Spacedocks take on the versus debate

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Adam Reynolds » 2017-07-03 04:56pm

Rhadamantus wrote:A. Given you clearly have no intent of listening to evidence or participating in a honest debate, I'm done.
B. Wookiee is an accepted source. Your insistence that it is not will not change that.
I understand how annoying it is to debate Watch-Man, but he is correct in that Wookiepedia can be a problematic source. While this is not yet a problem with the new canon to the same extent, with Legends they are unable to ever throw out sources regardless of how absurd they are or how much they contradict each other, which is a horrible policy.

See my post in the starship mockery thread for an example. IG-88s Death Star is another:
Wookiepedia Battle of Endor wrote:When the Rebels arrived, IG-88A fired the superlaser at the Rebel fleet when the Death Star gunners sent the signal to do so, letting the Imperials believe they were in control, while he prepared to transmit his master control signal that would cause all droids to turn on their masters. Many times, the aiming points and the firing coordinates of the gunners were slightly off and would have missed their intended targets completely had IG-88 not been in command to guarantee accuracy

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-03 05:14pm

What evidence do you have that Yavin 4 is much closer to Yavin than the Moon is to Earth? I'm genuinely curious, I've never read the novelisations so if it's mentioned there I would be unaware of it.
yavin is slightly smaller, about 10,000km diameter, than earths 12,000km diameter. compare this shot Image with this shot Image
we know that the squadron traveled approximately 200,000km from yavin 4 to intercept the DS. the moon, at its closest point to earth, is about 350,000km from earth. yavin is in the background on our left, the characters right. at that distance, they have already traveled most of the distance to the DS. does that look like 350,000km to you?
And yes, it almost certainly does have an effect. Probably a similar effect that the Moon has on Earth re tides and such. It evidently does not have an effect on surface gravity and all things related to it, since we see it to be a perfectly habitable Earth-like envionment.
true. it would seem to me to be a bit more pronounced, but I'm not an expert on these things.
Ok, that's a source for the number, thank you. Gas giants having higher surface gravity than Earth is perfectly true - and I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. The point stands that with gas giants size does not automatically equate to mass. Case in point, Saturn has a mass slightly under 1/3 that of Jupiter, but has a mean diameter barely 20,000 km smaller than Jupiter (to be precise, Jupiter mean diameter, 138,000km, Saturn mean diameter, 114,000km). This is partly why Saturn's mean density is about half that of Jupiter - a simple size comparison tells you very little about gas giant planets.
true. I was just surmising that since most gas giants have increased gravity compared to earth, that yavin would be similar.
Yavin won't have much of an impact on the accelerations or velocities needed - anything taking off from Yavin 4 is already in orbit around Yavin by virtue of starting on the moon, which is in orbit. This is why stuff launching from Earth doesn't need to gain ~30km/s of velocity to stay in orbit around the Sun, it already has that velocity from Earth.
would yavins gravity not affect the squadrons orbital path though? if the DS is in a lower orbit like you said, could they not use the gravity to accelerate instead of using up their fuel? like I said, I'm not an expert. thats why I ask the, as some would see them, dumb questions.
That I am fully aware of, I just dislike the expression as it implies physics or parts thereof are subject to belief in them working when this is manifestly not true.
I guess I did phrase that kind of weird.
On the larger orbital mechanics question, I'm rather interested now. The fighters take off from a moon in a stable orbit. The DS is explicitly said to be orbiting Yavin (voice chatter on the bridge "we are preparing to orbit the planet") and catches up to the moon (or at least to a firing position) quite rapidly. Logically, the DS would be in a lower orbit with a shorter duration. So the fighters have to take off, shed velocity to lower their orbit, close on the DS (or intercept at any rate) and then slow to relative rest with the DS to do battle. That then can do that and a return trip, plus extensive dogfighting, on one fuel load is impressive indeed.
aside from using the gravity like I said above, there are other quotes that have to do with speed/acceleration. like red leader stating "accelerate to attack speed" after they get through the magnetic field. or luke stating "we're going in, we're going in full throttle. that ought to keep those fighters off our backs." if we take quotes at face value, then it would definitely take a lot longer than 5 minutes to make the trip from yavin 4 to the IP with the DS. after all, at full throttle, it took luke over 3 minutes to fire at the exhaust port. with a diameter of 120km, that gives a circumference of 377km. divide that by 180 and you get a maximum of 2.09kps average speed. thats part of the reason that I question wongs "5 minutes from yavin 4 to the DS". it seems to me that he didn't take into account the fact that we see ships taking off, then the scene cuts to the nav table and the 15 minute to firing range call, then to the squadron most of the way to the DS. time is very compressed in the star wars films. how long from the time they took off to the time that the 15 minute call was made? in the current version of the film, that take off scene was leisurely and slow. with me so far?

