Dude, things are lighter in space, lol

there's no resistance
it would take a long time to pick up speed but it could move it eventually

>we can deflect asteroids by hand in space because there's no resistance

Of course theres resistance, theres a fucking planet right there. Planets have gravity, do they not?

on the planet, but not in space you dumb fuck

to be honest I haven't even watched the scene in question but I'm assuming the large ship is stationary

Cause they don't have rocket thrusters in their butts. If they did, they could.

you will not weigh 70kg everywhere
you'll have the same mass and thus have the same inertia, but weight depends on gravity
you underage brainlet stah woahz tool

You will weigh 70kg if you’re in an environment where the gravitational constant g is equal to 9.8m/s^2

I know this is a shitpost, but because there is no single gravity source in space, the only way for a ship to remain stopped would be to decelerate in the direction it was accelerating in.

But once it's "stopped", any momentum added to it will accumulate regardless of how small an amount it is, and unless the big ship actively decelerates to counter the small ship's push, it will literally just be added to the total momentum until inertia is overcome and the ship moves.

Please explain the difference between mass and weight. Like if you measure the mass of something by weighing it, I don't get how they're separate.

t. brainlet

You could, assuming you could somehow apply directional force to the asteroid to alter it's trajectory. If you could attach a boost rocket to one and have it fire, it would eventually overcome the asteroid's inertia and move it.

inertia is a property of matter BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL

This thread is a disaster

10x for the insite

Mass is how much matter is physically present in an object. The mass of an object never changes, unless the object itself actually changes.

Weight is a measure of how the object is affected by gravity. The weight of an object can change depending on the proximity to a gravitational source, and the strength of that gravitational pull.

yes they do brainlet, the international space station is actually falling down towards the Earth at all times but in such a way that it creates a stable orbit that only needs to be corrected from time to time not to actually fall down

>it slams into the star destroyer
>the star destroyer shakes scarily
>the crew on the kotor ripoff don't get pureed against the windshield

>drop a feather and a bowling ball on the moon
>they fall at the same rate

Now what I don't understand is that the bowling ball has more mass so shouldn't its microgravity pull it towards the moon faster than the feather?

>scarily

>>scarily

there you go, Ahmed
thefreedictionary.com/scarily

Not in a noticeable way.

They are the same mass, weight is mass*gravity

Air is invisible but that doesn't mean it's not real.

...okay? Not sure what that means.

Star Destroyers only weigh 13 pounds in space.

Attached: Lego_ISD_75252.png (1500x700, 809K)

BASED AUTISMO BRO

>post yfw user discovers natural geosynchronous orbit exists

Attached: z.jpg (400x400, 37K)

im educated in economics, astrophysics is fascinating but often too hard for me to truly comprehend.
lay off user, im trying

The biggest problem with this is that if that little ship is capable of producing so much force as to push that ship in such a small contact area without going through like a hot knife through butter the hulls would need be so incredibly strong that if they crashed into each other like in that scene they would just fucking bump away from each other like rubber boats.

if you had enough time and something to push off of, that is true.

not the reason i quoted you, doofus

>what is tugboat
Yeah completely unrealistic

I think it was a Victory class star destroyer, to be fair.

Well here's a tip to blow your mind:

Gravity doesn't have a range of effect. On a very technical (if not necessarily measurable) way, every object's gravity affects every other object in the universe. The planet you're on now is pulling on you, the Space Station, to Moon, Pluto, and even bodies across the galaxy. Every object exerts a gravitational pull, which is why if left in space with nothing else, matter will naturally end up together.

>Mass remains the same throughout the universe.
For observers who are at rest relative to each other

It would depend very much on the hull/bulkhead of the bigger ship. Really though, if you have two functionally stationary objects and then one starts accelerating, it's force would be equally transferred rather than impacting a single point, so it wouldn't push through unless the surface it's pushing on is much softer and can't sustain that kind of pressure.

Like if I parked my car right up against yours, then gunned the gas, it's not going to crumple your body, it might dent it but not like if I actually hit you at speed.

