Dovin Basal feat analysis

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The Ellimist
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 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.

Beniboybling
Maths + Star Wars = Dumb.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Maths + Star Wars = Dumb. thumb up

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Maths + Star Wars = Dumb.

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.

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.

Nephthys
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.

The Ellimist
Also what jkbart said

Originally posted by Nephthys
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.

You...didn't actually read the OP, did you?

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.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
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. Nah, there's maths and then there's maths, yours falls into the latter category, and it's gross. smileOriginally posted by 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. 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.

Nephthys
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Also what jkbart said



You...didn't actually read the OP, did you?

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.

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.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.


Originally posted by Beniboybling
Nah, there's maths and then there's maths, yours falls into the latter category, and it's gross. smileInterestingly 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.

Actually the passage describes Luke tracing the trajectories of insects being sucked into the void to figure out how strong it is.

Nephthys
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. thumb up

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.

S_W_LeGenD
The vong manifestations are artificial and nowhere close to the mass and power of the cosmic blackholes even in fiction.

Vong manifestations would vanish after consuming some objects. They were terribly weak and small in comparison to the cosmic blackholes.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Actually the passage describes Luke tracing the trajectories of insects being sucked into the void to figure out how strong it is. Right, that's still abstract knowledge. He can't actually perceive its mass, only get a sense of it.

EDIT: Although, in general, Luke of all people should be a master of not getting his perceptions of an object get the better of him.

The Ellimist
OK, time to lay the smackdown on you, my little green friend.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, it was more the "omniscient" part that was lolworthy, genius.

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.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


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.

The_Tempest
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.

Nephthys
Force speed is a straight forward concept. Its no biggy.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
OK, time to lay the smackdown on you, my little green friend.

It's grey, actually.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Critique me for belittling SW_Legend's reading skills if you wish, but you really have no excuse. You should have figured out from the context of my statement that I meant "omniscient" as in it's really common, not "omniscient" as in they can generate omniscient anti-gravity. roll eyes (sarcastic)

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. smile

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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.

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?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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.

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.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Show me your model then.

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.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
It's grey, actually.


WHY U UZE REAL LIFE PHISICS IN STAR WARS!?!?!




no expression 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 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. roll eyes (sarcastic)

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. thumb up

Nephthys
Hahaha. laughing

The Ellimist
Just step out of this one, Neph. You're out of your comfort zone here.

Nephthys
Oh no, you done sassed me up son. We are in the shit now.

The Ellimist
I'm trembling. Save me Lord and Father Gideon!

Nephthys
My dick may be small, but it has the mass of Everest so I can actually kill all of humanity with it.

Selenial
Originally posted by Nephthys
My dick may be small, but it has the mass of Everest so I can actually kill all of humanity with it.

lmfao

The Ellimist
lol it looks like you're trying to get the last word in too, and actually started the insults.

Oops hypocrisy is a complicated concept

The Ellimist
Edit: ROFLAMO his posts got deleted

The Ellimist
laughing who's the insecure one now, obsessively making socks to wage a war against the mods nobody sees or cares about?

I went back and checked your original banning. Your mental issues are indeed many. Tempest at least has a high IQ to compensate.

(Poster may have been deleted)

The Ellimist
You do realize that this "last word game" takes two to perpetuate, right? erm

How are you putting anyone in their place? I am about to accept a six figure job offer straight out of university, no debt carried. You brag constantly about having a job, but frankly, I'm not buying it.

I'm summa cum laude in mechanical engineering. You can't even string coherent posts together.

The Ellimist
Funny; you vaguely point to my intellectual and grammatical failures, but fail to list a single actual example.

I remember a guy who was just like you. I think he called himself Darth Sexy or something. Was the village idiot who was obsessed with railing against The Mods in some quest for Freedom, or something. I kind of felt sorry for him. But you're right, I don't really know who you are. It's too bad you never met Sexy though, you would've gotten along so well.

Nephthys
Yeah, Eli, you don't look insecure at all now. Good job.

Aurbere
Look at these nerds fighting each other.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
If this was the case, why does it take you two months to ban these alleged "trolls"?


It goes both ways Ush and lets be honest. Your "troll checker" is about as effective as Amare Stoudamire against a fire extinguisher. I've gone beyond caring to the point where it would be easy as hell for me to create as many names as I wish, if you decided to ban me for your pseudo logical reasons. If you ever showed a modicum of respect, you wouldn't get these kind of responses.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Irony coming from a mod who has apparently earned as much respect as I have, and I start fights with people.


How are you going to permanently exclude me Ush? You just said checking manually is slow and awkward and thousands of accounts created with thousands of different proxies is going to make it a living nightmare for you. Being a mod doesn't earn you respect automatically, and by your track record you've done the opposite. Now if you want to ban me, go ahead but there's going to be nothing "permanent" about it. Now I'm done. Toodles

^^ just cause you asked for support of that particular allegation.

