Originally posted by Beniboybling
Its all fictional, friend.
👆
Also, I look at this:
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Its all fictional, friend.
👆
Also, I look at this:
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Its all fictional, friend.
Of course it's all fictional. But the Star Wars Universe is primarily the movies. Everything else is expanded from them. But when there's EU that have nothing to do with the movies (i.e. the core Canon), and don't count towards them at all, I just think it's kind of a waste of time arguing personally.
Especially given the ridiculous inconsistencies in Legends that can never be reconciled.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
👆Also, I look at this:
Oh right. So it was ONLY the 11th biggest film domestically in all of film history. Well then you've sure shown me. Clearly less and less people are interested in Canon Star Wars.
Originally posted by Darth ThorRight so your argument is that anything not to do with the movies isn't worth discussing? Lol OK. That's called your personal bias, no one cares.
Of course it's all fictional. But the Star Wars Universe is primarily the movies. Everything else is expanded from them. But when there's EU that have nothing to do with the movies (i.e. the core Canon), and don't count towards them at all, I just think it's kind of a waste of time arguing personally.Especially given the ridiculous inconsistencies in Legends that can never be reconciled.
EDIT: Weirdly enough this sounds like something Quan would say, you should go discuss things with him. 🙂
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right so your argument is that anything not to do with the movies isn't worth discussing? Lol OK. That's called your personal bias, no one cares.
It's like fan fic. You're free to discuss it, but I personally think it's a waste of time arguing over it's massive inconsistencies, throughout every medium.
Actually it's not personal bias, it's an opinion, but I'm sensing some butt hurt, perhaps because YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Of course it's all fictional. But the Star Wars Universe is primarily the movies. Everything else is expanded from them. But when there's EU that have nothing to do with the movies (i.e. the core Canon), and don't count towards them at all, I just think it's kind of a waste of time arguing personally.Especially given the ridiculous inconsistencies in Legends that can never be reconciled.
Oh right. So it was ONLY the 11th biggest film domestically in all of film history. Well then you've sure shown me. Clearly less and less people are interested in Canon Star Wars.
Hmmm. Less than the original, barely more than Empire, with hundreds of millions more in advertising as well as more theaters.. Yea, looks like it LOL
Gosh. What a mess happened after my last posting. Apparently, I need to sweep the place clean. And since Corpus Christi (yesterday) was the start of a very long weekend over here, this shall be done.
Nai’s hidden agenda: Enlightenment.
Since Tempest was so kind of accusing me of having some "anti-Sheev" agenda, let me – once again – point out how utterly hilarious that notion is. Tempest sorts me into the "SWTOR team", after I, in this very thread here have expanded my criticism to the figure of Vitiate right here. I can only guess why Tempest has always and is still ignoring all clues to the fact that I’m not "anti-Sheev" or "pro-Whatever". Probably because of his limited mental faculties, which can only perceive the world in black and white, good and bad, "Sheev believers" and "heretics".
Maybe he could accept the simple fact that I’m not concerned with the results you people archive by what you call "reasoning" (which is pretty much reduced to “compiling heaps of quotes that appear to support a certain view”). About every single opinion held, posted and defended in this forum is the result of the same stupid method of examining the source material: "It is written, therefore it is true." This is 14th century Europe style of handling written fiction (e.g. the Bible) but certainly nothing one should expect from individuals living in the 21st century and considering themselves halfway intelligent.