>im educated in economics, astrophysics is fascinating but often too hard for me to truly comprehend.

absolutely garbage tier bait, enjoy the (you), queer

Weight is dependent on the frame of mass that is projected by the gravity of all matter in space. Therefore while in space your size lowers thus increasing the the friction and equalizing the speed.

no resistance
lateral force
seems legit

Fun fact: Gravity can take an inch off a man's height too. If he were on the moon, he would be taller. His dick might be longer on the moon as well.

then what was it

>there are still people out there who think the ISS is just floating and revolving around the planet like some kind of fucking moon and not in a constant state of falling at an angle

Attached: 1484285815113.jpg (960x758, 146K)

take a course on the most basic and rudimentary physics user

forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/04/18/what-prevents-the-iss-from-falling-out-of-orbit

read nigga read

Attached: 1564409044184.jpg (400x400, 28K)

Weight isn't measured in grams, it's measured in Newtons. Mass is measured in grams. So you will BE 70kg everywhere, but you won't WEIGH the same.

That's literally what moons do you moron. All orbiting is 'falling'.

weak bait

A moon is doing the exact same thing as the ISS is.

The moon isn't falling towards us, what the fuck are you even talking about
its actually moving away

>builds something not proportionate to the lego dudes
I am disgusted.

To be fair the Moon is only moving away because his neighborhood is now full of niggers

everyone has a rocket thruster in their butt with the right diet

my point is that the op implied that the iss could just be pushed around as if it was floating in space, which isnt what its doing

Every object exerts a gravitational pull, which is why if left in space with nothing else, matter will naturally end up together.
buuuut stuff in space(intergalactic at least) is actually getting further apart at ridiculous speeds because of some expanding space bullshit that no one understands

Prove me wrong scrub

But it is fag, that's how orbits work.

>ISS falls to earth
>sun doesn't get closer
>moon doesn't get closer
>satellites not falling
lol dumb fuck

It's still falling, that's what an orbit is. The reason the Moon is moving away from Earth has nothing to do with it somehow not orbiting in the same way as a space station, but is in fact due to the tidal relation between the Earth and Moon. The Moon's gravity causes drag that slows the spin of the Earth, and the slower spinning Earth causes uneven pull on the Moon which expands it's orbit.

The Moon is still falling "towards" Earth, that doesn't change. It's just falling in an increasingly wider arc.

>buuuut stuff in space(intergalactic at least) is actually getting further apart at ridiculous speeds because of some expanding space bullshit that no one understands
Well, not really. We know why things are moving away from eachother, it's because of the cosmic expansion of the Big Bang. That has nothing to do with gravity, and things can be pulled towards one another just fine WHILE flying away at increasing speeds, which is why we have galaxies and planets and shit.

>Yea Forums attempts science

Attached: 1370693121628.gif (311x240, 1.28M)

Attached: X-Wing and Y-Wings vs Star Destroyer.webm (1280x536, 2.91M)

What is this webm attempting to prove?

post the space mortars

expansion of the universe(or rather, the fact that it's accelerating) is linked to dark energy which is literally scientists saying 'lol idk, just make shit up'

They are not strategic geniuses that know the secret of lightspeed woke attacks.

Attached: Admiral Gender Studies.jpg (768x432, 42K)

The smaller ship is just acting like oversized thrusters because it is embedded in the crux of the ship and can move it.

However, it should not have easily cut through the other adjacent ship as though it were a fixed object.

That it's fucking amazing m8.

Fuck nuwars. Just give me a trilogy on the Empire Vs Rebels

You'd need a lot of beans to provide the necessary propellant.

>things in orbit are stationary

that is true except that they're as massive in space as they're fucking anywhere

Attached: 15035039_1353103441379906_5612199478959276032_n.jpg (298x359, 30K)

Unironically the best space battle in all of nu-wars

DUDE THINGS ARE LIGHTER IN WATER LMAO

Attached: gettyimages-168266069-1024x1024.jpg (1024x680, 299K)

Best is Revenge of the Sith.
More dramatic is Return of the Jedi.
But Rogue One was good.
The last good Star Wars movie actually.

you know that the water exerts force in your example right?

that's part of the joke

Imagine spouting nerd shit but not knowing the difference between mass and weight.
What a retard

"Mass" is just curvature of space-time caused by energy.

Scariff was like a live action TIE fighter. I wish there was a tv series of just that.

Rogue One was had a solid ANH-tier space battle. It and Solo are leagues better than the Nuwars

Is Solo any good? Just the spacebattles.

nope

I like how people either making films or video games in space have zero appreciation for how space physics are unique. All they want is the exact same thing as WWII airplane dogfights except with a different look.

Those stupid things in this webm only have thrusters to accelerate infinitely forward and turning is to be done aerodynamically. I may be autistic to care about that, but this is retarded.

