Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!
  • Announcements

    • paul

      ATTN: BLACKFOOT   08/20/2017

      Please register a new account. Tyralak will explain once you do. Thank you for shopping at Walmart.

Brian Young

Members
  • Content count

    1,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Brian Young last won the day on May 6 2015

Brian Young had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Brian Young

  • Rank
    Illustrious Potentate

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.scifights.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Hi everybody, it has been a while, I stay pretty busy. But I thought some of you may be interested in the newest video, which deals with Imperial planetary bombardment, as seen in Rebels season 3. http://www.scifights.net/zerohour.mp4
  2. Howdy Captain, I stumbled in looking for a quote, and saw that you had some questions. The example is not that complicated. I never said that using 70 year old planes was a good thing for NORAD to do in countering modern fighter jets. That's crazy. I said it would have been better on 9/11. The point is effective for these reasons: *It is an effective demonstration of how numbers and location are even more important than technology. It wouldn't matter if those 2 armed planes were X-Wings instead of F-15s, if they were too far away to help *in any way whatsoever*. An old plane that can accomplish the task (somehow you missed this), in greater numbers would be better in such a situation. *P-51s are about 70 years old, which is very much like Excelsior Class ships or Miranda Class ships in the TNG era. Defending the use of those older ships in the Dominion War was part of the point in the video. *As I said, in this situation, the plane could get the job done. You seem to have grown the argument a third arm to make it seem as if I was promoting the use of numbers of *anything*, over *anything*, and in *any* scenario. I said at least twice that the plane could accomplish the task, and of course that is key. I've ALSO said in the past that even the Red Barron couldn't defeat Maverick and Goose in an F-14, because the plane is too far outclassed. *As Ted said, it is *meant* to be an extreme example, in hopes of making a point. *It also sets the proper mindset to discuss TIE fighters, which immediately follows. So, I'm sorry if the point was confusing. All the people who previewed it seemed to understand and approve. Great to see you guys are still on here and still conversing. I'm terribly busy, and I don't know when I'd be able to participate regularly. I do miss you guys. I'm working 10-12 hours a day, and have even supplemented on weekends some. As I've mentioned before, I only get a few hours a week to myself, when the babies aren't here, and have to use it to the greatest effect.
  3. Hi guys, Just followed the link on in, as I'm making site updates. This includes renaming the Misc section "Premise," making it the first page after the "Welcome" one, and separating the links to their own page. And, of course, I'm working on the Federation vs Empire section, in case no one was aware. Speaking of updates, the new layout here looks nice. Anyway, just to chime in on this issue, my take is that the wildly varying examples are why these debates have never been settled. That, IMO, is a major reason to limit myself to canon-only sources. But even in canon, and especially in Star Trek, the canon examples vary too widely to generate logical arguments as it stands. For instance, Geordi said the warp core "usually kicks plasma in the terawatt range." He also said 4.2 gigawatts was enough to power a "small phaser bank." Conversely, Data said the ship was generating "12.75 billion gigawatts per..." and Torres said they needed to add another 5 terawatts to the sensor array. These examples go on and on. I blame the fact that Star Trek is such a cash cow that multiple writers worked on it, with little collaboration. That is really what lead to the publication of the TM, to provide some continuity. Trek supporters support the highest numbers, anti-Trek debaters support the lowest numbers; neither surprisingly. But how do we decide? The highest numbers? The lowest numbers? Arbitrary decision? After I'm done with the current section, Federation vs Empire, and a few more case studies itching to get out, I intend to compile these examples and determine if a pattern can be noted, leading us to the conclusion of what range is the most consistent. The most consistent thing, as I've said from the beginning of this project, wins. I'm not doing it now, because the Federation vs Empire section needs to be done before my son is born in January, being such a massive project. And looking at the Judgement Criteria, I don't think it has a significant effect on the outcome anyway, as it mostly pertains to the ship vs ship combat section, one of the least important areas. And of course, I'll allude to the varying ranges in that section. On the other hand, this might be a perfect project for the combined forces here at ASVS. It would have to involve supporters of both the high and low figures, plus someone to compile them in a spreadsheet, producing bar graphs and pie charts; someone who is good with such things, and impartial. Each example would stand alone, not "if we use the 12.75 billion gigawatts, along with THIS example of .9% used for..." That is a double dip. The .9% is just as dependent on the low figures as it is the high. It would generate traffic, and after all, it will be a lot for me to do alone. And heck, the results could be published in the Geek's Basement for all to see, whether favoring Star Trek or pulling it down. The point is to get it right, not to BE right.