Nearly every single posting of mine here is critique on this modus operandi, regardless of the results it yields, even if I have mockingly applied it myself in the past, in a mixture of showing how stupid it is and using your own "weapons" against you. But my true "agenda" is enlightenment. I want people to think for themselves rather than staring on sentences written down somewhere in the source material and, most often without second thought, proclaiming: "Wee. That’s how it is!" I’m both a fan of Kant and Voltaire. Kant has left us with the motto of the Enlightenment: "Sapere Aude!", which roughly translates into "venture to be wise" and, considering your usual reactions to my posting, one needs indeed dare to be smart here. Or, as Thomas Grey put it in his Ode on a distant Prospect of Eton College which says: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
But Voltaire would probably be the better companion for a journey through the ever changing continuum of the Star Wars universe: "Le doute n'est pas un état plaisant, mais la certitude est absurde." (Translation: "Doubt is an unpleasant state, but certainty is absurd."😉 It’s ridiculous what grade of certainty regarding some convictions people exhibit here. It’s already touching the realm of fanaticism and, even more ridiculous, those people are proud to be fanatics. And of course, not belonging to their team, makes you a "heretic". 😂 It’s really a wonderful example Bertrand Russells observation: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
So you need doubt to be smart. Translating that one into the realm of science, it’s one of the basis tenants of the scientific method: falsification. In science, to ensure that you don’t succumb to intellectual bias, you usually use something called "null hypothesis" which starts with a negation of the hypothesis you want to prove, which is continued, until the gathered facts are mutually incompatible with the "null hypothesis" in which case the alternative hypothesis (the one you want to prove) is accepted. So let me just demonstrate how that works.
Darth Sidious is a universe buster!
As this is the – for some – wished result of an analysis, I will utilize this as my "null hypothesis" and try to work with it. For this, there is essentially two separate things that need to be proven. First: That the Force Storm, as summoned by Sidious in the end of the first Dark Empire story arc, which has been labeled a "threat to all of space" is really one and secondly, it is mandatory to present proof that aforementioned force storm is solely dependent on Sidious power.
The Storm that threatens all of space
Attempting to prove this assertion correct could be easy, by just pointing to the single source which proclaims that. However, that appears to be rather problematic, because of the nature of the SW source material. Usually scientist, when acting as historians and dealing with texts, separate two different kinds of source material. There are narrative sources (chronicles, annals, stories) and descriptive sources. 99 percent of all SW source material belongs to the category of narrative texts, and those are always subject to interpretation. So it is theoretically possible, that the author of the aforementioned source was just exaggerating, using hyperbole or didn’t do his research on the issue properly.
So we need to have a look at the factual properties of the aforementioned Force storm. To do so, we need to consult the primary source material, which would be the Dark Empire comic:
Souce: Dark Empire comic
This is how the storm looks like in the "Dark Empire" comics. You may want to take not that, from what we can discern here, it has a diameter that is, at best, some kilometers wide. Going by this, it appears to be rather off to assume, that this thing could be a "threat to all of space". But we shouldn’t be so fast in that kind of judgement. Because it might be possible for Sidious to greatly enlarge that storm. But again, to find out whether this is possible or not, we have to peak into the source material.
Source: Dark Empire Sourcebook, p.74.
As we can read there: "When the Force user attempts to create a Force storm, the Jedi must determine the diameter and the damage[…]". Which tells us two things: First, that an impromptu increase of the diameter of the storm is not possible, and, the second important thing here, that to create a storm that would have endangered "all of space" Sidious would have needed to summon that very storm with the intent to destroy the universe, which is nowhere to be seen in the source material. In fact, the source above limits its abilities to "[…]swallow whole fleets of spaceships or tear the surface off worlds", which is significantly less impressive than destroying the entire universe.
But of course, size in itself doesn’t matter. If a "wormhole" with the size of the Force storm as depicted moves through space fast enough, it can – technically – still be a threat to “all of space”, right? And again, we can have a look into the comics.
Souce: Dark Empire comics.
While the storm doesn’t seem to speedblitz across space in the first picture I posted, those pictures taken from "Dark Empire" make it even appear more slowly. The Skywalker twins, who were just in front of Palpatine when the Storm turned against the person who has called it, are capable of literally outrunning the Storm when it consumes the Eclipse. And as the second picture shows, even when Luke and Leia have made it into safety with the shuttle and had time to move from their hangar to that viewport, the storm is still busy with consuming the Eclipse. So with the combination of size and movement speed, it would be impossible for the Storm to threaten"all of space". But it is, of course possible, that Sidious – unlike any other use of the ability – could alter the size, speed and destructive abilities of a storm after summoning it.
