StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I have a cousin, just 13yo. The whole StarWars thing is new and fresh for him. Recently he thumbed through my EpIII-ICS and read the stats on the Venator.

"What’s a Gigaton?"
"Well, you know an Atom bomb?"
"Yea?"
"Imagine like a thousands of those all at once!"
"It shoots that every time?"
"It can!"

He then gives the biggest "Oh yea right" look I'd ever seen... Now, he's 'young' but hes really smart, he loves tech and sci-fi, and loves trying to think how all sorts of impossible tech might work. And it bothered me that the more I told him about StarWars tech, Hypermatter, MultiGiga ton shots, Ships hiding in stars... The more he seemd to give me a 'Boooogus' look.

Any suggestions? How could one best explain, or at the least, justify the reasons and energy behind StarWars Tech? Just why multi Gigaton weapons is listed as standard, or why the Falcon could take out a Klingon battleship.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

And the main site here can help as well.

Waiting about 2-3 years could help, too.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Waiting about 2-3 years could help, too.

That's what I was thinking. A normal 13 year old shouldn't be ready for gigatons yet.

Only if you guys lack the patience to explain the details...
It's not like he's going to learn anything relevant to this anywhere else, nor is it likely he'll become any more open-minded (probably less so).

For one, I'd make sure to see to it he understands that a gigaton is a measure of energy, not that it's actually firing thousands of nuclear weapons, just that it's the output equivalent to that.

nightmare wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Waiting about 2-3 years could help, too.

That's what I was thinking. A normal 13 year old shouldn't be ready for gigatons yet.

I learned this all when I was 14. And when I was his age I was into higher level physics as induced by Star Trek. Albeit, my understanding was totally in the opposite direction of what it should have been, but I was interested. I see no problem learning this at an earlier age. It'll also give him a chance to avoid stupid mistakes.


Just make sure he understands the basic derivatives and how force relates to distance and time. It's important that he understands basic physics concepts when he reads the book. Sending him to the SWTC and this site helps, too, as they can give him an idea of how the figures were derived.

If he doesn't understand the fundamental physics concepts first, then he'll end up like all those 13yo's on BBSs (you can tell from how they write) who are desperately, pathetically trying to make up ridiculous explanations for scifi tech. It's all too common- you can tell they've heard a few snippets of real physics factoids but they distort these beyond recogniton.

Wait, he doesn't seem to think it's realistic? That's the vibe I'm getting.

Because it's....not. How about "it's really powerful stuff, but it's also more or less fantasy technology?"

Ask him to calculate the gravitational binding energy of a planet, and then scale down from there if he thinks the capabilities are so absurd. Oh wait, he won't know how, will he? So where does he get off saying that the numbers make no sense? Oh yes of course, he's a precocious 13 year old who needs someone to remind him that he doesn't know shit.

Mentoring younger folk isn't always pats on the head and encouraging words; sometimes you have to remind the kid not to be a snot-nosed little brat.

Eh? So because he finds some of the tech a little hard to believe he's "a snot-nosed little brat." Seems a little harsh.

Just trying to explain it in a simple way, you know like "Well, everyone thinks they have A because B happend in the movies"

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Just trying to explain it in a simple way, you know like "Well, everyone thinks they have A because B happend in the movies"

Well the TESB asteroid belt would be a good starting point, but you'd need to explain the scientific method, SoD and what energy is first. I can understand some initial eye-rolling since SW capabilities ARE physically absurd but that doesn't mean they aren't true or can't be quantified. His reaction is probably similar to most of ours when introduced to Culture tech.

nightmare wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Waiting about 2-3 years could help, too.

That's what I was thinking. A normal 13 year old shouldn't be ready for gigatons yet.

If there is any 13 year old boy who dosn't like talking about big explosions, then hes not normal.

Now I admit when I first came to SDN, I didn't understand every tech term but you can grasp most things if you just go with the flow.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Recently he thumbed through my EpIII-ICS and read the stats on the Venator.

You know, things like gigaton were removed from the EP3 ICS for precisely this reason. What've you been doing? Pencilling them in?

He then gives the biggest "Oh yea right" look I'd ever seen... Now, he's 'young' but hes really smart, he loves tech and sci-fi, and loves trying to think how all sorts of impossible tech might work. And it bothered me that the more I told him about StarWars tech, Hypermatter, MultiGiga ton shots, Ships hiding in stars... The more he seemd to give me a 'Boooogus' look.