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-03 05:16pm

The difference there is that IG-88 is legends, nonsensical and contradicted by the other stuff. I don't think the droid fighters are really in doubt.
"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 » 2017-07-03 05:16pm

texanmarauder wrote:
What evidence do you have that Yavin 4 is much closer to Yavin than the Moon is to Earth? I'm genuinely curious, I've never read the novelisations so if it's mentioned there I would be unaware of it.
yavin is slightly smaller, about 10,000km diameter, than earths 12,000km diameter. compare this shot Image with this shot Image
we know that the squadron traveled approximately 200,000km from yavin 4 to intercept the DS. the moon, at its closest point to earth, is about 350,000km from earth. yavin is in the background on our left, the characters right. at that distance, they have already traveled most of the distance to the DS. does that look like 350,000km to you?
And yes, it almost certainly does have an effect. Probably a similar effect that the Moon has on Earth re tides and such. It evidently does not have an effect on surface gravity and all things related to it, since we see it to be a perfectly habitable Earth-like envionment.
true. it would seem to me to be a bit more pronounced, but I'm not an expert on these things.
Ok, that's a source for the number, thank you. Gas giants having higher surface gravity than Earth is perfectly true - and I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. The point stands that with gas giants size does not automatically equate to mass. Case in point, Saturn has a mass slightly under 1/3 that of Jupiter, but has a mean diameter barely 20,000 km smaller than Jupiter (to be precise, Jupiter mean diameter, 138,000km, Saturn mean diameter, 114,000km). This is partly why Saturn's mean density is about half that of Jupiter - a simple size comparison tells you very little about gas giant planets.
true. I was just surmising that since most gas giants have increased gravity compared to earth, that yavin would be similar.
Yavin won't have much of an impact on the accelerations or velocities needed - anything taking off from Yavin 4 is already in orbit around Yavin by virtue of starting on the moon, which is in orbit. This is why stuff launching from Earth doesn't need to gain ~30km/s of velocity to stay in orbit around the Sun, it already has that velocity from Earth.
would yavins gravity not affect the squadrons orbital path though? if the DS is in a lower orbit like you said, could they not use the gravity to accelerate instead of using up their fuel? like I said, I'm not an expert. thats why I ask the, as some would see them, dumb questions.
That I am fully aware of, I just dislike the expression as it implies physics or parts thereof are subject to belief in them working when this is manifestly not true.
I guess I did phrase that kind of weird.
On the larger orbital mechanics question, I'm rather interested now. The fighters take off from a moon in a stable orbit. The DS is explicitly said to be orbiting Yavin (voice chatter on the bridge "we are preparing to orbit the planet") and catches up to the moon (or at least to a firing position) quite rapidly. Logically, the DS would be in a lower orbit with a shorter duration. So the fighters have to take off, shed velocity to lower their orbit, close on the DS (or intercept at any rate) and then slow to relative rest with the DS to do battle. That then can do that and a return trip, plus extensive dogfighting, on one fuel load is impressive indeed.
aside from using the gravity like I said above, there are other quotes that have to do with speed/acceleration. like red leader stating "accelerate to attack speed" after they get through the magnetic field. or luke stating "we're going in, we're going in full throttle. that ought to keep those fighters off our backs." if we take quotes at face value, then it would definitely take a lot longer than 5 minutes to make the trip from yavin 4 to the IP with the DS. after all, at full throttle, it took luke over 3 minutes to fire at the exhaust port. with a diameter of 120km, that gives a circumference of 377km. divide that by 180 and you get a maximum of 2.09kps average speed. thats part of the reason that I question wongs "5 minutes from yavin 4 to the DS". it seems to me that he didn't take into account the fact that we see ships taking off, then the scene cuts to the nav table and the 15 minute to firing range call, then to the squadron most of the way to the DS. time is very compressed in the star wars films. how long from the time they took off to the time that the 15 minute call was made? in the current version of the film, that take off scene was leisurely and slow. with me so far?
Attack speed is lower than maximum speed, which we can see. Ships at Endor too move faster than when they fight.
"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 » 2017-07-03 05:24pm

Adam Reynolds wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:A. Given you clearly have no intent of listening to evidence or participating in a honest debate, I'm done.
B. Wookiee is an accepted source. Your insistence that it is not will not change that.
I understand how annoying it is to debate Watch-Man, but he is correct in that Wookiepedia can be a problematic source. While this is not yet a problem with the new canon to the same extent, with Legends they are unable to ever throw out sources regardless of how absurd they are or how much they contradict each other, which is a horrible policy.

