Spacedocks take on the versus debate

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 09:56am

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:Fractalsponge has done some great work on ship engines. And realitivity won't significantly decrease acceleration at 1/4 c.
also, time dilation effects being at 30,000kps. 1/4 c is a bit over 74,000kps. it has nothing to do with decreasing acceleration. it means time passes, for example, one day for you and a week for everybody else.
Here, you're talking about two different things. If you accelerate at a constant rate, your acceleration will slow down as you approach c. But 1/4 c is not enough to make a huge difference. In a newtonian universe, it would take 42.5 minutes to reach 1/4c. In an einsteinan one, it would take 43.9 (http://gregsspacecalculations.blogspot. ... -page.html). That is an effect, and a notable one, but not enough to significantly change the numbers.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 09:57am

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:Fractalsponge has done some great work on ship engines. And realitivity won't significantly decrease acceleration at 1/4 c.
you didn't answer a damn thing.
There is no evidence for physical exhaust, and the rest of the numbers fit way better if it is a photon drive.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 01:53pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:Fractalsponge has done some great work on ship engines. And realitivity won't significantly decrease acceleration at 1/4 c.
you didn't answer a damn thing.
There is no evidence for physical exhaust, and the rest of the numbers fit way better if it is a photon drive.
in other words, you don't know jack and cant prove your statements. most sublight engines in sw use ion engines, which basically throw ions out the back to provide thrust. there is a limit to the amount of ions it can expel to create thrust, since the higher the acceleration the more power it takes, and a fighter has limited power. which means your speed becomes constant and you have less and less acceleration. part of that depends on actual speed and we have never seen any fighter able to come close to a significant fraction of c. and you don't get to just pull out of your ass what kind of engines an X-wing has or change the tech just to fit what you think the numbers should be. you accused me of making shit up and outright lying in that other thread and now you are doing exactly what you accused me of. and FYI ions, the main method of sublight propulsion in the GFFA, are invisible particles. which means that you cant see them.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 03:07pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote: you didn't answer a damn thing.
There is no evidence for physical exhaust, and the rest of the numbers fit way better if it is a photon drive.
in other words, you don't know jack and cant prove your statements. most sublight engines in sw use ion engines, which basically throw ions out the back to provide thrust. there is a limit to the amount of ions it can expel to create thrust, since the higher the acceleration the more power it takes, and a fighter has limited power. which means your speed becomes constant and you have less and less acceleration. part of that depends on actual speed and we have never seen any fighter able to come close to a significant fraction of c. and you don't get to just pull out of your ass what kind of engines an X-wing has or change the tech just to fit what you think the numbers should be. you accused me of making shit up and outright lying in that other thread and now you are doing exactly what you accused me of. and FYI ions, the main method of sublight propulsion in the GFFA, are invisible particles. which means that you cant see them.
Huh. They were ions engines. And there is a limit to how much acceleration a ship can do, yes. Ships, however have fuel for several hours worth, which is more than enough to reach 1/4 c at star wars accelerations. The reason we don't see this is that fighting at those speeds is impractical, and accelerating up to those speeds is time consuming, space consuming, and usually useless. That doesn't make it impossible, just impractical under their fighting circumstances.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 03:16pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
There is no evidence for physical exhaust, and the rest of the numbers fit way better if it is a photon drive.
in other words, you don't know jack and cant prove your statements. most sublight engines in sw use ion engines, which basically throw ions out the back to provide thrust. there is a limit to the amount of ions it can expel to create thrust, since the higher the acceleration the more power it takes, and a fighter has limited power. which means your speed becomes constant and you have less and less acceleration. part of that depends on actual speed and we have never seen any fighter able to come close to a significant fraction of c. and you don't get to just pull out of your ass what kind of engines an X-wing has or change the tech just to fit what you think the numbers should be. you accused me of making shit up and outright lying in that other thread and now you are doing exactly what you accused me of. and FYI ions, the main method of sublight propulsion in the GFFA, are invisible particles. which means that you cant see them.
Huh. They were ions engines. And there is a limit to how much acceleration a ship can do, yes. Ships, however have fuel for several hours worth, which is more than enough to reach 1/4 c at star wars accelerations. The reason we don't see this is that fighting at those speeds is impractical, and accelerating up to those speeds is time consuming, space consuming, and usually useless. That doesn't make it impossible, just impractical under their fighting circumstances.
feel free to post a canon source giving fighters those kinds of accelerations. and no, ICS is not a canon source and neither is a fanon site. and another thing, the cruising speed of a fighter and its attack speed are indeed two different things. from what he can determine from the movies, attack speed is actually faster than their cruising speed. hence the quote "accelerate to attack speed" from red leader in ANH. that would suggest a limit that precludes the kinds of accelerations you are speculating.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 04:15pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote: in other words, you don't know jack and cant prove your statements. most sublight engines in sw use ion engines, which basically throw ions out the back to provide thrust. there is a limit to the amount of ions it can expel to create thrust, since the higher the acceleration the more power it takes, and a fighter has limited power. which means your speed becomes constant and you have less and less acceleration. part of that depends on actual speed and we have never seen any fighter able to come close to a significant fraction of c. and you don't get to just pull out of your ass what kind of engines an X-wing has or change the tech just to fit what you think the numbers should be. you accused me of making shit up and outright lying in that other thread and now you are doing exactly what you accused me of. and FYI ions, the main method of sublight propulsion in the GFFA, are invisible particles. which means that you cant see them.
Huh. They were ions engines. And there is a limit to how much acceleration a ship can do, yes. Ships, however have fuel for several hours worth, which is more than enough to reach 1/4 c at star wars accelerations. The reason we don't see this is that fighting at those speeds is impractical, and accelerating up to those speeds is time consuming, space consuming, and usually useless. That doesn't make it impossible, just impractical under their fighting circumstances.
feel free to post a canon source giving fighters those kinds of accelerations. and no, ICS is not a canon source and neither is a fanon site. and another thing, the cruising speed of a fighter and its attack speed are indeed two different things. from what he can determine from the movies, attack speed is actually faster than their cruising speed. hence the quote "accelerate to attack speed" from red leader in ANH. that would suggest a limit that precludes the kinds of accelerations you are speculating.
THE MOVIES. THE MOVIES IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE GIVE THOSE ACCELERATIONS. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN YOU.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 04:42pm

