How does the new Star Wars Canon affect the debate?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm pretty sure that the novelisation of ROTS says the battle over Coruscant had the Seperatists trapped under the planetary shields in the upper atmosphere.

At any rate, we have canon sources that say a deflector shield can cover a large portion of a planetary surface and is able to deflect any bombardment (from a squadron containing an Executor no less) and we see the shield generator on Endor able to project a spherical shield around the moon-sized bulk of the DSII. It is not an unreasonable supposition that planetary shields exist.

Oh, and it's wonderfully ironic you praising Scottish_Ninja for showing his work when you haven't shown any calculations of your own and failed to grasp the basic concept of acceleration forces.

Once again, for the fifth or so time, what is your scientific education? I'm getting real tired of you ignoring this while claiming you're so smart.

[malguslover]

OOnce 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.

you're talking about this right?
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl3 in a chemcial reaction the products and reactants are elements.

Because that is what is being talked about in the definition I gave.

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.

Because
1. We are talking about a galaxy far far away
2. We are talking about a galaxy that clearly has elements that we dont' have.
3. These elements are plentiful through out the galaxy as we see everyone can get blasters, anti grave speeders and space ships that can move faster then the speed of light. On our planet we can't even make one of those things will all of our resources.
4. This is the big one... IRON DOESN"T BURN IN OUTER SPACE!!

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 aren't talking about heat or even glowing WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIRE!!! The motherfucking rock is on FIRE!!!

seriously how can you even think to pass it off like you have a degree in astronomy?

[malguslover]

I'm pretty sure that the novelisation of ROTS says the battle over Coruscant had the Seperatists trapped under the planetary shields in the upper atmosphere.

cool!! Except guess what THE NOVELIZATIONS aren't canon anymore

At any rate, we have canon sources that say a deflector shield can cover a large portion of a planetary surface and is able to deflect any bombardment (from a squadron containing an Executor no less) and we see the shield generator on Endor able to project a spherical shield around the moon-sized bulk of the DSII. It is not an unreasonable supposition that planetary shields exist.

[/quote]

in no way does that mean there are planetary shields. In fact why doesn't the shield around the Death Star 2 protect the moon? Before you say it does, i'm going to ask you to watch the breifing scene again and you will see that the shield does not cover any part of the Moon of Endor.

[Borgholio]

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

No, dumbass. It's a measure of force that is QUANTIFIED in gravities. If a force acts upon you it does not have to be gravity, it can be anything.

Any chance you have a source to back this one up?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/scienc ... ion633.htm

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

http://www.gforces.net/what-is-g-force-meaning.html

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99491.htm

And finally, a nice little article about a man who experienced 46.2 Gs....WITHOUT ANY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE INVOLVED AT ALL.

http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame ... .php?id=46

G-forces != gravity. Deal with it.

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

Not at all. Your argument was that the 72k g figure was not canon. You don't have to calculate centripetal force to calculate the g-forces subjected to an object. That it made the turn IS canon whether you choose to admit it or not. Calculating centripetal force is moot.

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

G-force is quantified when compared to gravity but it is NOT gravity in itself. Deign yourself to read some of the links I posted above to get a good idea of how someone can experience G-forces without gravity.

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.

After you tried to apply nuclear labels to a clearly non-nuclear reaction and about how you try to perform extra calculations that are in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. Just because you're too fucking stupid to stay on topic and actually grasp a coherent argument isn't my problem.

Do you because you said yourself that its gravitational

Where did I say that g-forces are solely the result of gravity? Quote me in context or shut the fuck up.

[Eternal_Freedom]

OOnce 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.

you're talking about this right?
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl3 in a chemcial reaction the products and reactants are elements.

Because that is what is being talked about in the definition I gave.

Actually in that reaction only one component, Fe, is an element. FeCl3 and Cl2 are molecules, Mr Science Guy. In a chemical reaction the reactants and products are comprised of elemnts.

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.