See my post in the starship mockery thread for an example. IG-88s Death Star is another:
Wookiepedia Battle of Endor wrote:When the Rebels arrived, IG-88A fired the superlaser at the Rebel fleet when the Death Star gunners sent the signal to do so, letting the Imperials believe they were in control, while he prepared to transmit his master control signal that would cause all droids to turn on their masters. Many times, the aiming points and the firing coordinates of the gunners were slightly off and would have missed their intended targets completely had IG-88 not been in command to guarantee accuracy
another example is their plot synopsis of SWR zero hour in which they claim that AT-ATs had shield generators when nothing in the show exists to even give that impression. according to the source that made that synopsis, small charges not harming an AT-AT equals they MUST have had shield generators. AT-ATs have been established to be impervious to blasters and laser canons, as well as shoulder fired rockets. why would tiny charges hurt them? plus their canon pages on AT-ATs has never reflected shields on the AT-ATs.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-03 05:29pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
Attack speed is lower than maximum speed, which we can see. Ships at Endor too move faster than when they fight.
do they? I would say prove it, but you wont.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9729
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2017-07-03 05:36pm

texanmarauder wrote:
What evidence do you have that Yavin 4 is much closer to Yavin than the Moon is to Earth? I'm genuinely curious, I've never read the novelisations so if it's mentioned there I would be unaware of it.
yavin is slightly smaller, about 10,000km diameter, than earths 12,000km diameter. compare this shot Image with this shot Image
we know that the squadron traveled approximately 200,000km from yavin 4 to intercept the DS. the moon, at its closest point to earth, is about 350,000km from earth. yavin is in the background on our left, the characters right. at that distance, they have already traveled most of the distance to the DS. does that look like 350,000km to you?
I'm honestly not sure you can use images like that, I have no idea of what the angles involved are, nor do we have a complete image of Yavin for a proper comparison. I don't know if we can actually surmise relative distances from one picture.

