How does the new Star Wars Canon affect the debate?

[the atom]

As most of you are probably aware at this point, Star Wars canon was recently subjected to an overhaul, wherein the hierarchy was (or will be) abolished, and the G-T-C system that has defined the premise of the debate for the last decade or so is now relegated to a classification role.

In your mind, does this change the outcome of the debate? Do you still hold the same opinion as you have in the past, or is this a brand new gameboard?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well, as I recall most of the major evidence on the main site was taken directly from the films, and since they're still cannon I doubt it affects it very much.

[RogueIce]

200 gigatons is on the level of G canon. So there.

As a practical matter? You know people will still bitch. There are so many inconsistences in the festering pile of shit that is the majority of the EU, that even if it's all been brought up to the same level (and there is an interpretation that the new "hierarchy-less" method is only going to take affect "going forward" ie: after Episode VII and whatever else they do) that means nothing in terms of fixing the mess. So there will still be canon arguments and the like, chiefly centered around whether or not a particular piece of evidence supports your position regarding the debate.

[Adam Reynolds]

Regardless of what happens to canon both ANH and AOTC will remain canon. As a result the two best examples of Wars firepower will stay present. The Death Star and seismic charges show the superiority of Wars tech. At one point on this forum Alyeska said that watching the asteroids being obliterated led him to realize that Trek had lost for good, and this was from a serious Trekkie. As long as the two high end numbers for weapons exist, nothing else matters.

The other important criteria of speed is also well enough established by the movies that it doesn't really matter what the EU says either way. Industrial capacity is also well established by the Death Star. Anything beyond that isn't relevant enough to really matter. Whatever the EU says one can't ignore high end numbers just because low end numbers also exist.

[Borgholio]

It's always been with most Sci-Fi that Movies + TV shows trump everything else, even "official" literature such as technical manuals. So we see the Death Star shattering planets through brute force in Episode 4...that's not going to change even if one of the EU novels directly contradicts it.

[WATCH-MAN]

It's always been with most Sci-Fi that Movies + TV shows trump everything else, even "official" literature such as technical manuals. So we see the Death Star shattering planets through brute force in Episode 4...that's not going to change even if one of the EU novels directly contradicts it.

Where did you see, that the Death Star shattered planets through brute force in Episode 4?
I saw only a beam fired from the Death Star, hitting a later exlpoding planet.
I couldn't gather enough information by watching that scene to exclude brute force nor any other mechanism (e.g. chain reaction or hyper-space-reaction).

[Lord Revan]

Well while it didn't show anything that excludes non-brute force explanations, it also didn't show anything that demands a non-brute force explanation and since brute force explanation is the simplest valid explanation avaible it stands until you evidence that suggest it to be non-valid.

by the same token reason phasers aren't brute force "heat beams" is that their characteristics are inconsistent with how "heat beam" would work, thus the brute force explanation isn't valid anymore, therefore you need a non-brute force explanation. However for the most part Photon torpedoes work like normal explosives, therefore there's no need to assume they're anything else then brute force explosives.

[WATCH-MAN]

[...] since brute force explanation is the simplest valid explanation avaible [...]

I contest this premise.

One could argue as well that, because to generate as much energy as is needed to destroy a planet is extremly challenging - and no plausible way to generate so much energy is known, it seems far more plausible that another mechanism - a mechanism that doesn't need as much energy - was used to destroy the planet.

One could argue as well, that to say the Death Star uses brute force to destroy the planet only postpones the problem. The question remains, from where it gets the energy to power up weapons that are able to destroy a planet with brute force.

Insofar the explanation "brute force" has as many unknown variables as an unkown meachnism.

[Eternal_Freedom]

There's no plausible way to have non-spin-induced artificial gravity, or FTL travel, or FTL communications. Demanding a non-brute-force solution tot he Death Star because "there's no way to generate that much power" is bullshit. It's sci-fi technology, you assume it works as advertised. Since the opening crawl (IIRC) states the station has "enough power to destroy a planet" we assume t used a brute-force method unless we see evidence tot he contrary. We don't see any such evidence, therefore brute-force is our best guess.

[WATCH-MAN]

There's no plausible way to have non-spin-induced artificial gravity, or FTL travel, or FTL communications. [...] It's sci-fi technology, you assume it works as advertised.

Exactly. That's why it is not implausible to assume a sci-fi-mechanism.

Demanding a non-brute-force solution tot he Death Star because "there's no way to generate that much power" is bullshit.

