Maybe I missed some things he said in his other posts. I hate the alt-right, but making fun of trigger warnings doesn't automatically mean someone is an alt-righter.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

There is still no such thing as an alt-left. No amount of you spouting nonsense change this.

What do you call antifa? Even some of the more left-leaning elements of the media eventually started to disavow them.

Adios thread you’ve left that galaxy far away and long ago

13 hours ago, TheJrade said:

Ok, since many people seem to be confused and/or unable/unwilling to understand some of the basic concepts at play here, I will show my work.

The speed of light is roughly 300 million meters per second. We will assume a notional hyperspace weapon travels only at the speed of light in spite of the fact that hyperspace is canonically MUCH faster than that because the numbers get silly basically instantly when you assume a speed of travel equivalent to what it would take to cross the galaxy in a few weeks. Multiply 3x10^9 by say, a 20-kiloton X-Wing, you get a 3 trillion Newton impact. That is roughly a MILLION TONS of TNT. For readers of Shlock Mercenary or books by John Ringo, that is about 4 petajoules of energy. Roughly as powerful than the most powerful thermonuclear weapon in active service.

We have never seen the explosion of a proton torpedo in canon but it is safe to say they are more in the shield-penetrating blockbuster category rather than well over the Independence Day-style city killer level. So even the smallest hyperspace impact would completely vaporize a not only a normal Star Destroyer but a Super Star Destroyer as well. From what is seen in the Clownhair Collision, one can assume that most of the energy was lost due to it being a glancing blow. A purpose-built weapon would likely be more accurate. Also, a direct nonelastic impact of that energy would be closer to a supernova in magnitude. Not very healthy for escaping shuttles... or anyone else in the entire sector.

Assuming my Notional Hyperspace Weapon skipped the expensive armaments, life support, and shields of an X-Wing and used a low-grade hyperdrive coupled to a fairly smart astrogational targeting device along with some basic realspace thrusters for ease of handling prior to deployment, the NHW could probably be built for abut 10k credits if a hardscrabble Resistance was cobbling them together out of spare parts. Jack that up for military hardware ruggedization and bunny horse mistreatment costs say, 200%, and you can still buy five of them for the price of an X-Wing. I don't know how much all two of those TIE fighters that the FO lost on the initial attack on the Resistance fleet cost, but it is likely more than the one NHW it would have taken to obliterate it.

Add the cost of a Holonet transceiver to the weapon, and you can store them undetectably in deep space and transmit targeting information via the Holonet. Have a spy plant a homing beacon for 100% accuracy. No warning of impact, sorry Alderaan, no time to raise planetary shields. With the aforementioned beacon you could even time your strike to zip in through a gate in an always-up shield over a military target a la the ill-fated Blue Squadron of Rogue One. Parts and technical crew for the forest moon? Add a side of superluminal devastation with that to avoid all that messy business with the Ewoks.

If we are imputing that a hyperspace impact can only occur at the time of entry into hyperspace and Admiral Clownhair is a astronavigational prodigy, then the NHW can be programmed to drop out of hyperspace briefly at the appropriate distance before re-entering to begin it's final run. As it's sensor cross-section is the same size or even smaller than a snubfighter (less if we equip it with basic stealth abilities) it is highly unlikely that any countermeasures might be employed to prevent its impact in time.

I am also confused as to how the astrotropes article "fairly neatly dispose"s of the planet-killer argument, it seems to (correctly) say that there is more than enough energy in even a non-superluminal collision to destroy a planet. What is the disposing-ing angle here I am missing?

As handwaving objections away because I am just a hater, for the record I rather liked the Prequels. Young Manakin Skywalker and Jar-Jar were a bit annoying, and the Naberrie Fields Forever scene was a jarring change of pace in otherwise pretty good movies. I even thought that without Mary Sue, Ep7 woud have been a five star movie. Until now, Mary Sue was the only thing I ever complained about in Star Wars. Ep8 is a whole other ball of wax. Rather than a great movie with one bad character, they back off of her drama-destroying Sue-ness (rather nicely actually, Reylo was the one storyline I actually enjoyed) only to replace it with a Jawa crawler load of other bad writing.

