ISD vs cloaked mines

[Aaron]

Gracias.

NP, had it handy.

[Finagle]

Learn to read, I already provided 3 examples that contradict you, and IP provided a 4th.

Are you talking about the Quaestor and the 2 examples about the Falcon that you give? Correct me if I'm wrong (with a quote), but I thought that the Quaestor emerged from hyperspace either too close to Pammant, or actually within the planet, and that coming back into realspace in the wrong place was what caused it to destroy the world. As for your examples of the Falcon, I fail to see how either of them shows an object in hyperspace interacting with something in realspace which is demonstrably not simply a mass shadow.

For a 5th one there is the explicit statement in the AOTCICS that hyperspace is simply realspace from a tachyonic point of view.

Maybe you should have provided a quote here, since you seem to demand that of others, but of course you don't hold yourself to the same standards. Luckily, Cpl Kendall was kind enough to provide a quote for you. Reading that quote, it certainly does seem to indicate that hyperspace is realspace from a tachyonic point of view (makes sense since AOTC ICS was written by the same guy who wrote the theory that you linked to). See, the thing of it is that just because hyperspace is tachyonic realspace, that doesn't neccessarily mean that you will actually get physical interactions between objects in realspace and objects in hyperspace. Gravity, like light, is a special case because it propagates at lightspeed. As the page that you link to points out, the theory there is based on:

some of the more secure aspects of real-world speculative superluminal physics.

The emphasis on speculative is mine. If we knew more about superluminal physics, we could confidently apply this to what we know about hyperspace from in-universe sources just as we can apply things like thermodynamics. Since we lack enough empirical evidence in the real world to say that these elements of superluminal physics are less than speculative, and since we don't (to my knowledge) have any in-universe sources that confirm how these elements of superluminal physics work, it's still just theory even if it happens to be a very good theory that matches most of the evidence.

1) That was the Corellian trilogy
2) Provide some quotes
3) Rationalize them with the newer evidence.

1) You're right, it was the Corellian trilogy, not the Black Fleet
2) I don't own the books (and frankly, I don't see why I should be held to higher evidenciary standards than you), but here's a quote from Cracken's Threat Dossier:

The hyperwave sustainer used a gravitic sensor that provides a fast cut-off for a ship's normal hyperdrive, saving it from damage caused by entering an interdiction field. It simultaneously activates a static hyperspace bubble, produced by a hyperspace coil designed to burn up and blow out in the presence of the interdiction field. The static hyperwave bubble cannot provide any thrust, but it can hold the ship in hyperspace while the ship's forward momentum carries it along.
The first blowout coil activates the second, the second activates the third, and so on. In effect, the ship flickers in and out of hyperspace, jumping into it and being thrown back out of it, over and over againg, until its forward momentum carries it clear of the interdiction field, and the normal hyperdrive system comes back on line.

The description in the novel was similar, if less detailed.
3) No need - unless there's some newer evidence you haven't shown me, there isn't anything other than an out-of-universe theory that contradicts this. As far as we know, it's the gravitic mass-shadows that are the only thing that interacts with a tachyonic vessel. For one unknown reason or another, this interaction seems to affect the active hyperdrive itself before it affects the rest of the vessel - burning it out. We can speculate that the intensity of the mass-shadow seems to have a direct correlation to how much damage the tachyonic ship takes. Of course, that's just speculation.

[Darth Wong]

"Gravitic mass shadow" is an idiotic term. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. If there is a gravitational field interaction, that's what it should be called: a gravity field.

[Finagle]

"Gravitic mass shadow" is an idiotic term. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. If there is a gravitational field interaction, that's what it should be called: a gravity field.

I've always assumed that's exactly what it is - just a slang term for it that gets used in the Star Wars universe to specifically refer to a gravity field encountered while in hyperspace.

[Darth Wong]

"Gravitic mass shadow" is an idiotic term. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. If there is a gravitational field interaction, that's what it should be called: a gravity field.

