stardestroyer.net forums

[Airlocke 12,014]

Maybe I'll ask her if she wants to register here.

 

 

Yeeeeeeah. I don't think that'd be a great idea.

[Khas 12,158]

I'm just really shy IRL. That's it really.

[Brian Young 11,994]

Also note that a hypothesis doesn't have to be perfect. When dealing with low accuracy inconsistent data, will one ever be perfect?

No.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be the best idea we have, based on the data we have.

 

The semipermeable idea has

*Explicit explanations given onscreen, which are so plain and straightforward as to be foolproof.

*At least one BTS explanation that is too, from VHX supervisor Dennis Muren.

*Many examples of starfighters damaging shielded capital ships.

*Many examples of ships docking while shields are up.

*Several examples of people or vehicles walking through shields, or shields passing over them.

etc.

 

Counter arguments have involved

*Friendly turbolaser fire weakens the shields. But this is shot down by examples that don't involve friendly turbolaser fire (pun intended).

*Shields are spread out to counter multiple threats. But sometimes there are no multiple threats.

*Quotes from a book involving semantics arguments. This was addressed by the fact the Imperial fleet so overwhelmed the Rebels, that we have to consider the situation. And an argument based entirely on semantics is a bad one, particularly when it doesn't jive with the films, nor other quotes that exist in those films or TV shows.

 

So the semipermeable idea is still the most reliable one presented. The caveats are primarily the apparent variable geometry of some shield types, and the multiple shield types. But no other single idea covers more than a few examples, involves fewer assumptions, or superior logic. Most of them are easily flatly contradicted by video evidence.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Yeeeeeeah. I don't think that'd be a great idea.

 

Oh? Send me a FB message. I assume it's not for public consumption.

[Brian Young 11,994]

Some fatherly advice, Khas. Don't worry about it. I was certainly no Casanova, but the best policy is to wait until you are married. Hopefully she will too. I've been married for 11 years, and believe me, there are reasons old fogies suggest that. Premarital relations lead to jealousy, and is always awkward when you run into them later. The awkwardness comes when you get home and have to answer questions.

Shyness is the biggest turn off for women. They like men who are confident. That is hard to simulate, but I recommend seeking out a geeky girl rather than the hottest girl. Go to Trek conventions, go meet girls in the "smart" sororities. You wouldn't be satisfied with a socialite. Personally, when the drinking starts, I shut down. I can't stand those parties and shenanigans.

Now I love to dance, but that's different.

There are plenty of women who would be happy going to see Star Trek after some pizza and Pepsi.

I married a Trekkie. But I converted her to a Fiver.

[Brian Young 11,994]

[Tyralak 12,068]

Beautiful wife you have there, Brian.

[Khas 12,158]

Thanks for the advice!

 

Hopefully, if I ever meet the right girl, she will be a sci-fi geek. And a fantasy geek. And a gamer geek. And a comic book geek. And an anime geek. But a Trek-Warsie will do just fine. Despite arguing for Trek, ST and SW actually hold equal places in my heart. I was introduced to both at a really young age, and they both influenced me in more ways than I can count.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Here's a couple of pictures of my wife.

 

 

[Airlocke 12,014]

Brian speaks the truth. Confidence is the key. With just a dash of cocky. And funny. Making her laugh is important. See, women aren't very different from men, in that regard. They like to laugh. And that opens the door.

 

Confidence can be simulated, after a fashion. Find something you know that you are good at, and are confidant in your ability with. Regardless of what that something is. Think about that when talking to women(assuming you're a capable multi-tasker). Also smile(happy is good. Always), sit/stand up straight(relieves pressure from your diaphragm. Deepens voice, slightly), and be well-groomed. That last one seems silly but it is important, and needs pointing out FAR too often. Do that long enough and have a little success, and the confidence will come for real.

 

I'm not an amazing lady's man or anything. I haven't been in anything truly serious since my wife and I split, but there have been options. And women love to flirt with me. I'm not an expert, or anything, not by a long shot. I've picked up a few things, though. They work and, best of all, they are small and easy to incorporate into your routine. Doesn't hurt to try.

[Airlocke 12,014]

Here's a couple of pictures of my wife.

 

 

 

 

You, sir, are in a fortunate situation. (Y)

[scvn2812 504]

Brian, you keep dodging this fundamental issue: where are the shield effects from weapons being effected by or even stopped by the shields? Surely, SOME of the guns being used in ROTS, Clone Wars or at Endor are low enough caliber that they shouldn't just blaze through the shields and hit the hull directly every_single_time. The closest I've seen you come to answering this question is that shots that are too powerful for the shields fully absorb instantaneously take their remaining energy and go on through without a shield flare or any obvious change to the visible portion of the beam.