Is it?

It's sci-fi technology, you assume it works as advertised. Since the opening crawl (IIRC) states the station has "enough power to destroy a planet" we assume t used a brute-force method unless we see evidence tot he contrary.

There is no reason to take the opening scrawl literally as there is no evidence that it is meant literally.

• • • • • • Episode IV
            A NEW HOPE
            
            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....

It is doubtful that Rebel spaceships have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. Spaceships are inanimate objects. The rebels or the crews of the spaceships - using these spaceships - may have won their first victory.

And the Death Star should have enough power to destroy planets and not only a planet.

And the plans surely are not able to save their people and restore freedom to the galaxy. They are inanimate objects as well. Princess Leia may use the data of the plans to save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy.

As we can't take that opening scrawl literally, the phrase "enough power to destroy an entire planet" is a non sequitor as it can be used as well when a non brute force mechanism is meant.

[Esquire]

I see what you're trying to do, and I respect a good sophistry as much as the next guy, but it really doesn't work that way - it is an accepted English-language shorthand to refer to ships as actors, as in "the Enterprise defeated a Klingon ship over Random Planet No. 97," or "HMS Beagle sailed to the Galapagos to further the cause of science." Similarly for the plans restoring freedom; this is basic literacy.

The statement that the Death Star has enough power to destroy a planet does not invalidate the idea that it might have enough power to destroy multiple planets. "This is A" does not mean "this is not b" unless it has already been established that "all as are not b."

At best, you've shown that there's no particular reason why the opening crawl should be taken as having anything to say about the mechanism by which the Death Star destroys planets, which is perfectly fine. The reason we assume that it works through brute force, as opposed to some pseudoscientific trick, is that such a trick would add another impossibility or three on top of the massively implausible power generation required. Even if you can shave off an order of magnitude or two because of subspace quantum frequencies or some such, that still leaves quite a few hundred times more power than we can ever hope to generate, and also you need new laws of physics. It's simpler to leave it at brute force unless there's a good reason we shouldn't.

No, "because an impossible thing seems impossible" is not a good reason.

[Eternal_Freedom]

There's no plausible way to have non-spin-induced artificial gravity, or FTL travel, or FTL communications. [...] It's sci-fi technology, you assume it works as advertised.

Exactly. That's why it is not implausible to assume a sci-fi-mechanism.

Which we already do by assuming they can generate enough power. It is simpler to assume they generate enough power than to assume they generate a lesser amoun of power and create some chain-reaction or whatever.

]quote]

Demanding a non-brute-force solution to the Death Star because "there's no way to generate that much power" is bullshit.

Is it?[/quote]

Yes, for the reasons I have given. You're adding complexity to the assumption which is always a bad thing.

It's sci-fi technology, you assume it works as advertised. Since the opening crawl (IIRC) states the station has "enough power to destroy a planet" we assume t used a brute-force method unless we see evidence tot he contrary.

There is no reason to take the opening scrawl literally as there is no evidence that it is meant literally.

• • • • • • Episode IV
            A NEW HOPE
            
            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....

It is doubtful that Rebel spaceships have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. Spaceships are inanimate objects. The rebels or the crews of the spaceships - using these spaceships - may have won their first victory.

And the Death Star should have enough power to destroy planets and not only a planet.

And the plans surely are not able to save their people and restore freedom to the galaxy. They are inanimate objects as well. Princess Leia may use the data of the plans to save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy.

As we can't take that opening scrawl literally, the phrase "enough power to destroy an entire planet" is a non sequitor as it can be used as well when a non brute force mechanism is meant.

[/quote]

My god you're nit-picky. The crawl states the DS has enough power to destroy a planet. We then see said Death Star blast a planet to very small pieces with one shot and an immediate effect. We have no visual evidence to the contrary to suggest anything other than a brute-force method, we have no dialogue to suggest a non-brute-force method. Therefore, since a brute-force approach is the simplest assumption to make, with the fewest unknowns, variables and question marks, we assume that until someone pops up with actual evidence tot he contrary. You do know how Occams's Razor works right?

Now, if someone ins Episode VII pops up and states that the Death Star used a chain reaction, that makes it different. But that hasn't happenned yet, so we're back to "assume brute force method."

If we are limiting ourselves to just the films, I suppose you would make the claim that this self-same alternative explanation was also responsible for vaping Rebel capital ships over Endor, with precisely the same kind of visual effect as a) Alderaan blowing up and b) other, smaller ships being hit and blasted by turbolaser weapons.