Your hypocrisy continues to set forum records. Every single allegation you can throw at me for why I appear to be "insecure" applies to yourself tenfold, from needing to get the last word in (like creating a new email address just to do so!) to putting yourself above others intellectually. The difference, of course, is that, firstly, I only ever put down others who attack me first, rather than random people I've never quarreled with, and secondly, I am actually responsive to arguments. For example:



Notice how I point out a specific flaw/double standard in one of your posts, and rather than explaining how I'm actually mistaken, your respond with a vague insult that has nothing to do with what you were quoting? Yep, I'm so impressed by your brilliance. roll eyes (sarcastic)

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah, Eli, you don't look insecure at all now. Good job.

It's a common pseudo-scientific belief among laypeople that anyone with a big ego must be secretly insecure. That's sort of like claiming that every homophobe must be a closeted gay - in some cases it may be the case, but a lot of them are actually straight and just don't like gay people.

Nephthys
when you put effort into proving how super not insecure you are you tend to just come off as more insecure just fyi

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
when you put effort into proving how super not insecure you are you tend to just come off as more insecure just fyi

I know. I'm just an argumentative person; I enjoy debating about pretty much anything. Whether I come off as insecure, I don't particularly care. I'd only stop if I felt like I were mistreating someone - but hey, he started it.

Only Gideon's God's intellect rivals my own. I exist not as a human, but as a swirling vortex of brilliance, so far beyond the comprehension of silly mortals like yourself that you pests might as well be conversing with the heavens themselves.

I am The Ellimist.

Nephthys
Originally posted by The Ellimist
WHY U UZE REAL LIFE PHISICS IN STAR WARS!?!?!

This comeback didn't even make sense on Sunday when you wrote it so it doubly doesn't work now.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
no expression That was your brilliant argument? Cherry picking a typo? Oh, gosh, I'm so impressed.

Well firstly it wasn't cherry picking nor was it a typo. You had 3 opportunities to get it right and you blew it. Secondly, argument? I lol'd at you because you said something ridiculous. Get over it, nerd.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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.

I also had an epiphany, where I enjoyed the irony of you acting like King Shit while talking about how amazingly smart you are, while simultaneously being too stupid to figure out my actual argument. It was like a funny little miracle that happened in my heart.

My point isn't "physics don't apply to Star Wars", it's that in Star Wars there exists technology that can blatantly ignore or contradict physics. There are machines that simulate the gravitational pull of a planet on starships. You think they line the bottom of shuttles with the equivalent to 300 trillion tons of mass? No, they just manipulate gravity because that's something you just can do in Star Wars. They regularly push the laws of physics over a pinball machine and go Indiana Jones on them. It's impossible to use real physics to calculate how much mass a "black hole" has when the dang thing was created using physics-defying magic technology/biology? in the first place. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you cannot get around this basic fact and you cannot reliably prove anything.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
And the Force isn't? Because we still try to make logical predictions about whose feats surpass one anothers', and it seems like you 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.

The Force is an obviously impossible concept, built off of made up magic science. However the fantastical explanation for how it works allows us to suspend our disbelief and it's internally consistent enough with it's rules and how it functions to discuss in a way that's logical and reasonable. On the flipside you don't know anything about how Dovin Basal's work. You don't know the mechanics of the singularities they create or how anything related to them functions. You're making the rules up as you go, as it suits your purposes to do so.

It's also kind of funny how you bring up the Force when the Force can manipulate gravity without relying on mass or anything, pretty easily.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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 find it hilarious that you're talking about some sort of threshold whereby someone ceases registering their opponents response and just spams the same thing over and over, while guilty of doing just that while being too thick to be self-aware about it. Again, tiny miracle etc. You're the dumbass that keeps giving. Like St. Stupid in a shiny red dunce hat, wearing elf slippers with the bells tied together, carrying a sack full of rotting dog carcasses and fallacies.

It would violate mass energy equivalence and conservation?! In Star Wars??! No waaaaay!!!!! They already are magic bullshit black holes. Ain't no ****ing artificial black holes in real life. How could we possibly predict how they work, when they're they're very existence is so blatantly impossible in the first place. Also aren't Dovin Basals animals? And according to you they can just pop millions of tons out of thin air whenever they want? Doesn't that violate mass-energy equivalence and conservation? Where the hell do these black holes come from? Do they poop em out? What do they feed those ****in' things, jesus.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I already responded to this as well (of course, since you only gave the most cookie cutter, obvious reasponses ever).

Ghey. At least put some effort into ducking the point, dickspray.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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.

Lol, I knew you'd actually do the math if I b8ed you about it.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yes, you obviously could easily have done so if you wanted to, clearly the only thing lacking is motivation. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Regardless, you've sort of admitted that no superior alternative exists.

No superior model exists because it's impossible to actually calculate it when it's based on so many unknown variables.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
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. thumb up

Yeah, but my dick is a WMD. I can literally force you to your knees before it. Bow down, b*tch.