Lastly, apologies to any SJWs that I have triggered by poking fun at the audience pandering involved in the Holdo costuming choices. I was under the impression one was allowed to poke fun at badly written characters, or is it just that only anti-orange frog discrimination is ok?

Some useful reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/ (wherein the effect of superluminal weaponry, i.e. the "Long Gun", on dramatic tension is addressed)

Relativistic kinetic energy is (gamma)mc^2, not 1/2mv^2. That technically makes the energy infinte.

The thing is, the 'hit it with a rock' problem has always been an unaddressed problem is Star Wars (in pretty much any sci-fi actually). You dont need an X-wing with a hyperdrive, just a tiny moon with a shield generator and a motor to get it to move. Seeing as tiny moons are several times the size of a Star Destroyer and far more common, and with almost any speed able to sterilize a planet, dropping rocks can destroy planets at will.

Since we dont see this happening, or even hyperdrive planet killer fighters, there must (could is more likely) be some reason they dont work.

As for hitting a moving, manuvering target, it may be the reason we dont see huge super star destroyers more is that anything smaller can dodge. If you dont thing SDs can dodge well enough, it may be that anything too large to dodge has too much firepower for the ship to survive till impact. I thought it was revealing that the First Order crew figured out what was happening and had an immediate response. I thought that the ram in TLJ was more a special case, not a useful tactic. Had the First Order guys realized what was happening in time, they would have kept the ram from happening. I imagine hitting a bunch of turbolaser blasts before hitting the target ship would make the ram tactic a failure.

Either way, we dont really know how the tech in SW works well enough to say how hyperspace actually interacts with normal space. So making definite statements about what can and would happen is a bit premature

2 hours ago, korjik said:

Had the First Order guys realized what was happening in time, they would have kept the ram from happening. I imagine hitting a bunch of turbolaser blasts before hitting the target ship would make the ram tactic a failure.

While I appreciate that you have hedged your comment you also made a bit of a bold claim that probably wouldn’t hold water. I’m not trying to contest your feeling that we don’t know enough to comment on the hyperspace ram nonsense, and I agree, but as we see in the giant fleet battles, those capital ships can pummel one another for some time. Simply training your guns at an approaching ship isn’t enough to wipe it out than when it was sitting still for the same time period. The shields and hull are still every bit as armoured and protected. So no, likely a ship as massive and powerful as a Mon Cal could likely close to ramming distance without being destroyed outright. *albeit assuming we aren’t seeing a massively overpowering fleet against it like TLJ.* The comment in the movie is more to assuage concerns that they could have stopped it had Snookship + 30 odd SD’s opened up at once.

So while I’m not arguing that there is or isn’t a hyperspace ram, I would contend that merely claiming the firepower of the opposing ship is enough isn’t exactly true in all but the most extreme disadvantageous situations.

When we see capital ships close together, they go down quickly (as in the opening of Episode 3). Combine that with the fact that ships' guns lose effectiveness at long range (meaning they're more effective at close range), and you get a quick death for ships getting close to other cruisers.

8 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

What do you call antifa? Even some of the more left-leaning elements of the media eventually started to disavow them.

I call the antifa the antifa. The anti-fascists already have a perfect name and don't need one assigned from the alt-right, just because the alt-right ain't happy with their own self-proclaimed name anymore.

4 hours ago, Khazadune said:

While I appreciate that you have hedged your comment you also made a bit of a bold claim that probably wouldn’t hold water. I’m not trying to contest your feeling that we don’t know enough to comment on the hyperspace ram nonsense, and I agree, but as we see in the giant fleet battles, those capital ships can pummel one another for some time. Simply training your guns at an approaching ship isn’t enough to wipe it out than when it was sitting still for the same time period. The shields and hull are still every bit as armoured and protected. So no, likely a ship as massive and powerful as a Mon Cal could likely close to ramming distance without being destroyed outright. *albeit assuming we aren’t seeing a massively overpowering fleet against it like TLJ.* The comment in the movie is more to assuage concerns that they could have stopped it had Snookship + 30 odd SD’s opened up at once.

