I'm not talking about getting rid of objective evidence at all I'm simply saying consider the source.
But I guess the huge Bird of prey is back in action then (what was it 10’s or 100’s of KM?).
On the earlier point - I'm being a fundie because I take the words of experts on the trek universe (characters that live in said universe) over yours - if it goes against what we see then fair enough they are wrong (considering the source) but you can't impose our physics over theirs.
Much like talking the word of some preacher over scientists but oh no of course not because that wouldn't paint you in too good a light.
A fundie questions science without any real reason - scientists can be incorrect but observed information can't (just interpretation of that data (after accounting for errors yadda yadda etc)) however what we have here is evidence that isn't 100% because due to what it is (a tv show/books/movies) it can and will have errors in it thus treating it as 100% accurate isn't wise.
I do not prefer the subjective over the objective, if we see the sky and its green and a character says its red then we know the sky is green.
However if we don't see the sky but 100 people on the surface say its red we should be encouraged to believe it because we don't have evidence to prove it wrong.
Also if the sky has a huge sign saying "Insert FX here" im inclined to believe that is the fault of the medium (just like if we saw a BoP in the sky that seemed to be the size of a moon or some such).
I will quote someone from sb.com who made a rather nice list proving my point.
Hey, great! SFX goofs like the stormies armor are now indicitive of the actual way things are. Now TIEs can cloak, because we saw a shadow of a 4th tie when 3 were shown. And because we see some weird reflection when Han is running out of the bunker, that could be a personel shield the crew is wearing. Chewie is a cyborg because when he picks up threepios head in ESB, you see a reflection of what looks like a camera and for some weird reason a boom mike shown. Wars medical equipment is so good that it can function when it is not hooked up, like how it was backwards on Vader's chest in ANH. And lightsabres have a solid metal core to them that appears out of no where like we saw in Kenobi's during the DS fight. Plus our Corellian corvettes can change size in mid flight, so they will just shrink out of the way everytime Trek tries to target them.
And now Warp drive is impossible without somekind of strange string like material shooting off the ship like in TOS. There is no aft torpedo launcher on the GCS, it is just a tiny weapons array. Since we know from scaling in Way of the Warrior and ST3 that BoP are only about 50 m long, this means the GCS is only about 212 m long, as per this pic.
When making sense of what is going on the brain is required to pick out the flaws in the medium from actual intent, for example I have no problem with people saying alot of SF ship to ship action takes place at close range - its a concession to the medium but I accept however in this nstance (which I can't even really remember) when we are told the distance is so much but we see it's far less I'm forced to consider the point that its more likely they are at the distance stated than the distance imposed by the medium.
What you are doing Wong is placing modern science above canon evidence (no matter if that evidence is dialogue or not), the mystery chemical either breaks our laws of physics (you have no reason to override the dialogue except to preserve modern physics) or uses some technobabble cop out (sucks energy from subspace, weird chain reaction etc) you simply say it doesn't occur but with no valid reason - you are putting non canon data (real science) over dialogue, you can preserve both by some other explanantion but the fact is yuo have no reason to doubt what they are saying in the instance of Garths bottle of doom - yet you do simply because you wish to.
Darth Servo: How so? or are you just slinging insults/attacking the man and not his argument.
.
