How does the new Star Wars Canon affect the debate?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Stubborn pride most likely in my case.

[Borgholio]

source?

The most obvious example:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Deflector_shield

When shields were "up," or energized at a high level, most matter or energy that came into contact with the shields was harmlessly deflected away.

I do want more. In fact I want to know if these were made off the Special Editions or the Orignal editions because as we saw there are some discrepncies.

In the Episode 5 scene where the ISD is firing at asteroids, there are no changes made between the OE and SE. You should know this if you really watched the movies. It's clear that you really don't know your canon as well as someone should if they're going to be debating on this board about it.

How does he know what the asteroids are made of?

We've known what asteroids are made of for a century now.

I'll be honest i'm a little confused at what you want me to calculate. G-force or GRAVITAIONAL FORCE is the force of gravity felt as you accelerate.

G-force is NOT gravitational force. It is the force that is applied to an object when confronted with a change in velocity. It is compared to gravitational force for convenience. An increase in G-force corresponds with an increase in WEIGHT, not MASS. Mass never changes, WEIGHT does. When calculating how much stress an object is put under when performing a course change, the G-forces will increase based on the severity of change of velocity, not the mass.

Seriously this is very basic shit, and you think you have the credentials to correct us on stuff you should have learned in high school?

Now centripetal force is what I think you mean.

No, I don't think the proton torps were trying to orbit the death star.

[Borgholio]

Why are you guys arguing with this idiot? All he does is quote Wikipedia, which last time I checked, does not count as a credible debate source on this forum.

Because I enjoy clubbing baby seals?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Stubborn pride most likely in my case.

Because I enjoy clubbing baby seals?

I was thinking that, but I decided that "stubborn pride" sounded less psychotic

[Borgholio]

Stubborn pride most likely in my case.

Because I enjoy clubbing baby seals?

I was thinking that, but I decided that "stubborn pride" sounded less psychotic

I dunno, after our recent seal thread in the other topic...

[Eternal_Freedom]

I dunno, after our recent seal thread in the other topic...

Something I avoided for reasons of trying to be less psychotic My sanity is tenuous enough as it is.

[malguslover]

Why are you guys arguing with this idiot? All he does is quote Wikipedia, which last time I checked, does not count as a credible debate source on this forum.

I used wikipedia because that's what Borgholio did. I figured if he is using as a source it must be trusted. I mean i only used it for defnitions

But that's fine here are links to other sources that back up all the things i used Wikipedia for.

I'm assuming Nasa and dictionaries are ok for definitions of scientific terms.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/combst1.html

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/plasma

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/t ... xred_3.php

Seeing as that guy kept getting basic scientific terms wrong I figured wikipedia was on his level of understanding.

[malguslover]

I am referring to elements in the physical, scientific sense. As in, the ~118 known varieties of atoms, differentiated by atomic number. Not "a component of a reaction." Since you claim to be "correcting our misconceptions of science" you should know this.

ummm elements are components of reactions.... seroiulsy i'm finding it very hard that you even graduated high school at this point let alone have a degree in astronomy. Unless you meant to say Astrology and you just got confused because that would explain a lot.

He knows what asteroids are made of based on analysis of real-world asteroids. This allows us to make estimates based on average composition and density.

Well done, Iron doesn't burn in a vacuum. But none of us ever said it did. It glows as heat is disipated as light.

So he thinks that an asteroid in our galaxy is the same as a the asteroid in a galaxy far far away a long time ago?

Just so we are clear this is what i am assuming he thought
http://www.universetoday.com/37425/what ... s-made-of/

The metallic asteroids are composed of up to 80% iron and 20% a mixture of nickel, iridium, palladium, platinum, gold, and other precious metals. There are those few that are made up of half silicate and half metallic.

So 80% iron. You agree with this? He is saying the asteroids in Star Wars are 80% iron.

and I agree that iron does not burn in space.