Also, where does the 10,000km diameter for Yavin 4 come from?
And yes, it almost certainly does have an effect. Probably a similar effect that the Moon has on Earth re tides and such. It evidently does not have an effect on surface gravity and all things related to it, since we see it to be a perfectly habitable Earth-like envionment.
true. it would seem to me to be a bit more pronounced, but I'm not an expert on these things.
What would "a bit more pronounced" look like to you exactly? We see an EArth-like habitable environment, ergo the moon's surface gravity and the effects caused by Yavin's own gravity must be equal to or very close to equal the effects we see on Earth vis a vis the gravity of the Moon and the Sun.
Ok, that's a source for the number, thank you. Gas giants having higher surface gravity than Earth is perfectly true - and I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. The point stands that with gas giants size does not automatically equate to mass. Case in point, Saturn has a mass slightly under 1/3 that of Jupiter, but has a mean diameter barely 20,000 km smaller than Jupiter (to be precise, Jupiter mean diameter, 138,000km, Saturn mean diameter, 114,000km). This is partly why Saturn's mean density is about half that of Jupiter - a simple size comparison tells you very little about gas giant planets.
true. I was just surmising that since most gas giants have increased gravity compared to earth, that yavin would be similar.
Yavin (the planet) having a higher gravity than Earth is not in question, I don't think it ever has been.
Yavin won't have much of an impact on the accelerations or velocities needed - anything taking off from Yavin 4 is already in orbit around Yavin by virtue of starting on the moon, which is in orbit. This is why stuff launching from Earth doesn't need to gain ~30km/s of velocity to stay in orbit around the Sun, it already has that velocity from Earth.
would yavins gravity not affect the squadrons orbital path though? if the DS is in a lower orbit like you said, could they not use the gravity to accelerate instead of using up their fuel? like I said, I'm not an expert. thats why I ask the, as some would see them, dumb questions.
Technically if they're in orbit they're constantly accelerating anyway, since their velocity is changing. And using the gravity well to shed velocity is doable, but you first need to use your engines to break orbit from the moon and put yourself on a degrading (and in this case retrograde) orbit. That means shedding a lot of a velocity relative to the Moon. Using the gravity well would help, IF the DS is indeed in a lower orbit - that's just a hypothesis from me to explain it "catching up" to Yavin 4 - but you still need to use your own engines for a good part of it.
That I am fully aware of, I just dislike the expression as it implies physics or parts thereof are subject to belief in them working when this is manifestly not true.
I guess I did phrase that kind of weird.
Live and learn then :)
On the larger orbital mechanics question, I'm rather interested now. The fighters take off from a moon in a stable orbit. The DS is explicitly said to be orbiting Yavin (voice chatter on the bridge "we are preparing to orbit the planet") and catches up to the moon (or at least to a firing position) quite rapidly. Logically, the DS would be in a lower orbit with a shorter duration. So the fighters have to take off, shed velocity to lower their orbit, close on the DS (or intercept at any rate) and then slow to relative rest with the DS to do battle. That then can do that and a return trip, plus extensive dogfighting, on one fuel load is impressive indeed.
aside from using the gravity like I said above, there are other quotes that have to do with speed/acceleration. like red leader stating "accelerate to attack speed" after they get through the magnetic field. or luke stating "we're going in, we're going in full throttle. that ought to keep those fighters off our backs." if we take quotes at face value, then it would definitely take a lot longer than 5 minutes to make the trip from yavin 4 to the IP with the DS. after all, at full throttle, it took luke over 3 minutes to fire at the exhaust port. with a diameter of 120km, that gives a circumference of 377km. divide that by 180 and you get a maximum of 2.09kps average speed. thats part of the reason that I question wongs "5 minutes from yavin 4 to the DS". it seems to me that he didn't take into account the fact that we see ships taking off, then the scene cuts to the nav table and the 15 minute to firing range call, then to the squadron most of the way to the DS. time is very compressed in the star wars films. how long from the time they took off to the time that the 15 minute call was made? in the current version of the film, that take off scene was leisurely and slow. with me so far?
The "accelerate to attack speed" part can be partially explained by them having to slow down considerably to safely pass through the Ds' "magnetic field" - it's a common supposition that low-velocity objects can more easily penetrate shields than high-velocity ones and there is a reasonable amount of evidence supporting this - the battle droids penetrating the Gungan shields in TPM for instance.

The "full throttle" quote is dodgy to be honest. Your arithmetic looks sound enough BUT, 2.09 kps simply cannot be an X-Wing's velocity at "full throttle" because that's way below escape velocity for an Earth-sized body, and we just saw multiple X-Wings achieve exactly that (escape velocity) not many minutes before. There is also the fact that it's coming from Luke who gets it wrong in the very same line - it clearly does not "keep those fighters off our backs." So yeah, I honestly don't think we can take that statement at face value.

And a final point - the launch from the base was not exactly "leisurely and slow." It wasn't frantic scramble a la Battle of Britain for two reasons - one, they knew the DS was coming so they had plenty of time to prepare and launch carefully and two, they're taking off from hangers built into a temple with comparatively small doors - not exactly conducive to a frantic scramble launch anyway.
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.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-03 06:03pm

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
Attack speed is lower than maximum speed, which we can see. Ships at Endor too move faster than when they fight.
do they? I would say prove it, but you wont.
The ships at endor deaccelerated to begin combat. Watch the movie.
"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

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Adam Reynolds » 2017-07-03 07:34pm

texanmarauder wrote: another example is their plot synopsis of SWR zero hour in which they claim that AT-ATs had shield generators when nothing in the show exists to even give that impression. according to the source that made that synopsis, small charges not harming an AT-AT equals they MUST have had shield generators. AT-ATs have been established to be impervious to blasters and laser canons, as well as shoulder fired rockets. why would tiny charges hurt them? plus their canon pages on AT-ATs has never reflected shields on the AT-ATs.
In SW, it can be hard to distinguish between the two. Armor and shields act in a very similar fashion. In both cases, minor non penetrating hits are redirected with a flash effect and have no real impact. In ESB we certainly see that effect, with Rebel blaster fire having zero visible impact against the walkers on Hoth. It doesn't even leave scorch marks.

