not in. Effective range varies.
6. The Star wars visual dictionary incident.

since you don't even bother to try to use quotes, so be it.
1. but they do, wongs site and wikis often do. the books do as well.
2. we have established that you don't know the meaning of the word "actual", so ill just say this. the turrets were bigger than the TIE fighter. the PDLs we have seen in the past were much smaller and required a gunner. one such gunner was seen during the death star attack in ANH. and yes, they took out two of those and rendered the turbolasers inoperative. that is canon.
3. the "mine explosion" had nothing to do with conventional weaponry. in any case, the empire ruled by fear. nobody was going to accuse the empire of foul play on jheda or scarif.
4. the VD incident? what is this? and the firepower thing? look up the term specific and learn it.
5. theoretical or actual, if they are out of range at less than ~1000km, then the effective range must be below that. its that simple. as for your "theoretical range", it doesn't mean shit. whatever range that is, it isn't canon and if its over ~1000km then its not theoretical anymore as it has been proven to be less. so you haven't shown anything to disprove that. all you did was quote ranges from the AOTC ICS, which besides being non canon, was proven wrong. boo fucking hoo for you.
6. still don't know what you are referring to.

1. The TFA ICS numbers are from Wong's site? That's new.
2. They were significantly smaller than the heavy turrets.
3. This was before the "rule by fear"
4. When you outright lied about my source.
5. This is a very simple concept. But I'll explain it for a final time. If they fired at the Malevolence at that range, they would dodge. That mean that the venators were out of range. That does not mean Star wars ships automatically have super short ranges, anymore than Star Trek battles being at 5 km distances means that they have 5 km range. It means that in that situation, they could not reliably hit it. In a different one, effective range is different. If the Malevolence had no engines, they would be in range. If it was bigger, they would be in range. If it was a literal fucking planet, then the range at which they could hit it would be quite a bit longer. Therefore, your attempt to prove that the Death Star is different because it has longer range is wrong. That scene does not prove that their weapons could not hit a planet at 1000 km. It shows that they could not hit a much smaller, much faster object.

[Rhadamantus]

1. Its orbit is very obviously higher.
2. Then why do you keep lying about them.
3. My responses are numbered and in order.
4. ON THIS FUCKING THREAD YOU LITTLE DIPSHIT. YOU DON'T GET TO EVADE EVIDENCE BY SAYING IT'S NON-CANON WHEN IT CLEARLY ISN'T. THERE ARE MULTIPLE CANON EXAMPLES OF 1000+G ACCELERATION ON THIS FUCKING THREAD. WATCH-MAN WAS SCHOOLED ON THIS LESS THAN A DAY AGO, AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SERIOUSLY GET AWAY WITH PRETENDING TO HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD.

1. its only obvious to you.
2. prove it.
3. and ignore the quote system making it difficult to know what the fuck your dumb ass is talking about when you use simple phrase answers like "the mine explosion" or the "star wars visual dictionary incident" with no context.
4. you know how to use the caps lock key. here is you a cookie. you didn't read the thread either or you would know that I addressed my concerns over wong not being a reliable source on the first page of the thread. you had nothing to do with this thread till I got here so fuck you. and you are the one that uses non canon numbers (AOTC ICS for ranges along with other numbers from wongs outdated site). you still didn't answer half of the points I listed off about why I have serious doubts about wongs info. watch-man brought up a lot of interesting points, including your reliance on sources of questionable, if not downright canonicity and reliability. I never said that star wars ships didn't have high acceleration. I just doubted that they were as high as wong stated.

1. NO, if its orbit was that low, we would see different things than we do.
2. The multiple cases, which I have shown, where you outright lied.
3. There was one mine explosion thing in this entire thread.
4. None of those were from Wong. They were Canon videos of Star Wars ships going that fast and with accelerations that high. Watch-man, meanwhile left, because he was wrong.

[texanmarauder]

1. The TFA ICS numbers?
2. They were significantly smaller than the heavy turrets.
3. This was before the "rule by fear"
4. When you outright lied about my source.
5. This is a very simple concept. But I'll explain it for a final time. If they fired at the Malevolence at that range, they would dodge. That mean that the venators were out of range. That does not mean Star wars ships automatically have super short ranges, anymore than Star Trek battles being at 5 km distances means that they have 5 km range. It means that in that situation, they could not reliably hit it. In a different one, effective range is different. If the Malevolence had no engines, they would be in range. If it was bigger, they would be in range. If it was a literal fucking planet, then the range at which they could hit it would be quite a bit longer. Therefore, your attempt to prove that the Death Star is different because it has longer range is wrong. That scene does not prove that their weapons could not hit a planet at 1000 km. It shows that they could not hit a much smaller, much faster object.

