This is kind of bare bones at the moment, but bare with me here.
We know that Luke manages to destroy a vehicle that was protected by a dorvin basal generating micro-black holes. He pulled against the black hole, forcing the basal to tug against him, and then suddenly pushed, sending the singularity reinforced by the basal's own tugging into the vehicle's spine and consuming it.
Let's try to go for the most conservative quantification of Luke's feat from the assumption that the singularities' gravitational pull can be approximated with Newton's law, .ie it resembles a real mass [this is reasonable given mass-energy conservation requirements, and because Luke calls it a black hole and can predict its strength from the way it sucks in critters] The Star Wars universe can project gravitational effects without just having a proportional amount of matter, but in this case the Vong explicitly call them black holes so it seems to be the consequence of densely packed matter and not some sort of artificial generation. As for why they don't produce more blatant environmental effects...well, it's possible that some anti-gravity is at play here or maybe some other handwavium.
We know that these singularities can pull in flies and insects, and more impressively, missiles and laser cannons. But from what distance? I think it would be a pretty futile defense mechanism if it could only suck in objects that were already going to hit it - there's no way it could deflect blaster bolts from multiple directions if that were true.
So based on some absurdly rough calculations*, I guesstimate that these black holes would mass around 10^14 kilograms, or roughly the mass of Mount Everest.
Now, how quickly is Luke's pulling it? Well, we know that when he reverses course and pushes, it shoves the singularity against the vehicle's spine too quickly for the basal to stop it in time, and yet these basals can move the singularities quickly enough to cover the vehicle. Even if he only accelerates it by one m/s^2, he's exerting 10^14 newtons of force, or about enough to lift every human who has ever walked the Earth simultaneously, or ten thousand Empire State Buildings.
This turned out lot rougher than I thought it would, but I figured it would be a waste not to post it.
* after realizing how ugly and unsolvable any sort of explicit solution would be, I just assumed that a 1 km/s missile (slower than many modern day ones...) is passing the singularity orthogonally from a meter away, and the singularity has a ten meter window with which to suck it in. Assume the missile can't adjust its orbit (despite the proton torpedos doing 90 degree turns into the Death Star's exhaust port -> 20,000+ g's), make a bunch of simplifications for the math's sake -> voila. This is ludicrously haphazard and I might go and check/rework my calcs if I get the time.
Every time you argue that X character has superior telekinesis to Y character because he lifts this particular object which is heavier than anything Y character has lifted, you're doing said maths, just more based on rough intuitive approximations than anything else. If you accept the validity of that line of analysis, there's no reason why you can't extrapolate to "ok, we don't know how heavy this object is so let's calculate it".
As for why Newtonian physics would apply, we can just observe the manner in which star systems can form and characters and vehicles can move around and act in physically intuitive ways. We know that some laws of physics exist there, given the existence of scientists and reliable technology, as well as the presence of SI units such as joules and meters, and these laws of physics with respect to gravitation are analogous enough to our own that planetary orbits don't behave in excessively exotic manners.
Yeah, if we break the fourth wall we realize that no authors bother to calculate this shit out, but that also applies to any analysis you do, whether it pertain to respect threads or versus debates. This isn't that different.
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.
__________________
They are angry because they have been forced to recognize that their hour has arrived; that the time has come to surrender power to Shimrra and the new order."
People have already debunked this theory from what I've seen. The Dovin Vasin black holes were deployed at ground level and barely affected anything. Go flog a different dead horse.
That's like saying the star Starkiller Base absorbed didn't weigh anything because it didn't have any gravitational consequences on the planet. SW seems to have pretty omniscient anti-gravity tech, but the lack of collateral effects doesn't mean that the effects that did happen didn't require energy or, in this case, a sufficient amount of mass-energy to produce the observed effects. It's more parsimonious IMO to posit a sort of selectively canceling anti-gravity field to explain why the ground doesn't get sucked up but missiles do, than to say that less mass was required (that would mess up conservation of energy and, if the mass comes from energy -> mass conversion as I think it has to, maxwell's laws). Regardless, that the black holes are actually black holes is an assumption being made for the sake of argument. A reasonable one, id say, but hardly ironclad.
