Originally posted by BeniboyblingI couldn't agree more. But I just meant that Ellimist started this line of thinking, I believe Legend is merely responding to him.
Even Eliminists argument are better than this. 🙂Heck in the real-world even a wormhole is an entirely theoretical concept and in Star Wars they are not stated to have any destructive properties. Going on to assume Palpatine's space magic has the properties of a black hole is absurd in the extreme. 😬
Originally posted by Nephthys
Because Ellimist?
The validity of real world physics to certain domain limits is effectively [Legends] canonized by Saxton's ICS's, and furthermore can be effectively deduced from the same epistomological assumptions we use for all of these debates. It's actually a pretty regarded sub-group of vs. debating. This has been repeated to you dozens of times by now, but like the brainless loser you are, it still hasn't gotten through. 👆
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=155079
I might dig for the primary source when I've time.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=155079I might dig for the primary source when I've time.
Oooo! I like this very much! Awesome. Though would for sure like the primary source, when you have the time.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
So a few kilometers deep at best.Then why do you keep describing the crust as if its the core? 😂
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Again there is no evidence to suggest there tunnels extend beneath the crust, meaning the shockwaves would have to travel through thousands of kilometers of matter to reach and fracture it's core. And of course its not hundreds of kilometers in diameter, its not a dwarf planet or a moon. 😬And seeing as the source material makes no mention of these tunnels being a factor in it's devastation, I see no reason to entertain your rather hairbrained theories, especially considering you can't even prove these tunnels were present at the site of impact.
Moreover, we don't have data about the size of Pammant. It could be a dwarf planet or moon-sized. Planets significantly vary in sizes.
Hairbrained theories? No. Common sense? Yes. A heavily tunneled environment is likely to facilitate shockwaves in reaching deeper parts of the world from a catastrophic events.
---
The Malevolence Starship was also sent crashing into a moon:
Nothing significant happened to the moon, I suppose.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Do you even understand the concept of blackholes and similar manifestations?
LMAO! This is pretty ironic, given your hilarious buffoonery with respect to Luke Skywalker's singularity manipulation. I'm pretty sure you don't really have much of an understanding of black hole physics, kek.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Have a good look at the size of Force Storm:The Force Storm was much larger than the vessels it consumed. The durability of a vessel is largely irrelevant vis-a-vis a blackhole and similar manifestations because they literally consume atoms. Mass is most important factor.
A black hole of that size could easily suck up a planet or a star given a [small] amount of time. Thanks for the concession, I guess.
The same Force Storm would not be able to consume a planet on such a short notice because a planet have infinitely larger mass then a Starship. This is further evident from the fact that that Force Storm destroyed an alliance base on a moon but not the moon itself when it came into contact with the said moon.
Why would Sidious bother? He wasn't trying to destroy the moon.
BTW, it's not a matter of mass. Two-body problems aside, the mass of the thing being acted on doesn't affect the local gravitational field because the force acting on it increases proportional to the mass and they cancel out on both sides. Galileo proved this several hundred years ago. It only matters when its mass is fairly large and you have to take into account how it accelerates the other body too, but this would actually make it more.
Please don't condescend to people on black holes if you don't know heavy objects fall as fast as lighter ones. 👆
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Or it could be five times the size of earth. How big was Ziost, again?
No data available on the size of Ziost either. But it have 2 moons and dwarf both in size.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I really doubt that an ISD related incident would fracture core of a planet 5 times as big as Earth. I doubt that it would do something significant to even Earth. In-fact, Earth have taken significant abuse during the course of its existence, FYI.
"FYI", this is a nonsensical argument. Just vaguely declaring that the Earth has taken abuse before doesn't demonstrate that an imperial star destroyer, a fictional technological construction capable of massively faster than light travel, couldn't affect it. You'd need to run calculations, or at least give a reasonable framework of a case, lmao.
BTW, you're once again grasping at straws and just dismissing sources you don't like - what's new? The firepower and power generation abilities of imperial warships are officially documented in various literature, some of which has been provided to you. Furthermore, we can calculate it from the films themselves by looking at events like acceleration feats and scaling from the Death Star. This isn't a real question. You should drop it.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDRight, again a handful of kilometers, nothing approaching thousands of even hundreds.
Those factories were churning out 4 km long Starships (e.g. Malevolence); therefore, those tunnels would be much deeper then a few km to house such facilities and build Starships of such sizes.
This is Star Wars, my friend! Expect anything in it. This planet is labelled "tunneled planet" for a reason. I don't think that it would earn such a label from standard tunneling.And yet you appeal to common sense? What part of common sense suggests this planets has tunnels burrowing beneath the crust and all the way into the core? Even past the planet's immediate layer they'd find viscous lava flows were no facility could feasibly be sustained, there is nothing common sense about it.
It being called a "tunnelled" planet being more likely a matter of quantity than depth.
Moreover, we don't have data about the size of Pammant. It could be a dwarf planet or moon-sized. Planets significantly vary in sizes.So in the absence of evidence your assuming its a tiny moon with tunnels burrowing all the way to the core? Because that makes sense over assuming an average size, when we're given no reason to believe its anything other than average? And indeed we could just as easily assume the planet was massive by this logic.
Hairbrained theories? No. Common sense? Yes. A heavily tunneled environment is likely to facilitate shockwaves in reaching deeper parts of the world from a catastrophic events.No its not, as I've explained to you, it defies logic and common sense for these tunnels to even reach beneath the crust. And if that were the case, the source would have explictly said so, it did not, so we should assume it was not a significant factor. Again you can't even prove it hit a tunneled area.
The Malevolence Starship was also sent crashing into a moon:You have evidence as to the after effects? As if nothing happened lol.Nothing significant happened to the moon, I suppose.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Tbf, you all sound legit retarded comparing two vastly different things in a pathetic attempt to shamelessly wank.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingI made my stance clear on the first page, not my fault you can't read. 🙂
Palpy's Force storm destroying the Eclipse > planet busting tbh. But as profoundly different powers its difficult to make a comparison between them.
