Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

scvn2812

Members
  • Content Count

    1,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

scvn2812 last won the day on May 3 2013

scvn2812 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

504 Excellent

About scvn2812

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. The time spent agonizing over whether it is magic that destroys asteroids threatening ships because the visuals are inconsistent with vaporization or magic that allows for the safe production of the energy to vaporize said asteroids in a manner totally consistent with science and trying to make sure there is no possibility for misunderstanding an argument (and repeatedly failing) could be better spent writing something original, planning a DnD campaign, not consistently leaving the house an hour later than I intended because I thought it would only take a few minutes to make a thorough reply or just going to bed. Brian's videos are entertaining and occasionally offer a new and interesting way to connect the dots of various universes but in the end it's just trying to learn physics from an Mc Escher drawing or anatomy from Picasso. I'm tired of bickering over what is the right way to interpret a scene or what sources trump each other. The what if universe A's technology worked in such and such way and what would or wouldn't be the consequences of it questions still intrigue me but not enough to spend 30 pages on a single topic like shields.
  2. scvn2812

    Star Trek XII Analysis Thread (SPOILERS!!)

    All that shows is that Hand had damage to key structural members from her fight with Gualara and Vengeance didn't take enough damage to be structurally compromised. Enterprise was at risk of not just crashing but burning up. Although I suspect the risk might have been to the crew rather than the ship as a whole unless she had taken such a severe beating that it was just crossed fingers and duct tape holding her together.
  3. At this point, it seems clear that you're not capable of recognizing why rational people might find fault with claiming there are invisible shields fighters can fly through that don't ever seem to stop turbolaser fire before it reaches the hull is a bit goofy. So I'm calling it a day on this topic. I'm not sitting through another dozen or more pages of being told to ignore the absent shields. Better to pretend they're there so fighters can fly through. Apparently I'm that incapable of understanding how to properly apply the scientific method to my computer monitor that I can't see how these criticisms don't constitute evidence against there being invisible shields that don't interact with turbolasers before they hit the hull.
  4. With regards to the size of the Empire, that was moving the goal posts. Your earliest statements on canon all but said that ICS was a short cut because the math had already been done and was more or less on par with your own observations rather than in bounds for settling any other matters any more than any of the other books are since the capabilities of the ships are the only thing in ICS that is based on direct observations from the films. Having both a preference for basing arguments on the source material rather than the interpretation of licensed authors and a general dislike of EU, I have avoided invoking books, even ones I find compelling like ICS or Into the Worlds. That difference actually makes the discussion a bit less compelling to me as I am more fascinated by making inferences based on the films rather than tracking down obscure trivia across dozens of sources. I actually recall Khas objecting to using the ICS but not other canon and defending your use of ICS over conflicting sources as not being cherry picking but rather a short cut around mathematically proving similar conclusions in each video. Did I assume incorrectly and parts of ICS that are not based on provable observations from the films are in bounds now? If so, then what is and isn't fair game?
  5. How is the assumption that ships CAN'T land on shields not completely made up? How is the absence of any evidence that there is a shield present in the apparent nothingness fighters are flying through and is not repelling turbolasers in the same scenes any more than they are repelling fighters "made up?" How is telling us to ignore what our eyes tell us, that nothing is offering meaningful resistance to capital ship fire until it hits the hull, following logic?
  6. One last comment: As I said earlier, I take multiple sides because it interests me to do so when I see validity in more than one strain of thought. This is quite possibly the only venue where it is okay to do so. God help you if you're a liberal who empathizes with a conservative view point or vice versa, you'll get no less derision from either side by bothering to try to see the world through someone else's eyes. I don't care who wins or loses in Star Wars vs Star Trek or any other vs. I like interesting narratives and interesting technology and my personal views on canon are much more fluid than what I choose to adopt for the purposes of having a conversation about the topic since it's not really possible to have a civil conversation about these things unless there's an agreed upon set of rules for the duel ;-) If I'm expected to keep the same position from one post to the next instead of arguing both sides on the same page (as I've done in this very thread, on this very page :-P) then I say where's the fun in that?
  7. Also as far as clarity goes, I'm working on it. I tend to try to squeeze a lot into each post all at once rather than going for specific posts for each idea. Some things lend themselves to short and to the point posts, others don't. Tidying up run ons and rambles and cleaner formatting is a work in progress. Juggling readability for two screen sizes is not easy.