Nah, there's maths and then there's maths, yours falls into the latter category, and it's gross. Interestingly enough, that's not strictly the case for the mystical energy field which we are discussing. In fact, Yoda's claim that "size matters not" establishes a precedent for your mental perception of an object being just as important as actual mass in regards to one's ability to manipulate it with the Force.
Case in point, mathematically speaking Luke's ability to manipulate a dovin basal implies he could do things like lift everyone on the planet, or ten thousand empire state buildings. But that's not actually likely to be the case when his perception of said objects as massive and immovable, would be much more evident than in regards something Luke is only able to conceive in an abstract sense.
I read it, you just haven't actually countered that hole in your theory. Lol @ "omniscient anti-gravity tech" though.
Anyway, what you just said is retarded. They don't set up a anti-grav forcefield around the thing so only certain objects get sucked in. They create the "black hole" and it does it's thing. Go back to the drawing board Archimedes.
Your creative writing degree is serving you well as always. Anti-gravity tech canonically exists in the Star Wars universe, so it's hardly a lolworthy notion. As for whether anti-grav is being used here, it's blatant question begging to just assert that it isn't - yes, the text doesn't mention it, but the text doesn't detail every last safety mechanism and control valve that exists in a star destroyer either; we need to fill in the blanks if we're going to quantify or examine anything.
The interpretation in question (that it's actually a black hole) is, in my mind, the one that best fits the singularities' description, given that the text and characters repeatedly call it one. Having to explain selective environmental effects isn't unique to this particular incident; what we do know is that it is more reasonable to explain why collateral isn't happening than to explain why some is; getting an energy balance that seems to decrease can be handwaved with unobserved waste sources, but having an energy increase makes a lot less sense.
What, by the way, is your alternative? Even if my model doesn't explain everything perfectly, if it's better than any other options, it's still the one we need to go with.
Actually the passage describes Luke tracing the trajectories of insects being sucked into the void to figure out how strong it is.
Yeah, it was more the "omniscient" part that was lolworthy, genius. The fact is that if you're trying to use real world physics to prove something, it isn't that convincing that your entire argument relies on bullshit magic technology to make sense. "My argument makes total sense in terms of real physics as long as you handwave away why its not acting as it should according to physics." ****in' airtight.
That it sucks in some torpedos and blaster bolts ain't proof that it's got the mass of a quadrillion people, numbnuts. We can explain why it's affecting some things and why it isn't affecting others without them contradicting.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Apr 17th, 2016 at 08:58 PM
OK, time to lay the smackdown on you, my little green friend.
They're omnipresent, as in really common. Your semantics nitpicking is astute, at least.
It's almost like I've already explained this to you. It's not a question of whether you use real-life or imaginary physics, it's a matter of adhering to the assumption underlying these kinds of discussions that the universes are logical and predictable. If you don't wish to pretend that they are, then no sort of vs. analysis makes sense, whether they be based on feats or calculations.
In this case, I used Newton's law of gravitation because it seems to apply in the Star Wars continuity - we observe star systems and people on planets, and they seem to act in a manner similar to what you'd expect from bodies obeying it. We also observe "magic technology", and so we can incorporate those into our theories and calculations too. The two are not mutually exclusive. That there are physical laws that exist in Star Wars and not our own doesn't change the fact that said laws need to converge to the classical limit to explain why planets orbit stars in SW the way they do.
Actually, it kind of is given the stated assumptions, which you would realize if you did the math yourself (or could). You clearly underestimate the amount of mass-energy you need to get that magnitude of effect.
Show me your model then.
Last edited by The Ellimist on Apr 17th, 2016 at 09:10 PM
They're smaller than any black hole we've observed, yes. But they're still pretty large, as the math demonstrates - Mount Everest size if we make a bunch of conservative assumptions.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: There's a delicious irony in Neph refusing to entertain Luke's wrangling of a dovin basal because the math involved isn't elementary-level and involves real-world physics but clings to Zamp's calcs of Bane's rain feat in a white-knuckled death-grip.
