ISD vs cloaked mines

[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.

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".

The operative phrase being 'should'. As opposed to 'did' or 'will'.

[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".

The operative phrase being 'should'. As opposed to 'did' or 'will'.

And how many people do you know who invented some completely imaginary "mass shadow" concept in real-life in order to explain gravity to themselves?

PS. I don't even know why I'm humouring this "it's just a colloquialism" idiocy of yours anyway. The moron EU writers put it into narrative tech descriptions, which are NOT excused by this tortured rationalization.

[Batman]

None, though why that would be relevant escapes me. I already ADMITTED it makes no real-world sense.
And you got to be kidding me. The narrative tech descriptions mean they use the term in-universe, nothing more.

[Darth Wong]

None, though why that would be relevant escapes me. I already ADMITTED it makes no real-world sense.

Then why do you think it makes sense in the SW world? Special pleading fallacy?

Why do you think it makes sense for those people to invent "slang" terms for meaningless and completely unnecessary pseudoscience in order to explain things that are intuitively obvious, like "don't ram into anything"? You have never been able to answer this, except to repeatedly bleat that you think it makes sense anyway. I've repeatedly pointed out that nobody would feel any need to create this "colloquialism" because "don't ram into anything" works just fine.

And you got to be kidding me. The narrative tech descriptions mean they use the term in-universe, nothing more.

Since when is the author's narrative just character dialogue spoken by the narrator?

[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.

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.

I'm sorry, but what is the difference you're seeing there?

The Big Bang wasn't Big under present theories involving a singularity, and there was no Bang because there was no air outside the universe for some manner of shockwave to travel through. Big Bang however encapusalutes the basic idea in a succulent format.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mass Shadow showed up with Gravity Well Projectors, making it clear it was a gravity interaction. Is it really so absurd to have it shortened like that instead of some convoluted unnecessarily long line about the gravity field interaction? This is Star Wars, not Star Trek afterall.

[FOG3]

Furthermore Mass Shadow has the extra benefit from a Human Factors standpoint that your target audience recognizes you're talking about the Hyperdrive right that instant instead of a few paragraphs and minutes later.

[Darth Wong]

The Big Bang wasn't Big under present theories involving a singularity, and there was no Bang because there was no air outside the universe for some manner of shockwave to travel through. Big Bang however encapusalutes the basic idea in a succulent format.

Big Bang is a name which evokes the concept, regardless of whether your hyper-literal interpretation is accurate. "Mass shadow" is not.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mass Shadow showed up with Gravity Well Projectors, making it clear it was a gravity interaction. Is it really so absurd to have it shortened like that instead of some convoluted unnecessarily long line about the gravity field interaction? This is Star Wars, not Star Trek afterall.

Since when is "mass shadow" simpler than "gravity", which everyone already knows and understands at least as well as this made-up concept?

[FOG3]

It's not a matter of simple in concept it's a matter of applied Hick's Law in Human Factors Engineering. The law that relates reaction time to number of responses to a stimulus.

If somebody says "Mass Shadow" in context it automatically triggers recognition the Hyperdrive has issues. One path, and thus a very rapid response time. On a ship with artificial gravity in a society with the ability to artificially generate gravity otherwise, a statement about gravity can mean a lot of things that takes extra time to sort out in compliance with Hick's Law. In the context of hyperspace how does Mass Shadow not evoke the concept it's intended to?

[Ender]

It's not a matter of simple in concept it's a matter of applied Hick's Law in Human Factors Engineering. The law that relates reaction time to number of responses to a stimulus.

If somebody says "Mass Shadow" in context it automatically triggers recognition the Hyperdrive has issues. One path, and thus a very rapid response time. On a ship with artificial gravity in a society with the ability to artificially generate gravity otherwise, a statement about gravity can mean a lot of things that takes extra time to sort out in compliance with Hick's Law. In the context of hyperspace how does Mass Shadow not evoke the concept it's intended to?

Did bullshitting that hard make you sweat?

[Darth Wong]

It's not a matter of simple in concept it's a matter of applied Hick's Law in Human Factors Engineering. The law that relates reaction time to number of responses to a stimulus.

If somebody says "Mass Shadow" in context it automatically triggers recognition the Hyperdrive has issues. One path, and thus a very rapid response time. On a ship with artificial gravity in a society with the ability to artificially generate gravity otherwise, a statement about gravity can mean a lot of things that takes extra time to sort out in compliance with Hick's Law. In the context of hyperspace how does Mass Shadow not evoke the concept it's intended to?

If you intend to "win" by simply continuing to post your bullshit until I get bored and give up, I suspect you will "win" this one. However, I expect most readers to be intelligent enough to realize that you're full of shit, and that you don't need some silly-ass made-up concept like "mass shadow" to realize that if there's a big object ahead of you, you have a problem.

[Terralthra]

It's not a matter of simple in concept it's a matter of applied Hick's Law in Human Factors Engineering. The law that relates reaction time to number of responses to a stimulus.

If somebody says "Mass Shadow" in context it automatically triggers recognition the Hyperdrive has issues. One path, and thus a very rapid response time. On a ship with artificial gravity in a society with the ability to artificially generate gravity otherwise, a statement about gravity can mean a lot of things that takes extra time to sort out in compliance with Hick's Law. In the context of hyperspace how does Mass Shadow not evoke the concept it's intended to?

If you intend to "win" by simply continuing to post your bullshit until I get bored and give up, I suspect you will "win" this one. However, I expect most readers to be intelligent enough to realize that you're full of shit, and that you don't need some silly-ass made-up concept like "mass shadow" to realize that if there's a big object ahead of you, you have a problem.