1. what numbers does it give exactly?
2. heavy or not, they were much bigger than PDLs.
3. bullshit. this was the empire literally right before the events of ANH begin, 19 years after the formation of the empire. the "rule by fear" MO was already established.
4. when did I lie about your source? you keep saying that with no details. explain please.
5. imma have to break this one down.

first off, turbolasers travel at hundreds, minimum, of km/s. that means, that within 1000km you would only have a couple of seconds, tops, to initiate evasive maneuvers. that means that the retarded battle droids operating the ship would have to detect the weapons firing (even though there is no example of this in canon) inform dooku or general grievous, activate the engines in order to maneuver... not gonna happen in 2 or 3 seconds. no matter what crap you dream up.

you really don't know the meaning of range. they couldn't "reliably hit it" because they were out of range. meaning they couldn't target at that range, much less fire, or that their weapons would do no damage. you are trying to redefine what range means to suit your little speculation/bullshit. but by all means, if you can find a canon example of conventional turbolasers being fired at thousands of km, share with the class. we will wait.

as for a "much smaller, much faster object" you are a fucking lunatic. the malevolence was just shy of 5km long. a venator was `1100m. so the malevolence wasn't a "much smaller, much faster object". and obi-wan's 3 cruisers were keeping pace with it after its ion cannons, weapons, and hyperdrive were disabled, so it wasn't faster than a venator at sublight speeds. and there were no fighters launched, so it couldn't be those. this isn't mythbusters. you cant "reject reality and substitute your own".

as for hitting a planet, several ISDs fired from orbit in "swr zero hour" at a shield. in order to hit said shield they had to blanket the area. half their shots didn't even touch the shield. that too is canon, along with being the only current example of orbital bombardment on screen.

[texanmarauder]

1. the death star is only 120km wide. in the shot where the squadron approaches the DS there is almost no curvature of yavins horizon. that means that they are in a close orbit. well within 1000km.
2. you accuse me of lying in virtually almost every post you make. you have yet to prove anything.
3. you are missing the point. when you use little 3 word answers with no context, people don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
4. you don't know how high the accelerations are without wong to calculate them for you. and again, I never said that star wars ships don't have high acceleration. and yes, you used the sources I listed for numbers besides acceleration and speed. I doubt you have heard the last of watch-man. especially as ridiculous as some of your answers have been.

[Rhadamantus]

1. The TFA ICS numbers?
2. They were significantly smaller than the heavy turrets.
3. This was before the "rule by fear"
4. When you outright lied about my source.
5. This is a very simple concept. But I'll explain it for a final time. If they fired at the Malevolence at that range, they would dodge. That mean that the venators were out of range. That does not mean Star wars ships automatically have super short ranges, anymore than Star Trek battles being at 5 km distances means that they have 5 km range. It means that in that situation, they could not reliably hit it. In a different one, effective range is different. If the Malevolence had no engines, they would be in range. If it was bigger, they would be in range. If it was a literal fucking planet, then the range at which they could hit it would be quite a bit longer. Therefore, your attempt to prove that the Death Star is different because it has longer range is wrong. That scene does not prove that their weapons could not hit a planet at 1000 km. It shows that they could not hit a much smaller, much faster object.

1. what numbers does it give exactly?
2. heavy or not, they were much bigger than PDLs.
3. bullshit. this was the empire literally right before the events of ANH begin, 19 years after the formation of the empire. the "rule by fear" MO was already established.
4. when did I lie about your source? you keep saying that with no details. explain please.
5. imma have to break this one down.

first off, turbolasers travel at hundreds, minimum, of km/s. that means, that within 1000km you would only have a couple of seconds, tops, to initiate evasive maneuvers. that means that the retarded battle droids operating the ship would have to detect the weapons firing (even though there is no example of this in canon) inform dooku or general grievous, activate the engines in order to maneuver... not gonna happen in 2 or 3 seconds. no matter what crap you dream up.

you really don't know the meaning of range. they couldn't "reliably hit it" because they were out of range. meaning they couldn't target at that range, much less fire, or that their weapons would do no damage. you are trying to redefine what range means to suit your little speculation/bullshit. but by all means, if you can find a canon example of conventional turbolasers being fired at thousands of km, share with the class. we will wait.

as for a "much smaller, much faster object" you are a fucking lunatic. the malevolence was just shy of 5km long. a venator was `1100m. so the malevolence wasn't a "much smaller, much faster object". and obi-wan's 3 cruisers were keeping pace with it after its ion cannons, weapons, and hyperdrive were disabled, so it wasn't faster than a venator at sublight speeds. and there were no fighters launched, so it couldn't be those. this isn't mythbusters. you cant "reject reality and substitute your own".

as for hitting a planet, several ISDs fired from orbit in "swr zero hour" at a shield. in order to hit said shield they had to blanket the area. half their shots didn't even touch the shield. that too is canon, along with being the only current example of orbital bombardment on screen.

1. The BDZ thing.
2. They were not heavy turbolasers. They might have been light, they might have been PDLs.
3. The rule by fear thing explictly started in ANH.
4. On the previous thread, where I had a wong article with canon sources, and you insisted it was sourced from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary.
5. Droid Trifighters. Droid brains that control ships, and manuever very quickly on their own. Not the Roger Roger droids.
6. . They aren't fired at that range not because they can't do damage, but because the other ships will dodge.
7. That might be an honest misunderstanding. The malevolence is much smaller and faster than a planet.
8. Scene?

[Rhadamantus]

1. the death star is only 120km wide. in the shot where the squadron approaches the DS there is almost no curvature of yavins horizon. that means that they are in a close orbit. well within 1000km.
2. you accuse me of lying in virtually almost every post you make. you have yet to prove anything.
3. you are missing the point. when you use little 3 word answers with no context, people don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
4. you don't know how high the accelerations are without wong to calculate them for you. and again, I never said that star wars ships don't have high acceleration. and yes, you used the sources I listed for numbers besides acceleration and speed. I doubt you have heard the last of watch-man. especially as ridiculous as some of your answers have been.

1. We can see it much more than a 1000 km away from Yavin.
2. In this very thread you have lied several times.
3. Ok, sure.
4. Question. Can you go one comment without attacking Wong, or dismissing my comments because they're sourced by Wong, or other shit like that. If you hate the man so much, maybe you shouldn't be on this site.