Rhadamantus wrote: THE MOVIES. THE MOVIES IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE GIVE THOSE ACCELERATIONS. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN YOU.
you are full of shit. your only two sources are wongs inflammatory biased fan site and the ICS books that didn't even use the movies. you cant even cite specific instances. for example, this characters ship performs a 1234g turn during the battle of endor. all you can do is parrot those two sources, one non canon, the other non canon and not reliable. then gripe at me and call me a liar and accuse me of making shit up mr "it must be a photon drive because that fits the numbers better than the engine it actually has". GTFO with that horse shit. or at least find somebody else to follow around and harass. and no, not every single instance. just off the top of my head, the ISDs brushing hulls in ESB, the rebel flagship and cruisers in ROTJ, the venator class cruisers in SWTCW "cat and mouse". in short, again, you don't know shit except what wong or the ICS books feed you. AND AGAIN, SPEED AND ACCELERATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. SPEED DOESNT DEPEND ON ACCELERATION, BUT ACCELERATION DOES DEPEND ON SPEED. PHYSICS FACT. (see, i can type in all caps too) and nobody but you has tried to shove the "its the movies" line down my throat.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 05:47pm

now, that dumbass aside, what i question is the x-wings acceleration and speed. the reason for that is, in order to have that kind of acceleration (thousands of g) you have to have extreme changes in velocity. at some of the higher accelerations that i have seen, some as much as 5000g, an X-wing would probably tear itself apart trying to achieve. plus, when the squadron launches they launch from a habitable moon in orbit around a gas giant that is bigger than jupitor. if physics are to be believed, it would have a higher gravity than Jupiter as well. at least 3 times earths gravity. so gravity would also play a part in the acceleration and speed. no source that i have seen, including wongs site, say anything about that. on a side note, that kind of gravity would also be affecting yavin 4 since its clear that its orbit is nowhere near 380,000km (average distance from the earth and moon) away from yavin. one would think that yavin 4 would have issues due to this, plus a much higher standard gravity. star trek has a structural integrity field that keeps the hull from tearing apart for situations like this, but i haven't yet seen a sw equivalent.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9730
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2017-07-02 05:59pm

Why would Yavin 4 have "a much higher standard gravity" just because it's orbiting a gas giant? IT clearly has Earth-like gravity because we see people comfortably walking around on the surface just as if it were Earth, so Yavin 4's surface gravity is 1g, or very close to that.