Force speed is a straight forward concept. Its no biggy.
It's grey, actually.
That's omnipresent, dipshit. Omniscient is knowing everything. I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with that topic though, since you know nothing, so no sweat.
You sure did say a bunch of words I guess. That's pretty close. The issue is that you're converging real-life physics with magic technology. Your problem is with the fact that magic technology is often the opposite of logical and predictable. Why assume that magic bullshit is being used to restrict the gravity of the "black holes" instead of them being magic bullshit black holes? Isn't that the best answer according to Occum's Razer? Instead of having to poof an entirely new technology thats never mentioned that does magic bullshit, it's much simpler and logical to assign bullshit on an observable piece of technology in a way that fits our observations.
In any case, the presence of technology and phenomena that defies physics without an explanation for how it works preludes any reliable conclusions from being drawn based upon real physics. In the end you're simply deciding how you want it to be working without any proof or evidence. In fact you are actively ignoring evidence that contradicts your conclusion. I take it back, you're not Archimedes you're more like, I dunno, ICP?
Ok, but how about.... no u? I'd rather not assume anything, and I still highly doubt it needs to be that strong in the least. Didn't you just say that they could be Everest sized? Pretty sure Everest has a teensy bit less mass than a Gabillion humans.
Sorry, I'm not a loser. Well, not that much of a loser. As for an explanation, it's magic technology. Who gives a ****. I don't care how strong the black hole gun in Mass Effect is because it's impossible to figure out and lol if you think anyone involved did. Same for the writers for SW.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Apr 17th, 2016 at 09:39 PM
That was your brilliant argument? Cherry picking a typo? Oh, gosh, I'm so impressed.
I had a bit of an interesting epiphany when I was reading through and trying to understand your reply. I think a good way to test the depths of someone's understanding of a subject is to push discussion topics until they no longer become responsive to what you're saying. We've clearly passed that event horizon with you - you repeat your initial contention that "physics don't apply to Star Wars!" which, interestingly enough, happens to be the very argument that I just tried to address in seven different ways. Did you bother to analyze any of those responses? Of course not - we've passed the event horizon.
And the Force isn't? Because we still try to make logical predictions about whose feats surpass one anothers', and it seems like you [at least try to] do this as well. The only distinction between that and this is that this is a little complicated for you (even though it's still fairly elementary...). But how complicated it is has nothing to do with whether it's reasonable.
I...already responded to that, heck I think I did in the OP, and then I repeated it in different wordings and phrases to you. Again, though, we're past the event horizon of your understanding.
Having them be "magic bullshit black holes" in the sense of requiring less mass for a certain gravitational field would violate mass-energy equivalence and conservation.
I already responded to this as well (of course, since you only gave the most cookie cutter, obvious reasponses ever).
You "highly doubt" elementary mathematics, that I can see. Everest masses around 10^14 kg if you estimate its volume and density from reasonable premises. Estimates of the total number of humans to have ever lived hover around 100 billion. The average human weighs IIRC around 75 kg. 100 billion * 75 = 7.5*10^12, which is less than 10^14. Fail harder please.
Yes, you obviously could easily have done so if you wanted to, clearly the only thing lacking is motivation.
Regardless, you've sort of admitted that no superior alternative exists.
And yet you dedicate a vast portion of your life to comparing how well different characters can manipulate a mystical energy field. Talk about double standards.
Last edited by The Ellimist on Apr 17th, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Apr 17th, 2016 07:26 PM
Interestingly enough, that's not strictly the case for the mystical energy field which we are discussing. In fact, Yoda's claim that "size matters not" establishes a precedent for your mental perception of an object being just as important as actual mass in regards to one's ability to manipulate it with the Force.
That was your brilliant argument? Cherry picking a typo? Oh, gosh, I'm so impressed.
