Registered: May 2007
Location: Best company on the planet
You gave no official numbers or anything backed by an official source. You're that nerd whose bibliography page would be references to yourself since you couldn't list one credible source to back your calc'd feats.
Asteroids also obliterated asteroids. What's funny is this shows asteroids can do more damage to a ship than the destroyers pathetic weaponry.
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Neither did you. So what?
I was pointing out facts observeable from the movies and drawing conclusion from those. That you are incapable of following that, is not my problem. You need to refute my reasoning, instead of saying "No. Nerd math." in oder to make a point.
And since you rule out sources not being the movies in general, citing the overwhelming amount of sources (Technical Commentaries, the "Slave Ship" novel etc.) is pretty much pointless, isn't it?
This is ridiculous.
So let's see: One kilometer wide explosions generated by Star Wars weapons are, somehow, not an indicator for their power, when compared to other weaponary that generates similar explosions in space (Nuclear devices in the megaton category). Reason given: None.
Neither is the instant vaporization of rather massive asteroids any indication of their power. Reason given: None.
Yes. Those rather large asteroids would impact on others with power equivalent of a small nuclear bomb unleashed upon impact. Speed + mass = power. Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school after 4th grade.
Really? After three volleys from a single Star Destroyer, the Falcon is losing one deflector shield in ANH. Which is, quite literally, a ten second "assault" on the ship with the Star Destroyers point defense (light) weapons. The same Falcon flies through an asteroid field with rather large asteroids impacting on its shield, while nothing happens. And it does that for several minutes.
That Han even makes the choice of flying into the asteroid field rather than taking it up with the Star Destroyers, should tell you what he thought was the greater threat to his ship.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
You could also ask how the Vengeance does hit the Star Destroyer while it is in Hyperspace, which makes just as much sense.
Star Trek ships can't engage targets on warp speeds when said targets are not on warp speed themselves, because they would just be out of weapon range before they could even fire on a (relatively) stationary target going with faster-than-light speed.
I can't believe, that I actually have to explain that...
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2007
Location: Best company on the planet
You made the claim. The onus is on for you to back your claim not for me to disprove your theory.
You weren't pointing out facts you were assuming your numbers were facts. They aren't. You can assume all you want but if you can't prove it then you have shit. That's just the reality of debating. Stick to what you can prove not what you can assume as a fact.
You see your conclusion > analysis > evidence as a biased fan. You'll try anything to reach your biased conclusion which isn't being objective. Why can't you see that ?
Novels are out since the novels contradict the movie but the official site or anything in the DVD special features is fair game IMO.
It is an inconsistency in fiction just as collateral damage isn't always indicative of power. We see explosions that destroy galaxies by one character in a story and the same character all out in another story fail to destroy a city block. The same thing with Star Wars explosions and chewies weapon as a specific example. We see the blasts cause explosions and knock people considerably far back off their feet in some scenes and in other scenes not have the same concussive force. It's inconsistent and I feel the portrayal is what ultimately matters and the comparison to other star wars blasters. It's obviously more powerful than the blasters by far but the explosions and the surface area of the explosions aren't consistent so who the **** cares.
You fail to look at the other logical assumption that that's the best the special effects could do and that other asteroids complete obliterated other asteroids on impact. You do not see comic book debaters analyzing the size and the weight of cars Peter Parker tosses in debaters because it's generally a waste of time and greatly varies showing to showing. For one thing we don't know the weight and size and can only speculate anyways and it means **** all when he matches up against a character like the Hulk who is over 1,000 times strongly easily. That doesn't mean Spiderman can't beat the Hulk and that we should only analyze the feats.
It is special effects not some official Star Wars guy saying yes this makes sense given the fictional universe which supports the force. Everything must add up and we need to calculate the force of the impact and apply it on all Star Wars related events because we must remain consistent in these films intended for kids you biased dipshit.
I'll watch this scene again so I can determine how many asteroids hit the MF and comment on that afterwards. With regards to the star destroyer the portrayal is quite clear that the star destroyer is one of the empire's finest weapons/ships and they are combat wise leaps and bounds superior to the MF. MF shouldn't last that long against such a superior ship upon direct fire. In the trek films it was made known the enterprise was completely inadequate with regards to withstanding an assault from the Narada or the Vengeance.
The star destroyer was actively targeting the ship the asteroids weren't and what's even better was the asteroids would deter any ships from going into one whether it be an Imperial ship or the MF.
Registered: May 2007
Location: Best company on the planet
Nai, you can't run. You can't hide. I will find you wherever you go. I will search the vast Internet to complete my mission of your complete annihilation.
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
No, Sir. I'm not going to prove a negative. It is your task to prove, that they can engage targets that aren't in warp speed while they are on warp speed themselves, and since that never happened in the entirety of Star Trek, they can't. And ffs: If you are traveling with a speed of 300,000 km/s+, you just can't fire at a near stationary target, because you would be out of your own weapon range, before even trying to fire. Not to mention, that there is - quite obviously - the problem of the warp drive "warping" space-time around the ship, which would lead to problems to interact with object that are still in the normal space-time.