Because
1. We are talking about a galaxy far far away
2. We are talking about a galaxy that clearly has elements that we dont' have.
3. These elements are plentiful through out the galaxy as we see everyone can get blasters, anti grave speeders and space ships that can move faster then the speed of light. On our planet we can't even make one of those things will all of our resources.
4. This is the big one... IRON DOESN"T BURN IN OUTER SPACE!!

1. A galaxy far away should still contain the same (or similar) celestial bodies we see in our galaxy
2. The SW galaxy contains elements that we haven't observed in our solar system, which is not the be all and end all of the galaxy.
3. With an entire galaxy of resources, even very rare elements will be plentiful. Consider on Earth, Uranium-235 is a rare isotope, and yet we still have enough to build all the bombs and reactors we like.
4. I NEVER SAID IT DID.

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 aren't talking about heat or even glowing WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIRE!!! The motherfucking rock is on FIRE!!!

seriously how can you even think to pass it off like you have a degree in astronomy?

[/quote]

To the unintelligent observer the Sun is a giant fireball, and yet we know it isn't. Things can appear to be fireballs without actually being on fire.

[Borgholio]

To the unintelligent observer the Sun is a giant fireball, and yet we know it isn't. Things can appear to be fireballs without actually being on fire.

You lie. It's really a giant ball of coal burning in the universal ether...

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm pretty sure that the novelisation of ROTS says the battle over Coruscant had the Seperatists trapped under the planetary shields in the upper atmosphere.

cool!! Except guess what THE NOVELIZATIONS aren't canon anymore

And yet it's not contradicted by the film, is it? Please tell me why else the Seperatist and REpublic fleets would be engaging each other at such close range in the upper atmosphere, and why the Speratists didn't simply bull-rush their way clear and jump to hyperspace.

At any rate, we have canon sources that say a deflector shield can cover a large portion of a planetary surface and is able to deflect any bombardment (from a squadron containing an Executor no less) and we see the shield generator on Endor able to project a spherical shield around the moon-sized bulk of the DSII. It is not an unreasonable supposition that planetary shields exist.

in no way does that mean there are planetary shields. In fact why doesn't the shield around the Death Star 2 protect the moon? Before you say it does, i'm going to ask you to watch the breifing scene again and you will see that the shield does not cover any part of the Moon of Endor.[/quote]

Did you miss the part about it being a reasonable supposition? As for why the DSII shield doesn't protect the moon...how about because they didn't need it to? It was there to protect the Death Star, not an unimportant jungle!

[malguslover]

What did I say about reading your posts before you hit submit Borgholio. You really need to do that so you stop making such an ass of yourself

Where did I say that g-forces are solely the result of gravity? Quote me in context or shut the fuck up.

I never said you said that. You ever did say this

G-force is NOT gravitational force

your arguement was that when I said Gravitational Force or G-Force that I was wrong. that the G didn't mean Gravitaitonal. However every article you linked kind of proved you're a bit of a fucking idiot.

G-force is quantified when compared to gravity but it is NOT gravity in itself. Deign yourself to read some of the links I posted above to get a good idea of how someone can experience G-forces without gravity.

I never once said that G-force is Gravity itself. I said that G-force stood for Gravitational Force. Hence the G in G force

After you tried to apply nuclear labels to a clearly non-nuclear reaction and about how you try to perform extra calculations that are in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. Just because you're too fucking stupid to stay on topic and actually grasp a coherent argument isn't my problem.

Oh this is a good one. Where did I say that? Because you were the one who started throwing out the term Nuclear.

[malguslover]

And yet it's not contradicted by the film, is it? Please tell me why else the Seperatist and REpublic fleets would be engaging each other at such close range in the upper atmosphere, and why the Speratists didn't simply bull-rush their way clear and jump to hyperspace.

really? Same reason every ship doesn't jump to hyperspace while in the Atmosphere of a planet. ESB battle of Hoth The Ships need to get a minium safe distance away from the planet before making the jump. There was no planetary shield there yet they had to get far away from the planet first.