  4. This will be my last post to the forums. when more than one person cannot comprehend that hard evidence: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20522425/droidshields.mov https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20522425/murenshields.mp4 is not superior to a completely arbitrary, made up position (landed on the shields, are you kidding me?) that has no precedent whatsoever, I've failed in my efforts here. These same people refuse to accept the challenge to present a precedent for this, denying Burden of Proof, and argue aggressively that it is equal in stature to almost 50 video examples from canon sources. Wow. If you never learned anything else, learn this now: the data drives the conclusion. If you present a conclusion (landed on the shields), and are asked to present the data that led you to that conclusion, but you refuse to comply, that is a fallacy called Begging the Question. Look it up. Look up Burden of Proof while you're at it. As I've been neglecting my 11 month old daughter to spend hours on here discussing things, it has been a huge mismanagement of time. I'm not inflexible: http://www.scifights.net/commonempireoops.mov I simply don't accept made up bullshit as "evidence." It comes from canon, or it does not, period. I said long ago over in the Misc section that I'm not interested in what you can make up or what I can make up. I don't care if everyone accepts my conclusions or not. But when it comes down to people pushing fabrications as equal to nearly 50 video examples, including descriptions from characters that are so straightforward a child can understand them, I have no interest in wasting any more of my time with that. Your imaginations are more active than my keyboard. I'll stick to canon sources, and you guys can fantasize all kinds of technology into existence without me.
  5. You know...forget it. If you can't understand the difference between observing video evidence, and making shit up in your own imagination without precedent of any kind whatsoever, its a lost cause. I'm out. I've got more fun things to do than argue hard evidence vs whatever you can think up.
  6. By the way, those Separatist ships you referred to earlier use self-contained munitions. They don't need equal reactor power.
  7. Because, as with the rest of the stuff that is made up, it is a fabrication that has no precedent anywhere in Star Wars. Show me one instance of anything landing on or grappling onto a shield in Star Wars. I insist. If you cannot, it is made up bullshit. Period. The permeability hypothesis has lots of precedent, involving both visible and invisible shields. Droidekas. Gungan shields. Anakin's Naboo fighter. All those examples of ships entering or exiting landing bay shields. ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES involve these allegedly "absent" visible shields. So in case none of this has gotten through, as plainly as I can say it, all my claims are founded in observable evidence, and yours is made up in your mind. Show me JUST ONE example of ANYTHING landing on a shield in Star Wars. I say you cannot, because it is made up, with no purpose other than to be argumentative. Consider it a personal challenge.
  8. Another reference that supports the ICS calculations.
  9. True, Luke was older, and learned quickly. But he was pretty proficient by the end of the film. To suggest he only had a few hours of training, assuming the planets are in the same system, is a stretch. As you said, he beat Vader. Also, wouldn't the Imperials have searched the local planets before bugging out? Maybe leave a couple TIE fighters, or at least a probe droid, for patrol at each one? For that matter, they left the "Hoth system" and detached from Avenger in the "Anoat system." So it is possible there were two interstellar journeys without hyperdrive. It is certainly possible Avenger jumped to meet the rest of the fleet, but why leave the last known location of the target? Also, I wonder how long Boba followed them. Does Slave1 have stealth technology?
  10. That makes more sense. Now consider my viewpoint. I'm trying to go where the evidence takes me, wherever that is. Rarely is any argument unassailable, even Evolution. But it doesn't have to be. The BEST explanation is king. It does not fall to a worse explanation. If it is the most consistent, most logical given the present data we have, it rules. That's how science works. For instance, Special Relativity turned Physics upside down. But up to the point it was published, scientists had to go with the best information they had, even if it later proved to be wrong. Same here, we have to go with the BEST explanation, perfect or not, because it won't be perfect. I talk so much about the scientific method because some of these ideas seem to come at the audience out of the blue, and it almost looks like it was simply made up. The same thing with the ICS numbers. They therefore ignore the evidence and make up something of their own in return, certain their idea is just as good as Curtis', Mike's, Kennedy's, or mine. But