The best what Rojer has wrote, was "Nine Prince of Amber" really greate
Printable View
The best what Rojer has wrote, was "Nine Prince of Amber" really greate
For those who haven't read the previous pages this thread is about Star Wars and especially the last episode, The Revenge of the Sith.
Ok lets return to Vader, and all other SW charachters, (If everything will be OK, and i will have enough time, soon I will end my cartoon with Vader and Luke (but I have made them worms (they are more easy to animate)).Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
And about other SF , it was just a comparing with SW and other SF.
Finallly I can join this thread:wave:
I watched Starwars Episode I and II this weekend for the first timme ever, and it was great - I actually wanted to watch Episode III at the movies, but unfortunately, I was sick
Can't wait:thumb:
Hope you'll see it soon and share your thoughts with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by HanneSThEGreaT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoons
I saw it on an Australian satirical comedy show.
Just cant understand one little thing. Why the star ship in the SW epidode 3 when it was attacked by havy guns and got damages, begin to move down. As I understand in the space there is very low gravity field and we cant talk there about directions like up and down, SO why it begin to "sink" when was quite far from the planet. In old one episodes I mean 4-6, all physics laws were working and now, they not.
I can only begin to imagine what a physicist would have to say about that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoons
No, they weren't, and certainly not the one you refer to. I recall the Super Star Destroyer knocked out in in Ep. 6 "falls" towards Endor before colliding rather spectacularly with the Death Star and fragments of the destroyed Death Star fall onto Endor like meteors or space junk. If you are close enough to a planet (or any other spatial object with it's own gravity) you can be pulled in. This is especially true if the object being pulled no longer has some sort of propulsion system to keep it in orbit which was the case with both ships and the fragments. Granted, it probably shouldn't have happened so quickly but where's the fun in watching a disabled ship fall into a planet over the course of several hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoons
Frankly I don't see how this breaks the laws of physics. If the ship lost the propulsion system, for a certain mass and distance to the planet's surface it could be attracted by the planet (actually it would fall on a space-time curve towards the planet).
Sunday, June 26, Discovery Channel broadcasts "The Science of Star Wars". Not sure about the hour, I believe it's 20:00 GMT (in Europe). So stay tuned.
Only in case planet rotates very slow (which invokes very long day/night cycle, which is not the case as we see the whole cycle during the movie) or station is very low on orbit, which is also not the case as we can see in the movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Guys its the movies. There is no correct science in science fiction movies, and star wars is no exception. Real world science doesn't apply here. Thata's why there is "fiction" next to "science". It's exactly the point. Of course, maybe the rules of physics were quite different in a galaxy long time ago and far, far away... (riiiiight)
Latem
Good point, because my next question would have been how could they travel at lightspeed? ;) With the current accepted laws of physics that's impossible. And even that was possbile the twins paradox should manifest.
I disagree. At least logic laws are the same. And many things, when it's not obvious, are exaclty consequences of logic basing on other facts. And such consequences must be kept. Physics isn't an exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latem
There is no law stating that it's impossible. Just no law confirming that it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Well, to accelerate to light speed a ship, like any object, need an infinite mass. I doubt that can be achieved... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTact
Why does it have to be achieved by accelerating? It can't be done this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Excuse me? What do you mean? When an object changes speed, it does it either by accelerating or decelerating. Acceleration is the variation of speed in time. For a ship to reach light speed starting from repause acceleration is needed. General relativity theory says an object cannot be accelerated to light speed because of the infinite mass needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTact
Do you know other way?Quote:
It can't be done this way.
Any way my friend (He looks SW movie at first, how he never saw them, I`m wondering) says that SW episode 3 was very funny espacially when he saw general droid ( always forgeting his name) which coughed all film. It was really funny :D .
General Grevious was half droid/half some alien race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoons
I remember that and even try to explainit to my friend but when he saw Grevious hoping to open space and then to rescue ship, I have no chanses to argue him. He tells that if this droid breathing it cant be in the space, or if not it cant cough. Maybe they should make Grevious not the droid luke like.Quote:
Originally Posted by NatThoelecke
Another funny moment in SW. All droids (except R2D2 ofcource) talking with each others on English, but if they are droids why they not comunicating with machine code or smth like that
I suspect they only speak when it is critical to the plot, otherwise they are communicating silently via some sort of wireless or something. You notice in Episode 1, when the droids are battling the Gungans, they formed ranks and attacked but never spoke. The only speaking (or emoting in R2's case) seems to be so that the audience will know what's going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoons
Just with regards to travelling at the speed of light thing, I wanna clear this up. It is for a fact not possible to travel at, or faster than the speed of light, according to our understanding of physics today.
