StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dooey Jo wrote:Perhaps it should be mentioned that a "volumetric ball with sharply defined edge" force field is no more physically correct than a bubble force field. Both would require equal amounts of handwaving.

Except one is supported by explicit canon evidence, and the other is not. The burden is on explanations from wholecloth, explanations which exist in the canonical medium do not require explanation at all unless they necessarily contradict other parts of that medium. Furthermore, I paraphrased the quote wrong.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:We do not observe ricocheting in the ANH film, and quite clearly both explosive projectiles (contact-fuzed) or energy beams (not going to bounce off walls) do not satisfy this claim. Even if the blasters are projectiles and they plausibly ricochet (granting your claim), projectiles don't do so off soft soil. You are reaching and you know it.

How is projectile's ricocheting off of soft soil with little or no velocity change preferable to the stand dynamics of volumetric shielding - a canonically determined fact?

You're using the canonicity of something to argue for the canonicity of something. That's circular logic and fallacious. The shields are volumetric because things bounced off the ground inside them. What's your evidence that the shields caused the ricochet? Because the shields are volumetric!

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Terralthra wrote:The shield on Anakin's fighter, the shield on the Droidekas, the Gungan shield, the Gungan handheld shields, and the shields in the Naboo power station (or whatever it was) were all easily visible and planar in appearance. I have the visuals of the film on my side: they all look like bubbles or walls. Additionally, the bolt/shield interactions seen do not 'dissipate quite a ways away or well up-close' at all, in every instance where the shield is visible, the interaction occurs at that visible shield bubble. Some bolts bounce off, others appear to impact there.

Okay, and where the shield bubble is not visible, you're claiming there is no shielding? What of the countless shield interactions in AOTC and the OT? Do they not count? Are none of those craft shielded? You're cherry-picking; "visible shield" does not include all instances of known shielding in the films, and you know it. Furthermore, AOTC ICS says that shields are volumetric and unless that is completely irreconcilable with the filmic canon, it stands.

No, I'm arguing that the bubble is there in all cases, even when it is not visible. A clear and obvious point, that shields tend to work in the manner we see them work, even when we don't actually see the bubble itself.

[i]Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections[/i] by Dr. Curtis Saxton, Ph.D., Introduction wrote:Shields
Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects. Ray shields, for example, deflect or break up energy beams, while particle shields forcefully retard high-velocity projectiles. Normally, the shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shields projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen. Shields surrounding a moving airborne vessel are less visible, but can impact on aerodynamic performance. When a shield absorbs large energy blasts, the momentum can surge back to the ship and affect its motion. Shields do not operate without cost: Constant power is required to dissipate the energy from the impacts.

As nice as his Ph.D in astrophysics is, the first part is irreconcilable with the second. As many have pointed out, a clearly defined border does not fit with a volumetric energy field whose intensity decreases with distance from the generator. We see clearly defined borders. There are two ways to attempt to make this uncontradictory. The first is your approach: to say that those borders are reconcilable with a volumetric energy field, but don't explain how, handwaving it away as "it's volumetric, even though it doesn't look nor act that way." The second is to take my approach and simply say that the shields aren't volumetric. The ICS is NOT above the movies in canon. Every shield we see looks like a fucking bubble or plane. None that we see look or act like a volumetric blob of shield.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Terralthra wrote:Moreover, the idea of a volumetric blob off of which blaster bolts bounce when they hit the boundaries, yet inside they work fine; a blob which is difficult to penetrate (the droids 'pushing through') yet once inside, movement returns to normal. That doesn't sound like a volumetric blob at all. That sounds like a shield bubble. The visuals of the films support a shield bubble easily, since every shield you see in an atmosphere looks like a bubble, and all the interactions you see with a visible shield occur at the visible shield.

The Falcon in the Bespin atmosphere? Hm? When Anakin's fighter first lifts off? When it reactivates the shield is also only visible for a few moments while it is stationary, completely consistent with Saxton's descriptions, which of course require no justification anyway since unless hopelessly contradictory toward the filmic canon, they are indisputable facts regarding the authentic story of STAR WARS. Furthermore, AOTC ICS says that shields are volumetric and unless that is completely irreconcilable with the filmic canon, it stands.

Word substitution: "Three million clones is canon, and unless that is completely irreconcilable with the filmic canon, it stands." Clearly, the films contradict the concept that there are only 3 million clones. Equally clearly, the shields we see in the canon do not look or act volumetric. They look and act like shell phenomena. Your only evidence against this is a blaster bolt bouncing off of the ground (which you attribute to the shield without a shred of evidence) and "The ICS says so," despite the obvious visual evidence. The ICS is a wonderful book, but is no higher in canon than any other book not written by George Lucas - it is superseded by the movies. TPM shows non-volumetric shields, and not just the Gungan shields.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Terralthra wrote:It seems to me that the most reasonable explanation is that in other cases, where interactions occur further or closer to the source of the shield than might be expected, it's simply because the bubble isn't where you think it is, or it is not the shape you think it is. I am not disputing the ICS as canon, but to see all the shield bubbles and weapon/shield interactions in TPM and then say "Oh, that's volumetric and just LOOKS like it has a non-volumetric shell at which all interactions occur..." seems like trektardish glorifying of the tech manual over the evidence.