Then the last obstacles in the way to make this assertion work, are physics themselves. As we all know "all of space" as in"the universe" is pretty big. In fact, it is the closest thing to "infinity" that is imaginable for human beings. And now, we face a pretty hard problem here, if we want our assumption, that the storm is a "universe buster" work. As some here might know, there is a rather easy formula in physics to express "work". It is:
work = force * time
Now the "work" that the storm needs to do, is to destroy all of space. If space is nigh infinite, then in order to get the job done, one would either need a nigh infinite amount of force or a nigh infinite amount of time. Palpatine, for all we know, has neither. And this is, by the way, the reason why I pointed in this particular direction before. Since "nigh infinite" time or energy is needed, any other force ability with those factors could be used as well for that particular job.
Conclusion:
Our "null hypothesis", that the Force storm Sidious has conjured could be a threat to all of space is clearly mutually incompatible with all facts available. The properties of the Force storm, as shown in the source material, clearly don’t allow it to be such a huge threat. A possible scenario in which Sidious could change those properties is pretty much excluded by the description of the ability. And finally, the very idea violates physics, unless Sidious has a nigh infinite amount of either time or energy at his disposal to get the job done. As it is, we need to accept the alternative hypothesis: The Force storm was not a threat to "all of space". Period.
The Storm is based solely on Sidious power
With the reasoning above, the question whether Sidious is a "universe buster" or not, is already answered. But as this particular issue here was also part of the debate, I feel the urge to resolve it in the same fashion as I did with the quote above. So let us start: As a "null hypothesis" for this particular field, we will assume, that Force storms are indeed solely dependent on the Force powers of the one utilizing them.
Within this thread, there can be found multiple quotes that link the Force storm to Sidious personal force abilities. That could be enough to actually prove that the Force storm are solely dependent on Sidious force powers (or his abilities to channel dark side energies). But to further prove this point, a look into the source material is, once again, mandatory. So let us just have a look at what the ability does:
Source: Dark Empire Sourcebook, p.74.
As this source, which includes the only description of the ability not coming from a character, tells us: "This power allows the Jedi to twist the space-time continuum to create vast storms of force. The power also allows limited control over these storms."
There are two important facts to gather from that description here. First, there is a causal link between the twisting of space-time and the creation of the storms. So what the user of the ability does, is twisting-space time with his use of the Force. The resulting storm is created through that action, but does not dependent on the Force users own force powers. Those are, after the initial "twisting of space-time" just use to control the storm.
One could make the contention that, just because a further use of the Force to feed the Storm isn’t mentioned, that isn’t proof that such an act isn’t happening. But given the source above, it is quite obvious, that the Force storms are powered by an outside Force:
"Some are able to create Force storms, but fail at harnessing what they have foolishly unleashed."
Emphasis mine. The wording here implies, that, much like farm animals, the Force storm is to be harnessed in order to be used effectively. And that "harness" is the Force in the hand of the one who summoned the storm. Hence the risk of "losing control" off the storm, which would be a ridiculous concept, if the Force user was solely responsible for the power of the Force storm.
"Often, those who fail to control the storm are themselves consumed and destroyed."
If there was a constant channeling of power into the storm, all the Force user having to do to prevent it from destroying himself is, you know, stop using the Force, which should lead to a collapse of the Force storm. I also fail to see, how one would "lose control" over power, that he actively channels himself, while the ability is used. Once more, it would be enough to stop doing this. But one might take further notice of what Luke Skywalker says when confronted with the storm:
Souce: Dark Empire comic
"According to his own word, he has awakened a chaos even he cannot control", Luke says with reference to the Force storm. And once again, this is a clear differentiation between the personal power of Sidious and the Force storm he spawned. And the issue at hand is just controlling said "chaos". I don’t see reason to describe the Force powers of another being, channeled into a certain ability as "chaos". Neither is there any reason to question that an individual has control over a power said individual is using at that very time. Once again: If the individual in question was empowering the Force storm, asserting control would be easy by influencing (increasing, decreasing) the amount of Force energy being channeled into the storm.