In the opening of ANH, we see the same effect when which Vader's ISD is in pursuit of Leia's blockade runner and likely has its primary shields dropped to increase engine power. Though the shots impact the ISD's hull, they still reflect as if they were hitting shields.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-03 11:35pm

Adam Reynolds wrote:
texanmarauder wrote: another example is their plot synopsis of SWR zero hour in which they claim that AT-ATs had shield generators when nothing in the show exists to even give that impression. according to the source that made that synopsis, small charges not harming an AT-AT equals they MUST have had shield generators. AT-ATs have been established to be impervious to blasters and laser canons, as well as shoulder fired rockets. why would tiny charges hurt them? plus their canon pages on AT-ATs has never reflected shields on the AT-ATs.
In SW, it can be hard to distinguish between the two. Armor and shields act in a very similar fashion. In both cases, minor non penetrating hits are redirected with a flash effect and have no real impact. In ESB we certainly see that effect, with Rebel blaster fire having zero visible impact against the walkers on Hoth. It doesn't even leave scorch marks.

In the opening of ANH, we see the same effect when which Vader's ISD is in pursuit of Leia's blockade runner and likely has its primary shields dropped to increase engine power. Though the shots impact the ISD's hull, they still reflect as if they were hitting shields.
in ESB luke says "that armor is too strong for blasters". there was no reason to think that the AT-AT walkers were shielded since they never have been before. of course, we only see them twice in both trilogies. it took several direct hits from the phantom's heavy laser cannons to take one down in SWR with no shield flash.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-03 11:39pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
Attack speed is lower than maximum speed, which we can see. Ships at Endor too move faster than when they fight.
do they? I would say prove it, but you wont.
The ships at endor deaccelerated to begin combat. Watch the movie.
was that before or after lando gave the same order to "accelerate to attack speed? oh, you must mean when they dropped out of hyperspace. gotcha. :D

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-04 12:49am

texanmarauder wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:
texanmarauder wrote:do they? I would say prove it, but you wont.
The ships at endor deaccelerated to begin combat. Watch the movie.
was that before or after lando gave the same order to "accelerate to attack speed? oh, you must mean when they dropped out of hyperspace. gotcha. :D
The star destroyers. :banghead:
"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

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 01:35am

Eternal_Freedom wrote:The "full throttle" quote is dodgy to be honest. Your arithmetic looks sound enough BUT, 2.09 kps simply cannot be an X-Wing's velocity at "full throttle" because that's way below escape velocity for an Earth-sized body, and we just saw multiple X-Wings achieve exactly that (escape velocity) not many minutes before.
Do fighters or starships equipped with anti-gravitation-technology - technology that counters the effects of gravitation and thus reduces gravitational potential energy to zero - really need to achieve the same velocity that would be necessary to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body without such technology?

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-04 01:48am

Repulsorlifts didn't appear to be active, and they achieved orbit very quickly.
"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

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 02:51am

Rhadamantus wrote:Repulsorlifts didn't appear to be active, and they achieved orbit very quickly.
How does it appear when repulsorlifts are active?
Maybe like an hoovering X-Wing without any noticeable thrust downwards to lift it up
        • - as seen at 01:00 - 01:12?
Or like an hoovering and turning X-Wing without any significant velocity and no noticeable thrust downwards to lift it up
        • - as seen at 01:18 - 01:22?
How fast were the fighters taking off of Yavin IV seen at 01:18 - 01:23?

Did they had escape velocity?

And how long did they need to achieve orbit?

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 06:14am

Adam Reynolds wrote:I understand how annoying it is to debate Watch-Man, but he is correct in that Wookiepedia can be a problematic source. While this is not yet a problem with the new canon to the same extent, with Legends they are unable to ever throw out sources regardless of how absurd they are or how much they contradict each other, which is a horrible policy.

See my post in the starship mockery thread for an example. IG-88s Death Star is another:
Wookiepedia Battle of Endor wrote:When the Rebels arrived, IG-88A fired the superlaser at the Rebel fleet when the Death Star gunners sent the signal to do so, letting the Imperials believe they were in control, while he prepared to transmit his master control signal that would cause all droids to turn on their masters. Many times, the aiming points and the firing coordinates of the gunners were slightly off and would have missed their intended targets completely had IG-88 not been in command to guarantee accuracy
What you describe is not a problem of Wookiepedia but a problem of a stupid canon policy where more or less all with a Star Wars logo on it is canon on some level if not contradicted by higher-level canon. This allows to give every character seen for a moment on screen on the background their own history. IG-88 was seen on screen only once and only for a short moment at the bounty hunter lineup in TESB.