I've always assumed that's exactly what it is - just a slang term for it that gets used in the Star Wars universe to specifically refer to a gravity field encountered while in hyperspace.

It's a term made up by SW EU writers who were too stupid to realize that it didn't mean anything. It would be like me telling you that you fall when you step off a cliff not because of the gravity of the Earth, but because of the gravity of the Earth's "mass shadow". That's not "slang", that's stupidity.

[Finagle]

It's a term made up by SW EU writers who were too stupid to realize that it didn't mean anything. It would be like me telling you that you fall when you step off a cliff not because of the gravity of the Earth, but because of the gravity of the Earth's "mass shadow". That's not "slang", that's stupidity.

Oh, I fully understand what the OOU explanation for it is - it is a term that was coined before anyone thought hyperspace through enough to come up with the tachyonic explanation; when it was considered to be a completely different dimension (whatever that really means), and they had to come up with an explanation for why you can smash into a star in that dimension even though the star itself is in this dimension - hence why it casts a "shadow" in hyperspace. But that's the OOU explanation, and it doesn't really make any sense when you know that hyperspace is realspace seen from a tachyonic viewpoint. I think the IU explanation of it being a slang term works just fine (just as well as slang term "laser" in SW). Of, and saying that it's not slang, it's stupidity is a bit of a non-statement. In my opinion, slang can usually be equated with stupidity.

[Finagle]

Of, and saying that it's not slang

Ghetto edit: that was supposed to say Oh, not of... Typos are my personal pet peeve

[Darth Wong]

Oh, I fully understand what the OOU explanation for it is - it is a term that was coined before anyone thought hyperspace through enough to come up with the tachyonic explanation; when it was considered to be a completely different dimension (whatever that really means), and they had to come up with an explanation for why you can smash into a star in that dimension even though the star itself is in this dimension - hence why it casts a "shadow" in hyperspace. But that's the OOU explanation, and it doesn't really make any sense when you know that hyperspace is realspace seen from a tachyonic viewpoint.

It doesn't make any sense even without that explanation. If it is truly a different "dimension", then the planet must interact with that dimension in order to affect anything in it. What the fuck is a "shadow" into another dimension, and why would that "shadow" interact independently of the host object? As I said, it makes no sense. Moreover, it never made any sense. It was always stupid.

I think the IU explanation of it being a slang term works just fine (just as well as slang term "laser" in SW).

Generally speaking, slang terms simplify things. They do not arbitrarily make up extra bullshit. Moreover, we never heard this stupid "slang term" in any of the movies. Han Solo was concerned about "flying right through a star", not "slamming into the mass shadow of a star".

Of, and saying that it's not slang, it's stupidity is a bit of a non-statement. In my opinion, slang can usually be equated with stupidity.

Nonsense. Slang is incorrect grammar. Stupidity is incompetent thought. While the two can be correlated, it is ridiculous to treat them as synonymous.

[Illuminatus Primus]

3) No need - unless there's some newer evidence you haven't shown me, there isn't anything other than an out-of-universe theory that contradicts this. As far as we know, it's the gravitic mass-shadows that are the only thing that interacts with a tachyonic vessel. For one unknown reason or another, this interaction seems to affect the active hyperdrive itself before it affects the rest of the vessel - burning it out. We can speculate that the intensity of the mass-shadow seems to have a direct correlation to how much damage the tachyonic ship takes. Of course, that's just speculation.

I fucking told you, tool.

...When traveling at hyperspeed, shields protect the ship and booster against potentially fatal collisions with interstellar gas and dark particles, while stasis fields slow the passage of onboard time, so that the pilot ages only as fast as the rest of the galaxy.