So yeah it is contradicted by the films.

You dont' think the ships already had the cooridinates in the Nav computer?

Did you miss the part about it being a reasonable supposition? As for why the DSII shield doesn't protect the moon...how about because they didn't need it to? It was there to protect the Death Star, not an unimportant jungle!

you don't think it woudl have been importent to put a shield around the thing protecting the death star? Also look how its projected out. It is a cone that is projected around the sphere. A lot different then putting a sphere around yourself.

[Borgholio]

I never once said that G-force is Gravity itself.

Really.

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.

There you go, you lying sack of shit. G-force is NOT the force of gravity as you accelerate. It is the force against you as you accelerate AS COMPARED to the force of gravity. When you accelerate fast enough, gravity is completely irrelevant.

Oh this is a good one. Where did I say that? Because you were the one who started throwing out the term Nuclear.

You started this whole thing with your bullshit chain reaction circle-jerk. Your very first post was inaccurate and not applicable to the situation. Everybody else was talking about nuclear, why weren't you?

[Eternal_Freedom]

And yet it's not contradicted by the film, is it? Please tell me why else the Seperatist and REpublic fleets would be engaging each other at such close range in the upper atmosphere, and why the Speratists didn't simply bull-rush their way clear and jump to hyperspace.

really? Same reason every ship doesn't jump to hyperspace while in the Atmosphere of a planet. ESB battle of Hoth The Ships need to get a minium safe distance away from the planet before making the jump. There was no planetary shield there yet they had to get far away from the planet first.

So yeah it is contradicted by the films.

You dont' think the ships already had the cooridinates in the Nav computer?

That last point is a total non sequitur. As for the rest, your comparison to ESB makes the case for a planetary shield stronger: there was something stopping the Seperatists from rushing out to minimum safe distance and jumping away.

Did you miss the part about it being a reasonable supposition? As for why the DSII shield doesn't protect the moon...how about because they didn't need it to? It was there to protect the Death Star, not an unimportant jungle!

you don't think it woudl have been importent to put a shield around the thing protecting the death star? Also look how its projected out. It is a cone that is projected around the sphere. A lot different then putting a sphere around yourself.

The fact that the captured shuttle had to get clearance through the shied before landing on Endor shows it protected part of the planet as well.

Yes, projecting a cone outwards is different from a spherical shield. Since it's an unusual shape I would think it would be more complicated to do.

You completely ignored the part about it being a reasonable supposition. I'm getting real tired of you ignoring my questions.

For the sixth time, what is your scientific education? It must clearly be a good one if you feel confident to correct everyone all the time.

[malguslover]

There you go, you lying sack of shit. G-force is NOT the force of gravity as you accelerate. It is the force against you as you accelerate AS COMPARED to the force of gravity. When you accelerate fast enough, gravity is completely irrelevant.



You started this whole thing with your bullshit chain reaction circle-jerk. Your very first post was inaccurate and not applicable to the situation. Everybody else was talking about nuclear, why weren't you?

rofl are you serious? because in no way is my statment wrong you even linked to definitions saying the same thing.

You are the one who actually said G-force does not mean Gravitational force SEVERAL TIMES

Again this is a case where you read it and thought the wrong thing. I said Chain Reaction i never once said nuclear chain reaction and you went on some crusade.


Both of these are just indications of you being a huge dumb ass

[malguslover]

That last point is a total non sequitur. As for the rest, your comparison to ESB makes the case for a planetary shield stronger: there was something stopping the Seperatists from rushing out to minimum safe distance and jumping away.

how do you figure? The Rebel ships had to get far away from the planet before jumping to Hyperspace when there was NO PLANETARY SHIELD.

The Seperatits in EP3 were enegaged in close combat as well. Again show me the canon proof that a planetary shield was keeping them there.

The fact that the captured shuttle had to get clearance through the shied before landing on Endor shows it protected part of the planet as well.