@Dumbchi0815
What "claim" are you even talking about?
I've presented visual evidence, that the Executor is hit with something that generated an explosion more than a kilometer in diameter in outer space. I further linked you to an official gouvernment source describing the test of nuclear weapons in outer space, leading to my conclusions regarding firepower. Wether you are agreeing with the "nerd math" or not, is entirely irrelevant, because the size of the explosion alone indicates firepower far beyond anything ever seen in Star Trek.
Why can't you see that applying physics is not "my" conclusions, analysis, evidence, but a mere transfer of stuff shown on screen into real-life terms? That you have a problem with that, because Star Wars shits on Star Trek in that regard is, once again, not my problem. And since you are inable to counter any of "my" conclusions, analysis or evidence, but instead just go "Nope." also doesn't look as if you had an argument.
As I thought: Deliberate cherrypicking out of the canon source material from the Star Wars side in an attempt to downtalk Star Wars. The two TV shows "Rebels" and "The Clone Wars" are absolute canon even under the Disney rule.
2:40 onwards. Dropped by a Star Fighter. Boom.
0:55 - 0:58 Droid Starfighters small weapons causing massive explosions.
2:38 - 2:44 more massive explosions caused by single hits of turbolaser fire.
This is all absolute canon.
You use your pitty excuses about "inconsistent portrayals" to mask your attempt to downtalk Star Wars. Let us face the facts here: If portrayals within a work of fiction do differ from eachother, "suspension of disbelief" demands that we first search and in universe explanation for that. That Chewie's bowcaster, with the last shot he fires, doesn't seem to do the damage it does with all other shots before could either be because the power-cell is empty (which would explain why he doesn't shoot a second time to kill Kylo) or Kylo was wearing some form of armor or he was attempting to protect himself with the force, blocking some part of the blast. What we do not do is take that singlular showing to attempt and talk down the weapon itself, which is what you do.
Using that logic on Star Trek would mean, that photon torpedos never hit their targets (because one of the Narada, the most advanced ship seen in Star Trek, does miss and an entire salvo of torpedos launched is easily intercepted by the Enterprise later). Does that sound reasonable for you?
Furthermore, you haven't shown how the explosions in the space-battles are "inconsistant" at all, because - gosh - they aren't.
1:11 - 1:15 Beam weapon out of the Venator class hangar destroys the enemy ship in a rather huge explosion.
Broadside exchange of two ships far weaker than a Star Destroyer, happening after hours of space battle (shields probably gone completely) and even then their armor tanks quite a lot of damage, provided the Venator-class vessel (pre Star Destroyer design) survives this easily. And even here, most of the shots fired come from the smaller guns mounted at the side of the ship. And even those do generate explosions with a diameter of several dozen meters compareable to Star Trek photon torpedos. But not only can those ships tank repeated hits of weapons with that kind of firepower (as seen), they would fire that in far faster succession and with far more amunition than any Star Trek vessel.
Pardon me.
Where is that a logical assumption? So the same special-effects department that is involved in - wait a second - almost all movies made in Hollywood from 1977 onwards (ILM), can't come up with better effects for the Special Edition of the movie, released in 1997? Seriously? That is a "logical assumption" in the world of Quanchi?
And the comic book quip is just another red harring. Irrelevant missdirection because you still don't have an argument.
Oh, really? Everything must add up?
We can go on Han Solo's comment, when he first comes across the remains of Alderaan: He claims that it would need thousands of ships to do something like that. Of course, 1/1000 of the Death Stars firepower for every Imperial ship would still mean that they would completely destroy any Star Trek ship with ease.
We could with the ANH briefing scene, before the Rebels attack the Death Star, General Dodonna mentions that the Death Star has the firepowerf of half the Imperial Starfleet. Even assuming that the Imperial Starfleet has millions of ships, even one millionth of the Death Stars demonstrated firepower would totally put any Star Trek ship to shame.
And yes. With that statements it's pretty obvious, that those ships dish out shots in the megaton department at the very least, where you have failed to provided anything to contradict that. So. I guess I accept your concession and move on.
Yes. This is why the MF is forced to flee after 10 seconds of light weapon fire from a Star Destroyer in ANH (losing a deflector shield already). And you may want to consider that the MF is heavily modified:
Did you, by chance, miss the fact that the Imperials manouver their ships into the asteroid field (including the city sized Executor) and, after flying through that asteroid field for hours (or even days?) they lose one ship by constant asteroid bombardment, with a particular unlucky and massive hit destroying the bridge?
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Are you mentally handicapped or are you deliberately missrepresenting my argument?
In order to archive Faster than Light (FTL) travel speed, Star Wars ships go into hyperspace, which is an alternate dimension only affected by objects of huge mass in "real space" (suns, black holes and the like). So there won't be any interaction between the Dreadnought and the Star Destroyer on "light speed". The Dreadnought would need to attack a Star Destroyer moving in "real space", while on FTL speed itself - which it can't do.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Jul 1st, 2016 12:11 AM