The Ellimist
I'll continue our lovemaking when I've a keyboard.

Nephthys
fnevjnLdjvo

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Nephthys
when you put effort into proving how super not insecure you are you tend to just come off as more insecure just fyi

You've learned at last!

FreshestSlice
Lulz thumb up

Lord Lucien
Nailed it.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Nephthys
This comeback didn't even make sense on Sunday when you wrote it so it doubly doesn't work now.


The more nuanced point is that every argument you make about particular feats or events comes replete with certain assumptions about the inherent rationality of the universe. The only standards needed to develop scientific models about something are testability (if that's a word), consistency and rationality. If these things can't be assumed then we cannot possibly have any of these discussions, because debating whether Sidious or Valkorion can destroy more of a planet requires these premises.

The point that both JkBart and I made on page 1 is that every feats analysis you make ultimately reduces to math and physics, even if it's just "it's harder to move heavier things than lighter things, so Yoda TK'ing transports is more impressive than Bane TK'ing tents" - that's still a matter of inertia.



thumb up Your desperation to come up with something of substance to win is a very unique treat for outsiders to enjoy. Keep it up.



no expression You do know that we can simulate local gravitational fields on spaceships today, right?

But your inaccurate analogy aside, the argument here is not that Star Wars mirrors real-life physics, but that it has its own physics that must contain some manner of internal consistency for science and engineering to matter in Star Wars, and it's obvious that they do, given the presence of scientists, engineers, and reliable technology. We can observe that Star Wars gravity obeys our own at least to the classical limit, because planets orbit stars and humans stick to planets in familiar ways. Ergo, we can state with a reasonable degree of certainty that Newton's laws and even general relativity are valid approximations for physical events in Star Wars, barring possible exceptions such as hyperspace.

BTW, this isn't just a matter of opinion: Saxton's ICS's pretty much put the nail in the coffin on the "physics don't exist in Star Wars" crowd.



Funny thing is I never argued that as an assumption - I made several points as to why we can apply Newton's laws here, the first time being in the OP, and you've never bothered to respond to any of them.

Saxton's ICS's once again put the nail in the coffin to your idea.



If they were artificial gravity generators that didn't rely on high concentrations of mass-energy...why are they called black holes? They look like black holes, they're called black holes by both the narrator and the characters, and they happen to be really big and difficult to move.



I'll admit, that last sentence is a lot wittier and more eloquent than I'd expect from someone for whom creative writing was supposed to be his academic specialty. Ironically enough, Tempest and I can write better than you, despite pursuing unrelated careers, but good job with this one. thumb up



For one thing, Saxton's canon books confirm that mass-energy equivalence and conservation exist in Star Wars, as do plenty of other sources like the Death Star novel. For another, we can observe mass-energy conservation in plenty of aspects of Star Wars, such as the presence of nuclear fusion at apparently the same efficacy and ratio as our own, the validity of Maxwell's equations given the familiar behavior of EM, etc.



Not really, since we don't know where they get that mass-energy from. They could have harnessed the theoretical zero point vacuum energy of the universe, or they could have some of their mass-energy stored in hyperspace (Saxton did some more analysis on this with respect to hypermatter, and actually came up with a mathematically consistent, if not true in real life, model for how it could work).



Literally everything I've been talking about since the OP (.ie how we can observe RL physics in SW, Saxton's ICS's, occam's razor) was me addressing this point. You must realize that "it's just a fictional space opera!" wasn't an argument that escaped my anticipation.



I actually did the math in the OP, but these are big numbers so I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.



Um...no? We need to choose superior models when there are unknown variables all the time. Like with real-life science, and determining whether Sidious could beat Valkorion in a fight, or rather how many seconds it would take for Vitiate to die.



Funny, you masturbate to Tulak Hord bringing down a ship, but according to you physics, and by extension inertia, doesn't exist in Star Wars. mmm

The Merchant
The black hole being artificial or not doesn't change the feat, it's essentially still a black hole. What's the difference, exactly? And smaller black holes suck at absorbing stuff, they still have a tremendous amount of mass. A Micro Black Hole like the ones described in the Dovin Basals should have the mass of a small moon. And Luke had to have moved it faster than the torpedoes from the New Republic that were attacking the vehicle so that the black hole can collapse and said missiles hit its target. They move at Hypersonic speeds.

If this were some ancient Sith people would be gargling said Siths' c*** btw.

GM Yoda
If these black holes produced by dovin basals are that heavy, then how do Yuuzhan Vong ships carry them around? confused

Nephthys
They don't. From what I can gather they're generated out of the void by giant black jelly beans.

but no theyre totally real black holes guys

GM Yoda
But shouldn't that violate law of conservation of mass?

cs_zoltan
Everyone who think Aaron Allston studied black holes before publishing a fantasy novel in 2002 raise their hand now.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.