So while I’m not arguing that there is or isn’t a hyperspace ram, I would contend that merely claiming the firepower of the opposing ship is enough isn’t exactly true in all but the most extreme disadvantageous situations.

If a ship hitting a ship at lightspeed would do so much damage, why wouldnt a turbolaser shot hitting a ship at lightspeed do so much damage also?

My point isnt that the ship would be destroyed before it went to lightspeed, but when it went to lightspeed.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

I call the antifa the antifa. The anti-fascists already have a perfect name and don't need one assigned from the alt-right, just because the alt-right ain't happy with their own self-proclaimed name anymore.

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce

So do you mean the very ironically named antifa fascists already have the perfect name?

39 minutes ago, korjik said:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce

So do you mean the very ironically named antifa fascists already have the perfect name?

No, I am now thinking that you have no ******* clue what the antifa stands for or why they have that name for more than 40 years. It almost sounds like you are falling for alt-right FUD.

If you believe the antifa being authoritarian or nationalist you are deeply mistaken, they have quite a bunch of different left ideologies under their belly and mostly just the anti-fascist traits as common ground. Considering that anarchism is one of the major ideological forces within the antifa … your comment seems downright silly. Especially when there are actually quite a lot of really bad things to say about antifa which are not just based on propaganda from their ideological enemies.

6 hours ago, korjik said:

If a ship hitting a ship at lightspeed would do so much damage, why wouldnt a turbolaser shot hitting a ship at lightspeed do so much damage also?

My point isnt that the ship would be destroyed before it went to lightspeed, but when it went to lightspeed.

So your thought is that the ships firing at it who have to struggle to hit it by aiming and leading their target etc, will be able to hit a target moving at light speed? The ship will have disappeared before the gunner has time to think about pressing the button.

There is no evidence that the closer one gets to a target the stronger their blasts, nor, is there any tangible proof that a fleet battle which would take considerable amounts of time to break through fully shielded and armoured heavy cruisers would be sped up by their approach. When we see ships being destroyed in film, we are seeing either overwhelming concentration of fire from many vessels, or, the end of a protracted battle where shields and armour have been reduced significantly.

1 hour ago, Khazadune said:

There is no evidence that the closer one gets to a target the stronger their blasts

Except the battle in Last Jedi, of course. Where distance makes the shots that impact the target's shields ineffective.

59 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Except the battle in Last Jedi, of course. Where distance makes the shots that impact the target's shields ineffective.

Is there an extreme range to weaponry? Yes. Does this mean the inverse is true? Sure, but does that mean that an M16 fired at a maximum effective range of 600 meters would be 100 % more effective at 1 meter or less? It’s not proportionate in that sense to say that weapons have maximum effective range means they are inversely superior at shorter ranges. There will be energy lost over distance, but this doesn’t make those shots equivalent to the strength necessary to do the sort of damage you are insisting.

22 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

you are insisting.

Dude who do you think you're talking to? Get your attributions straight.

23 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

that mean that an M16 fired at a maximum effective range of 600 meters would be 100 % more effective at 1 meter or less?

We're not talking about M16s.

13 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

When we see capital ships close together, they go down quickly (as in the opening of Episode 3). Combine that with the fact that ships' guns lose effectiveness at long range (meaning they're more effective at close range), and you get a quick death for ships getting close to other cruisers.

^

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Except the battle in Last Jedi, of course. Where distance makes the shots that impact the target's shields ineffective.

^

11 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Dude who do you think you're talking to? Get your attributions straight.

We're not talking about M16s.

I guess you didn’t make the above comments.

and no, we aren’t talking about m16’s but should we talk about it in another manner? It’s a shot fired with a max range. Unless you want to explain how we should be thinking of this differently? So far you have your quippy one liners and no real answers.

7 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

I guess you didn’t make the above comments.