Any suggestions? How could one best explain, or at the least, justify the reasons and energy behind StarWars Tech? Just why multi Gigaton weapons is listed as standard, or why the Falcon could take out a Klingon battleship.

No. Because they're based on the rather unlikely assumption that the power technologies of SW scale in a linear manner. It's rather unlikely, IMO that the Death Star does its work by DET, given the planar ring of doom(tm) that it creates when it blows up a planet. Furthermore, the EP2-ICS is wildly at odds with shown events (Geonosian fighter guns are 1e13J per shot? Eheh, heh heh heh) in many cases, as the methodology used is to take the high end, and force all other events to conform. Hence, all ships, even those that use radically different power systems, are assumed to have reactors with energy densities directly equivalent to the Death Star's (which, given its inexplicable planar ring of doom, should not be assumed to be DET)

In other words, while ICS figures are the reigning king of SW calcs, your cousin is right. The numbers are rather at odds with what is shown on screen, and to defend the numbers we are frequently forced to fall back on such insane getout clauses such as "The Geonosians dialled their power down to 0.1% before shooting the LAAT/i..."

Additionally, a Core Ship would need modification to sundive, as it has windows, which would blind its neiomidian crewers.

NecronLord wrote:It's rather unlikely, IMO that the Death Star does its work by DET, given the planar ring of doom(tm) that it creates when it blows up a planet [...] the Death Star's (which, given its inexplicable planar ring of doom, should not be assumed to be DET)

This is OT, and you might already know this, but RSA has argued this. Essentially, would you rather [DET + inexplicable ring] or [inexplicable non-DET + inexplicable ring]?

That's a false dilemma.

It is either DET + Inexplicable cause of ring or Inexplicable method of explosion (which happens to produce a ring). The latter actually requires less terms. If you take the ring as an entirely sperate phonomenon, then yes, your argument makes sense. However, it clearly is not, and it clearly is a product of the method by which Alderann was destroyed.

I find it incomprehensible that NecronLord is using made-up bullshit Darkstar terms like "DET". My brain hurts.

NecronLord wrote:That's a false dilemma.

It is either DET + Inexplicable cause of ring or Inexplicable method of explosion (which happens to produce a ring). The latter actually requires less terms. If you take the ring as an entirely sperate phonomenon, then yes, your argument makes sense. However, it clearly is not, and it clearly is a product of the method by which Alderann was destroyed.

That is patent nonsense. "Inexplicable method" is not a term. Nor does "inexplicable method which creates planar rings" somehow magically translate into the Death Star not having the power to destroy a planet. Since the opening crawl of EpIV says the Death Star has enough power to do exactly that, I really don't care what the explosion looks like.

Err. The DET acronym, last time I heard, came from countless engineering and science papers. It stands for Direct Energy Transfer. Perhaps you are thinking of Darkstar's MCR?

It boils down to, quite simply, the Alderann explosion being depicted with unrealistic VFX. The Planar Ring of Doom has no reason to be there in a DET exchange, whereas it's a common sci-fi conciet of chain reaction weapons.

DET-only no longer accounts for all the evidence from the Alderann explosion. It is that simple.

To use the now (post SE) questionable premise of the Alderann Explosion necesserily being DET to justify absudities like the 1e13J geonosian guns is stupid at best, fraudulent at worst.

NecronLord wrote:Err. The DET acronym, last time I heard, came from countless engineering and science papers. It stands for Direct Energy Transfer. Perhaps you are thinking of Darkstar's MCR?

No, I'm referring to "DET". Mike doesn't seem to be very familiar with it in the context that Darkstar tries to use it:

Darth Wong wrote:What "term"? "DET" is something that Darkstar made up out of thin air in order to pretend that "DET" is some kind of special mechanism when in fact everything that doesn't involve an exothermal reaction is basically "DET". In short, what you have is "exothermal reaction" and EVERYTHING ELSE. By calling everything else "DET", Darkstar seeks to pretend that "everything else" is a special mechanism for which you need to produce evidence. In reality, you must produce evidence for an exothermal reaction, and what Darkstar calls "DET" is the default model for every situation.

"MCR" is not what Darkstar uses. He uses "Superlaser effect", since MCR calls his no-term bullshti for what it is: Mysterious Chain Reaction.