[WATCH-MAN]

...

As English is not my first language, I can only assume that "being powerful enough to destroy something" is an accepted English-language shorthand too.

But the point I was trying to drive home was that the opening scrawl can not be taken literally - and - as you have noted - doesn't say anything about the mechanism.

The question is if it is true that a pseudoscientific trick would add another impossibility or three on top of the massively implausible power generation required; that it is shaving off only an order of magnitude or two.

I think that this is a claim you can't prove or demonstrate it's plausibility.

If Disney has nothing more than the movie, it is free to invent any pseudoscientific mechanism - even such that do not require massively implausible power generation (e.g. chain reaction, hyper-space-reaction or zero-point-reaction).

And it is free to decide that it is brute force.

As I am seeing it, the movie does not give any answers in this question.

[Lord Revan]

basically a non-brute force method does nothing but add complexity without adding anything useful and to add to what Esquire said the DS already needs considerable power to move at the sub light speeds it does.

as there being no plausible way to generate that much power, well there's no plausible way to break the light speed barrier or generate artificial gravity either, yet we accept these and move on.

Only times you should consider a technobabble explanation is when it's impossible to match the shown results with non-technobabble solutions, like with phasers.

[WATCH-MAN]

...

You failed to show why I have to take the scrawl literally.

I know what it reads.

The question still is what it means.

Does it really mean that the Death Star is generating enough power to destroy a planet by brute force?

Or does it mean that the Death Star has the ability to destroy a planet - by whatever mechanism (brute force or a pseudoscientific mechanism)?

[WATCH-MAN]

basically a non-brute force method does nothing but add complexity without adding anything useful

You have failed to show why it adds more complexity than the brute force method that adds the problem of power generation. In both arguments you have basically the same problem: Either you are needing a pseudoscientific method to generate power or you are needing a pseudoscientific trick to destroy the planet without needing so much power that can only be generated with a pseudoscientific method to generate so much power.

and to add to what Esquire said the DS already needs considerable power to move at the sub light speeds it does.

which can be explained with other technobabble (e.g. mass lighting effect - which makes even sense insofar as that neither DS I nor DS II caused any tectonic or tidal effects).

as there being no plausible way to generate that much power, well there's no plausible way to break the light speed barrier or generate artificial gravity either, yet we accept these and move on.

The problem is that the movies are showing that the light speed barrier is broken or artificial gravity generated.
It does not show that so much power is generated.

Only times you should consider a technobabble explanation is when it's impossible to match the shown results with non-technobabble solutions, like with phasers.

Try to convince Disney.

I see nothing in the movies that hinders them to invent a pseudoscientific mechanism - or confirm the brute-force method - without contradicting what was already established in the movies.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You are absolutely right. As I said, Disney could have a character in Episode VII explain that it was a non-brute-force method. That would be that.

However, this is the part you aren't understanding:

1. We have observations of the Death Star blasting a planet to rubble
2. As far as we know, it is impossible to generate that much power
3. As far as we know, it is also impossible to create a chain-reaction effect that destroys a planet in a way that is consistent with he observations (namely, big green beam hits planet, planet goes boom).

So our options are as follows are as follows:

Unknown power generation ---> planet destroying weapon

Or:

Unknown power generation + Unknown chain-reaction/subspace/hyperspace effect ---> planet destroying weapon.

The first option contains the fewest unknowns, therefore, logically it is the most likely outcome, barring any evidence to the contrary.

As for taking the opening scrawl literally, it doesnt really matter how you interpret it, since we already know the Death Star can destroy a planet. If we take it literally, then perfect, it provides evidence for our brute-force option. If we don't interpret it literally, fine, it does nothing to disqualify the brute-force option.

As for throwing in that specualtion about mass-lightening stuff, sigh, you're just adding more unknowns to the equation, thus makign it a less probable outcome.

Using that same logic, I could assert that the Death Star only worked because Vader was aboard, using his Force powers to make the weapon work and the station move. There is nothing on-screen to contradict it, and we have Vader's comment about "destroying a planet is nothing compared to the Force." But, just like the chain-reaction thing, or the mass-lightening, it adds another unknown factor. Thus, it is not a good hypothesis.