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that "mass shadow" was used in the EU specifically to refer to the Interdictor cruiser's generators. They projected the illusion of a mass the size of a large-planet or so that would bring a ship out of hyperspace, but (obviously) the mess did not exist, and I don't recall anything in the texts indicating that the Interdictor generated anything like the actual gravity of that illusory planet (no reports of ships falling towards the cruiser like they would towards a gas giant, etc.)

In such a case, where the illusion of a mass is being projected, but there is no actual mass, the term "mass shadow" doesn't seem that unreasonable. Obviously, applying it to an actual mass is stupid, and if the Interdictor generates an actual gravity well which affects space-time in the vicinity, not just pulling ships from hyperspace, then it needn't be applied there either.

[Patrick Ogaard]

The Star Wars Sourcebook, copyright West End Games 1987:

The hyperdrive is a miracle of advanced technology. Powered by incredibly efficient fusion generators, hyperdrive engines hurly ships into hyperspace, a dimension of space-time that can be entered only at faster-than-light speeds. The theories and realities of hyperspace travel are understood by few but highly-trained hyperspace technicians in the astrophysics communities, and even they admit that certain aspects remain a mystery.

Certain things are clear, though. Hyperspace is coterminous with realspace: each point in realspace is associated with a unique point in hyperspace, and adjacent points in realpsace are adjacent in hypespace. In other words, if you travel “north” in realspace then jump to hyperspace, you’ll be heading “north” in hyperspace as well. Objects in realspace have a “shadow” in hyperspace. That is, there is a star (or star-like object) in hyperspace at the same location as it occupies in realspace, and this is a danger to those traveling in hyperspace.

Star Wars Imperial Sourcebook, copyright West End Games 1989:

With this device, the Hyperspace Orbiting Scanner, Imperial Intelligence has been able to tap into the computer networks on more than 470,000 worlds, and the number is increasing every day.

Left in hyperspace orbit around a planet, the HOS sensors do not pick up signals from the computer directly. They monitor the hyperspace shadows left by streaking particles inside a computer.

Careful and systematic matching of the shadows of known computer languages to the shadows produced by the target system have produced data which is better than 78 percent reliable.
…

An HOS is placed and serviced by modified PDVs. PDVs enter hyperspace and then cycle through various triangulations on possible positions of the HOS (whose hyperspace shadow is lost against the shadow of the planet and other, larger space vehicles) until the orbiter is located. This process can take hours. It would be impossible if the searching craft did not already have an idea of where the HOS was. The PDV then links with the HOS in orbit.

…

The gravity well generator works on a simple principle. When focused, it sends out waves of energy that disrupt mass lines in space, thereby simulating the presence of a large stellar body such as an asteroid or planetoid. The presence of so much mass prevents ships in the area from engaging their hyperdrives, and it also drops ships already in hyperspace back into realspace.
…
These Heavy Cruisers also perform as ambush vessels, hiding along a known hyperspace lane and projecting gravity fields that produce mass shadows. Any ships traveling along the hyper route must slip back into realspace when confronted with gravity projections. Once in realspace, other Imperial vessels can engage them in direct combat or board them for customs inspections.

As far as I can tell, unless someone finds an older reference, everything about mass shadows is ultimately derived from (usually labored technobabble) elaborations on those quotes.

[Dark Flame]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that "mass shadow" was used in the EU specifically to refer to the Interdictor cruiser's generators. They projected the illusion of a mass the size of a large-planet or so that would bring a ship out of hyperspace, but (obviously) the mess did not exist, and I don't recall anything in the texts indicating that the Interdictor generated anything like the actual gravity of that illusory planet (no reports of ships falling towards the cruiser like they would towards a gas giant, etc.)

In such a case, where the illusion of a mass is being projected, but there is no actual mass, the term "mass shadow" doesn't seem that unreasonable. Obviously, applying it to an actual mass is stupid, and if the Interdictor generates an actual gravity well which affects space-time in the vicinity, not just pulling ships from hyperspace, then it needn't be applied there either.

In Dark Tide at least one Interdictor focused it's gravity wells on Ithor which caused the apparent gravity of Ithor to increase and it pulled a YV ship back down the gravity well and into the atmosphere.

I'm not entirely sure if this refutes or agrees or does anything at all to your point, but there it is.

[starslayer]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that "mass shadow" was used in the EU specifically to refer to the Interdictor cruiser's generators. They projected the illusion of a mass the size of a large-planet or so that would bring a ship out of hyperspace, but (obviously) the mess did not exist, and I don't recall anything in the texts indicating that the Interdictor generated anything like the actual gravity of that illusory planet (no reports of ships falling towards the cruiser like they would towards a gas giant, etc.)

In such a case, where the illusion of a mass is being projected, but there is no actual mass, the term "mass shadow" doesn't seem that unreasonable. Obviously, applying it to an actual mass is stupid, and if the Interdictor generates an actual gravity well which affects space-time in the vicinity, not just pulling ships from hyperspace, then it needn't be applied there either.

In one case in the EU (I can't remember for the life of me where it was though), an Interdictor commanded by Admiral Rogriss (some name like that, anyways) was able to "reverse the gravity projectors" or some such bullshit and push itself away from a couple of Star Destroyers that were too close for comfort. So yes, Interdictors do generate more than an illusion of gravity. I would think that the normal maneuvering of Star Wars craft would simply overwhelm most local gravitational effects. In any case, the term "mass shadow" becomes utterly unnecessary as has been pointed out in this thread.

[Darth Wong]

As far as I can tell, unless someone finds an older reference, everything about mass shadows is ultimately derived from (usually labored technobabble) elaborations on those quotes.

In other words, that "mass shadow" idiocy was intended from day one as an actual technical reference. So much for the "colloquialism" excuse. I wonder what other foul bullshit the EU apologists will cook up for the brain-dead garbage which passes for literature in their world.