But this doesn’t happen. Even after the user is consumed, the storm continues, and for quite a long time, as it appears:
Souce: Dark Empire comics.
After or while Sidious is destroyed by the Force storm, the Skywalker twins manage to get away from the Eclipse, fly into safety, get on board of a Republic ship, get from the hangar to the viewport and watch the destruction of the Eclipse. Notice that in the picture, there is still roughly one third of the spaceship left to be consumed, after the storm has destroyed its maker minutes in the past. And the comic even mentioned, that the storm disappears after that destruction is completed (which will still be several minutes in the Future).
So the storm is obviously independent of immediate and direct use of the Force from the force user that summoned it. And the last part of the description points into the same direction:
"When a Force user attempts to create a Force storm, the Jedi must determine the diameter and the amount of damage[…]"
This does, once again, give us hints in two different directions: First off, does the inability of the Force user to influence the size and strength of the Force storm point towards the idea, that there is no direct transfer of force energy occurring between the force user and the storm. Otherwise the Jedi / Sith using the ability should easily be able to alter the size and strength, by channeling more (or less) energy into the phenomenon.
The second hint is, perhaps, the more important one: When the Jedi has to determine size and strength of the storm at the point where he attempts to create the storm (tearing space-time), then the "summoning" seems the only point where the Force user can influence the result of the storm directly. And this would point towards the idea, that a Force user only uses Force energy for the initial tearing, while the storm, once created, is entirely independent from the power of its user, who just has to "control" it to "harness" what he has summoned. In that regard, the Force strom is – indeed – like a farm animal. It is "used" by the Force user, and "controlled" by it, but its destructive powers are not directly linked to the Force powers of the user, much like the strength of an ox is not linked to the muscles of the farmer who utilizes him on the field.
Conclusion:
Our hypothesis, that the Force storm is solely dependent on the Force powers of its user, is mutually incompatible with the facts mentioned within the source material. The Force user is apparently not capable of influencing the size or strength of the storm after it has been called, which doesn’t fit with the notion, that the storm is actively powered by the user directly. Furthermore, we are confronted with the fact that the user just has limited control over the storm. And while Sidious proclaims otherwise in that situation, those are just his words that contradict the more objective description of the ability, which is to be seen as universal law. That the ability can even turn against its user and can exists for an extended period of time, after the user is destroyed, does also point to the idea, that the Force storm is not dependent on the actual force power of its user – at least not beyond summoning and control. Thus, we have to go by the alternative hypothesis: That while the Force user is required to summon and control the phenomenon, its destructive capabilities are largely independent – though determined – by its user.
I rest my case. You can now accept that I’m right, or follow the idea that the Force storm can bust the universe and is solely dependent on Sidious power. Since the latter case is only possible, by sticking to a single quote like 14th century peons clinked to the "holy" scripture and ignoring the parts you don't like, everybody following that line of thought is to be considered a unenlightened fanatic who, to paraphrase Kant, hasn’t emerged from his self-imposed immaturity. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. You can go on from here. Stay save and have fun.
facepalm
Work is the dot product of force and displacement.
Regardless, Nai just posted a lot of paragraphs. That must mean he's right, if we just ignore a few assumptions about the linear/constant size and progression of the Storms over time, of the lack of any articulation, despite repeated requests, of the relevance of this "Sidious doesn't use his own power" quip, and of the other abject layers of hilarity mixed in with admittedly impressive eloquence for someone's second language. Bravo, man. *slow clap*
Originally posted by The Ellimist
facepalmWork is the dot product of force and displacement.
Regardless, Nai just posted a lot of paragraphs. That must mean he's right, if we just ignore a few assumptions about the linear/constant size and progression of the Storms over time, of the lack of any articulation, despite repeated requests, of the relevance of this "Sidious doesn't use his own power" quip, and of the other abject layers of hilarity mixed in with admittedly impressive eloquence for someone's second language. Bravo, man. *slow clap*
Given that you don't have anything significant to say (status quo in that regard), I'll just accept your sarcasm-coated concession. Dismissed!