The gorssly oversimplified explanation is that basically the theory of relativity states that:
1. If an event happens, all observers must agree that it happened.
2. The rules of physics are the same in all frames of reference.
Rule #1 can be shown to get broken easily. Really rule # 1 means that if something happens, them we all must agree that it happened. We may not agree on how it happened and the exact details of it, but we must agree that it happened. If something traveled at or faster than the speed of light, then the info from that event will not get to some of us and we will not agree that the event happened.
The speed of light is more like an asimptode, you can never hope to reach it, just get closer and closer to it. matter can never have enough energy to get there though.
If matter could travel at or faster than the speed of light, it would break a lot of very important laws we have today, and which have been proven.
There is also a mathematical proof of this using Lorentz and Galileian transformations, which are known to be correct. You can do some math, and if you allow travel at or greater than the speed of light the transformations break down, and do not hold anymore.
The speed of light may have been variable though, earlier in the universe it could have been faster. there have also been experiments where they got light to travel faster than speed of light (c), but light is not exactly matter. and this doesnt break any laws.
There are theoretical particles techions (or something, not sure about the name) in string theories that could exist, and they travel faster than light but can never travel slower. But string theories are VERY shifty, and not very reliable at all. It's basically, we have all these equations, and if we look at it at this way, and if some stuff we assume is corect, then this theory would explain our universe today.
I am sure this is a gross oversimplification of matter, and I prolly got some wording/details wrong, but it should be in any relatively recent academic level book on modern physics.
Latem
Theory only explains what we observe. If we haven't observed certain things, we have no theory for it, and there are many facts which weren't predicted by theory. There may be, theoretically, conditions, when physics behave different, and we haven't observed and haven't predicted such conditions yet. Look at it from the Matrix point of view...
OH, I was waiting for such a long time for a physics debate... ;)
Latem, you spoke about tachions. That is indeed the correct term. In old Greek it means "fast". These are imaginary particles that travel at speeds much greater than the speed of light and cease to exist if decelerated to the speed of light. The only problem is that they only exists mathematically, and they require imaginary mass, which I'm not sure how can be achieved. Anyway I recommend you to read Gregory Benford's Timescape. Fascinating book. (Benford is a physicist)
I adhere to Stephen Hawking's view on theories: a theory must satisfy 2 requirements: it must accurately describe a large class of observations, and it must make clear predictions about the results of future observations and experiments.
The theories we have are the best model of the world, but doesn't mean they are complete. New observations, new experiments can prove them wrong and create new theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking
Hawking have proved that black holes are not actually black, that matter can escape them, and after a long long time they loose all the mass and cease to exists. How is that possible? For that to happen matter must travel to a speed greater than the speed of light (c). And here the virtual particles come into the picture. Pair of virtual particle-antiparticle can appear at any time any place in the universe. When they appear on the events horizon of a black hole one of them falls in the black hole, the other remains outside the horizon escaping the black hole, and it appears just like a particle has escape the black hole by traveling at a speed greater than c.Quote:
The speed of light may have been variable though, earlier in the universe it could have been faster. there have also been experiments where they got light to travel faster than speed of light (c), but light is not exactly matter. and this doesnt break any laws.
Theories, observations, conditions, etc... that we don't know about are irrelevant, because nothing says that they must exist. As I said with our current understanding of physics, matter cannot travel at or greater than the speed of light. If we allow this, lots of basic principles about relativetiy and others (such as E=mc^2, and F=ma) which are known to be correct, break down, and become wrong.
With the regards to black holes, you have within there explained why particles are emitted from black holes. Its exactly because of the virtual particle-antiparticle creation event thing. It hapens at event horizon, and one of them goes back into the black hole, the other escapes, because it is outside of the event horizon. That is what event horizon is basically, everything outside it doesnt get sucked into the black hole. therefore, it doesn't need to travel at or faster than c to escape.