No it shows that the Empire was guarding the area and if they tried to sneak in they would have been killed.

You completely ignored the part about it being a reasonable supposition. I'm getting real tired of you ignoring my questions.

Because there is no reasonable supposition that a planetary shield exists. You are saying that because no one sees, mentions or shows any evidence of Planetary shields existing in 6 movies and 121 episodes that they must exists.

You think that is Reasonable suppostion? no that is maddness. Especially since many cases in the Star Wars movies or tv show a planetary shield would have been usefull. You don't think Mandalore would have one? Yet they don't.

[Borgholio]

What, because I actually remember what I said, comprehend the difference between various engineering and physical concepts, and am not lying out of my ass like you are? Yeah this debate is over. You don't have the fucking spine to admit that you're wrong and walk away so you have just gone into your magical La La land where you ignore everything that proves you wrong, make up your own arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion just so you can say you were right, then when you run out of points to make, you go back to the very beginning with the very first argument that got you intellectually dog-piled in the first place and expect us to repeat the whole thing. Get the fuck out.

[Thanas]

Get the fuck out.

I echo that comment and will issue a warning against malguslover for his kind of "debating".

[Eternal_Freedom]

That last point is a total non sequitur. As for the rest, your comparison to ESB makes the case for a planetary shield stronger: there was something stopping the Seperatists from rushing out to minimum safe distance and jumping away.

how do you figure? The Rebel ships had to get far away from the planet before jumping to Hyperspace when there was NO PLANETARY SHIELD.

The Seperatits in EP3 were enegaged in close combat as well. Again show me the canon proof that a planetary shield was keeping them there.

Exactly, they had to get away from the planet to jump, and their only obstacle was the Imperial fleet, so they ran the gauntlet and escaped.

The Speratists were in a much stronger position militarily, and almost certainly could have run the gauntlet and escaped and yet they did not, even after securing the Chancellor. Logically, there was an additional barrier preventing them from running, and it is reasonable to think this was a planetary shield.

The fact that the captured shuttle had to get clearance through the shied before landing on Endor shows it protected part of the planet as well.

No it shows that the Empire was guarding the area and if they tried to sneak in they would have been killed.

And yet they're able to deviate from their flight path and land undetected in the middle of the forest without being shot down. Oh and guess what, stealing an enemy vessel and using a stolen code counts as "sneaking in."

You completely ignored the part about it being a reasonable supposition. I'm getting real tired of you ignoring my questions.

Because there is no reasonable supposition that a planetary shield exists. You are saying that because no one sees, mentions or shows any evidence of Planetary shields existing in 6 movies and 121 episodes that they must exists.

You think that is Reasonable suppostion? no that is maddness. Especially since many cases in the Star Wars movies or tv show a planetary shield would have been usefull. You don't think Mandalore would have one? Yet they don't.

It is a reasonable supposition. We have large theatre-wide shields seen in ESB, we have moon-encompassing shields seen in ROTJ, it is not "maddness" to think that they would be able to build a planetary shield.

Now, please state to me examples in the films where a planetary shield would have been useful. Tattooine? Nope. Alderaan? Not against the Death Star. Yavin? Again, not against the Death Star. Hoth? Already shielded. Bespin? No point shielding a gas giant when there is only one large flying settlement. Endor? Again, no need to shield the moon when you have the operational DSII and the Imperial Fleet on hand.

[malguslover]

What, because I actually remember what I said, comprehend the difference between various engineering and physical concepts, and am not lying out of my ass like you are? Yeah this debate is over. You don't have the fucking spine to admit that you're wrong and walk away so you have just gone into your magical La La land where you ignore everything that proves you wrong, make up your own arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion just so you can say you were right, then when you run out of points to make, you go back to the very beginning with the very first argument that got you intellectually dog-piled in the first place and expect us to repeat the whole thing. Get the fuck out.

...
ummm

you don't

I quoted you several times its not like this a conversation we are having on the phone. Everything you said has been recorded.