Also, Where do you get the idea that Yavin is bigger than Jupiter? And even if it were, with gas giants a larger diameter does not automatically mean it's heavier.

Yavin's gravity being stronger than Earth's (or Yavin 4's) would have an effect if the fighters were climbing up from Yavin itself. As they're taking off from Yavin 4, a moon in a stable orbit, they are already have a hefty velocity relative to the gas giant, it's how orbits work.

Also, "if physics is to be believed." Physics works whether you believe it or not. That's the lovely thing about it.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 06:22pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Why would Yavin 4 have "a much higher standard gravity" just because it's orbiting a gas giant? IT clearly has Earth-like gravity because we see people comfortably walking around on the surface just as if it were Earth, so Yavin 4's surface gravity is 1g, or very close to that.
yavin 4 is much closer to yavin than the moon is to earth. the gravities of both affect the other. which is why i would think that being in such close proximity would affect yavin 4.
Also, Where do you get the idea that Yavin is bigger than Jupiter? And even if it were, with gas giants a larger diameter does not automatically mean it's heavier.
according to the novel, yavin has a diameter of nearly 200,000km. to my knowledge, most gas giants do have heavier gravity than earth.
Yavin's gravity being stronger than Earth's (or Yavin 4's) would have an effect if the fighters were climbing up from Yavin itself. As they're taking off from Yavin 4, a moon in a stable orbit, they are already have a hefty velocity relative to the gas giant, it's how orbits work.
i was asking because, like i said, i have never seen yavin taken into account.
Also, "if physics is to be believed." Physics works whether you believe it or not. That's the lovely thing about it.
but i think we can both agree that physics don't always get taken into account in science fantasy or science fiction. that's why when we try to apply physics to what happens on screen, then often what happens on screen doesn't make sense. hence the reason why i phrased it that way. star wars relies heavily on suspension of disbelief. as do most movies/tv shows having to do with space.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 08:23pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Eternal_Freedom wrote:Why would Yavin 4 have "a much higher standard gravity" just because it's orbiting a gas giant? IT clearly has Earth-like gravity because we see people comfortably walking around on the surface just as if it were Earth, so Yavin 4's surface gravity is 1g, or very close to that.
yavin 4 is much closer to yavin than the moon is to earth. the gravities of both affect the other. which is why i would think that being in such close proximity would affect yavin 4.
THAT IS NOT HOW GRAVITY WORKS.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 08:28pm

texanmarauder wrote:now, that dumbass aside, what i question is the x-wings acceleration and speed. the reason for that is, in order to have that kind of acceleration (thousands of g) you have to have extreme changes in velocity. at some of the higher accelerations that i have seen, some as much as 5000g, an X-wing would probably tear itself apart trying to achieve. plus, when the squadron launches they launch from a habitable moon in orbit around a gas giant that is bigger than jupitor. if physics are to be believed, it would have a higher gravity than Jupiter as well. at least 3 times earths gravity. so gravity would also play a part in the acceleration and speed. no source that i have seen, including wongs site, say anything about that. on a side note, that kind of gravity would also be affecting yavin 4 since its clear that its orbit is nowhere near 380,000km (average distance from the earth and moon) away from yavin. one would think that yavin 4 would have issues due to this, plus a much higher standard gravity. star trek has a structural integrity field that keeps the hull from tearing apart for situations like this, but i haven't yet seen a sw equivalent.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acceleration_compensator. It is canon that they have acceleration compensators.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/orbs.html#yavin. It orbits at 1.52 million kilometers.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 08:32pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote: THE MOVIES. THE MOVIES IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE GIVE THOSE ACCELERATIONS. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN YOU.
you are full of shit. your only two sources are wongs inflammatory biased fan site and the ICS books that didn't even use the movies. you cant even cite specific instances. for example, this characters ship performs a 1234g turn during the battle of endor. all you can do is parrot those two sources, one non canon, the other non canon and not reliable. then gripe at me and call me a liar and accuse me of making shit up mr "it must be a photon drive because that fits the numbers better than the engine it actually has". GTFO with that horse shit. or at least find somebody else to follow around and harass. and no, not every single instance. just off the top of my head, the ISDs brushing hulls in ESB, the rebel flagship and cruisers in ROTJ, the venator class cruisers in SWTCW "cat and mouse". in short, again, you don't know shit except what wong or the ICS books feed you. AND AGAIN, SPEED AND ACCELERATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. SPEED DOESNT DEPEND ON ACCELERATION, BUT ACCELERATION DOES DEPEND ON SPEED. PHYSICS FACT. (see, i can type in all caps too) and nobody but you has tried to shove the "its the movies" line down my throat.
THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL SAY THIS. STAR WARS SHIPS CAN ACCELERATE AT MORE THAN 1000G. I HAVE PROVIDED NUMEROUS SOURCES. YOU HAVE IGNORED THEM AND LIED ABOUT THEM. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN SOURCES. YOU HAVE IGNORED THEM AND LIED ABOUT THEM. DURING THE BATTLES OF ENDOR AND YAVIN, ALONG WITH EVERY PLANET TAKEOFF SCENE, SHIPS REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATE 1000G+ ACCELERATIONS. THIS IS NOT IN FUCKING DISPUTE BY ANYONE WITH TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER, I.E NOT YOU.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 09:11pm