Image

Some silly authors thought it would be a great idea to expand the story about this droid and according to the old canon policy - as nothing what was written about this droid is contradicted by higher level canon - the stupid things that was written about this droid is canon - or was canon until the reset.

This is not a problem of Wookiepedia but a problem caused by a stupid canon policy.

The problem of Wookiepedia is that anyone can write articles on it and anyone can edit them.

What is written there can be wrong.

It is possible that some of the authors are wilfully or negligently entering wrong facts.
        • For example:

          A nerd reads a book describing X-Wings leaving a planet.

          That nerd concludes that these X-Wings had to have achieved escape-velocities to be able to escape the gravitation of the planet.

          That's his conclusion based on his interpretation of a Star Wars source.

          Now he writes an article in Wookiepedia that states that X-Wings are able to achieve escape velocity referring to the book he read.

          Problem: The book did not say that the X-Wings are able to achieve escape velocity.

          And - using anti-gravity-technology - it is not necessary that the X-Wings achieved escape velocity to escape the gravitation of this planet.

          The conclusion of the nerd was fallacious.

          And although now it may be written in Wookipedia that X-Wings are able to achieve escape velocities - it still is not a canon fact - at least not according to the book the nerd read.

          His fallacious interpretation of this book has not become canon only because he wrote it in an article on Wookiepedia.
That's why it is so important to not rely on what is written on Wookiepedia by some nerds.

You have to check the original Star Wars sources - the movies, the television series episodes or the publishments - and have to see if these are really saying what is claimed.

Only then can you avoid to fall for someone who states his fallacious interpretation as facts.

I have seen all movies and most of the television series episodes.

My perspective on Star Wars is founded on these.

I do not know - do not have - any Star Wars books.

And that's why I demand that - if someone refers to a book - this someone has to provide evidence that this book really states what this someone claimes.

If this someone were to refer to a movie or a television series I could watch it for myself.

But that's not possible with any Star Wars books.

But if this someone really has read the book this someone is referring to - and is not only parroting what this someone has heard or read elsewhere about this book - it shouldn't be a problem for this someone to provide evidence from an original Star Wars source.

It is quite simple:

I want to know if this someone only parrots what this someone has heard or read elsewhere or if this someone really has read the book this someone is referring to.

AND I wand to know if this someone is depicting accurately what is written in such a book.

I want to know that this someone is not only telling a fallacious interpretation or conclusion this someone had by reading the book.

Everyone who has a scientific education or works in a scientific area would know how important it is to trust only original sources.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-04 09:27am

Ships have indisputably travelled faster than escape velocity in several scenes.
"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 » 2017-07-04 09:29am

You also may notice that engines flares are not active when it is hovering, but are active when they are rapidly heading to space.
Furthermore, WATCH-MAN, your standards for evidence amount to this
WATCH-MAN'S "impressions" are fact.
Everything else is wrong, he just needs to find out why.
"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
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27206
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-04 10:30am

Watch Man, you're so deeply wrong about velocity it can't even be fathomed. Yes, X-wings achieve escape velocity, and it doesn't matter if they use wholly or partly their repulsors to do so.

Because velocity is speed.

You are thinking, in a very confused and shabby way, of mass lightening, which gets Star Trek ships (and some other franchises) to clip around at great speed without expending equivalent kinetic energy. Even they still reach escape velocity, it just doesn't correlate to their engine power.

I will subject this thread to a full audit to ensure it is on topic when I get home.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 10:41am

Rhadamantus wrote:Ships have indisputably travelled faster than escape velocity in several scenes.
Please provide as evidence several scenes in which Ships have travelled faster than with escape velocity (but still STL).

On Earth, escape velocity is round about 11,2 km/s.

Let's assume that a X-Wing starfighter is 12,5 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such a fighter would traverse in 1 s its own length 896 times. Or you have to have a distance in which a X-Wing starfighter fits 896 times. If the X-Wing starfighter needs only 1 s to traverse this distance, it would have a velocity of 11.2 km/s.