The only thing good about solo was the roughly 30 seconds we got to see of the Imperial Army in action before gunslinger mcgee and his band of wacky misfits shows up and reminds us all we're watching a shitty movie. Unfortunately it is also the worst part of the movie because it is a teasing glimpse of the "gritty war movie" that Rogue One wanted to be before rewrites, and now we'll never get it. I'm so tired of stormtroopers.

You mean the pitch black battle in an unknown planet where you couldn't see shit and there was no context?

It would be in a scariff stationary orbit.

Watch the Expanse. It's the only thing that approaches real physics.

yes, taken in isolation it showed the brutal land campaigns the empire had to wage to bring the former republic to heel and maintain control. Not everything can be solved by naval boarding troops and star destroyers. Seeing the ground pounders was a refreshing change.

Space battles were more or less non-existent. I had very low expectations and I was pleasantly surprised. Han actor is fine, Lando actor is pretty good. Emilia Clarke a cute but her character is actually quite interesting but we'll never get a sequel. It's not as good as the main films or R1 but compared to the sequels it at least feels like a Star Wars film

>giving a fuck about "real physics"
>caring about realism
If I wanted fucking realism I could take a video of my boring life and play that for two hours.

Fuck "realism", I want to see an epic fantasy

If it had been set up and fleshed out it would have been good, as executed, it was shit

hahaha no. It's just as scifi as star wars. Mobile Suit Gundam has more realism than the Expanse.

Please don't, I hate being reminded that we really should not exist, let alone know we exist. How the fuck did this happen?

Hahaha it's weird how the internet tries to distort reality.

I actually have seen the Rise of Skywalker flick and it's a easy 9/10.

The music is great (superb) and there's a western quality to the movie that is really kick-ass and makes me this is a franchise worth investing in.

I just can't see how any fans of Star Wars couldn't love this.

Let me say this, go buy the tickets when it opens in theaters, then judge the movie then.

You can't read spoilers here on website and expect to be able to experience Disney's true vision.

Rise of Skywalker is releasing on December 20, 2019, be ready to pre-order yours tickets.

There is nothing wrong with that if the rules of "how things work around here" are established before hand and the universe sticks with it.
I do agree that SW designs are pretty retarded for not having thrusters for maneuvering. You could have hour long arguments on why the ships in that universe have all sorts of flaws.
Star Trek tries to get away by implying that the ship maneuvers by manipulating some sort of magical gravity fields or something.
While on the subject, Star Trek is another example. I have no problem with how Star Trek presents its space travel aspect, as long as they don't try to pretend its scientific. In my opinion neither Star Trek nor Star Wars or for that matter most shows people call Sci-Fi are actually "Science" Fiction but rather Space Fantasy.
Space is just a backdrop to explore either civilization, politics, human condition, etc, or tell a classic adventure story.
It would be nice to see someone try and tackle what actual space combat would look like, but the reason why so many people don't is probably they either think people will find it boring or they fear that no matter what they do they will not be able to please realismfags( who would be the main audience) because all we currently have are theories and a lot of people are convinced that their theory is the right and only one.
There are some games that try, but they are by made for niche crowds, yet even so you get occasional break outs such as Kerbal Space Program

>Disney's true vision.
a world without white people.

One of the formal terms for what you're describing is "Rocketpunk", in the same vein as "Steampunk" depicts steam technology in impossible ways and settings.

They use the trappings of science, even if lightly.

>It's just as scifi as star wars
except that it isn't

Dunning Kruger effect in action folks

Anyone has a video of this?. I've heard about it but never seen the movie

Attached: 1539798374238.jpg (252x252, 9K)

It is. You're just too ignorant to see it. You're the target audience.

Because I allowed this to happen.

Never heard of that one.
The name to me implies 50s interpretation of Space, like some of the early Twilight Zone Episodes where you had criminals deposited on remote asteroids as if every floating object in space was equally habitable.
They can throw around scientific concepts but I think the difference is how they approach them.
To me a Science Fiction work takes a concept or a technology and explores how it could effect and change society. The Tech is the centerpiece of the story. In most of "Sci-Fi" films, shows and games the tech is an excuse for a run of the mill love or adventure story.
Star Wars is hardly scientific.
Star Trek uses so much technobabble nonsense as asspulls that the little actual science they try to do just not make up for it. Star Trek lost any right to call itself Sci-Fi after they did the "omg our ship was stuck because we ran into the migration path of 2D beings" episode, if not even long before that. Treasure Planet-tier.