Here is what we see in Empire

http://imgur.com/KsiM9iA,JqRHkIK,sYRmK5 ... H9,FYZUioJ

That is the album First 5 pics show 2 asteroids colliding, an explosion and a single asteroid from that asteroid IN FLAMES burning towards the Falcon

So explain how that could possible be made of 80% iron?

You have a degree in Astrology that shouldn't be a problem

http://i.imgur.com/KsiM9iA.png
http://i.imgur.com/JqRHkIK.png
http://i.imgur.com/sYRmK5j.png
http://i.imgur.com/I7c3gpn.png
http://i.imgur.com/OoiVxH9.png
http://i.imgur.com/FYZUioJ.png

The final pic is of the shot before that where 2 asteroids collide and they create the exact same explosion as if they were hit with a Turbolaser. Except no turbolaser. Again if they are made of 80% iron why do they vaporize in a fiery explosion?

Oh and those are from the Blu ray Special edition.

We are talking about the acceleration. As in, the change in velocity per unit time. g's are simply a unit we use to describe it, one g being the acceleration felt on Earth's surface, or 9.81 metres per second squared. Once again, if you claim to be correcting us you should know this.

you want me to find gravitational acceleration? How would that help? If we want to find the force put upon it as it makes a 90 degree turn then we should be looking for centripetal force.

Oh fuck off your pretentious twat. Come back when you actually know what the hell you are talking about.

seriously? You've gotten how many things wrong now? Elements not being plasma, Oxidents not being elements, elements not being componets of reactions, plasma not being part of a chemical reaction and so on.

You really should quit while you are behind.

[malguslover]

G-force is NOT gravitational force. It is the force that is applied to an object when confronted with a change in velocity. It is compared to gravitational force for convenience. An increase in G-force corresponds with an increase in WEIGHT, not MASS. Mass never changes, WEIGHT does. When calculating how much stress an object is put under when performing a course change, the G-forces will increase based on the severity of change of velocity, not the mass.

Seriously this is very basic shit, and you think you have the credentials to correct us on stuff you should have learned in high school?

ok I just wanted to let you know i'm currently ripping the blu ray edition of A New hope for you and ill respond to the rest of your nonsense later but i saw this and i fell out of my chair.

You actually said G-force is NOT gravitational force.



what do you think the G fucking stands for?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/g-force

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/gravity-forces.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/G-force

You should be banned for making such a stupid statement as

G-force is NOT gravitational force

[malguslover]

source?

The most obvious example:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Deflector_shield
-.

the most obvious answer to a question about STAR WARS DEFLECTOR SHIELDS is a link to the STAR TREK WIKI...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_xNbVMmIA

Well of course you then say G-force is not gravitational force so its just that you are a dumb ass.

In the Episode 5 scene where the ISD is firing at asteroids, there are no changes made between the OE and SE. You should know this if you really watched the movies. It's clear that you really don't know your canon as well as someone should if they're going to be debating on this board about it.

if youre response is 80% iron then you just need to look a few posts up for canon proof that it can't be iron

No, I don't think the proton torps were trying to orbit the death star.

WTF?? Is that what you think Centripetal force is? It makes a 90 degree turn and we are calculating the force felt upon it as it turns ie the Centripetal force.

How fucking stupid are you?


Ok so back to planetary shield

http://imgur.com/qv0CHPh,i4W7wIn,C1fZvo ... 85,QMVdq7A
http://i.imgur.com/QMVdq7A.png
http://i.imgur.com/qv0CHPh.png
http://i.imgur.com/i4W7wIn.png
http://i.imgur.com/C1fZvok.png
http://i.imgur.com/zcROq85.png

Ok so there are the images i pulled. Yup seeing it from the Special Editions and in HD not VHS rips its pretty clear that its a fiery explosion that spreads out from where the Super Laser hits the planet.

Yeah no planetary shield.

Brian Young did the best he could getting VHS rips of the non special edition over a decade ago but with the increase in tech we can see what really happened.



edit: So I just rewatched the DVD NON Special Editions of the alderaan explosion and WOW. I understand where he came to the conlcuison of hte shield. But the Special Edition looks like a completely new effect. In the original version there is even a jump cut during the explosion its kind of weird.