You have it right there, the ship in hyperspace is capable of colliding directly and fatally with particles with negligible gravitation. Furthermore, is the gravity field was all that existed in tachyonic hyperspace, why would hitting a 1 G field ruin a ship that routinely experiences vastly greater accelerations? Are you stupid? Furthermore, when Saxton says "speculative" superluminal physics, he does not mean they are inferior to your invention from whole cloth or random EU BS. They are the best we have to go on, and the highest standard unless shown otherwise. They are more or less mathematically and physically consistent, are you willing to show somehow your bullshit meets a higher standard of rigor? I think not.

[Ender]

Learn to read, I already provided 3 examples that contradict you, and IP provided a 4th.

Are you talking about the Quaestor and the 2 examples about the Falcon that you give? Correct me if I'm wrong (with a quote), but I thought that the Quaestor emerged from hyperspace either too close to Pammant, or actually within the planet, and that coming back into realspace in the wrong place was what caused it to destroy the world.

Invisible Hand was built in a factory in the tunneled Quarren colony world of Pammat. The planet was recently devastated with radioactivity and fractured to the core by a cataclysmic hyperspace accident involving the Republic's Star Battlecruiser Quaestor

Specifically stated to by a hyperspace accident. Had it just been a relativistic impact like you contend they would not refer to it as such. Further, the impact event would not release anywhere near enough energy to fracture a planet. Finally, there are the significant quantities of radiation, which an impact event would not release, whereas manipulating a tachyon would result in the release of much energy, including gamma and X-ray level photons.

As for your examples of the Falcon, I fail to see how either of them shows an object in hyperspace interacting with something in realspace which is demonstrably not simply a mass shadow.

I presume that is because you are a fucking idiot. "mass shadow" is technobabble, and just because your point of view is different because your frame of reference is at a higher velocity does not mean that you do not interact with regular objects in accordance with the laws of physics. I'm not going to type it all out, but The Joiner King, chapter 22, pages 245-250 explicitly describe the collision between the dust of a recently formed nebula (stated to be 1000 years old in The Unseen Queen) while still in hyperspace.

Maybe you should have provided a quote here, since you seem to demand that of others, but of course you don't hold yourself to the same standards.

Go fuck yourself you crying little bitch. The requirement to present evidence applies equally to all per the forum rules. You can't even source your claims correctly, I had to tell you what books you were looking for. Meanwhile mine come from the definitive tech manuals of the series, the author of which is also the author of the site I linked to.

Luckily, Cpl Kendall was kind enough to provide a quote for you. Reading that quote, it certainly does seem to indicate that hyperspace is realspace from a tachyonic point of view (makes sense since AOTC ICS was written by the same guy who wrote the theory that you linked to). See, the thing of it is that just because hyperspace is tachyonic realspace, that doesn't neccessarily mean that you will actually get physical interactions between objects in realspace and objects in hyperspace.

Yes actually, that is exactly what that means.

Gravity, like light, is a special case because it propagates at lightspeed.

I'd be very interested in how that makes it a special case. I'd also be very interested why the fact that it travels at C is what makes gravity work, but the interactions between matter does not work even though the form of matter is dictated by its electromagnetic field, which also travels at C.

As the page that you link to points out, the theory there is based on:

some of the more secure aspects of real-world speculative superluminal physics.

The emphasis on speculative is mine. If we knew more about superluminal physics, we could confidently apply this to what we know about hyperspace from in-universe sources just as we can apply things like thermodynamics. Since we lack enough empirical evidence in the real world to say that these elements of superluminal physics are less than speculative, and since we don't (to my knowledge) have any in-universe sources that confirm how these elements of superluminal physics work, it's still just theory even if it happens to be a very good theory that matches most of the evidence.

Oh, good. I suspected when you started emphasizing the word theory that you were going to try and play the creationist game of "theory means it is just a guess". Nice to see I was correct.

Yes, clearly just because a theory lacks empirical real world evidence (even though it is mathematically consistent with all known physics and based off observation of the movies and then followed through in canon descriptions), it is equally valid as your technobabble. Whatever was I thinking.