First of all, apparent energy beams bouncing off the soft soil just like they do off the Gungan hand shields, is evidence of interaction beyond the shield "surface". The shield interactions (oft- and incorrectly dubbed flakbursts) of TPM, AOTC, and the OT take place at varying distances from the apparently shielded craft. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the Gungan shields may be of a different nature than the "standard shielding" (AOTC ICS). The fact you do not see personally volumetric effects is not a satisfactory irreconcilable contradiction between the films and the AOTC ICS; the films do not disallow the facts of the AOTC ICS, and this is hardly comparable to Trek debating, because the TM is not canonical (the AOTC ICS is, and especially so). Furthermore, just because you aliken one set of events or arguments to another in different contexts and regarding different topics does not establish the same outcome to be true in both cases. Furthermore, the TM is poorly researched and written and rife with basic scientific errors, undermining its general credibility. Contrastingly, the AOTC ICS is written by a professor of astrophysics and his description of shields is more consistent with known characteristics of force fields. Furthermore, AOTC ICS says that shields are volumetric and unless that is completely irreconcilable with the filmic canon, it stands.

Keep appealing to someone else's Ph.D, it'll win you lots of points. The film shows shell-like, planar, non-volumetric shields. Neither "The ICS says so" nor "it has more in common with known science" are facts that rebut filmic evidence. Blasters do not act like lasers, despite being called lasers. We don't favor a laser-based explanation because 'it has more in common with the known characteristics of lasers.' We look at the evidence, and we find an explanation that fits. The evidence in the TPM does not show volumetric shields.

I've had Mike point it out to me before that unless one thinks shields are purely two dimensional (which is impossible I'm pretty sure) all shields will be "volumetric" to one degree or another. Canonicity of "volumetric" shields isn't the issue. What it really comes down to is actual "volume." (or internal volume) of the shield.

This IS a valid concern, though, since we know some forms of shielding (ray shields) are harmful to living beings, and of course particle shielding could itnerfere with the motion of solid matter (at least above a certain speed.. IE running soliders or moving tanks/vehicles.)

There are two ways to resovle this, depending on shield theory:

"force field/matteR" shields - sort of like the Gungan shields in TPM. This is pretty simple . The main point of the forcefield appers to be to "hold" the physical matter in place. It may or may not play a direct role in shielding (I'll deal with the forcefield defense mechanism below.) With the physical matter, it simply becomes a matter of shield volume vs density of the matter. You could have thinner but denser shields, or thicker and more diffuse. There may be advantages to both (more voluminous shields obviously could encompass a greater volume, or be redirected for better coverage.)

A "non matter" shield (or one where the nonmatter aspect plays a significant role - this could be as above but with the forcefield playing a significant role.) is a bit harder to reconcile. We know (officially at least, and particularily in the EU) that means of "weakening/neutralizing" force fields exist - I've been a longtime advocate of shield piercing tech in Star Wars. To "adjust" the internal volume of this type of shield you would project a smaller "neutralization" field within the actual force shield up to the desired diameter. That way you could have what we observe in the movies while still retaining the 3-dimesinoal "volumetric" nature posited in other sources like the ICS.

(PS and yes, I know I probably butchered some terms from a scientific standpoint, I'm just using them colloquially to make a point.

Terralthra wrote:You're using the canonicity of something to argue for the canonicity of something. That's circular logic and fallacious. The shields are volumetric because things bounced off the ground inside them. What's your evidence that the shields caused the ricochet? Because the shields are volumetric!

Look, the null hypothesis is that the ICS is true. You have to provide a mechanism that explains everything equally or better AND shows an irreconcilable contradiction to justify discarding the ICS. Since you suggested as part of your argument that the blaster bolts could have been (apparently) mere projectiles, I may feel perfectly justified in pointing out that the internal consistencies in that argument (namely, they will not ricochet off soft soil). I DON'T NEED TO ARGUE FOR THE CANONOCITY OF THE ICS; it is a given assumption because it is an indisputable fact in the authentic story of STAR WARS. As an aside, I point out that perhaps the mechanisms of a volumetric shield (especially ones that make ground contact, which seems to be important - ICS and other sources describe that shields "circulate"; so perhaps the shield permeates the surface it contacts) to explain the otherwise silly bolt ricochet. Really the ricochet is irrelevent, because if we are arguing the canonicty of ICS, your argument fails woefully to dismiss it. We're not playing "look at the fallacy" contest - the issue is do you provide a convincing reason for the ricochet? No. Do you provide a convincing argument to toss out the ICS? No.

Terralthra wrote:No, I'm arguing that the bubble is there in all cases, even when it is not visible. A clear and obvious point, that shields tend to work in the manner we see them work, even when we don't actually see the bubble itself.