  8. Padawans study all their lives because they start from infancy and are indoctrinated in why to use the Force that whole time and not really given a free hand to operate without guidance from a much more experienced Jedi until they reach adulthood. It could easily be about making sure that Jedi have the maturity to use the force well rather than needing two decades to get good at it. Anakin started at nine and was considered superior to Jedi who had studied twice as long. It was basically flat out said in the movie that it was his immaturity not his mastery of the force that caused other Jedi, especially the council, to treat him with disdain. Luke beat Vader, who had been a Jedi for ten years and a Sith for twenty, with less than a decade of training from Yoda and independent study between Empire and Jedi. Luke had basic telekinesis with only a few DAYS of training from Obi Wan and we never even see Obi Wan teach him telekinesis on screen. Walking back my thought about waiting out the Facon's flight just a bit. It seems clear from the lackluster performance of capital ships trying to bring down fighters that jumping ahead of the Falcon and trying to capture her is probably not feasible. Given that no one ever does it, it seems unlikely that they can fight effectively at relativistic speeds unless the relative velocities are within a few hundred meters per second of one another. Regardless of whether ships CAN hit relativistic speeds, you don't need an accurate firing soution to know that SOMETHING is coming in at relavistic speeds and to redline the engines to get out the way or even hyperspace away if you detect the object in time. Which is one of the reasons why I think relativistic weapons aren't common in Star Wars, even though cannons like those in Invisible Hand and debris from exploding ships can be extremely damaging.
  9. Regarding time, if you're basing your replies on what you've skimmed of other people's posts, then you're going about this the wrong way. If you skimmed something, then think about what someone said but don't write a response based on a fast read of what you think someone said. Be patient and wait until you can actually go through it thoroughly. I don't think the half dozen or so people regularly contributing in these threads have that limited of an attention span or that fragile of egos that you are expected to provide immediate feedback when someone posts something. People skimming each other's posts and then banging out replies on the fly based on what they think the other person wrote is how at least half if not 90% of the flamewars I see on the tech forums of SB or SD.net get started. After all, your audience is willing to sit through half an hour of you drawing 60 meter circles on ships then they can wait a few days for you to respond to a long post completely. They've got lives too. Regarding my posting habits I think you misunderstand my intentions. I really have very little interest in promoting a specific alternative theory or debunking every theory I think has problems. What I am interested in doing is exploring the potential ways in which these settings might work. I see multiple competing ideas for each setting with varying degrees of internal consistency with none of them reaching anywhere close to being water tight because of the reality of how movies and television are made. So I indulge in arguing for various ideas just to see how far they can go before something puts a hole in them that can't be sealed in a satisfying way. I even go so far as to argue against viewpoints I think are more valid than the one's I'm arguing for because I think they should be challenged. As I said, even before but especially after Andromeda, I feel like we're trying to learn anatomy from Picasso and physics from MC Escher. (My all time favorite MC I might add.) Today I think shield permeability for capital ships probably is losing water at the slowest rate. Tomorrow, who knows. Tomorrow I have to try and rescreen part of the pool cage before the neighbors come back from church and feel the need to do it for me because I'm doing such a craptacular job so shield permeability might not be at the forefront of my mind. Cursing whoever though attaching screen to a metal cage using bits of rubber jammed into a narrow track will probably take precedence. Regarding Executor: the discussion around Endor and Executor's fate is a hypothetical. I think you oversell the value of a ship outmassing all of its opponents given the way space combat has been presented in Clone Wars (where being out-reactored by 17 times apparently doesn't mean anything or perhaps the reactor values for the Sep navy should be considered retconned, your mileage may vary.) Regarding the shield permeability theory, this one you've got a tough sell on and I see a credibility threatening degree of lack of understanding on your part why people have problems with this theory. You call them fanatics, you say they're ignoring the scientific method for their own petty agendas or flat out making stuff up. Know what the basis of the argument against shield permeabilty is? The exact same concepts. It boils down to you showing an hour of examples, telling us what we are supposed to see, complaining when we don't and telling us to trust what we see. Yet what we see are fighters flying through what appears to be empty space. There's absolutely nothing in most of those examples to imply that there is a shield there that they are flying through! What's worse is that we can plainly see turbolaser fire appearing to hit the hull in many of the exact same scenes you're telling us there is a shield that should be resisting this fire! Yes it is odd that fighters are able to light up a capital ship and do credible damage with their guns while supposedly millions of times more powerful weapons in the exact same scenes are doing virtually no damage. Which is why I personally, if begrudgingly, accept the notion of fighters slipping through shields, even though it means ignoring the fact that absolutely nothing seems to be resisting turbolaser fire except the hull itself in most of these examples. I see it as a choice to either break our wrists hand waving away why there are no shield effects from capital ship fire extending away from the hull or to break them hand waving away why fighters with one millionth the firepower of capital ships are doing damage through shields while capital ships can't do jack. I'm not fond of either one. Though the recent discussion on how the faster rate of energy release for bombs vs beams offers one possibility for explaining why fighters are sometimes more effective, I have a feeling that it would result in warheads that are more dense than is plausible. (On the other hand, ships containing upwards of a hundred times their dry mass in fuel in order to be able to burn 40 kilotons of mass every second for minutes at a time also requires wrist straining hand waving so maybe small, limited availability warheads capable of matching a turbolaser aren't so implausible.) I genuinely like the intent of what you're trying to do Bryan even if I don't agree on every last point, that's why I'm trying to point out issues with both your theories and your web guru persona that hold you back. If I can think of these things, someone else down the line will too.
