Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Well he's not manually keeping it together. At that point just his dark presence is there.
If he's manually keeping it together, it should have began to rapidly disintegrate upon his death. If it's his mere presence uniting the ship, and his presence was imbued in his mask/armor, then it should have never collapsed... which contradicts avellone's quote.
Unless, perhaps, the feat has been blown wildly out of proportion.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Nihilus's telekinetic feats are suspect, quite honestly. Assuming he did in fact remove his fleet from malachor's mass shadows with brute TK, he did so from an extremely powerful dark side nexus and under unknown circumstances. (Perhaps with aid from the other dark siders, a la dorsk81 and the Yavin iv?)furthermore, the notion that he kept the Ravager intact with brute TK is contradicted by the fact that the ship retains its structural integrity even after he dies, despite the presence of (dozens? hundreds?) of individuals inside acting against it.
Also lol at Zamp for confusing fact and fiction.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
If he's manually keeping it together, it should have began to rapidly disintegrate upon his death. If it's his mere presence uniting the ship, and his presence was imbued in his mask/armor, then it should have never collapsed... which contradicts avellone's quote.Unless, perhaps, the feat has been blown wildly out of proportion.
Friend, I always win this point between the two of us. There are many debates that you have won, but this is not one of them. (Also i am claiming victory for the N. thread from a couple weeks ago where you were trying to undermine Tobin's competence to speak to N.'s perspective.)
So let's look at your cases on display here: Either the cessation of N.'s manual preservation of structural integrity implies that his death should immediately precipitate the disintegration of the Ravager, or N.'s mere presence (but not direct application of TK) is the sufficient condition and so the ship will not disintegrate.
Since we have a clear contradiction in the first case (the ship needs charges to blow up) and a quote contradicting the second (the Ravager would slowly drift apart after N.'s death) you want to conclude that the feat is exaggerated.
If I've misunderstood your argument I invite you to clarify. But it seems to me that the disjunction you've offered does not exhaust the space of possible explanations. What if N.'s direct application of TK is needed to preserve the ship from shear forces involved in (sublight) acceleration and Hyperspace travel? The difference between a reaction force caused by a human striding across the bridge and the energy applied by the ship's massive engines is one of many orders of magnitude. The spot-welding and rust-welding between components of the ship are likely sufficient to survive the incidental vibrations from a person walking inside the ship. Hell, inertia alone is probably enough to soak a few hundred pound person's reaction energy.
However, this level of structural integrity does not guarantee survival in any accelerating maneuver involving enough force to move the entire millions-of-tons ship. It certainly doesn't guarantee the survival of the Ravager while traversing a gravity well that fused several planets (?) together and doomed multiple fleets. It does not guarantee survival during the entry/exit of hyperspace. Those are cases where the ship was under the thumb of an eldritch grip: N.'s large-scale TK with a demonstrated application of force (in the physicist's sense) that far exceeds all but the very uppermost tier of practitioners.
Both in the retrieval and the transport of the Ravager, N. has the single best TK strength and control feat that I know of.
I see the Golden state has emboldened you, Nebraskan.
Tread lightly. uhuh
Anyway, you grasp the essence of my objections quite nicely: the {unproven!} notion that N.'s TK is literally preserving the vessel's structural integrity is quite blatantly contradicted by its enduring state upon N.'s death.
In the face of such a contradiction, you've offered one or two theories which still fail to establish to what degree {if any} N.'s brute TK is at play. Theories, I'll remind you, I'm not obligated to disprove.
But speaking of broad space of possible explanation, your claim of N.'s retrieval of the vessel is similarly premature. There is no evidence that N. achieved such a feat unaided, either by malachor's potent nexus or the presence of other various sith acolytes stranded on the planet. We've seen similar outlier TK feats performed before by a group of neophytes {I invite you to reacquaint yourself with the story of Borsk81 and his defeat of Pellaeon's fleet of star destroyers}.
If you seek to claim N.'s TK mastery, you must first establish it beyond a series of flimsy notions. excellent
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I see the Golden state has emboldened you, Nebraskan.Tread lightly. uhuh
Anyway, you grasp the essence of my objections quite nicely: the {unproven!} notion that N.'s TK is literally preserving the vessel's structural integrity is quite blatantly contradicted by its enduring state upon N.'s death.
In the face of such a contradiction, you've offered one or two theories which still fail to establish to what degree {if any} N.'s brute TK is at play. Theories, I'll remind you, I'm not obligated to disprove.
But speaking of broad space of possible explanation, your claim of N.'s retrieval of the vessel is similarly premature. There is no evidence that N. achieved such a feat unaided, either by malachor's potent nexus or the presence of other various sith acolytes stranded on the planet. We've seen similar outlier TK feats performed before by a group of neophytes {I invite you to reacquaint yourself with the story of Borsk81 and his defeat of Pellaeon's fleet of star destroyers}.If you seek to claim N.'s TK mastery, you must first establish it beyond a series of flimsy notions. excellent
I will not dispute the presence of a nexus. Sure. But the simple fact is that N. himself is a nexus, in much the same way that Palpatine himself is a nexus. So that doesn't seem to impinge on N.'s abilities except maybe to the degree that any character's performance has a high variance. (A second response is that all integrity-maintaining efforts in deep-space would take place away from a distinct nexus...)
I'm interested in your proposal to spread credit for the lifting of the Ravager (which is undeniably impressive) across N. and some of the Sith Assasins we see on the planet. Kreia describes their abilities as being dependent upon their victims' own Force connection. So they would be fundamentally only a reflection of N.'s Force power.
There is another question as to whether the problem of fine-control would be spread across many participants. It seems to me (on first glance) that the quote specifies that N. himself hauled the Ravager from the gravity well. No mention of assistance or ritual.
z
I'm not telling you to disprove anything. I'm just observing that your attempt to undermine the feat fails to pass even logical consistency. The disjunction at the heart of the argument is a false statement.
I'm simply making note of a blatant contradiction that is nonetheless routinely overlooked in attempts made by you and others to casually assert N's
s victory. The prevailing claim is that the Ravager's structural integrity owes itself to N's TK. Evidence shows that the integrity endures even in the absence of that phenomenon.
z
I will not dispute the presence of a nexus. Sure.
This pleases me. excellent
z
But the simple fact is that N. himself is a nexus, in much the same way that Palpatine himself is a nexus. So that doesn't seem to impinge on N.'s abilities except maybe to the degree that any character's performance has a high variance. (A second response is that all integrity-maintaining efforts in deep-space would take place away from a distinct nexus...)
I recall that you've made this claim before; I also recall you conceding it. do you now have proof of such a bold claim?
z
I'm interested in your proposal to spread credit for the lifting of the Ravager (which is undeniably impressive) across N. and some of the Sith Assasins we see on the planet. Kreia describes their abilities as being dependent upon their victims' own Force connection. So they would be fundamentally only a reflection of N.'s Force power.
Where does kreia attribute the totality of the sith assassins' Force power as being entirely dependent upon their victims' Force connection? mmm
z
There is another question as to whether the problem of fine-control would be spread across many participants. It seems to me (on first glance) that the quote specifies that N. himself hauled the Ravager from the gravity well. No mention of assistance or ritual.
statements like "he tore the vessel from the mass shadows of malachor" doesn't preclude the presence of external aid anymore than my textbook's reference to "Hitler's inexorable march towards stalingrad" precludes the presence of Wehrmacht troops.
{In fact, it doesn't actually require Hitler himself to be personally present.}