Tell you what if I have time this weekend I will try to make a side by side comparison video

[darth_timon]

http://i.imgur.com/QMVdq7A.png

Rather good evidence in that pic for a shield I would say.

Beam has struck the planet, but the planet isn't suffering any immediate ill-effects. There's a glow, which spreads out, but not a fiery explosion till several frames later. Something interrupts the beam and spreads it out. Sounds like a shield.

[Borgholio]

the most obvious answer to a question about STAR WARS DEFLECTOR SHIELDS is a link to the STAR TREK WIKI...

You asked how deflector shields work in other shows, I gave you a link to that show. What, do you expect me to pull an irrelevant example out of my ass like you do?

Well of course you then say G-force is not gravitational force so its just that you are a dumb ass.

Says the pigfucker who cherry-picks the secondary (popular) definition instead of the proper engineering definition.

A force acting on a body as a result of acceleration or gravity

G-force is the MEASUREMENT of force on an object as a result of delta-v or gravity you stupid motherfucker. If I push you into a wall, that's measured in G-forces even though gravity is not involved whatsoever. A car crash is measured in g-forces. A jet fighter is measured in g-forces. Gravity is measured in g-forces. G-force is a measurement of force applied, it is not gravity itself.

if youre response is 80% iron then you just need to look a few posts up for canon proof that it can't be iron

I see no proof that they are not stony or nickle-iron asteroids. The fact that some were heated to the point of combustion doesn't change anything.

WTF?? Is that what you think Centripetal force is?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

It's the force required to keep an object in moving in a circular path around another. Since we're discussing the ability of a torpedo to execute and survive a tight turn and NOT following a circular path, centripetal force has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It makes a 90 degree turn and we are calculating the force felt upon it

And that's called....G-Force you fucking retard.

How fucking stupid are you?

At least I read the articles I link to, asshole.

http://i.imgur.com/QMVdq7A.png

Deflector shield. Right there at the point of impact. Cocksucker.

You should be banned for making such a stupid statement as

Oh I should be banned because I know the proper definition of an engineering term? Damn, I guess that means that most people here should be banned and only botched abortions such as you would be left.

[darth_timon]

Malguslover, there are a great many things about the capabilities of the Empire not affected by the EU. The industrial capacity remains unquestionably tremendous (the Death Stars represent construction capabilities well beyond the Federation). The speed of hyperdrive is derived from the films and hyperdrive still gives the Empire a massive strategic edge.

The Empire can out-build the Federation and overwhelm them with sheer numbers- even a firepower advantage of 100-1 in favour of the Feds won't change the outcome of a war. Federation gets stomped.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I am referring to elements in the physical, scientific sense. As in, the ~118 known varieties of atoms, differentiated by atomic number. Not "a component of a reaction." Since you claim to be "correcting our misconceptions of science" you should know this.

ummm elements are components of reactions.... seroiulsy i'm finding it very hard that you even graduated high school at this point let alone have a degree in astronomy. Unless you meant to say Astrology and you just got confused because that would explain a lot.

Once again you miss the point and misrepresent what I said. When talking to chemists or physicists sayign "elements" means "Hydrogen, Helium etc." I am fully aware that elements are components or reactions, but they are not the only components, you have reactions between molecules (like combustion for instance). Thus, since not all parts of a reaction are pure elements, "elements" refers directly to the basic elemnts on the periodic table.

Since you seem to have a problem with my education, once again, what is yours?

He knows what asteroids are made of based on analysis of real-world asteroids. This allows us to make estimates based on average composition and density.

Well done, Iron doesn't burn in a vacuum. But none of us ever said it did. It glows as heat is disipated as light.

So he thinks that an asteroid in our galaxy is the same as a the asteroid in a galaxy far far away a long time ago?

There is no reason to assume it is not. Why would they be different? Once again, you miss the point of a low-end estimate, order-of-magnitude estimate and so on? We estimate the energy required based on some reasonable assumptions. Like, asteroids in SW are the same as real life, because every other celestial body appears to be the same as the real world.