fuck off dude. you follow me just to start shit. go away. you are the reason that this forum should have the option to block somebody.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 09:16pm

I don't follow you. I happen to be a member of this board, and I will argue with stupid people when I want to.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 09:21pm

that attitude is what makes you the stupid person. you had nothing to do with this thread until i posted on it again after we left the last thread. now go eat paint chips or something. just stop following me around.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 09:26pm

This is a message board. If you don't want people to argue with you, go somewhere else.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 09:33pm

if i remember correctly, one of the forum rules is not to follow people around and harass them. so fuck you. also, you make claims that amount to bullshit and cant prove them. and you act like an asshole for no reason. so go to hell.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 09:46pm

Responding to comments you make is not harassment. And saying I am the one without evidence is laughable.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 10:02pm

you claimed that seppy ships were controlled by droids that could detect turbolaser fire and dodge in the space of 3 seconds tops from a ship that couldn't even fire due to being out of range. then claimed that seppy ships were controlled by droid brains, complete with a wookieepedia article link. then claimed that the droid brains were the ships computer processors after I pointed out that the link you used said just that. being controlled by droid brains and droid brains being the processors are two entirely different things. and earlier in this thread you claimed that an X-wing could accelerate to light speed, claiming that it had a "photon drive". :lol:

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 10:04pm

1. I said the separtists have droid brains that can control ships. This is true.
2. I said that range might refer to effective range, which you, in a surprising move, admitted was true.
3. I was wrong on the photon drive. I admit that. Unlike you.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 10:05pm

this is who he claims controls seppy ships.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 10:08pm

No, I said that this (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Droid_tr ... erything-0) exists. Which it does. Which is a droid starship that can manuever in under three seconds. Given that it is an unknown starship, assuming humans control it is foolish.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 380
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-02 10:11pm

And the book it is citing from is currently mostly canon and has 1000g+ accelerations as canon.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-02 11:19pm

Rhadamantus wrote:No, I said that this (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Droid_tr ... erything-0) exists. Which it does. Which is a droid starship that can manuever in under three seconds. Given that it is an unknown starship, assuming humans control it is foolish.
nobody ever assumed that humans controlled it. you are a liar. a fighter isn't a starship and it wasnt even the ship in question. we were discussing the malevolence. here is the quote from the other thread that started the whole "droid" thing.
Rhadamantus wrote:They have subluminal weapons. A ship, especially one with droids, could detect shots fired from that range and dodge.
not once did you ever state anything about the tri-fighter. which i might add is NOT a starship. followed by
They have droid brains controlling at least some of their ships. Moving a several thousand g for even 1 second would let them dodge dozens of kilometers. Also, you've managed to massively derail the entire thread into whether they should have fired earlier in one episode of the clone wars.
again, no mention of fighters. this was the link you tried to sell me. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Droid_brain so when your argument failed again, you tried this....
Literally every single example in the movies shows thousands of gs.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... sion2.html.
If a ship is already moving, it's engines are clearly powered up and they can jink it.
The ship was directed by a cyborg with inhumanly fast reflexes.
Canon is canon.
i can go on and on. and wtf does jink mean? directed doesn't mean controlled by.
Rhadamantus wrote:And the book it is citing from is currently mostly canon and has 1000g+ accelerations as canon.
again a liar. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_War ... ed_to_Know the disclaimer in the book even says that its mostly legends material.

and you started that whole thing when i called into question the ranges from the ICS book. and then blamed me for that whole tangent that you started. so go to hell.

Post Reply