Argument on my boards regarding size of DS2

[Sothis]

I present the latest from Shaolin Dolomite:

i really dont care how big the death star is, thats not what is bothering me. its the fact that You assume that endor is the same size as earth because it has gravity and it has an atmosphere, and then you tell me that it’s a scientific observation. (now everyone is laughing at you instead of just me….) You have no idea how large or small endor is. So using your flawed system of scale, you can then make anything you want from the numbers you make up.

Canon tells us how big the DS is because of the ICS.
Canon tells us how big a SD is because of the ICS.

Wong tells us that endor is the same size as earth, (which he doesn’t know) and because we have the size of endor we can figure out how big an ISD is. This is obviously flawed.
Well, we already know how big an ISD is because LUCAS tells us how big it is. So to arbitrarily make up numbers, because it has the same gravity, and atmosphere. retarded.

First off lets learn some stuff about planets and how they work.

Atmosphere of a planet is NOT based on its size. That has nothing to do with it. Water and relative distance from the sun, make an atmosphere of a planet. So you first point is moot.

The gravity IS effect by the size of the planet because of its rotation. Jupiter has a stronger gravity because of its rotation, which is caused by its mass. Orbits of planets are caused by the sun. as the sun performs a revolution, it cause the planets around it to orbit. Once a planet starts to orbit is spins because of the pull of the sun, which causes gravity on the planet surface.
(this isn’t exactly what happens, but I had to dumb it down, because of time. I’m in a rush.)

now knowing that, lets talk about titian. Titian is similar to earth in size and make up. Titian has what NASA believes, is an early earth atmosphere, but its gravity is way more than earth. Why? Because Jupiter is pulling at it from one side and the sun is pulling on it from the other, as a result titian has many cracks and fissure, from the resulting force on its plate tectonics. It has violent and massive volcanic explosions (which leads to its early earth like atmosphere), another result of the gravity of the sun and Jupiter pulling on its surface.
So what does this tell us? That a moon that is the size of earth, caught between a gas giant, and a sun which would have to be located in the sweet spot around said sun, to support life in the first place, would be ripped apart by the gravity of the sun and the gas giant at that range. So in other words, it would look nothing like endor in the first place.

So what does this tell us? That endor with the environment that it has CANNOT exist, as far as science can tell us today. So there goes that.

Now back to the problem of math. Since you do not have any proof of how large or small endor is, from any reasonable source. And since we have the measurements of an ISD and SD. Would it not make more sense to use the measurements that no trekkie can argue with to prove your point, instead of saying in your first sentence how canon doesn’t work for your malignant theory? USE CANON EVIDENCE to prove your point.
Wongs “observations” are just that. Some crazy guy, who chooses to make a web site, and post his thoughts on any given subject he sees fit, doesn’t canon make. (god bless free speech)
His theories are fun to read, and his math is sound, its just his information is wrong, his sources are wrong, and thus his conclusions are wrong. It’s ok to have an educated guess, but in the end that’s all it is, a guess.
Wong is not canon.

Discuss.

[The Nomad]

its the fact that You assume that endor is the same size as earth because it has gravity and it has an atmosphere, and then you tell me that it’s a scientific observation. (now everyone is laughing at you instead of just me….)

Scientific observation tells us that at a given density ( which it is reasonable to assume is similar to that of your bog-standard rocky planet - if you disagree, provide evidence that satisfies the burden of proof or shut up ), a precise gravity calls for a specific planetary volume. That's high-school physics.

Wong tells us that endor is the same size as earth, (which he doesn’t know) and because we have the size of endor we can figure out how big an ISD is. This is obviously flawed.

Since when did Mike start to use Endor to scale an ISD ? I'd call it on this Strawman.

So to arbitrarily make up numbers, because it has the same gravity, and atmosphere. retarded.

The pot calling the kettle black..

First off lets learn some stuff about planets and how they work.

Oh no...

Atmosphere of a planet is NOT based on its size. That has nothing to do with it. Water and relative distance from the sun, make an atmosphere of a planet. So you first point is moot.

Bullcrap, gases expand and in order to maintain an atmosphere a planet must provide sufficient gravitational pull to counterbalance said expansion. High-school physics.

The gravity IS effect by the size of the planet because of its rotation.

Newton tells you you're a moron. F=GmM/r². Graduate from high school fucktard.