Just so we are clear this is what i am assuming he thought
http://www.universetoday.com/37425/what ... s-made-of/

The metallic asteroids are composed of up to 80% iron and 20% a mixture of nickel, iridium, palladium, platinum, gold, and other precious metals. There are those few that are made up of half silicate and half metallic.

So 80% iron. You agree with this? He is saying the asteroids in Star Wars are 80% iron.

and I agree that iron does not burn in space.

Here is what we see in Empire

http://imgur.com/KsiM9iA,JqRHkIK,sYRmK5 ... H9,FYZUioJ

That is the album First 5 pics show 2 asteroids colliding, an explosion and a single asteroid from that asteroid IN FLAMES burning towards the Falcon

So explain how that could possible be made of 80% iron?

You have a degree in Astrology that shouldn't be a problem

http://i.imgur.com/KsiM9iA.png
http://i.imgur.com/JqRHkIK.png
http://i.imgur.com/sYRmK5j.png
http://i.imgur.com/I7c3gpn.png
http://i.imgur.com/OoiVxH9.png
http://i.imgur.com/FYZUioJ.png

The final pic is of the shot before that where 2 asteroids collide and they create the exact same explosion as if they were hit with a Turbolaser. Except no turbolaser. Again if they are made of 80% iron why do they vaporize in a fiery explosion?

Oh and those are from the Blu ray Special edition.

Have you forgotten the repeated explanations for kinetic energy being turned into heat and re-radiated as light? That the impact will vaporise material that will glow as it cools.

We are talking about the acceleration. As in, the change in velocity per unit time. g's are simply a unit we use to describe it, one g being the acceleration felt on Earth's surface, or 9.81 metres per second squared. Once again, if you claim to be correcting us you should know this.

you want me to find gravitational acceleration? How would that help? If we want to find the force put upon it as it makes a 90 degree turn then we should be looking for centripetal force.

[/quote]

No, not the gravitational acceleration. The acceleration, the change in velocity. Again, if you don't recognise this, what is your scientific education? You're so happy to question mine, what qualifications do you hold?

[Metahive]

OK, guys, who wants to bet with me that malguslover here is another sock-puppet from darthy, darth_benson, tremors and Marsh8472? In case you have forgotten who that was/is:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148428

[Scottish Ninja]

Ugh.

We're talking about centripetal acceleration here. a = v2/r, since the torpedo turns in a roughly circular arc through 90 degrees. Force doesn't come into it, as we don't know the mass. Although speaking of which, what numbers were plugged into that equation to get ~720,000 m/s2? Quickly guessing on the turn radius, since I can't be arsed at the moment to look at that frame-by-frame, is somewhere between .5 to 2 meters - not more than the size of the exhaust port, AFAIK - which would require a torpedo speed of somewhere between 600-1200 m/s, depending on the radius of the turn.

I'm not entirely sold on the torpedo speed being half a kilometer or more per second, but I could easily be convinced otherwise.

[Borgholio]

We're talking about centripetal acceleration here. a = v2/r, since the torpedo turns in a roughly circular arc through 90 degrees.

If you are measuring the force required to turn the torpedo that quickly, then yes you are correct. But the whole point of Mike Wong's torpedo page was to demonstrate that a proton torpedo could maneuver quickly enough to sustain a 72,000 g turn. Naturally it will need to have the appropriate centripetal acceleration capability to do that, but that should go without saying since we can DIRECTLY OBSERVE the torpedo performing such a maneuver. At that point it becomes merely a calculation of how much stress is applied to the torpedo during the maneuver.

Force doesn't come into it, as we don't know the mass.

How can you possibly say that? If you make a 90 degree turn traveling possibly hundreds of meters per second, there WILL be G-forces applied to the torpedo as a result of the change in velocity and heading. Mass is irrelevant unless we are attempting to calculate the relative WEIGHT of the torpedo once it gets hit with the G-forces...which we are not. The point of the 72,000g calculation is to prove that Imperial / Rebel missiles are far more maneuverable and sturdy than anything the Federation can come up with.