Also, using Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time or Universe in a Nutshell (I dont know if u are, but looks like it) as a reference is pretty much inappropriate in any meaningful physics discussion. The intended audience of these books are average people, with no physics knowledge. Their indended purpoce is to be insightful, enlightening, and most of all interesting and entertaining; not to teach. They have practically no math in them, and instead rely on pretty pictures. Pretty pictures do not demonstrate physics principles, calculus does. Don't get me wrong they are great books, but are in no way complete or thorough. Most of the time he focuses on the unknowns, and what ifs because that's the interesting stuff that's gonna sell. I'd suggest a book that a university uses to teach a 3rd or 4th (maybe even 2nd) year physics course specifically on modern physics topics. I dont know if I still have it, I may have sold it, but I'll check at home, and maybe post the name of the book we used in school.
I ddid not really wish to start discussion or debate about this, because I am definitly not qualified to participate in it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not have a PhD in physics. I only know what i've learned in school, read, and what my brother who is a physicist tells me (and he talks about this stuff all the time). I do not have necessary knowledge, understanding, or calculus skills to do it all justice, and I am sure I would get lots of things wrong.
Also it's off topic.
Anyway, I've written more than i intended about this.
Cheers,
Latem
I must disagree. Einstein developed most of the relativity theory by imagining experiments. Math equations are important to give them a formal expression, but we can talk about a theory without diving into the headaching equations.Quote:
Also, using Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time or Universe in a Nutshell (I dont know if u are, but looks like it) as a reference is pretty much inappropriate in any meaningful physics discussion.
Make that two. But that also doesn't mean we cannot talk about physics. If you apply this logic, it means that since I'm not a chef, I should not be allowed to cook, or since I'm not a master of chess, I should never play it.Quote:
I did not really wish to start discussion or debate about this, because I am definitly not qualified to participate in it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not have a PhD in physics. I only know what i've learned in school, read, and what my brother who is a physicist tells me (and he talks about this stuff all the time). I do not have necessary knowledge, understanding, or calculus skills to do it all justice, and I am sure I would get lots of things wrong.
I don't consider it out of topic, because we were talking about the science of star wars and the traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light. However, if you want, we can move this discusion to another thread. Doctor Luz is a physicist, we may have him join us...Quote:
Also it's off topic.
That`s why I have ask those questions ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Any way SW are greate epic film. But special effects in old episodes were greater I think, they are truly mastership :D
For those that like Origami, here are instructions to build a paper Master Yoda: http://www.pajarita.org/aep/internac.../intern2-1.pdf .
Nice orighami, I have made one Yoda but , I have no green paper so it is yellow one :D
Well, you can take a green pen and make it greed. Or you can call FillRect() passing a green brush... :D
On your avatar Yoda is more yellow then green. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Interesting what color suit to Yoda the most :D
Quote:
I did not really wish to start discussion or debate about this, because I am definitly not qualified to participate in it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not have a PhD in physics. I only know what i've learned in school, read, and what my brother who is a physicist tells me (and he talks about this stuff all the time). I do not have necessary knowledge, understanding, or calculus skills to do it all justice, and I am sure I would get lots of things wrong.
Quote:
Make that two. But that also doesn't mean we cannot talk about physics. If you apply this logic, it means that since I'm not a chef, I should not be allowed to cook, or since I'm not a master of chess, I should never play it.
Belive me, It is much more funny and interesting to see you talking about physics than seeing any physicist.Quote:
Also it's off topic.
I don't consider it out of topic, because we were talking about the science of star wars and the traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light
Yes, the speed of light seems to be a barrier. Acordingly with the theory of relativity this is an upper limit to the speed of any particle with rest mass not null. Rest mass is the mass that would measure an observer seeing the particle at rest. If you can't see the particle at rest its rest mass=0 and the particle is sentenced to travel with this upper limit of speed.
If this is true the starships of star wars can not travel faster than light. But we can create a theory to allow the starships to travel faster than light.
Suppose that the speed of light is only an upper limit to speed in our standard 3-D universe. Now suppose that there are additional dimensions and our 3-D universe, for example, folds on sheets over these new dimensions we can't notice. If the starship has a device able to create a tunnel between sheets you might make the starship to travel from one sheet to another in a femtosecond, however the light might take many years to travel until destination.
There are some theories like this, of course don't talk about starships and are much more elaborated. This is only a simple view.
But I think the worst thing in the science of star wars is not the hyperspace travel, they are the laser devices, specially the laser sabres. Their bright colours, their definite size, their power... nop nop nop, they are not realistic at all .