I never said Nuclear Chain Reaction you just thought i did.

I said G-force means Gravitational force (which every link that you linked to agreed with me) and you said I was wrong.

Now someone else proved that I was wrong about the G's felt on the torpedo being canon but thats because I was under the assumption that he used non canon data.

I do think you aren't lying i just think you're a bit of an idiot. One of those people that thinks he's smart but you're only smart enough to be dangerous. You know you think you're an intellectual and you quote science as if you understand it but in truth its more like a religion to you.


Still waiting on you to provide some canon proof of planetary shields.

Yeah this debate is over.

This was never a debate this was you getting schooled.

[Borgholio]

This was never a debate this was you getting schooled.

I'm not the one who got a moderator warning, dipshit. That should be a clue right there which one of us was more wrong.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah this debate is over.

This was never a debate this was you getting schooled.

The arrogance of this statement astounds me.

One last time (number seven to be precise), what is your scientific education?

[malguslover]

Exactly, they had to get away from the planet to jump, and their only obstacle was the Imperial fleet, so they ran the gauntlet and escaped.

The Speratists were in a much stronger position militarily, and almost certainly could have run the gauntlet and escaped and yet they did not, even after securing the Chancellor. Logically, there was an additional barrier preventing them from running, and it is reasonable to think this was a planetary shield.

If the Sepratits were stronger how did they lose that battle so badly? There was no barrier they were just too close to the planet. You even said yourself they were in the atmosphere

It is a reasonable supposition. We have large theatre-wide shields seen in ESB, we have moon-encompassing shields seen in ROTJ, it is not "maddness" to think that they would be able to build a planetary shield.

no its not. The Shield in ESB covers the base thats it. Its not very large its smaller then the SSD.

ROTJ it doesn't cover the moon only the DS2.

Examples? Sure how about Geonosis?
Or how about Manadlore? That would have saved them from being invaded.
Kamino?
Kashyyyk?
Have you ever watch The Clone Wars?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Nope, sorry, I will not respond to any more of you posts until you finally answer my question about your scientific education.

Why are you so reluctant to tell us?

[malguslover]

Yeah this debate is over.

This was never a debate this was you getting schooled.

The arrogance of this statement astounds me.

One last time (number seven to be precise), what is your scientific education?

that's a trick question

If I say I have a degree in any scientific field then you will probably ask me to prove it, deny that i ever have it, or try to invalidate it.

If I say I have none or not enough to satisfy you then will claim all of my arguments are invalid as I have no training.

Of course it makes no difference nothing I said there was incorrect and I backed my statements up with links and images from the movies.

[Eternal_Freedom]

No, I just want an answer. I want to know what level of education you reached, because you are so sure you can correct the rest of us. My degree may have been worthless after all, so I'd like to know.

[Borgholio]

that's a trick question

No it's a valid question. You have attempted to correct us the whole time. Multiple people have claimed you are wrong, some of them have claimed to have actual educational degrees. If you're so sure you're right, then surely you must have some kind of higher education that is equal to or superior to what others have. Otherwise, without an equal or superior education, you may in fact be wrong but too proud to admit it.

[malguslover]

No, I just want an answer. I want to know what level of education you reached, because you are so sure you can correct the rest of us. My degree may have been worthless after all, so I'd like to know.

oh in that case a bachelors of science

No it's a valid question. You have attempted to correct us the whole time. Multiple people have claimed you are wrong, some of them have claimed to have actual educational degrees. If you're so sure you're right, then surely you must have some kind of higher education that is equal to or superior to what others have. Otherwise, without an equal or superior education, you may in fact be wrong but too proud to admit it.

now this is interesting. The basis of someone being right or wrong is based solely on their educational degree and not the actual discussion.

I'm so sure i'm right because science says that i'm right. Not all Chain Reactions are nuclear chain reactions and I never once said that Alderaan was a nuclear chain reaction.