I'm not entirely sold on the torpedo speed being half a kilometer or more per second, but I could easily be convinced otherwise.

Here's the common way people do it. We know a proton torpedo is about the size of a modern MIRV (1 meter long, give or take). Using the size of the torpedoes, we can guesstimate how fast they're moving based on comparing the size of the torps to the terrain they're moving past frame by frame. We know roughly how far over the surface the X-wing is flying so we can account for changes in perspective. That's the tricky part because of the various camera angles. Once we estimate how fast the torps are flying, we can calculate how much g-force they would be subjected to when they change heading by nearly 90 degrees over the course of only a few meters.

[Eternal_Freedom]

which would require a torpedo speed of somewhere between 600-1200 m/s, depending on the radius of the turn.

I'm not entirely sold on the torpedo speed being half a kilometer or more per second, but I could easily be convinced otherwise.

Funnily enough, Mike's estimate was for 1 km/s, right within your limits.

But like I said, the torpedoes must be moving very quickly indeed, since they are (relative to the Death Star) accelerating away from the X-Wing, which is at "full throttle" (meaningless, I know), and we know those fighters can easily achieve escape velocity, so the torpedoes must be going at least that fast. Since Yavin IV is Earth-like enough to have nearly identical gravity, that means the X-Wings must be capable of at least ~11 km/s. Plenty fast enough.

EDIT: even accounting for Yavin's rotation, they must be able to do 8 km/s at minimum.

[malguslover]

http://i.imgur.com/QMVdq7A.png

Rather good evidence in that pic for a shield I would say.

Beam has struck the planet, but the planet isn't suffering any immediate ill-effects. There's a glow, which spreads out, but not a fiery explosion till several frames later. Something interrupts the beam and spreads it out. Sounds like a shield.

See I think its pretty clear that its the planet heating up as that glowing contunies to spread out over the entire planet and the glowing turns into fire. Even in the old canon that is not what a planetary shield looked like.

[Borgholio]

See I think its pretty clear that its the planet heating up as that glowing contunies to spread out over the entire planet and the glowing turns into fire. Even in the old canon that is not what a planetary shield looked like.

That's the whole point of the Death Star. Even with a full planetary shield, the beam has enough energy to punch through and burn the planet.

[malguslover]

You asked how deflector shields work in other shows, I gave you a link to that show. What, do you expect me to pull an irrelevant example out of my ass like you do?

no I was actually asking for a canon source of how that worked in Star Wars. But I understand how you thought that. Canon from other TV shows is kind of irrelevant. However what we see in the movie is nothing like what is descrbed in Star Trek

Says the pigfucker who cherry-picks the secondary (popular) definition instead of the proper engineering definition.

Pig fucker ouch! my feelings are hurt I must concided to people who know nothing about science JAJAJA I'm kidding no your answers are too stupid to ignore

G-force is the MEASUREMENT of force on an object as a result of delta-v or gravity you stupid motherfucker. If I push you into a wall, that's measured in G-forces even though gravity is not involved whatsoever. A car crash is measured in g-forces. A jet fighter is measured in g-forces. Gravity is measured in g-forces. G-force is a measurement of force applied, it is not gravity itself

So many stupid things in this statement. You should read your posts out loud before you hit submit and see if that sounds ok to you.

G-force is the MEASUREMENT of force on an object as a result of delta-v or gravity

Oh G-force is the measurement of force on an object as a result of GRAVITY??

G-force is NOT gravitational force.

So its a measure of the force of gravity acting on an object but its not Gravitational force

That's what you're going for? Any chance you have a source to back this one up?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

It's the force required to keep an object in moving in a circular path around another. Since we're discussing the ability of a torpedo to execute and survive a tight turn and NOT following a circular path, centripetal force has absolutely nothing to do with it.

yeeeaaahhhh So you don't see how that's relevant for the discussion as a torpedo takes a 90 degree turn?

And that's called....G-Force you fucking retard.