nothing could be further from the truth than assuming these things were simply made up. I present the evidence that led me to that specific conclusion, that's why the videos are so long! Each video represents days, weeks, or sometimes years of pouring over the evidence to separate consistency from inconsistency, assembling that data, and presenting it for all to see, gathered in one place, whatever that conclusion is. It may come across as an insult to some, but I speak the truth when I call someone on making things up. Consider that both you and Ted argued the Falcon landed on the shields of Avenger, of all things. As there is no precedent for such a thing in Star Wars, I am correct in stating that is a fabricated argument, without basis in evidence, just for the sake of being argumentative. It is not an insult, it is not "hand waving" as you say, it is stating a fact. As it is a fabrication, it is not the BEST explanation we have. As it is in opposition to some of the evidence (such as the character explanations), it is not the BEST explanation we have. That's why I point those things out. That's my job. As it is your job to point out flaws in my explanation, it is my job to point out yours. I generally don't produce a video without lots and lots of evidence - more than other arguments, which is WHY I present THAT specific argument. Thats why the videos are so long - because I've identified lots and lots and lots of evidence that prove it. Almost by default, other ideas with less evidence are inferior arguments. These explanations are the best, not because I said it, but because the evidence says it. I said it BECAUSE the evidence said it first. I only wish counterarguments involved real evidence, like Vince presented, or Vympel presented - things that prove the point via hard evidence. That's the last step of the scientific method - test the hypothesis in an attempt to disprove it. I published retractions in the videos noting this. Usually what I get are "what if" scenarios, which make interesting discussion, but do not represent actual evidence. I always say the argument is made by the evidence, not the man.
  11. Commentary on "Screen Ruler," a utility I use to scale images.
  12. One does wonder what the heck Han was talking about. But it almost certainly had to be a few months or a couple years at nearly c. Luke needs time to train, the people onboard the Falcon need to not starve, but people still looked the same relative ages earlier. And here is the kicker - they still rendezvoused with the Rebels at "the rendezvous point" at the end of the film. Were they hanging out at the same point on the galactic rim for years? Did they not find a base in all that time? Did they have enough food to do so? Did they not give up on our heroes and move to another, more secure location in case they'd been captured? That certainly limits the timeframe. Bespin cannot be in the same system, because that would mean Luke learned all that in just hours. But younglings trained their whole life. Backup hyperdrive doesn't work for two reasons. First, they'd simply use it to escape the Imperial fleet in the first place. But second, using direct evidence, C-3PO said "the hyperdrive motivator has been damaged - it's impossible to go to light speed!" Impossible. So they made the journey without hyperdrive. Assuming the Falcon's maximum acceleration is 2500g (according to ICS calculations, actual times are faster), it would take about 3.4 hours to accelerate to c, not counting Relativity.
  13. Well, I sent it to Tyralak.
  14. I added commentary. Without everyone having to watch again, the "not there anymore" statement can be used by itself it imply the planet's mass was scattered. But it was a knee-jerk reaction to limited information. After all, they just found out about the fleet. Ivanova ordered them to monitor the area for transmissions, and this is how they determined the base was no longer there. Lyta declared the planet was destroyed, and the only information she had was they were up to something. Later, as their information improves, so does ours. But scattering the mass of a planet, and performing a 10 hour, incomplete bombardment that leaves the atmosphere intact and people still alive, are different by too many orders of magnitude. To use a recently discussed example, the bombardment is far less thorough than a BDZ, which is billions of times lesser than the destruction of Alderaan. This from the very same weapon? I don't buy it. In-universe, it is entirely possible the attack was still going on at the time, given the Vorlons scramble all frequencies during the attack. Also, if they could scatter the mass, why would they waste 10-12 hours bombing the surface? Thanks for the feedback, it is valuable and helps improve the final video. Btw, I asked JMS on Twitter about this. I asked if the VPK destroyed planets, why did Ivanova ask for help evacuating survivors from the ground. He replied "She was on heroin."
  15. Yeah, Han's quote is just semantics, but for Luke to train, and the Falcon to travel between star systems without hyperdrive, it almost requires high relativistic velocity, close to c. But it can't be several years, because Luke and Leia still looked about the same age, Han and Lando looked about the same age. Most star systems are a few light years apart, so the Falcon had to be traveling very close to c to make it in such a short time.
×