  10. Ted: I think the possibility exists that the Naboo security forces just didn't have the skill or training to pull it off. A flight ceiling of even a couple dozen meters is a very low flight ceiling to try to maneuver within. The distance between the Gungan generators and the actual shield perimeter wasn't so great that a fighter trying to keep track of surface obstructions, targets of opportunity and trying not to get shot down by AAA and enemy fighters while moving at a few dozen to a few hundred meters per second would have an easy time of things. The Galactic Republic at this point in time has no military and there's no telling just how or for what the Naboo security forces were trained. Dipping below the shields might not even be common knowledge until the Republic and Confederacy spend three years trying to figure out how best to kill each other.
  11. Why would Fett or Vader wait months or years to capture the Falcon?
  12. Read it again. In the previous post I made no claims as to the actual sequence of events and specifically made a disclaimer that I was illustrating one possible sequence of events. Its an illustration made as a complaint against over simplified arguments that ship Y is bigger than ship X therefore it wins that has become all too common in discussions of Star Wars battles and has been shot very full of holes by Clone Wars. Not a claim as to what actually happened. I'm making a general point about how ship to ship battles seem to work, not Endor specifically. At the risk of being taken the wrong way, since you are so keen on telling us what the argument looks like on your side of the screen, I figure it's better to offer honest feedback on this: You're getting condescending with this constant claim that your way is the only logical one and that you are the only one really following the scientific method. Calling a piece of evidence a slam dunk doesn't mean it's a slam dunk, it means you think it is. Clearly Ted's mileage may vary. You keep using the trial analogy but seem to have assigned yourself the roles of attorney, judge and jury and are acting as if you are the final arbiter of whether or not your arguments are sound rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. When you do address the Its almost as if you're skimming rather than actually looking at the substance of what people are writing. 2 days ago I cleaned up and reposted the substance of my e-mail to you after Shields 3 and you still haven't made a counter argument to a claim I've actually made and have missed critical details that address your objections to the claims I haven't actually made. Now in terms of plausibility,you're asking people to swallow evidence that is 90% fighters passing through an invisible barrier that almost never actually appears to show any signs that it exists, like actually stopping weapons fire a noticeable distance from the hull. Can you blame people for being skeptical? Doesn't that seem like an awfully big leap of faith? I'm not trying to flame bait you Brian, but you're the one implying people are fanatics, in denial, being deliberately obstinate or not properly following scientific method, being biased etc. and arguing with people who aren't saying what you're saying they're saying. Its not fun to argue about what the argument is about.
  13. In lieu of reposting and rewording my previous post, would you please reread it Brian, because I explain how an attack demanding all or most of Ex's resources to be directed at an attack from another side might leave her vulnerable in the areas she pulled shield strength from. This could easily be a repeat of Grievous' blunder in the asteroid field. Also I'm speaking in hypotheticals about what could have happened depending on how the variables of combat played out, not making specific claims about the sequence of events at Endor.
  14. scvn2812

    Combat in atmosphere, STAR WARS

    Another thought: if armor rated for say 1 terraton gets hit by 1 terraton and a kiloton, might that be a bad experience for the crew and anyone nearby the ship?
  15. With regards to bombs, contact explosions will still release 50% of their energy on the target over an area equivalent to the foot print of the warhead. So as much as ten megatons on target in a fraction of the time of a beam. Bursts against shields would allow time for the energy of the impact to spread out before it reaches the hull though. (Which is probably the idea behind the gravity shielding for Ronnie, with the additional possibly of acting to slow down relativistic projectiles to more manageable speeds.) The trip to Anoat is highly iffy as a yardstick goes as several sources point to the Falcon having a backup hyperdrive albeit a much slower one. Even Curtis Saxton thought this or Anoat being in the same system, maybe a jovian or a multiple star system was much more likely than Fett and the Empire spending months, even years shadowing the Falcon in real space. The original copy right on the site is attributed to Tribune Entertainment but the quotes from the Andromeda team are apparently lost to time. The consensus of the vs community has generally been to act as if it and dialog override visuals but then consensus is not always a reliable instrument.
×