I don't see the relation. Your comment seems a non sequitur. I'm not making up the capabilities of ray guns, I'm pointing out what we see happen on screen.

7 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

and no, we aren’t talking about m16’s but should we talk about it in another manner?

How about in the manner of what happens in the movies.

8 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

So far you have your quippy one liners and no real answers.

No, I have evidence from the movies.

You have M16s.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

I don't see the relation. Your comment seems a non sequitur. I'm not making up the capabilities of ray guns, I'm pointing out what we see happen on screen.

How about in the manner of what happens in the movies.

No, I have evidence from the movies.

You have M16s.

Lol, so no, you have nothing. Just like I figured. Your so called reference was disproven in the first instance and you have yet to offer anything of substance. *grabs popcorn to see how he references the same defeated argument a fourth time*

5 hours ago, Khazadune said:

So your thought is that the ships firing at it who have to struggle to hit it by aiming and leading their target etc, will be able to hit a target moving at light speed? The ship will have disappeared before the gunner has time to think about pressing the button.

There is no evidence that the closer one gets to a target the stronger their blasts, nor, is there any tangible proof that a fleet battle which would take considerable amounts of time to break through fully shielded and armoured heavy cruisers would be sped up by their approach. When we see ships being destroyed in film, we are seeing either overwhelming concentration of fire from many vessels, or, the end of a protracted battle where shields and armour have been reduced significantly.

Really?

If ramming during the translation to hyperspace is a thing, then cruisers toss a few rounds per second at any other ship pointed at them. All it would take is one gun placing rounds in the space between the ships continously. That would not be hard to do. That is why it worked in TLJ, because the First Order ships didnt do that. They had tunnel vision on the shuttles and forgot to screen against the cruiser.

Second, it isnt range that causes the destruction of the ramming cruiser any more than it is range that causes the ramming cruiser to do more damage than a normal speed ram. Hitting a turbolaser shot at lightspeed causes it to do more damage. Its called doppler effect

Just to chime in a point, lots of people love to compare Star Wars to real world physics. Considering Star Wars is the spiritual successor to the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials of yesteryear I dont think real world physics came into it

Just take a look at what Space Opera really is, here is a quick intro from m wikipedia

Quote

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes space warfare, melodramatic adventure, interplanetary battles, chivalric romance, and risk-taking. Set mainly or entirely in outer space, it usually involves conflict between opponents possessing advanced abilities, futuristic weapons, and other sophisticated technology.^{[citation needed]} The term has no relation to music, but is instead a play on the terms "soap opera" and "horse opera",^{[citation needed]} the latter of which was coined during the 1930s to indicate clichéd and formulaic Western movies. Space operas emerged in the 1930s and continue to be produced in literature, film, comics, and video games.

[/quote]

Genesys goes a step further in saying that it takes real life physics and throws that concept right out the window for more romatic and better story telling options. Best example, do ships really bank like WW2 fighter planes when many dont have wings, nor the atmosphere to be able to do it. Watching a scifi fighter combat using real world physics would be awful.

25 minutes ago, korjik said:

Really?

If ramming during the translation to hyperspace is a thing, then cruisers toss a few rounds per second at any other ship pointed at them. All it would take is one gun placing rounds in the space between the ships continously. That would not be hard to do. That is why it worked in TLJ, because the First Order ships didnt do that. They had tunnel vision on the shuttles and forgot to screen against the cruiser.

Second, it isnt range that causes the destruction of the ramming cruiser any more than it is range that causes the ramming cruiser to do more damage than a normal speed ram. Hitting a turbolaser shot at lightspeed causes it to do more damage. Its called doppler effect

I will reiterate what I began this discussion with - that I am not actually taking a side in favor of or against the ram as it is a Space Opera as pointed out again above. That said, I then went on to show how one of the arguments presented is not consistent within its own logic, that is, that any attempt to ram a ship could be stopped by firing upon it. There are multiple factors behind such a claim; 1) that the soon to be abstract art can have time to open fire. 2) that it is able to accurately strike the target 3) that the speed of said target will not prevent it being struck 4) that the speed will amplify the damage presented due to the doplar effect.