1) That was the Corellian trilogy
2) Provide some quotes
3) Rationalize them with the newer evidence.

1) You're right, it was the Corellian trilogy, not the Black Fleet
2) I don't own the books (and frankly, I don't see why I should be held to higher evidenciary standards than you), but here's a quote from Cracken's Threat Dossier:

Yeah, insisting that you follow the board rules is clearly holding you to a higher standard. What with my stuff being sourced and quotes being provided and all If I were Einy, this is where a GIF of the TF2 Heavy yelling "Cry some more!" would go.

You couldn't even source your claim correctly. Amazingly, at that point I'm inclined to demand additional evidence. Further, your sources were from an obscure trilogy and not from the recent best selling series of techmanuals. Which do you think someone is more likely to have on hand?

The hyperwave sustainer used a gravitic sensor that provides a fast cut-off for a ship's normal hyperdrive, saving it from damage caused by entering an interdiction field. It simultaneously activates a static hyperspace bubble, produced by a hyperspace coil designed to burn up and blow out in the presence of the interdiction field. The static hyperwave bubble cannot provide any thrust, but it can hold the ship in hyperspace while the ship's forward momentum carries it along.
The first blowout coil activates the second, the second activates the third, and so on. In effect, the ship flickers in and out of hyperspace, jumping into it and being thrown back out of it, over and over againg, until its forward momentum carries it clear of the interdiction field, and the normal hyperdrive system comes back on line.

The description in the novel was similar, if less detailed.

And also in no way backs your interpretation over mine. "Saving it from damage" could apply to either the hyperdrive or the ship itself. It has a series of expendable coils designed to burn out. Seeing as this kind of coil had to be designed to burn out and blow up, that implies that the normal hyperdrive will not do the same in the presence of an interdiction field.

3) No need - unless there's some newer evidence you haven't shown me, there isn't anything other than an out-of-universe theory that contradicts this.

So you are just choosing to deny the quotes in this thread then? Ok. People choose to blow off evidence and insist they are right regardless all the time here, despite the fact it is against forum rules. See you in the "Do we ban him?" poll.

As far as we know, it's the gravitic mass-shadows that are the only thing that interacts with a tachyonic vessel.

No, we know how a tachyon will interact with normal matter. The page I linked to described it and a cursory search of the internet on tachyons will do the same.

And here is a bit of what Death Star had to say on the topic

Tenn didn't know the specifics of what had happened, and didn't have anything close to the math needed to understand it anyway. He knew that hypermatter existed only in hyperspacec, that it was composed of tachyonic particles, and that charged tachyons, when constrained by the lower dimensions of realspace, produced near-limitless energy. How this "null-point energy" had become unstable he didn't know. He only knew it had been powerful enough to turn an ISD-2 and its crew of thirty-seven thousand people into floating wisps of ionized gas in a microsecond.

For one unknown reason or another, this interaction seems to affect the active hyperdrive itself before it affects the rest of the vessel - burning it out. We can speculate that the intensity of the mass-shadow seems to have a direct correlation to how much damage the tachyonic ship takes. Of course, that's just speculation.

Remember, technobabble is superior to science!

[Batman]

I'm not going to to touch the subdebate that seems to be going on between Finagle and a number of people, but I don't see any problem with the EU using 'mass shadow' as a synonym (ESPECIALLY a colloquial one) for 'a gravity field intense enough to mess with hyperdrives'. I personally would have preferred 'gravity well' but that's just me.

What the fuck is a "shadow" into another dimension, and why would that "shadow" interact independently of the host object?