Let's assume that an Imperial Star Destroyer is 1'600 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such an Imperial Star Destroyer would traverse in 1 s its own length 7 times. Or you have to have a distance in which an Imperial Star Destroyer fits 7 times. If the Imperial Star Destroyer needs only 1 s to traverse this distance, it would have a velocity of 11,2 km/s.

Let's assume that an Imperial Command Ship is 19'000 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such an Imperial Command Ship would need 1,7 s to traverse its own length.

Do you have a scene that shows such a thing from a fixed camera position or a scene where you know how fast the camera is moving which path around such a ship or fighter so that you can compensate the cameras movement and calculate the velocity of said ship or fighter?

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-04 10:59am

WATCH-MAN wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:Ships have indisputably travelled faster than escape velocity in several scenes.
Please provide as evidence several scenes in which Ships have travelled faster than with escape velocity (but still STL).

On Earth, escape velocity is round about 11,2 km/s.

Let's assume that a X-Wing starfighter is 12,5 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such a fighter would traverse in 1 s its own length 896 times. Or you have to have a distance in which a X-Wing starfighter fits 896 times. If the X-Wing starfighter needs only 1 s to traverse this distance, it would have a velocity of 11.2 km/s.

Let's assume that an Imperial Star Destroyer is 1'600 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such an Imperial Star Destroyer would traverse in 1 s its own length 7 times. Or you have to have a distance in which an Imperial Star Destroyer fits 7 times. If the Imperial Star Destroyer needs only 1 s to traverse this distance, it would have a velocity of 11,2 km/s.

Let's assume that an Imperial Command Ship is 19'000 m long. Travelling with 11,2 km/s means that such an Imperial Command Ship would need 1,7 s to traverse its own length.

Do you have a scene that shows such a thing from a fixed camera position or a scene where you know how fast the camera is moving which path around such a ship or fighter so that you can compensate the cameras movement and calculate the velocity of said ship or fighter?
The whole scene at Endor. We can see the movements of the ships in the base.
"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

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 11:04am

NecronLord wrote:Watch Man, you're so deeply wrong about velocity it can't even be fathomed.
That may be.

I'm not a physicist and had physic lessons only for 9 years in my school.

But this was a long time ago and since then I never had use for ballistic calculations again.


NecronLord wrote:Because velocity is speed.
As English is not my native language, I admit that it is possible that I confuse both terms or do not really understand possible differences in both terms.

But it was always my assumption that both terms have the same meaning.

If not, it'd be nice if you explain the differences between velocity and speed.


NecronLord wrote:You are thinking, in a very confused and shabby way, of mass lightening, which gets Star Trek ships (and some other franchises) to clip around at great speed without expending equivalent kinetic energy. Even they still reach escape velocity, it just doesn't correlate to their engine power.
Not really.

I regard anti-grav-technology as a technology that somehow counters the effects of gravitation thus reducing the gravitational potential energy to zero.

How it is doing this and if the same amount of energy is needed to create this anti-gravitation as would be needed as kinetic energy is unknown.

If you have more detailed information, please share them with me.

The important point is that if the gravitational potential energy is zero, the escape velocity, the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, is zero too as the gravitation of this body does not affects the object.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 11:07am

Rhadamantus wrote:The whole scene at Endor. We can see the movements of the ships in the base.
Please be more precise.

Which scene at Endor?

There are several scenes at Endor and several scenes at Endor in a base.

But I can not remember a scene at Endor within a base where one could see at the same time ships or starfighters.

Maybe you could provide a link to a youtube clip.

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

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-04 11:13am

WATCH-MAN wrote:
Rhadamantus wrote:The whole scene at Endor. We can see the movements of the ships in the base.
Please be more precise.

Which scene at Endor?

There are several scenes at Endor and several scenes at Endor in a base.

But I can not remember a scene at Endor within a base where one could see at the same time ships or starfighters.

Maybe you could provide a link to a youtube clip.
When the star destroyers are moving around the planet in a pincher movement.
"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

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2017-07-04 11:20am

NecronLord, I'm aware that the gravitational potential energy is independent from the mass of an object.

A ship that is only lightening its mass by somehow shifting it into subspace has still the same gravitational potential energy as it'd have without any mass lightening. It would still have to achieve escape velocity. But - as the ship seems to have less mass - this is easier, less kinetic energy is needed.

But if a ship is not only lightening its mass, but is not affected by gravitation at all, the gravitational potential energy should be zero, shouldn't it.

But if my considerations are wrong, please enlight me.

Post Reply