Okay, so your argument once hinged on visuals, where that evidence is absent, your claim should continue to hold in spite of canon evidence? You have no evidence for a discrete bubble in these invisible instances when we have canon saying they do not have one.

Terralthra wrote:

[i]Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections[/i] by Dr. Curtis Saxton, Ph.D., Introduction wrote:Shields
Conventional shield technologies use a range of force-field effects. Ray shields, for example, deflect or break up energy beams, while particle shields forcefully retard high-velocity projectiles. Normally, the shield intensities diminish gradually with distance from the generator or projector. However, shields projected in an atmosphere tend to have a defined outer surface. Such a boundary becomes super-hot when left still, and mirage-like effects are seen. Shields surrounding a moving airborne vessel are less visible, but can impact on aerodynamic performance. When a shield absorbs large energy blasts, the momentum can surge back to the ship and affect its motion. Shields do not operate without cost: Constant power is required to dissipate the energy from the impacts.

As nice as his Ph.D in astrophysics is, the first part is irreconcilable with the second. As many have pointed out, a clearly defined border does not fit with a volumetric energy field whose intensity decreases with distance from the generator. We see clearly defined borders. There are two ways to attempt to make this uncontradictory. The first is your approach: to say that those borders are reconcilable with a volumetric energy field, but don't explain how, handwaving it away as "it's volumetric, even though it doesn't look nor act that way."

Look, its not a hand-wave if THAT IS WHAT CANON SAYS. We cannot determine exactly how mechanisms work, so unless something is explicitly contradictory, we let it be. He says that they are volumetric but can define and heat air into a superficial bubble; then that is what it is. To say nothing of the fact you are unwilling to limit your hypothesis to bubble shields, you want it to apply to shields with no bubbles and with varying-distances of shield interaction.

Terralthra wrote:The second is to take my approach and simply say that the shields aren't volumetric. The ICS is NOT above the movies in canon. Every shield we see looks like a fucking bubble or plane. None that we see look or act like a volumetric blob of shield.

This is not like Executor, it is not something where you necessarily will see all that is going on; in fact we very often cannot and do not see shields.

Terralthra wrote:Word substitution: "Three million clones is canon, and unless that is completely irreconcilable with the filmic canon, it stands." Clearly, the films contradict the concept that there are only 3 million clones.

This is stupid. Three million clones violates basic credulity. That there is more going on with shields than meets the eye does not, especially when we repeatedly observe shields exhibiting action-at-differing-distances and shields that are invisible. What is your explanation for Anakin's shield being invisible sometimes and visible others? Shimmering in the heat so to speak?

Terralthra wrote:Equally clearly, the shields we see in the canon do not look or act volumetric. They look and act like shell phenomena. Your only evidence against this is a blaster bolt bouncing off of the ground (which you attribute to the shield without a shred of evidence)

And your argument from ignorance explains this how?

Terralthra wrote:and "The ICS says so," despite the obvious visual evidence. The ICS is a wonderful book, but is no higher in canon than any other book not written by George Lucas - it is superseded by the movies. TPM shows non-volumetric shields, and not just the Gungan shields.

And when the shields are invisible? What then? When shield interactions occur anywhere from a few meters to many dozens of meters from the MF, TIEs, ad nauseum?

Terralthra wrote:Keep appealing to someone else's Ph.D, it'll win you lots of points. The film shows shell-like, planar, non-volumetric shields. Neither "The ICS says so" nor "it has more in common with known science" are facts that rebut filmic evidence.

Except unlike Executor and the credulity-breaking of three million clones, its not all there for us to see. You yourself have acknowledged that shields are often invisible, so what there? Even if you are right about some shields (shell only), why would this be universal? What evidence do you have which comprehensively would refute Saxton's shielding for most starships in the OT? Because blasters sometimes look c-propogating, and other times do not, do we force all square pegs into circle holes? No, we say where it does not it must only superficially look like the same bolts, and be a projectile or something instead; and where it does, it is a beam. Even if you are right about Gungan shields, there is nothing contradicting Saxton's model for shielding with many other craft. Tell me, how does your "deflecting shell" explain energy beams that pass ten meters or so from LAAT/i's in AOTC, cause a "burst" shield interaction and then continue through the burst to beyond? A volumetric shield would explain that at a great enough distance, the shield attenuates the beam enough to dissipate some of its energy, but does not absorb it entirely because the shield's strength at that range is merely tenuous. Your "all shields are Gungan/droideka" model does not explain the lack of a bubble, would predict that the beam/bolt would ricochet off a bubble or be absorbed.

Terralthra wrote:Blasters do not act like lasers, despite being called lasers. We don't favor a laser-based explanation because 'it has more in common with the known characteristics of lasers.' We look at the evidence, and we find an explanation that fits. The evidence in the TPM does not show volumetric shields.

And you'll continue ignoring canon and other examples which do not support your argument at leisure.