1) let’s assume they are already firing upon the ship for simplicity’s sake bc if they weren’t and someone just flipped the switch you wouldn’t have time to even process the jump.

2) let’s assume that you are zero’d in on the target in a straight line of approach vector so that the shot and the ship must connect bc any other angle would miss something moving at the speeds to make 4 plausible.

3) In all but those few approach vectors that a ship is coming at those shots wouldn’t have left the thought of the gunners mind let alone travel at anywhere near the same speeds.

4) the ship is firing a screen along the only approach vector and there are one if not many shots in the path waiting to be struck by a ship which is approaching light speed. We then insert your belief that the doplar effect should come into effect in this version of the Star Wars Story. Physics amp up the Damage considerably and the ship is destroyed! Except that if that were the case the Supremacy would have been vaporized by the impact of the Mon Cal Cruiser. Okay, but let’s discount that. Then, the shot resolves and the ship explodes. Okay, so you have wreckage and exploding material heading at near light speed into its intended target still accomplishing its goal.

The realization of the level of physics you want to employ would disprove your own argument.

I don’t want to bring physics into Star Wars bc it follows its own internal logic, and, it’s not intended to be viewed through that lens. If you want to, fine, but your statement is still wrong either way.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

I don't see the relation. Your comment seems a non sequitur. I'm not making up the capabilities of ray guns, I'm pointing out what we see happen on screen.

How about in the manner of what happens in the movies.

No, I have evidence from the movies.

You have M16s.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html

Here’s an example of the computation of shield strength given what is seen in the movies. Note the specific mention that in ROTJ ISD’s and Mon Cal’s fire on each other for 40 minutes which goes on to elaborate that the shots in ROTS clearly indicate a battle which has raged for some time, as anyone can tell.

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/star-wars-blaster-speed/

Here’s a breakdown of what is shown on screen of the relative speed of Blaster shots. Note how they specifically make mention of how speeds of shots shown in the movies would indicate blaster shots are equivalent to baseballs or nerf guns in terms of meters/second.

Want to see more proof, “from the movies?”

Heres a breakdown of the relative ranges for effective firing as shown in Star Wars.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSW-WeaponRange-Wars.html

Note the specific mention that dogfighting as seen in the movie takes place within 1 km of each other in space! Capital ships are also shown to have a tiny effective range comparatively. So how much closer do you expect them to get before your blaster bolts become Death Star bolts?

Clearly if the shields are capable of sustained fire for 40+ minutes in a pitched battle than simply closing to range to ram another ship is not going to be stopped by simply applying the fire at a closer range. The increased strength of the bolt would be insignificant. This is reinforced by the very game we play in, where closer range does not increase weapons power but only their accuracy.

2 hours ago, Khazadune said:

Lol, so no, you have nothing. Just like I figured. Your so called reference was disproven in the first instance and you have yet to offer anything of substance. *grabs popcorn to see how he references the same defeated argument a fourth time*

"Nothing" besides the movies, yes.

Whereas you have... M16s.

EDIT: And tech geeks trying to bring in real-world physics instead of going by what the movies show. Christ.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

"Nothing" besides the movies, yes.

Whereas you have... M16s.

EDIT: And tech geeks trying to bring in real-world physics instead of going by what the movies show. Christ.

Wow, you wouldn’t admit you were dying if you were staring through the hole in your chest.

Lmfao. Well, the rest of us can see the truth.

3 minutes ago, Khazadune said:

Wow, you wouldn’t admit you were dying if you were staring through the hole in your chest.

Lmfao. Well, the rest of us can see the truth.

Yeah, those M16s are so much more convincing than what happens in the movies, right.

10 hours ago, Khazadune said:

Wow, you wouldn’t admit you were dying if you were staring through the hole in your chest.

Lmfao. Well, the rest of us can see the truth.

Screaming “I won!” isn’t a tactic most winners employ.