Not independently of. Before the interaction becomes DIRECT . Sort of like stuff is affected by Earth's gravity before crashing into the surface?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Cute how this joker doesn't even know that electromagnetism (the carrier force which is ultimately responsible for the electrostatic repulsion which causes collisions between massive particles) propagates at c. If he'd taken High School physics, he'd know that light is electromagnetic radiation, specifically alternating electrical and magnetic fields, and I wonder what he thinks causes his brain not to fall through its case and out of his body (despite appearances) aside from that.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not going to to touch the subdebate that seems to be going on between Finagle and a number of people, but I don't see any problem with the EU using 'mass shadow' as a synonym (ESPECIALLY a colloquial one) for 'a gravity field intense enough to mess with hyperdrives'. I personally would have preferred 'gravity well' but that's just me.

The fact that it's fucking retarded doesn't bother you? And stop with this idiotic "it's just slang" or "colloquial" bullshit. Slang terms generally just simplify concepts; they don't make up entirely unnecessary concepts in physics.

What the fuck is a "shadow" into another dimension, and why would that "shadow" interact independently of the host object?

Not independently of. Before the interaction becomes DIRECT . Sort of like stuff is affected by Earth's gravity before crashing into the surface?

There is so much stupidity in this statement that I don't know where to start. What the fuck makes you think gravity is not a "direct" interaction before you hit the ground, moron?

[Batman]

I'm not going to to touch the subdebate that seems to be going on between Finagle and a number of people, but I don't see any problem with the EU using 'mass shadow' as a synonym (ESPECIALLY a colloquial one) for 'a gravity field intense enough to mess with hyperdrives'. I personally would have preferred 'gravity well' but that's just me.

The fact that it's fucking retarded doesn't bother you?

Since it ISN'T from a layman's point of view (i.e. the vast majority of the population), no.

And stop with this idiotic "it's just slang" or "colloquial" bullshit. Slang terms generally just simplify concepts; they don't make up entirely unnecessary concepts in physics.

Neither does the term 'mass shadow'. It's just another way to describe the area in which a body's gravitational field is strong enough to interfere with a ship's hyperdrive.

What the fuck is a "shadow" into another dimension, and why would that "shadow" interact independently of the host object?

Not independently of. Before the interaction becomes DIRECT . Sort of like stuff is affected by Earth's gravity before crashing into the surface?

There is so much stupidity in this statement that I don't know where to start. What the fuck makes you think gravity is not a "direct" interaction before you hit the ground, moron?

I don't. But a lot of laypeople will. To them, direct interaction with mass=touching. Gravity=indirect interaction.

[Darth Wong]

Since it ISN'T from a layman's point of view (i.e. the vast majority of the population), no.

Don't be a retard. Laypeople would never discuss the physics of superluminal travel anyway, even in Star Wars. For a layperson, it's good enough to say "don't run into anything". That's exactly how Han Solo would have put it, and pretty much how he DID put it in ANH. This "mass shadow" bullshit is pseudoscientific nonsense; why the fuck would a layperson make that up instead of simply saying "don't run into things"? Why would he say "You have to be careful you don't interact with a mass shadow which is projected into hyperspace" rather than saying "You have to avoid hitting things"?

The EU uses this idiotic "mass shadow" bullshit not to describe some sort of incompetent slang but because the authors actually thought it made sense. All of your attempts to make excuses for this worthless garbage are merely handwaving.

[harbringer]

Can I ask a question? hopefully the answer is yes as I'm asking anyway . A gravity field would not make a shadow as it doesn't (as far as I know) find objects opaque in fact most fields work the same I think. If thats the case it wouldn't be possible to have a shadow it isnt like a laser or x-ray where your using a beam that can be blocked is it?. Hope the question isn't too obvious but I like to try to learn as I have a interest in the topic ... and I'm too old to try to go back and do high level physics now....

[Ender]

Can I ask a question? hopefully the answer is yes as I'm asking anyway . A gravity field would not make a shadow as it doesn't (as far as I know) find objects opaque in fact most fields work the same I think. If thats the case it wouldn't be possible to have a shadow it isnt like a laser or x-ray where your using a beam that can be blocked is it?. Hope the question isn't too obvious but I like to try to learn as I have a interest in the topic ... and I'm too old to try to go back and do high level physics now....

