Originally posted by NewGuy01
Ah, I see what you're going for here. This idea probably falls under the same category of inconsistencies as Jedi (and even muggles) being capable of reacting to events at a significant percentage of the speed of light during space battles.
Of course, one could follow that line of logic and assume Jedi actually operate at these kinds of high speeds (like a lot of people did in the past), but that opens up a whole plethora of other problems. Such as, in a foil to this case, telekinetically thrown objects in duels between Jedi and Sith not having the destructive properties of objects moving at massively hypersonic+ speeds.
So when someone brings up a feat that, on a reasonable set of deductions that you can't seem to detect errors in, hypes Kyp Durron, you just dismiss it as an "inconsistency"...because it doesn't fit with your preordained canonization of Kyp's power?
Your circular argument doesn't even make sense if we suspend that question begging - you try to mock such analysis for its "inconsistencies", yet apparently think that all of your own feats and accolades are designed with clear precision and epistemological rigor. Apparently if X contradicts Y, we automatically decide that whichever happens to fit NewGuy's opinion counts as the right option, and the other one is the "inconsistency".
Firstly, it's Legends canon - Curtis Saxton's ICS's are official literature that Leland Chee explicitly listed as the first place he'd look to with regards to firepower, and they not only go over real life physical concepts but the numbers and figures are based on said calculations!
Secondly, the existence of real-life physics in Star Wars to a certain classical limit can be deduced from the assumption that there's some manner of consistent rationality - there has to be for technological constructs to work - and then the observation that planets, people and ships seem to move in Newtonian manners. That suggests that our formulas would work, and the only ones really needed here are F = ma (we would really clearly notice if this didn't) and universal gravitation (again, notice how the planets orbit?)
Thirdly, I'll quote Jkbart:
"Basically any comparison on any feat is a math. Jumping distance, size of the object telekinated, how much more did the Lightning burn. It's all still math, just an easier and simpler one.
Of course, the harder the math, the less author probably cared, but feat still exists as it is, even if the author made it without his knowledge of the magnitude. Everything in universe is held within physical laws and common knowledge; otherwise the universe wouldn't pretty much exist, or all feats would be worthless."
Fourthly, the analysis I was doing was really just a logical argument on top of some really, really basic assumptions about how strong gravity is wherever Cade was (which is clear enough in how he could stand, lol). The rest was just questioning how fast the freighter had to move to pose a threat, it was a tactical assessment, not some sort of complex math. It's no fundamentally different from every other feat we look at.
Do you have any idea how good Gaalan is, aside from his being on Kyp's level as a duelist? Do you have any idea how good slayers are? Mind you, slayers are Force-resistant, so they are the best possible option to fight someone whose primary advantage is his raw power, kek.
Aside from circularly assuming that Gaalan is weaker than Revan because he's only a match for Kyp, I don't see where you think you're going with this.
That's nice, but you completely cut out the part where he beats out Luke in black hole manipulation - a powerscaling notion independent of the particular question of how impressive said manipulation is in an absolute sense - and just trolling around that fact doesn't negate its existence.
