Subject:
|
Re: Ewok Holocaust
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:29:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Jeromy Irvine writes:
> 1) Trying to impose known physical limitations on unknown technology
This is of course a problem. But it's something that can be ignored for
humour's sake.
> (You'll have to read the article to really understand my next point.)
> 2) Even given physical parameters established by the author, why does
> there have to be debris and fallout on the moon? Given the obviously
> enormous power output of the Death Star, isn't it possible that energy
> released by the explosion simply vaporized most or all of the matter of
> the object instantaneously? Why does there have to be debris left over
> from the explosion?
??? Actually, carefully reading the article shows that he addresses the
point of debris vs. vapor- first, vaporisation doesn't get rid of the matter,
it merely transmutes it into another state. You can't vaporise several
thousand cubic miles (a conservative estimate) of metal and not have it end up
somewhere- and the nearest constant gravity source is the Ewoks' moon. Whether
in the form of a dust of metal particles or huge chunks slamming into the
ground, the environmental impact would be severe, at least. Secondly, a
semi-official source (the ROTJ radio drama, which IIRC ranks pretty high in the
canon order) makes specific reference to debris entering the atmosphere.
Maybe he added that after you originally read it, however.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ewok Holocaust
|
| (...) the (...) matter, (...) several (...) it end up (...) Whether (...) the (...) a (...) high in the (...) atmosphere. True. Even if vaporized, the matter still has to go somewhere. My point (which I failed to clearly identify, apologies for (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ewok Holocaust
|
| I've visited this site before, and while it's an interesting interpretation, the author makes two major mistakes: 1) Trying to impose known physical limitations on unknown technology and movie special effects. We all know that movie props and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