Now you've said G-force is a force (as a result of gravity your words) what do you think we measure force in?

At least I read the articles I link to, asshole.

http://i.imgur.com/QMVdq7A.png

Deflector shield. Right there at the point of impact. Cocksucker.

do you? Because you linked to a Wikipedia article about Nuclear Chain Reactions with out reading that a Nuclear Chain Reaction is a type of Chain Reaction and now to one on Centripetal force with out realizing how it was relevant.

oh you mean the glowing that occurs as the super laser heats up the plaent and that spreads around the entire planet when as you said the planetary shield is already failed? Yeah no sorry

Oh I should be banned because I know the proper definition of an engineering term?

Do you because you said yourself that its gravitational

[malguslover]

See I think its pretty clear that its the planet heating up as that glowing contunies to spread out over the entire planet and the glowing turns into fire. Even in the old canon that is not what a planetary shield looked like.

That's the whole point of the Death Star. Even with a full planetary shield, the beam has enough energy to punch through and burn the planet.

ROFL what? Changing your story again?? Tell me more!

[Eternal_Freedom]

See I think its pretty clear that its the planet heating up as that glowing contunies to spread out over the entire planet and the glowing turns into fire. Even in the old canon that is not what a planetary shield looked like.

That's the whole point of the Death Star. Even with a full planetary shield, the beam has enough energy to punch through and burn the planet.

ROFL what? Changing your story again?? Tell me more!

It's a weapon designed to destroy planets, no shield system will protect them. However, the fact that the Alderaan shield held out for even a fraction of a second is impressive enough. The superlaser blast is something like 10^38 joules, resisting that briefly represents incredible shield strength, more than enough to stand up to lengthy bombardments (like the one mentioned in ESB). Thus the Death Star is built because such a powerful weapon is needed.

Imagine I'd built a bunker that could stand up to conventional bombs and shells indefinitely. An attacker will naturally use a nuke, which will destroy the bunker. That doesn't make the bunker's resilience any less impressive.

[malguslover]

Ugh.

We're talking about centripetal acceleration here. a = v2/r, since the torpedo turns in a roughly circular arc through 90 degrees. Force doesn't come into it, as we don't know the mass. Although speaking of which, what numbers were plugged into that equation to get ~720,000 m/s2? Quickly guessing on the turn radius, since I can't be arsed at the moment to look at that frame-by-frame, is somewhere between .5 to 2 meters - not more than the size of the exhaust port, AFAIK - which would require a torpedo speed of somewhere between 600-1200 m/s, depending on the radius of the turn.

I'm not entirely sold on the torpedo speed being half a kilometer or more per second, but I could easily be convinced otherwise.

Holy crap! someone who understands the purpose of showing work!

So using that equation and working backwards to find the radius comes out to 1.39 meters

Hey that works and it looks like I was wrong his numbers are canon. See I was under the assumption that he used EU material for that. But like I said if we wanted the Centripetal force we would need the mass.

thank you for being a calm and rational person during this discussion.

Of course this doesn't change that the vast majority of stuff on that page is out of date and uses non canon info

[malguslover]

It's a weapon designed to destroy planets, no shield system will protect them. However, the fact that the Alderaan shield held out for even a fraction of a second is impressive enough. The superlaser blast is something like 10^38 joules, resisting that briefly represents incredible shield strength, more than enough to stand up to lengthy bombardments (like the one mentioned in ESB). Thus the Death Star is built because such a powerful weapon is needed.

Imagine I'd built a bunker that could stand up to conventional bombs and shells indefinitely. An attacker will naturally use a nuke, which will destroy the bunker. That doesn't make the bunker's resilience any less impressive.

Except there is NO CANON that Planetary shields EXIST!!! The image doesn't show that and there is no mention of planetary shields in the 6 movies or 121 episodes of the Clone wars.

The one in Empire isn't a planetary shield its a deflector shield. Whats even funnier on Wookiepeida TESB isn't even counted as an appearance. In fact it looks like when they convert to the new canon rules Alderaans planetary shield is gone