Jupiter has a stronger gravity because of its rotation, which is caused by its mass.

Bullcrap. See above. Rotation would in fact counteract gravity. But I suppose centrifugal force is beyond his grasp. His daddy should show him more carousels instead of letting him polluting the Internet.

Orbits of planets are caused by the sun. as the sun performs a revolution, it cause the planets around it to orbit. Once a planet starts to orbit is spins because of the pull of the sun, which causes gravity on the planet surface.
(this isn’t exactly what happens, but I had to dumb it down, because of time. I’m in a rush.)

Rotation of a planet is IIRC provided mainly by the accretion dynamics during its formation ( said accretion being caused by gravity ) and later by adequately orientated asteroidal impacts.

Considering how full of crap the guy is, I don't feel like debunking the rest of his shit.

[DaveJB]

i really dont care how big the death star is, thats not what is bothering me. its the fact that You assume that endor is the same size as earth because it has gravity and it has an atmosphere, and then you tell me that it’s a scientific observation. (now everyone is laughing at you instead of just me….) You have no idea how large or small endor is. So using your flawed system of scale, you can then make anything you want from the numbers you make up.

Of course, let's ignore the fact that

A) Neither the Rebels or Imperials were jumping around like fleas or being sent flying by impacts, and
B) If Endor was significantly smaller than Earth, the atmosphere wouldn't achieve sufficient density to be breathable.

So to arbitrarily make up numbers, because it has the same gravity, and atmosphere. retarded.

Even if Endor was 3188KM (1/4 of Earth's diameter), the planet's average density would have to be 22010 kg/m³ to maintain the same gravitational pull. In comparison, the density of Plutonium is only 19816 kg/m³. I think we can all agree that this represents a major feasibility problem.

Atmosphere of a planet is NOT based on its size.

The density of it is!

<snip a huge pile of irrelevant crap>

now knowing that, lets talk about titian.

What the hell is "Titian"? I assume that's supposed to be "Titan".

Titian is similar to earth in size and make up.

In spite of having a 40% smaller diameter and 60 times less mass?

Titian has what NASA believes, is an early earth atmosphere, but its gravity is way more than earth.

Having 14% of Earth's gravity isn't what I'd call "way more than Earth"!

snip a load of stuff which is not only irrelevant, but has "Titian" orbiting the wrong planet

What the hell?! What is this guy talking about? It sounds like a combination of Titan, Io and Krypton!

So what does this tell us? That endor with the environment that it has CANNOT exist, as far as science can tell us today. So there goes that.

Two words: BULL... SHIT.

[SPOOFE]

A planet's gravity is caused by its rotation? And its rotation is caused by its mass? What sort of bumblefuckery is this?

[Sothis]

I think I may have made a mistake on my forum- I think I am guilty of thinking Titan is earth-sized

[DaveJB]

Ack, screwed up. I meant to say that Titan had 40% of Earth's diameter, not a 40% smaller one.

[wilfulton]

Sharpshoots:

Titan has about 1/8 th of Earth's gravity. The fact that it's atmosphere is 1.5 times as dense is probably mostly due to the fact that it is so cold (about -300 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit).

Titan orbits Saturn.

Rotation causes gravity like flies cause shit.

And if Endor wasn't the size of Earth, then how in the hell did it have earth-like gravity? I mean, we witness objects falling the same as they would in 1 Earth G. Canon, proven.

I guess one could, however, sharpshoot George Lucas if they wanted to. In order for the DS2 to be in geosynchronous orbit (thus enabling it to remain over the shield projector) it would have to be ~22,000 miles above the surface of an Earth-like planet.

[Batman]

I guess one could, however, sharpshoot George Lucas if they wanted to. In order for the DS2 to be in geosynchronous orbit (thus enabling it to remain over the shield projector) it would have to be ~22,000 miles above the surface of an Earth-like planet.

If the DS2 were required to stick to orbital mechanics. Which it isn't. The term you're looking for is 'repulsorlift'.

[Ford Prefect]

Indeed. This sort of argument (where someone believes that Titan is spelt Titian and orbits Jupiter, can't understand stuff that was taught in high school, believe that rotation causes gravity for fuck's sake - I knew that mass of a planet caused gravity when I was ten!) should be torn to shreds and left on the side of the road like so much wheat and chaff.

And on an aside, rotation is caused by mass. People who say that sort of thing need to be shot.