[Esquire]

Let's try this again:

Achieving impossible effects through an impossible trick is not less improbable than doing it through brute force. It is, in fact, more improbable, because a trick-based Death Star would need not only its planet-busting trick but a similarly impossible amount of power, since shaving several orders of magnitude off the amount of energy required to destroy a planet would still leave that amount ludicrously large, and moving such a huge space station at all is a non-trivial problem. There is no particular reason to pay any attention to the opening crawl, because, yes, it cannot be taken literally due to the limitations of language, but we don't get the idea that the Death Star destroys planets from the opening crawl - we get it from watching the Death Star destroy a planet.

It is a violation of the principle of simplicity, or Occam's razor, to insert extra complexities where they are not required. Therefore, logically, it is silly to assume that the Death Star destroys planets with a trick when such a trick would complicate the hypothesis.

As an aside, I would suggest not making semantics arguments in a language you are not an expert in. I try not to, and so far it's served me well as a general principle.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As an aside, I would suggest not making semantics arguments in a language you are not an expert in.

^This. So very true.

[Borgholio]

You failed to show why I have to take the scrawl literally.

You failed to take it literally. You're adding words and complexity where none exists.

I know what it reads.

No you don't.

The question still is what it means.

There is no question if you read the damn thing.

Does it really mean that the Death Star is generating enough power to destroy a planet by brute force?

It DOES say is has enough power to destroy a planet, yes? Does it mention anything about a chain reaction or nuclear disruption force, or anything else?

Or does it mean that the Death Star has the ability to destroy a planet - by whatever mechanism (brute force or a pseudoscientific mechanism)?

Well obviously the Death Star has a mechanism for destroying a planet. That mechanism cannot be assumed to be anything other than brute force because there's no evidence to back up that claim.

[the atom]

Regardless of what happens to canon both ANH and AOTC will remain canon. As a result the two best examples of Wars firepower will stay present. The Death Star and seismic charges show the superiority of Wars tech. At one point on this forum Alyeska said that watching the asteroids being obliterated led him to realize that Trek had lost for good, and this was from a serious Trekkie. As long as the two high end numbers for weapons exist, nothing else matters.

That's nonsensical. If the movies are now on equal footing with everything else then that means those two high end numbers are on the same footing with all the other numbers.

[Silver Jedi]

Regardless of what happens to canon both ANH and AOTC will remain canon. As a result the two best examples of Wars firepower will stay present. The Death Star and seismic charges show the superiority of Wars tech. At one point on this forum Alyeska said that watching the asteroids being obliterated led him to realize that Trek had lost for good, and this was from a serious Trekkie. As long as the two high end numbers for weapons exist, nothing else matters.

That's nonsensical. If the movies are now on equal footing with everything else then that means those two high end numbers are on the same footing with all the other numbers.

So? It's not an either/or thing. The existence of lower power weapons in SW does not preclude or even conflict with the existence high power weapons. Would you look at a 9mm Handgun and conclude that howitzers are a myth?

[Batman]

No. However, the 'equal footing' thing could become a problem when the EU directly contradicts the movies, like the size of Executor. If 'equal footing' means all of the EU has the same weight as the movies even for the stuff already existing that would constitute something of a conundrum. Executor can be either 8 or 19+ kilometres long. The alphabet canon, flawed as it was, at least gave us the the out of 'the movies say x, if you disagree sucks to be you'. All canon being equal means that on top of having to find a way to make all the inconsistencies that already happened on the various levels of canon work, now we'd have to make it all fit together.Which wasn't feasible when we had layered canon that at least let us discard lower level stuff for contradicting higher level sources.

[bilateralrope]

Am I the only one who thinks 'equal footing' makes it sound like Disney want to claim they have a canon policy without any of the expense of actually having one ?

[the atom]

Regardless of what happens to canon both ANH and AOTC will remain canon. As a result the two best examples of Wars firepower will stay present. The Death Star and seismic charges show the superiority of Wars tech. At one point on this forum Alyeska said that watching the asteroids being obliterated led him to realize that Trek had lost for good, and this was from a serious Trekkie. As long as the two high end numbers for weapons exist, nothing else matters.

That's nonsensical. If the movies are now on equal footing with everything else then that means those two high end numbers are on the same footing with all the other numbers.

So? It's not an either/or thing. The existence of lower power weapons in SW does not preclude or even conflict with the existence high power weapons. Would you look at a 9mm Handgun and conclude that howitzers are a myth?

'Variable yield' is not a get out of jail free card for unfounded assertions any more then it is for Star Trek. I'm not arguing that it has to be an either or situation, but I think it is fair to point out that a particular showing does not suddenly become authoritative simply because it's the one you happen to like the most.