>What is a tugboat

That scene was propably the colsest we'll get to a 40K imperial guard battle

Mass is how fat you are, weight is how much that lard on your belly is pushed down by gravity.

It isn't

>The name to me implies 50s interpretation of Space
That era is what star wars was ultimately based on.

It also describes settings where the authors ignore the existence of relativity to allow for FTL to exist in some form. It's the sort of atavistic depiction that you would have found in "science fiction" pre-1920. But like dinosaurs without feathers, audiences simply don't want realism when it comes to fiction.

Weight isn’t mass you dingleberry

As far as you're able to tell. The expanse has aliens and ftl for god's sake.

You can deflect asteroids by painting them white to be more reflective. It takes time but can do it.

>You will weight 70kg everywhere.
>Weight changes based on gravity.
that's retarded

Something that helps big ships without engine nacelles steer in harbors. They don't tow them.

This thread is proof that every Yea Forumstard is a brainlet

>even weaker bait

things on the Moon will weigh only 16.6% of what they weigh on the Earth.

>That era is what star wars was ultimately based on.
You mean the 30's, Flash Gordon's time.

weird, i though flash gordon was later.

He's an ESL and he means that your mass remains the same everywhere, but a lot of people call mass "weight" even though they know its different from actual weight.

Star Wars was pulp era science fiction with a prog touch.
Star Trek was 60´s "new wave" science fiction crap

If the corvette's engines are stronger than whatever rotation and transition propulsion that star destroyer has (they probably are) then it can't resist being pushed.

It doesn't

Several times the size.
Same technology.
Stronger.

How they did it?

Diversity was their strenght.

>Same technology.
It was disabled by ion torpedos so it might as well have been a big rock at that point. NuWars is shit but Rogue one is miles above the rest of the shit that has come out under disney

Didn't saw that coming.

Attached: a mouse killing the lore.jpg (602x301, 30K)

But steel is heavier heavier than feathers

If the force of the destroyer while moving was sufficient to cut another destroyer then the force required to move the destroyer would have caused the pushing ship to slice through it instead of pushing it.

But we got a trilogy of totallynotEmpire and totallynotRebels, what's the matter?

a ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of steel.

To be fair, Hammerheads are supposed to be four engines/sublight drives mounted on a heavily armoured prow and not much else.

the structure between the prow and the engines would have to somehow be stronger than a star destroyer's outer hull.

RCS provides measly thrust compared to main engines. This is true for real life, and should be true for fictional universes.

not true, they are actually the same mass. And yes they are lighter
>You will weight 70kg everywhere
>Weight changes based on gravity
based retard

It's not high enough for that, actually. The LaGrange points between Earth and the Moon are too distant.

Based Moon saw what was coming. Never should have let them move into the neighborhood.

>RCS
Royal College of Surgeons?

Moonman doesn't like the new neighbours.

>based nigga flying like a pro with 3 TIEs on his ass
How come we never saw that guy again? He'd have been a boss in the Death Star trench.

Roastie Cum Sluts

>he's never played ksp
reaction control system
tiny thrusters pointing in different directions for control

Makes more sense. They do indeed provide more thrust.

This. The contention should be why the other Destroyer's shields and more-powerful thrusters didn't just push the other ship out of the way once they collided. That little corvette wasn't going to win a pushback against an ISD.

>ksp
Kirwan Surgical Products?

That doesn't mean it's not moving at thousands of miles per hour.

King Star Platinum. It's a JoJo reference.

>it should not have easily cut through the other adjacent ship as though it were a fixed object

That pissed me off.

as long as physics nerds are here, might as wel post this question

why is teleportation REALLY impossible? If we are on the surface of a sphere, and my being in position B on the surface of earth has no more or less potential energy that position A, what is it in thermodynamics that I am upsetting? What makes positions A and B on the surface of a sphere truly different if the distance to the core is the same?

t. user who is fucking tired of spending an hour in traffic to drive 10 miles

thx user, you are doing a great job.

Kentucky Stewed Pheasant, its a cooking sim.

Are you retarded or do you not realize that tugboats exist

Because mass doesn't just disappear and then instantly appear somewhere else, not on the macroscopic level
Another implementation of teleportation is a machine that literally unmakes your body and then rebuilds it at the target destination, that would be feasible assuming a computer that can create a complete 3D model of your body down to every atom and a 3D printer capable of churning out live organic matter, but then the question is how does it also rebuild your consciousness, your mind, intelligence, memories, etc

Quantum entanglement gets messy on the macro scale.