[Drooling Iguana]

Yep, the mass of my wheels increase when I hit the gas, thereby causing them to spin faster. Simple, really.

[wilfulton]

Indeed. This sort of argument (where someone believes that Titan is spelt Titian and orbits Jupiter, can't understand stuff that was taught in high school, believe that rotation causes gravity for fuck's sake - I knew that mass of a planet caused gravity when I was ten!) should be torn to shreds and left on the side of the road like so much wheat and chaff.

And on an aside, rotation is caused by mass. People who say that sort of thing need to be shot.

No kidding. I wonder why Venus has such a low rate of rotation, it's not that much less massive than earth. Hell it's day is longer than its year. And what about Mercury? ANd for that matter, a "Day" on the sun is, if I recall correctly, about the same as a month on Earth, how does that happen?

Ah, but wait. We can plainly see how rotation causes mass, which in turn causes rotation to cause gravity...Behold! The power of stupidity!

[Ender]

Google some basic orbital physics and hammer his ass.

Titan has the same gravity and gravity is caused by rotation... jesus.

[Darth Servo]

Google some basic orbital physics and hammer his ass.

Titan has the same gravity and gravity is caused by rotation... jesus.

I did that. Titan's gravity is 1/7th that of Earth.

[Instant Sunrise]

If rotation caused gravity, Venus would have flung itself apart by now.

Of Jupiter's 63 moons[1], I don't know any called "Tiatan". If it was massive enough to hold an atmosphere, especially one that was 1.5 bars at the surface, it would have been discovered, and named, period.

Now, Saturn's moon Titan, according to Cassini-Huygens, is tidally locked with Saturn[1], with it taking a smidgen under 16 days (15.94542 days, to be exact) to orbit its parent planet.[2]

Gravity is caused by mass and distance, Directly proportional to the masses for the two bodies in a system, and proportional by the square of the inverse in terms of distance.

------
1: The Nine Planets
2: Wikipedia article on Titan

[Robert Walper]

On a slight side issue: Correct me if I'm wrong, but planetary bodies rotating does affect how objects on said body would perceive gravity? In other words, the faster a planetary body rotates, the more this will counter gravitation effects?

[Instant Sunrise]

The effect of rotation on gravity is extremely slight, and most likely would be imperceivable on the scale of an individual person, but I don't personally have enough information to give you a definitive answer right now. This effect would probably be centered around the planetary equator, and would diminish near the poles.

With this information in mind, it should be noted that the Earth does possess a bulge around the equator, and is not perfectly spherical. The equatorial bulge is more prominent, and larger, on the planet of Saturn.

Unless you are referring to the Coriolis effect, which affects large bodies of mass, like tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as having an effect on most rocket launches, and is accounted for.

[Sarevok]

On a slight side issue: Correct me if I'm wrong, but planetary bodies rotating does affect how objects on said body would perceive gravity? In other words, the faster a planetary body rotates, the more this will counter gravitation effects?

Yes. The faster a planet rotates more of the total gravitational force is used to provide the extra centripetal force needed. So the weight of the body would decrease. On Earth this causes a difference of about 0.5 percent in the poles (where there is no motion) and the equator.

[Lost Soal]

A planet's gravity is caused by its rotation? And its rotation is caused by its mass? What sort of bumblefuckery is this?

I'm going to take a wild guess that hes been watching a number of films where they create gravity on their ships through rotation.

Forgetting that it only works because the walls stop them from being thrown by the force of rotation.

[Darth Servo]

thought I'd add another Trektard's attempts to "disprove" the Alderaan shield:

Oh really? Funny, but when I watched the movie, all I saw was a slight glow which was mostly likely the result of atmospheric ionization. Meaning that some of the visible waste material from the superlaser diffused through the atmosphere before the planet was destroyed. There is absolutely no evidence of a shield of any kind.

Atmospheric ionization can't shoot halfway around the hemisphere in a fraction of a second the way the light around Alderaan did. Atmospheric ionization would not follow the outlines of clouds the way the superlaser light did with Alderaan. Stop paroting Darkstar's braindead crap and learn some REAL science before you try and refute something. Planetary shields is the only real explanation for what we see. Planetary shields are known to exist from the ROTJ novelization and the ANH novelization states that Alderaan had defenses as strong as any in the Empire.