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Regardless, nobody cares about your attempt to strawman the OP question by asking whether the Storm technically derives from Sidious's power or merely his ability to channel or direct some external power - you still haven't explained how this distinction is meaningful. So all you really have is the question of whether that storm actually was threatening to universe bust.
The question is important, because of the element of control. If Sidious has only limited control over an external power - which is proclaimed by everybody, with the exception of his DE self - then it is rather absurd to think, that he could deliberately use it to destroy the universe. This would be different, if the power was his own and perfectly controlable for him.
Here, you've produced exactly two meaningful arguments:1. It doesn't specify how long it would take! - this objection is based on the ridiculous idea that the narrator really means to say "consume all of space in some t < infinity". Of course, nobody using the phrase "threaten to do X" actually means that in regular dialogue; "threaten" typically comes with some realistic expectation of urgency.
Likewise, even if the upper bound on the amount of time it would take would be the course of Sidious's concentration, ability to go without sustenance, or even natural lifespan, that would still require a ridiculous amount of destructive power. Unless if you want to entirely discard all conventions of real life languages and just assume that "threaten" here means some weird theoretical suspension of all meaningful conditions on the timescales of verbs, you are just debating whether Sidious can universe bust in six months or a day - as if that made a meaningful difference. In this case, you overestimate the amount of precision we actually need to come to an accurate and meaningful conclusion. There's a difference between the two.
Seriously, it's like a quote claims that a star destroyer can destroy a planet's surface, and you're like well who knows maybe it takes a million years to do that!
If entirely destroyed the notion, that the storm could do this, based on size / strength / speed and the fact that Sidious can't alter either of these after summoning the storm and clearly doesn't have the power to destroy the universe.
And if you want to argue authorial intent: Probably the author wanted to make clear, that those Force storms are very dangerous and very powerful and didn't consider the consquences of his statement, because he wasn't writing it with the thought in mind, that someone could take it from the source, post it into an online forum and proclaim that "Sidious can destroy the universe" based on it. At least, that is as far as I can go, without knowing the context of this quote, since I don't own the source in question.
2. The Storm doesn't look that big! - that's nice of you to assume that the Storm's size/form has to remain constant and unitary, and that it couldn't possibly grow at some sort of exponential rate just because Sidious was at the moment focused on attacking a specific target. Remember, since there's an actual source going against you, the onus would be on you to establish that some manner of residual shockwaves or an exponentially growing Storm would be implausible. Just arguing purely from what you see in the comics isn't enough - you have to deal with the official interpretation. Parsimony is the simplest theory that fits the information, and yours doesn't do that. [/B]
The size / form has to remain constant because the description of the ability says that size / form of the storm can't be influenced after summoning it. Thanks for ignoring that. Futhermore, the quote does not deal with a theoretical variation of the storm Sidious might have produced but with the storm as it was, which clearly lacks the properties to be a "universe buster". So I'm not just "going by what I see in the comics", I'm going what the only source, that isn't the statement of a character (with most of them coming from Sidious himself), does proclaim.
I accidentally deleted my post but I guess you caught it in time:
Originally posted by Nai
The question is important, because of the element of control. If Sidious has only limited control over an external power - which is proclaimed by everybody, with the exception of his DE self - then it is rather absurd to think, that he could deliberately use it to destroy the universe. This would be different, if the power was his own and perfectly controlable for him.
Utter nonsense. Humankind only possesses limited control of nuclear fusion, and it certainly doesn't come from "within us" - that doesn't somehow disprove the evidence that we can use it to cause massive explosions. If we were just speculating from ignorance as to whether Sidious could universe bust, this might be a somewhat valid point. Since you're working against an explicit statement that he can, you need a little bit more than this.
If entirely destroyed the notion, that the storm could do this, based on size / strength / speed and the fact that Sidious can't alter either of these after summoning the storm and clearly doesn't have the power to destroy the universe.
The quote doesn't negate the possibility of the storm's penultimate user altering said attributes post-facto, lol. I can determine my major in university and then change it afterwards. If you want to play games with semantics and claim that "threatened" means "threatened over an infinite amount of time", then you have to deal with this too.
