Mike and Durandal dealt with this already.ClaysGhost wrote: Yes, it would take a lot. At 1 km, a 5m long TIE would subtend about 0.29 degrees. To significantly distort the image you are looking at about 10^38 J in gravitational field energy. 0.29 degrees may not sound like much but light is very, very difficult to bend without matter. A global distortion (a "shear") such as you are talking about should be easy to spot in the films - aspect ratios of objects should change. Further, accepting this kind of jamming means that the scaling of anything seen in a space battle in the films would become suspect.
Both Mad and Mike dealt with this. We know it occurs, thats all we need concern ourselves with. You're needlessly complicating the issue and ignoring the whole point of "Suspension of disbelief" in sci-fi analysis.Bad. That doesn't make sense. The eyeball is a passive sensor. The eyeball should be jammed. If the jamming is against computer equipment, why could Vader's ship do image processing? Why was R2-D2 working? Why were the Rebel's targetting systems working in the trench?
Nooo.. we just know that they dont neccesarily generate the extraordianrily high power levels that you claim (even if we assume your figures are accurate.) Mike pointed this out already.So they have DS-like power generation abilities, then.
BTW, if one were to read the AOTC ICS, one might note that gravitic devices appear to utilize "subnuclear knots of space-time" that are pre-produced as some sort of apparently "consumable" commodity. This explanation appears to be no less plasubile than anything else.
Again, you appear to be ignoring the whole point of "suspension of disbelief" in sci fi analysis. One msut wonder why you even bother debating it. Observing the effects of technology is more important than obsessing over how exactly it achieves the effect (which often needlessly complicates matters, and leads to technobabble.)Fields confined to volumes are nonsense without media. It's the same problem as with the sharp-edged shield (ST) and the plasma-sword in magnetic field intepretation of lightsabres (SW). Discontinuities are unphysical. Aside from that, the simple analysis I did made no assumptions about the nature of the gravitational field, just the coupling constant and the parameters of the object it was supposed to interdict.
Yes, why not? Judging by what we observe, thats as plasubile an explanation as them being gunners.In the middle of combat? You consider that likely?
And how can you tell that?They were tracking the weapon by hand.
By your logic, anything that employs gravitic technology must have DS-level power outputs. I guess this means any vessel in SW that bears a tractor beam must also be able to destroy planets?Yes. The calculation I made depends only on the results you want (an impaired X-wing) and the strength of the gravitational coupling constant, something that isn't amenable to change. If fighters mount these capabilities, then they have this level of power generation. But a reduction in capabilities by three orders of magnitude would still not make the power requirements sane.
Or are you proposing we should pretend tractor beams don't really exist in Star Wars?
They only closed to "point blank range" in the later stages of the battle, you may recall. And the whole reason they closed to that range was to prevent their ships getting killed by the superlaser, despite the fact that Ackbar knew that at such close ranges, their chances of surviving the Imperial fleet would be miniscule.I can't remember, but I assume it's a simple product of there being more capital ships that we see engaged in ROTJ than ANH, so we see more successful kills. But those ships decided that fighting at what looks like ~ few tens of metres range would be sensible, so if the jamming is effective enough to hide a ~km long SD at ranges outside that, it should be easily visible.
You've lost me in that blathering about "visibility" and " jamming", though. As Mike said, if they get close enough for sensors to be effective, then they're already within visual range anyhow. Was that comment supposed to have some particular relevance?
Because such an approach would amke them easy prey for the guns, both by virtue of their linear velocity, and approach angle (every gun on the surface of the Death Star would have a clear line of sight on the ships.)Incidentally, why didn't they approach the exhaust port from above in ANH? The trench was heavily fortified, and there's plenty of shots showing X-wings not too far above the surface that aren't being engaged with (visible) TLs. They could dive on it.
Why? We know and can measure the effects, so why should we obsess over the exact mechanisms by which it does so? Are you going to demand that FTL travel and turbolaser operations be spelled out in detail next?Provide alternative mechanisms, and I will consider them. So far, all I have is the magic eyeball
Mike already went over this repeatedly. IT IS A Red Herring, and you oversimplify the matter by assuming that SW materials negate the problem. I find it interesting how incessantly you harp on the difficulties of gravity control, yet are apparently willing to gloss over the control systems issue by citing SW materials as the explanation.SW materials are supposed to be a factor of what, more than a thousand times more mechanically desirable than conventional steel? Speed means that up to a point, range is irrelevant. And I don't think you're comparing like with like. If the TL truly is a lightspeed weapon capable of long-range attacks, it must be focussed and highly directional. There is no analogue of the hot gas propelling the shell out of the battleship turret and exerting radial stress on the barrel at the same time. Unless you propose that there is significant transverse radiation from the TL beam (inefficient) or that the tracer carries quite a lot of energy?
Again you decide to completely ignore the hardware aspect of it and assume that the only relevant factor to accuracy is the software/targeting aspect. Beyond that, you needlessly attempt to complicate the issue by requiring that the mechanisms be explicitly defined in order to be acceptable (while at the same time airily dismissing the control system concerns as minor.)It's worked for SW up to now, hasn't it? There is NO reason why a human can adapt to guns running like treacle after every shot but a decent computer of SW's level cannot. They can produce neurotic droids but they can't produce a targetting system superior to a human?
Aside fromt he TIE fighters, what do you exactly expect starfighters to do against the Death Star, anyhow? Its really too big for any of their weapons to harm substantially, except in insanely high numbers.I suggested back a few posts that if SW TL weapons were too powerful and slow to engage fighters, they should produce lighter weapons that can engage fighters effectively. Surely the DS having no anti-fighter capability is bizarre, if lighter TL weapons could do this.
Mike already dealt with this.SW materials should easily absorb kN-level forces with minimal distortion, such as could be expected from a lightspeed weapon operating with TJ-level output you gave earlier. Given the famous recoil bracing quote that gets brought out in connection with large TLs, I doubt materials are a problem. If SW weapons cannot consistently land fire on target at any significant range because the barrel deforms, I think that has certain implications for vs. debates, don't you?
That woiuld actually be quite good for a weapon designed to engage vessels hundreds of meters in length or more.The turrets landed, what, two shots on Luke during Yavin? How much worse than that can you get?