 

Volume wise, a Neb-B is not much bigger than Tantive IV, yet there are no shield flares involved in the frigate's attack run on the ISD trench at Endor. There's never any shield flares when any capital ship or fighter attacks or rams another that extend away from the hull, we've seen scenes where crashing fighters at Endor do not ignite shield flares either but leave no damage even though they are hitting directly on the hull (or as close to it as can be resolved with the scale of the ships, and in two instances: the Neb-B trench attack and the TIE that can't pull out of its attack run in time to avoid the Mon Cal, we see fighters crash right on the hull.)

 

You claim I'm making stuff up but you're the one invoking invisible shields with enough clearance for fighters to pass under! Yes, the counter arguments involve extra criteria such as battles starting before the audience arrives or off camera events but what is unproven invisible shields away from the hull if not extra criteria? The opposition is at least working within the bounds of the observed data instead of assuming droids walk through shields, therefore fighters must go through shields when every physical object we see crashing into a starship hits the hull is unopposed by any outside force but do not leave any lasting damage unless the ship in question has been in combat for some time.

 

Naboo: fighters cannot damage the capital ship. Shock and surprise by both the TF captain and the Naboo when something blows up that isn't a fighter. No one apparently thought it was possible.\

 

Clone Wars: what's the least unreasonable made up factor: invisible shields that do nothing at all to alter the appearance of turbolaser bolts or inhibit the flight speed of fighters or the battles where fighters gut ships were happening before the audience arrived?

 

Malevolence: what noise SHOULD fighters make if they crash on shields? What special effect should be seen? Endor argues that we don't need a special effect for this. The Y-Wings used concentrated torpedo fire on the same spot. Not unlike what the A-Wings did to Ex.

 

ROTS: battle was clearly raging for some time, not a single off the hull shield effect to be seen and everyone is letting fly with everything they have, small, medium and large guns. Something ought to impact away from the hull.

 

Death Star 1: it is specifically pointed out that her defenses are designed around a direct, large scale attack and it can be argued that this an oversight or technology limitation that the DS1 cannot shut out fighters.

 

Falcon landing on the ISD: why is it assumed the Falcon landed on the hull instead of the shields? If the shields have no volume, then landing on the shields would be no different than landing on the hull.

 

Out of time, gotta go to work. I am, at this point, about half way through reading through all the arguments in the original part 2 thread and have some notes sketched out laying out my thoughts on how shields might work as per my interpretations of the scenes in question. In the spirit of being Devil's Advocate, I'm also consolidating the strongest arguments for your theory and the best critiques. I hope to be done sometime this week.

Edited April 2, 2013 by scvn2812

[scvn2812 504]

Brian; I think ESAD was trying (and not succeeding) at being funny. We're amongst fellow uber nerds here, so it's probably a mistake to go after each other for ironic comments as if someone were the school bully. :-P

[Airlocke 12,014]

Oh, I dunno. I actually thought he succeeded.

[ESAD 12,045]

Fuck you, asshole.

 

[ESAD 12,045]

Brian; I think ESAD was trying (and not succeeding) at being funny. We're amongst fellow uber nerds here, so it's probably a mistake to go after each other for ironic comments as if someone were the school bully. :-P

 

I wasn't trying to be funny, it's funny all on it's own.

[Afishymeadow 534]

 

:thumbup:Brian!

[Afishymeadow 534]

Here's a couple of pictures of my wife.

 

 

:thumbup:Tyralak!

[scvn2812 504]

After rereading all forty pages worth of arguments about this here and on SD, I withdraw criticism about shield permeability. Between crashing fighters, breaching pods and the Falcon landing on a probably shielded ISD, I think that aspect of Brian's theory has been well argued.

 

I am still a contrarion on the issue of where shields operate. I do not feel there is sufficient weight of evidence that they generally allow enough clearance for fighters to operate their energy weapons uninhibited.

 

I am not convinced that the notion of invisible shield barriers having no obvious effects on turbolaser fire is a less absurd idea than off camera fighting we were not privy to softened up the ships being attacked in most cases or that a fighter attack with heavy ordinance on a very small area like the Malevolence ion cannon base or Ex's domes is automatically doomed to failure in the absence of shield loss.

 

It is possible that the volumetric effect proposed by Vympel is the best explanation and that the deeper one goes into the defensive fields, the less energy absorbing medium there is to fire through and thus the more effective gun fire is, maybe allowing that Rebel frigate to land hits on the hull of that ISD while Tantive IV couldn't get her gunfire as deep, firing from a point much further away. The consequences for fighters skimming the hull? Eh, maybe they can shoot around the field effects, assuming there are generators emitting a shield effect that narrows the closer you get to the hull.