Again, this might be enough if we were just arguing with the comics; this is not definitive enough to disprove an official statement. Not even close.
And if you want to argue authorial intent: Probably the author wanted to make clear, that those Force storms are very dangerous and very powerful and didn't consider the consquences of his statement, because he wasn't writing it with the thought in mind, that someone could take it from the source, post it into an online forum and proclaim that "Sidious can destroy the universe" based on it. At least, that is as far as I can go, without knowing the context of this quote, since I don't own the source in question.
Not anticipating the consequences of a statement =/= the statement not being true. George Lucas may not have carefully considered the consequences of creating Jar Jar Binks; he's still a part of both canon and legends.
BTW, it's funny if you think all of the quotes and sources you use were carefully vetted and analyzed for their implications in online versus debates.
It's also funny that you're trusting the game mechanics of an RPG over a narrative sourcebook for absolutely no reason but your convenience. 👆
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Utter nonsense. Humankind only possesses limited control of nuclear fusion, and it certainly doesn't come from "within us" - that doesn't somehow disprove the evidence that we can use it to cause massive explosions. If we were just speculating from ignorance as to whether Sidious could universe bust, this might be a somewhat valid point. Since you're working against an explicit statement that he can, you need a little bit more than this.
Urm? Last time I checked, I was dealing with this statement:
"Unleashing the full power of his hatred, he conjures a Force Storm that threatens to consume all of space, including the New Republic fleet."
Correct?
This is, after all, just the judgement of whatever author, who thinks that the Force storm could consume all of space. Not that Sidious could intentionally summon a force storm powerful enough to do so. I thought, that I explained why I made a point of questioning the linking of the destructive abilities of the storm to Sidious personal power...
The quote doesn't negate the possibility of the storm's penultimate user altering said attributes post-facto, lol. I can determine my major in university and then change it afterwards. If you want to play games with semantics and claim that "threatened" means "threatened over an infinite amount of time", then you have to deal with this too.
Urm. Since when do I need to prove a negative?
If you want Sidious to be capable to alter the size and power of a Force storm, you better come up with proof that he can. Until you do, I'm going to stick with the description of the Force storm ability, which makes it clear that size and strength have to be determined while summoning the storm and - going even one step father - grant those properties to the storm, even should the user fail to use the ability properly.
That aside, as you ignore that critique the first time around: The source in question talks about the force storm as it is and not some variation that might have been there after an alteration of the storm by Sidious.
Again, this might be enough if we were just arguing with the comics; this is not definitive enough to disprove an official statement. Not even close.
An "official statement" that is - like all of fiction - subject to interpretation and falsification. If there is nothing to indicate, that the storm can destroy the universe (which is, in itself, an entirely ridiculous notion), than there is no reason to believe the quote. It's that easy. If you refuse to use your own mental faculties while reading the source material, you can just go back to kindergarten and bore the other kids to death with your lack of personal thoughts.
Seriously. One could just point out, that the supposed "all consuming" Force Storm is neither capable of destroying "space" (where it just appears and disappears without leaving any kind of damage), nor to destroy Sidious spirit, who must have been in the center of the storm after Sidious body was destroyed.
Not anticipating the consequences of a statement =/= the statement not being true. George Lucas may not have carefully considered the consequences of creating Jar Jar Binks; he's still a part of both canon and legends.
False analogy.
The better one would be this: Lucas, in the RotS commentary, happily proclaims that Anakin got his scar by slipping in the bathtub, mentioning that he doesn't care about the stories outside of his movies. So did Anakin get the scar by slipping in the bathtub now, because Lucas said so?
BTW, it's funny if you think all of the quotes and sources you use were carefully vetted and analyzed for their implications in online versus debates.
Of course they weren't. What part of "utilizing your own modus operandi against you" was it you didn't understand?
It's also funny that you're trusting the game mechanics of an RPG over a narrative sourcebook for absolutely no reason but your convenience. 👆 [/B]
What part of the differentiation between "narrative" and "discriptive" sources was it you didn't get?