Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15936
And he expects me to disprove all of that by independently doing all the scaling Saxton did over again. He's accusing Saxton's methods of being flawed but won't specify exactly how. I pointed this out and he said this.Kier Nimmion wrote:I think it's laughable and absurd that anyone would think they could take accurate measurements of anything off a TV/movie screen. It's exactly like showing someone a picture of two asteroids in space and asking how long or wide each one is. Since the camera lens is subjective, one has no idea the factors involved are- like how far away the camera is from the objects, whether or not both objects are same distance from the camera.
Idiots.Kier Nimmion wrote:Hey Bob, put your money where your mouth is. You've shot it off enough on scaling from pictures and how you know how to do it, well, show us all how to scale. Show us your big scaling brain in action, show all required equations and explain them in small words for us dummies who skipped Scaling 102 in university for more relavent topics, like basket weaving and cheese making.
You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?Ender wrote:Always fun to watch the mediocre try to tear down the elite.
How do they put their shoes on if they're that stupid...Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=3
They're going to "prove" scaling in space is impossible.
Of course. I hold Darkstar in higher regard then I do those fuckwits.Illuminatus Primus wrote:You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?Ender wrote:Always fun to watch the mediocre try to tear down the elite.
Ender wrote:Of course. I hold Darkstar in higher regard then I do those fuckwits.
Thats pretty damn low.Kier? From SB?Illuminatus Primus wrote:You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?
Anyone want to tear this apart?Chocobo wrote:Well, the site talks about how it would be easier to measure distances and size based off of if you knew the size of both objects. But it also discusses without atmosphere, parallax effects objects and distorts the distance in images as well.
This is an even a worse problem, if you look at the depth of perception information with monocular images(2-d image; 1 eye) where one isn't given the alternate view of the picture(second eye). two monucular images, the way eyes see images when looking at something that is physically 3-d, would compose a 3-d image where one could tell actual distances between objects. Without that key information one is only getting partial information, and not enough to make actual judgements, but rather working with just perceptional optical illusions. Also note that parallax is stated to be an issue in depth of perception on that page as well.
Also notice that lack of haze in an atmosphere makes an object appear closer than it actually is;
"Mountains are perceived to be closer when the atmosphere is clear."
So with no atmosphere may make objects appear closer to other objects than they actually are.
So there are a variety of things that could cause optical illusions as to what the actual size may be. It could be larger than it looks in the movie, or other factors make it appear to be larger than it actually is.
Why does it seem that morons often drag NASA in to every arqument? Is there some special "Debating for Retards" book out there claiming that mentioning NASA will give credibility to an arqument?Kier "fuckwit" Nimmion wrote:I already have a letter into NASA for this topic and a request for information and reference sources, plus I'll read what Chocobo has provided. I may hit JPL and some imaging companies as well.
WTF? I can see being anti-Zahn and anti-KJA (and not neccessarily a purist, either), but anti-Zahn and pro-KJA??Illuminatus Primus wrote:Kier Nimmion.
Anti-Zahn, pro-Anderson rabid "spirit of story over things making fucking sense" idiot.
). They praise KJA as "better understanding and expanding" on Lucas' style SW, and draw comparisons between it and KJA SW. They hate Zahn for one-upping Marvel and trying to suppress DE and for not writing "Lucas-style SW" which they say KJA produced.The fields of astrophysics and astronomy are based on extrapolating 3-dimensional data from 2-dimensional photographs. Curtis Saxton is (get ready for this) an astrophysicist.Kier Nimmion wrote:I think it's laughable and absurd that anyone would think they could take accurate measurements of anything off a TV/movie screen. It's exactly like showing someone a picture of two asteroids in space and asking how long or wide each one is. Since the camera lens is subjective, one has no idea the factors involved are- like how far away the camera is from the objects, whether or not both objects are same distance from the camera.
Tell this asshole to take an observational astronomy course sometime.Hey Bob, put your money where your mouth is. You've shot it off enough on scaling from pictures and how you know how to do it, well, show us all how to scale. Show us your big scaling brain in action, show all required equations and explain them in small words for us dummies who skipped Scaling 102 in university for more relavent topics, like basket weaving and cheese making.
Actually, they wear booties, and the attendants help put them on... what's more shocking is that they are able to type at all.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:How do they put their shoes on if they're that stupid...Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=3
They're going to "prove" scaling in space is impossible.
Yes I know. I could do a mediocre job scaling but a) I don't need to be wasting my spring break on these morons, and b) I wasn't going to let them get away with putting the burden of proof on me.Durandal wrote:EDIT: Oh, and by the way, scaling isn't a university-level concept; it's middle-school mathematics. If 1 cm on this graph represents 1 km, how many centimeters represent 2 kilometers? All you have to do is determine a coordinate transformation and you can get a good approximation of the object's actual length.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#illustrationsSo with no atmosphere may make objects appear closer to other objects than they actually are.
So there are a variety of things that could cause optical illusions as to what the actual size may be. It could be larger than it looks in the movie, or other factors make it appear to be larger than it actually is.