 

The other possibility is that the default mode of shields for capital ships is to conform tightly to the skin of the ship which is hinted at very strongly at Naboo, Coruscant, Hoth and Endor. For fighters to inflict damage through the shields requires either pin point bombardment with heavy weapons as I believe is responsible for the damage to Executor and Malevolence or shields to be compromised by heavy bombardment or redirection to prioritize defense in other areas opening up areas that have been sacrificed to reinforce elsewhere to attack from fighters. In the specific cases of the Battle of Coruscant and the Clone Wars battles where fighters and capital ships are simultaneously attacking the same exact targets with no visible shield effects implying bubble shields, these battles were already in progress before the audience arrives for the most dramatic parts in much the same way that only a few minutes of footage of critical moments of hours long battles are shown in war documentaries. Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Star Wars battles last for hours.

 

On kinetic impacts: kinetic impacts seem to disproportionately do damage compared to energy weapons. An out of control Tie fighter does what a Nebulon B's nuclear caliber guns, maybe even gigaton scale weapons could not at point blank range: leave part of the hull with a lingering, glowing spot. The car bomb in space scene Khas posted a while back also showed that Star Wars ships do not respond well to being pelted with debris, although those ships may have been unshielded.

 

Whatever mechanism protects against physical impacts, and at this point I'm willing to concede it may be the same system as the energy shields, is not able to adequately protect against impacts with a much lower total energy than a turbolaser.

 

Note the use of the qualifier of by default or normal operation for hull hugging shields. Given the variety of shield forms in evidence, it is probable that this is not their only mode of operation and an ISD can, for example, project a shield plane further away to interdict lighter fire or missiles to reduce the risk of damage to the hull from any inefficiency in shield energy absorption.

 

It may also be possible to pour more energy into a specific point of shields to harden them against physical attack, such as a out of control fighter or asteroid detected in time. Both of which have been stopped by and failed to be stopped by shields.

 

Alright, I'm sure there is a lot I'm leaving out. There are forty pages in three threads debating a forty minute or so video and probably another twenty minutes of YouTube videos and stuff lost to Dropbox hosting limits. One single post cannot address it all but it's a start.I think this framework is able to adequately describe the body of evidence we've discussed with minimal contortions and gyrating hands.

 

Fair is fair, Brian I've spent hours making you defend your theory, so come at me bro. :-P

[Khas 12,158]

For the record, I wouldn't waste my time with long SDN threads. This is a board where one man wrote a 108-page "rebuttal" to Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace. It's really just full of people who love the sight of their own posts, and probably the sound of their own voice.

 

Yes, I wasn't kidding when I said that he wrote a 108-page rebuttal. Sad, ain't it?

[scvn2812 504]

The SD.net thread actually was a fast read. Its only 9 pages, half of which isn't actually about the nature of shields but rather how disruptors work (which is largely a copy and paste job after page 2), and the part that is, is Batman and Jim refusing to concede that the other has a just as valid interpretation of the A-Wing attack scene, which is also basically a copy and paste job after page 2. No one really says anything that wasn't argued and counter argued and counter counter argued in much greater depth here in either this thread or the original thread. Also, I'm feeling like we've wandered off the original point of this thread and should probably be doing the technical arguing in the original thread for ease of research in the future.

[Vince 520]

That photo looks so old-school to me, like a 80's pic lol. Nice though! jus so very 80s

[Vince 520]

The battle of Coruscant was supposed to have gone on hours before shields were pounded down... cannot remember if we have top level canon on that though.

[Vince 520]

For the record, I wouldn't waste my time with long SDN threads. This is a board where one man wrote a 108-page "rebuttal" to Red Letter Media's review of The Phantom Menace. It's really just full of people who love the sight of their own posts, and probably the sound of their own voice.

 

Yes, I wasn't kidding when I said that he wrote a 108-page rebuttal. Sad, ain't it?

Sad or insane. The review is kind of a spoof anyways haha, be like writing a serious horror movie review on scary movie.

I'm guessing it was a chance to show off all his behind the scenes super sw knowledge./

[scvn2812 504]

The battle of Coruscant was supposed to have gone on hours before shields were pounded down... cannot remember if we have top level canon on that though.

 

We don't. There's nothing in ROTS indicating time any more than there are any statements about elapsed time specifying a specific time frame in any battles except Yavin IV in the films. I can't find my ROTS novelization at the moment, it might give more hints about how long the battle was raging. Although I would caution against using hours as an estimate of combat endurance, we don't know how they were fought and really, I would find it highly doubtful that these hours were literally spent shooting incessantly.