If they used laser technology maybe not, but who said they were lasers? :) Light SabreQuote:
specially the laser sabres. Their bright colours, their definite size, their power... nop nop nop, they are not realistic at all
In the spanish translation they talk about "laser sabres" maybe is a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfy
Anyway it has no sense.
Just consider it another "other physics" application. It's not the fault from the logic point. Fault is the application of considired-to-be phenomena. Why don't they shoot Jedi using 3 fires shot at the same time, not lying on the same line? If Jedi can predict where he would be shot, he can block only shots lying on one line...
If there is such thing as that pseudo-laser weapons, blocking and destroying everything, why don't they use advantages of it?
And definately they should've developed the physics of the Force and use it much more effective way in devices then human can.
So they were translated in Romanian. But they are just "light sabers". Of course a LASER ray is a ray of light, they are all electomagnetic waves. Well, of all things I would like to have a light saber... :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Luz
Worm holes. You can see a lot of them in Star Trek.Quote:
If the starship has a device able to create a tunnel between sheets you might make the starship to travel from one sheet to another in a femtosecond, however the light might take many years to travel until destination.
Do not forget, starting Sunday 26, in a three episodes series, Discovery Channel presents The Science of Star Wars.
Did you see Episode III? That's how most of the Jedi were killed, through a combination of surprise and an overwhelming concentration of close range laser fire upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTact
This method would require only one shot, making Jedi skills utterly useless, not "overwhelming concentration of close range light fire".Quote:
Originally Posted by NatThoelecke
light sabers or laser sabers you would not see them. Can you see the light beam of a lantern? No, you can't. You can only see the diffused light beam when it finds the dust of the air. The same happens for light sabers.Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
About worm holes, I never liked very much the Star Trek way of traveling. I like more the way that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda series does. And much better the way in Dune series.
I can't see Discovery Channel, I hope you can tell us abut the science of star wars. ;)
"Light sabers" term doesn't describe its nature, so there is no contradiction in it. Laser sabres - yes, incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Luz
And what is travelling in Dune? I haven't grasped it so far. There is something about just travelling faster-then-light and need in prediction to avoid collision (questionable need).Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Luz
I've seen the 3 hours documentary about the Science of Star Wars. Actually it was about Star Wars-like tech devices, weapons, etc. that we have no on Earth. The leitmotif that George Lucas was focused on was "thinking outside the box". He said that he wanted to expand our vision, to make let the imagination roam, not to remain inside the box and say that you can't do this or that. He seemed to encourage young people to follow their imagination, because they are not yet compeled to the "box" yet, they don't know that "you can't do that".Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Luz
It's been some years since I read the last book from the Dune series, and all I can remember about their travelling ways is that they needed some hard computation/predictions about the jumps in some sort of hyperspace (hope I'm not mistaking) to avoid collisions with celestial bodies. Something similar is done in SW. In Episode 4, running from the empire Han says:Quote:
About worm holes, I never liked very much the Star Trek way of traveling. I like more the way that Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda series does. And much better the way in Dune series.
Quote:
HAN: Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!
Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or
bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick,
wouldn't it?
The travel is carried out by the so called "spacing gild" they use the spice gas wich gives them special mental powers in order to find the best path. But the travel itself is done with the aid of the so called "Holtzmann generators" wich uses a strange effect of space that can make an object to exists in two points at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
Combining they both you have the space jumps. You can travel without moving.
What imagination!
I can't see how to combine these. What 'same time'? Traveller multiplies? Could you point where is it described?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Luz
Except the Jedi don't have to remain stationary either, so they can block two of the shots and step out of the way of the third.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTact
...using a worm hole to travel faster than light :DQuote:
Except the Jedi don't have to remain stationary either, so they can block two of the shots and step out of the way of the third.
:lol: haha :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfy
No, just use their "superior" reflexes.
I can't remember. Many time has passed since I read the last dune novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboTact
He meant you got the idea wrong. They are not avoid being shot by reflexes, but by reliable intuitive prediction of nearest future. Generally they move just like anybody else (except when they move themselves using Force, but it either just motion). 3 shots - at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NatThoelecke
Just another discrepacy in the story: why didn't they use moving using Force when it was obviously advantageously (even vitally important)? There is a plenty of such situations...