It boils down to, quite simply, the Alderann explosion being depicted with unrealistic VFX. The Planar Ring of Doom has no reason to be there in a DET exchange, whereas it's a common sci-fi conciet of chain reaction weapons.

A "common sci-fi conceit of chain reaction weapons"? WTF? That's not anything approaching an explanation.

DET-only no longer accounts for all the evidence from the Alderann explosion. It is that simple.

Nor does "inexplicable method". Since one method has no facts of any sort behind it, nor any actual sort of explanation, and the other has both canon and EU, I know which one to choose.

To use the now (post SE) questionable premise of the Alderann Explosion necesserily being DET to justify absudities like the 1e13J geonosian guns is stupid at best, fraudulent at worst.

It will never be a questionable premise until some Trekkie fanatic changes the opening crawl of ANH to read differenently from what it actually says. No one is talking about the Geonosian fighter here as far as I can see.

Regardless, DET is now a widely used acronym, on this forum at least.

The Canon or EU offers an explanation of the PRoD that claims this is a natural effect of large explosions in space? This I would like to see.

NecronLord wrote: The Canon or EU offers an explanation of the PRoD that claims this is a natural effect of large explosions in space? This I would like to see.

*sigh*

A New Hope wrote: wroteIt is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the
Empire's ultimate weapon, the Death Star, an armored space station
with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home
aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her
people and restore freedom to the galaxy...

That is called canon. These "PRODs" of yours are irrelevant.

ITW:OT- Death Star II's power generation capabilities cited as being worth that of hundreds of super giant stars.

SW.com databank: hypermatter reactor provides the power to destroy the planets

OT:ICS: the same

There is NO evidence it is a chain reaction in any source whatsoever, and that includes the films, which explicity contradicts it.

Vympel wrote:It will never be a questionable premise until some Trekkie fanatic changes the opening crawl of ANH to read differenently from what it actually says. No one is talking about the Geonosian fighter here as far as I can see.

1 - Trek has nothing to do with it.
2 - Who said that no power was required? The opening crawl says "the Death Star, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It is fairly obvious from the size of the station, that no matter what way you paint it, the Death Star requires immense power to fire.
3 - I am talking about the Geonosian fighter, as it is one of the most obvious examples of ICS absurdity.

NecronLord wrote: 2 - Who said that no power was required? The opening crawl says "the Death Star, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It is fairly obvious from the size of the station, that no matter what way you paint it, the Death Star requires immense power to fire.

No, the question is "enough power". Your argument necessariyl claims that it does not have enough power. You are therefore contradicting canon.

3 - I am talking about the Geonosian fighter, as it is one of the most obvious examples of ICS absurdity.

I never thought I'd hear this stuff coming from you, but if you'd like to cite other examples of "absurdity" of which the Geonosian fighter is the most obvious example, go ahead.

Vympel wrote:ITW:OT- Death Star II's power generation capabilities cited as being worth that of hundreds of super giant stars.

Though I've never read this (in at least one place now contradicted) book, this can be painted many ways.

The hottest known supergiant is 1e6 times as luminous as the sun, giving an output of 3.827E32W One hundred times this is of course 3.827E34W. However, we can also lowball this number down to...

3.827E30 (Betelgeuse) * 100. Which is consistant with a daily output insufficient to account for the observed effects.

SW.com databank: hypermatter reactor provides the power to destroy the planets

Errr... Right... Where else is it going to get the power to operate from? Solar panels perhaps?

There is NO evidence it is a chain reaction in any source whatsoever, and that includes the films, which explicity contradicts it.

Barring the absurd ring that flies out of planets the Death Star destroys.

Vympel wrote:No, the question is "enough power". Your argument necessariyl claims that it does not have enough power. You are therefore contradicting canon.

Hardly. The argument is that with the blatantly unrealistic VFX, it is impossible to determine what happened accurately enough to base entire books on scalings from the Death Star's estimated power intensity. It is obvious to anyone and their dog that the Death Star has the power (we will ignore that this may not neccesserily reffer to power in the scientific context) to destroy a planet. It does so. Therefore it can do it. How much of that power is supplied by what mechanism is however, a complete unknown.

I never thought I'd hear this stuff coming from you, but if you'd like to cite other examples of "absurdity" of which the Geonosian fighter is the most obvious example, go ahead.

The numbers given for LAAT/i superlaser turrets are also blatantly inconsistant with thier observed effects.