TF.net Morons To "Disprove" Scaling in Space

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Well, the site talks about how it would be easier to measure distances and size based off of if you knew the size of both objects. But it also discusses without atmosphere, parallax effects objects and distorts the distance in images as well.

Both sites deal with optical illusions, if you have a ruler, the so called 'perceptions' would be no problem (it "looks" far, but after measurement and calculation you get the actual distance.....etc)

This is an even a worse problem, if you look at the depth of perception information with monocular images(2-d image; 1 eye) where one isn't given the alternate view of the picture(second eye). two monucular images, the way eyes see images when looking at something that is physically 3-d, would compose a 3-d image where one could tell actual distances between objects. Without that key information one is only getting partial information, and not enough to make actual judgements, but rather working with just perceptional optical illusions. Also note that parallax is stated to be an issue in depth of perception on that page as well.

This 2-d 3-d difference doesn't give a damn to measurement, with one eye you might confuse distance, but with a ruler in hand, it doesn't matter if you read the "10cm" with one eye or two eyes. BTW, cameras are brainless, they won't judge the image with partial information and get confused and show us the perceptional optical illusions.

Also notice that lack of haze in an atmosphere makes an object appear closer than it actually is;
"Mountains are perceived to be closer when the atmosphere is clear."
So with no atmosphere may make objects appear closer to other objects than they actually are.

Including the reference objects, but it doesn't give a damn to proportion and measuring. (Am I repeating the same words?)

So there are a variety of things that could cause optical illusions as to what the actual size may be. It could be larger than it looks in the movie, or other factors make it appear to be larger than it actually is.

The only thing that makes it appear larger than it looks in the movie is the mind: which does nothing to a ruler, it does nothing to an angle measurer, it does nothing to math......unless the mind is to lazy to use them properly.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It would depend on the core density, if the planet had a core made out of something that had a specific gravity higher than the materials that make up earth, then the planet could hold an atmosphere. If the planet was smaller than earth, but the core was made out of substances similer to earth then it wouldn't be able to hold an atmosphere, because those materials don't have specific gravity high enough to hold onto an atmosphere. Earth has a core that has a specific gravity of around 2.85, IIRC, the earth's crustal material has a specific gravity of 2.75 or so. The core makes up 90% of the material.

Also one has to note optical illusions from lack of atmosphere, and other factors, doesn't allow for entirely correct judgment to tell how close the death star was to the planet, to correctly tell the size of the planet based on it.

On scaling the Death Star II.

[Warspite]

The idiocy is strong in this one.

[seanrobertson]

Idiot expects me to disprove his claims and implications that movie scaling is not accurate.

http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=2

Is he retarded? I am serious.

If the movies aren't accurate, what is?

This reminds me of a debate that occured with Brian some time ago...check Babtech's Hatemail pages and look under Matt "Mughi" for a similar subject.

BTW, lots of people posting in that thread are really full of shit. They keep citing incorrect sizes for Executor and the DS2.

[Darth Wong]

I think it's laughable and absurd that anyone would think they could take accurate measurements of anything off a TV/movie screen. It's exactly like showing someone a picture of two asteroids in space and asking how long or wide each one is. Since the camera lens is subjective, one has no idea the factors involved are- like how far away the camera is from the objects, whether or not both objects are same distance from the camera.

And he expects me to disprove all of that by independently doing all the scaling Saxton did over again. He's accusing Saxton's methods of being flawed but won't specify exactly how. I pointed this out and he said this.

Hey Bob, put your money where your mouth is. You've shot it off enough on scaling from pictures and how you know how to do it, well, show us all how to scale. Show us your big scaling brain in action, show all required equations and explain them in small words for us dummies who skipped Scaling 102 in university for more relavent topics, like basket weaving and cheese making.

Idiots.

He's an idiot. A camera is NOT subjective. It is in fact quite objective, since it has no emotions and the resulting piece of film looks the same to all observers. Measurements taken from that film are completely consistent regardless of the person doing the measurement, so long as they are mentally competent. Obviously, he is too stupid to know what "subjective" means.

As for issues of distance, these are resolved by looking at limits. For example, if object A is clearly between object B and the camera, then we can conclude that object B is farther away than object A. If we already know the size of object A, then we can conclude that if object B appears twice as large onscreen, then a LOWER LIMIT for its size is twice the size of object A, although it could also be much larger. Simple, no? I guess morons such as him do not understand simple concepts such as basic high-school Euclidean geometry.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

BTW, lots of people posting in that thread are really full of shit. They keep citing incorrect sizes for Executor and the DS2.

If they don't trust scaling done by experienced experts, that means they can't use any canon data, because precise ship lengths are never mentioned in canon dialogue, and canon visuals are scaled to revealed ship lengths. That means they must fall back on official, and that means the 8km/12.8km and 160km

[Ghost Rider]

Why do you try...wait already know answer.

Still keep up and give us more updates on moron central.