When did the effect travel half-way around the hemisphere? (For that matter, how do you travel around half a sphere unless it's not connected to another half?) It looked like maybe a third. And if said ionization causes a visible light, why wouldn't it display cloud outlines? That's like saying a cloud won't cast a shadow if it passes in front of the sun. And I don't 'parrot' anyone's stuff. Apparently you have forgotten, but I don't take faith in anyone's websites. Remember whenever someone would post a link to a st vs sw website? Whether it was biases towards Wars or Trek, I'd always call it bias.

Planetary shields would not have followed the outlines of clouds. They would have lit up everything around them like a Christmas tree that uses floodlights for ornaments.

[Darth Servo]

next round:

When did the effect travel half-way around the hemisphere?

+http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... aan-SE.jpg

Watch the movie BEFORE attempting to criticize it. Thats a full hemisphere.

I did watch the movie. Numerous times. And I don't remember any full hemisphere. (By the way, that link won't let me see anything.)

(For that matter, how do you travel around half a sphere unless it's not connected to another half?)

Why SHOULD the shield radiate energy 360 degrees around the entire planet? Did you see Destroyer droid shields radiating energy around the entire bubble? Or see that effect on Anakin's Naboo fighter in TPM?

I made a sarcastic remark. You obviously missed it.

It looked like maybe a third.

Even if you're right (and you're not), atmospheric ionization can NOT travel that far around a planet in a fraction of a second. Such things are limited by the laws of physics and those laws state that relativistic propagation speeds of ionization around a planet are simply out of the question.

But energy displaced by a shield can? Besides, photons will travel by diffusion around a huge chunk of planet. You'r trying to say that weapons energy can do the same thing against a shield, so why is it impossible for anything else?

And if said ionization causes a visible light, why wouldn't it display cloud outlines? That's like saying a cloud won't cast a shadow if it passes in front of the sun.

The light from ionization would be BETWEEN the clouds, not on top of them.

I'm talking about upper atmosphere, which is were the primary diffusion would occur, with diffusion at lower atmospheric level occruing after that. So the clouds would get lit up by the upper atmospheric diffusion first, but not the entire cloud all at once, as the diffused energy has to travel through the atmosphere.

Before:
+http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... last-0.jpg

During
+http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Hat ... last-2.jpg

Same as before, I'm told that those pages can't be displayed. May I suggest you wait on responding to this (just the links), because maybe it's just a computer problem I'm having. I'll check later on my work computer.

And I don't 'parrot' anyone's stuff. Apparently you have forgotten, but I don't take faith in anyone's websites.

Yet your argument on Alderaan's shield is exactly the same as his. Why is that?

How would I know? There's only so many possibilities, the idea of two people having the same idea is rather unspectacular. I don't even know what part of the website you're talking about. (I am assuming you're talking about st-v-sw.com)

Remember whenever someone would post a link to a st vs sw website? Whether it was biases towards Wars or Trek, I'd always call it bias.

Accusations of bias are ad-hominem fallacies.

No, when a website (or the author there-of) makes it blatantly clear that he is pro-Trek or pro-Wars, that's a justifiable reason to call the site bias. Because it's the truth. Would calling you bias toward Wars be bias, despite the fact that you have on numerous occasions make that quite clear?

Planetary shields would not have followed the outlines of clouds. They would have lit up everything around them like a Christmas tree that uses floodlights for ornaments.

why would they not follow the outlines of clouds? Do you know how they work? No, you don't. If the clouds cause a slight interference in projecting the shields, then the shield would need to work harder in those areas and thus glow brighter sooner.

What you're describing is what your ionization theory would do. It would create light spreading out from the contact point equally in all directions and clouds would BLOCK it. It would NOT brighten where the clouds are but fail to do so inbetween said clouds.

Lets see how your atmospheric ionization theory can answer this.

Sure, no problem. If the shields worked in quadrants (meaning that each section of shielding has an independant energy source), then once energy hit one part of the shield that entire quadrant would light up. Which would agree with what I said. (Remember, the superlaser is much larger than a regular TL, so the effect would be spread out over multiple quadrants.)

[SPOOFE]

Yep, the mass of my wheels increase when I hit the gas, thereby causing them to spin faster. Simple, really.

Exactly! Since mass and energy are THE SAME THING, adding more energy means adding more mass! And this added mass makes the wheel spin! WEEEEE, I'm gonna go sniff GLUE!!!!