Correct, as we understand it, gravity can not be shielded against like the EM spectrum. Thus it is impossible for it to have a shadow as nothing blocks it. Instead the addition of more mass increases its strength.

[Darth Wong]

Imagine that you and three friends are each holding one corner of a bedsheet, and pulling it taut, and there's a large weight in the middle. Obviously, the bedsheet will slope down toward the middle. If you put another object on that bedsheet, no matter where that object is, it will roll toward the weight in the middle. If you put two objects on the bedsheet, the first one will most certainly not shield the second one from this effect; it will only exacerbate it.

The analogy is not perfect, but it might help illustrate. The bedsheet is spacetime, which distorts when a massive object is placed in it.

[harbringer]

Thanks I think I understand - a gravity field is a function of the interaction of mass with local space/time so if I got a neutron star by itself gravity is produced by its interaction with space time (which is going to be a lot more complex if you add other stuff). So given that there is no actual edge to the interaction and you will be subject to even very small amounts any where there is mass (a steller cloud would have mass just not a lot) I can't see how the idea of mass shadows works. Which is the point Darth Wong was making if I'm not mistaken. Of course I might have barked up the wrong tree so to speak

[FOG3]

"Gravitic mass shadow" is an idiotic term. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. If there is a gravitational field interaction, that's what it should be called: a gravity field.

The Big Bang is also not exactly well phrased, but the phrase is still used because it stuck. Compared to that calling a field interaction in what is perceived as another dimension as a "shadow" seems rather minor. If you're wound up enough to throw a hissy fit about that, there's plenty of real life things you can go off on.

[Darth Wong]

"Gravitic mass shadow" is an idiotic term. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. If there is a gravitational field interaction, that's what it should be called: a gravity field.

The Big Bang is also not exactly well phrased, but the phrase is still used because it stuck. Compared to that calling a field interaction in what is perceived as another dimension as a "shadow" seems rather minor. If you're wound up enough to throw a hissy fit about that, there's plenty of real life things you can go off on.

How do you figure that the name "Big Bang" is worse than inventing a completely erroneous physics concept for no reason? A misnomer and a complete fabrication are two different things, and the latter is worse.

[Batman]

I suspect that'd be because a lot of people DON'T consider it a physical concept to begin with, as opposed to a merely descriptive term. Matter has a 'mass shadow' that extends way past its material boundaries the same way an object that blocks light can have a shadow extending past its physical dimensions. Not everybody thinks like a physicist.

[Ender]

I suspect that'd be because a lot of people DON'T consider it a physical concept to begin with, as opposed to a merely descriptive term. Matter has a 'mass shadow' that extends way past its material boundaries the same way an object that blocks light can have a shadow extending past its physical dimensions. Not everybody thinks like a physicist.

No, most people think gravity is like light from a lightbulb, that blocking it will make you just float there.

[Batman]

I suspect that'd be because a lot of people DON'T consider it a physical concept to begin with, as opposed to a merely descriptive term. Matter has a 'mass shadow' that extends way past its material boundaries the same way an object that blocks light can have a shadow extending past its physical dimensions. Not everybody thinks like a physicist.

No, most people think gravity is like light from a lightbulb, that blocking it will make you just float there.

While I'm very much afraid you are right that was not QUITE what I was trying to get across.

[Darth Wong]

I suspect that'd be because a lot of people DON'T consider it a physical concept to begin with, as opposed to a merely descriptive term. Matter has a 'mass shadow' that extends way past its material boundaries the same way an object that blocks light can have a shadow extending past its physical dimensions. Not everybody thinks like a physicist.

That's nonsense. Laypeople don't even try to grasp how gravity works at all. It's enough for them to know what goes up comes down. The minute someone tries to concoct analogies for how gravity works on a conceptual level, he's obviously enough of an enthusiast that he should be learning something meaningful, not retarded nonsense like "mass shadow".