>You will weight 70kg everywhere.
>Weight changes based on gravity.
Seems like a contradiction, if you had 70 liters of water, and weighted it on the moon, it wouldn't show 70 kg.
but, i honestly don't know if you could say that mass has any inherent weight. Perhaps the gravitational pull the mass has is the weight? you could perhaps measure this in Kg.

But so is the tug and the other ship, relative to the tug it's standing still

do ships in SW not have kinetic barriers? how else would the star destroyer have been to enter the astroid field in empire

Fair enough

the star destroyer is disabled in this sequence

Apparently not very good ones. Remember that once Destroyer getting whacked on it's bridge by an asteroid during the Vader conference call and that captain just winking out of existence?

There isn't a single instance or mention of faster than light travel anywhere in the three TV seasons or in any of the 8 books. The books make it very clear that traveling long distances in space takes the characters weeks if not months, even after the wormholes are opened.

Or it could park in a Lagrange point.

one of them is but if they would have any form of barrier they couldnt have even entered to begin with

You can always tell the anons who didn't take physics 101.

Learn to wiki:

"Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.[1] An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.

The basic SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). In physics, mass is not the same as weight, even though mass is often determined by measuring the object's weight using a spring scale, rather than balance scale comparing it directly with known masses. An object on the Moon would weigh less than it does on Earth because of the lower gravity, but it would still have the same mass. This is because weight is a force, while mass is the property that (along with gravity) determines the strength of this force."

To add to this, a teleporter that functions like this is essentially just a Captain America machine, if you're rebuilding someone from scratch (not even bothering with the mind part here) then you would just be sure to have a near perfect version of "you" when you come out, if you had cancer and teleported why would it rebuild your cancer on the other side? You could just make a sims character and come out the other side exactly as that, teleport to mars and the body they build is a 6'4 gigachad with no scar tissue, health problems or genetic flaws whatsoever

Well outside of Earth's orbit?

Attached: What-are-Lagrange-Points.png (1469x1696, 135K)

They have to be dropped in a vacuum. A feather has characteristics that create drag in an atmosphere, that and it being a lifting body (wing shaped), it floats down. Drop them in a vacuum, they fall at the same rate. There are literal videos of this on Youtube.

Tell me about the moons of Scarriff

cos it was still going in the 50s and that's when george lucas saw it

Scarif had no moons.

Most people think it's in space, too, when it's in the outer reaches of the atmosphere.

And, worse, I've actually met people who had no clue the ISS even existed. Their minds were blown that we have people living on it, year 'round, and have for years and years.

But you can even see the thing without a telescope?

nobody knows what's possible or not user, the people telling you some definitive answer to that are like high-school educated people who rote learned some simplified rules we've observed and were told that these are laws. most of them don't really hold are aren't proven, and certainly only apply to the physics we know so far, not the rest

It doesn't even have a token interior
It's a shell and then underneath is just Lego Technic scaffolding

On a clear night without urban lighting ruining the view, it's a bright dot that crosses the horizon.

I am sure there is a real life variant you can build for 5k dollars

Yes, you can. I've seen it. You can, too. On a clear night in an area with no city lights, it's a bright star that moves across the sky. You can see satellites, too, if you know where to look. They have apps for phones that tell you where to look, and when. Nasa has an interactive map, too.

spotthestation.nasa.gov/

Yeah I'm sure you can build a several kilometer long Lego spaceship.
This is not like that Lego Bugatti Chiron that god viral a while ago, this is way too huge

Wish I knew more about how things worked in space so I could know how shitty or good this scene is.
I imagine it's dumb because I just can't see how the star destroyer would cut through the other before the small ship pushed through.

It's a perfectly fine scene until you get to the point where the pushed Destroyer hits the other Destroyer, because it forces you to believe the other Destroyer has no shields up and is not under its own propulsion that would resist the collision.

That's because our scales are calibrated for Earth gravity. A scale made to be used on the moon would indeed show 70kg.

>you can't build a huge spaceship that's compatible with minifigs

Attached: LEGO-75159-UCS-Death-Star-Front-View.jpg (2085x1778, 541K)

>The deathstar has five rooms.

That was so disappointing a kit. The Super Star Destroyer is the size and length of a respectable coffee table.

if you go to the route of realistic space combat it would be like battleships

Holy FUCK you are stupid

Hello Disney.

Star destroyers are folded over 9,000 times.

>blue R2 unit
Was there one in the flim?

I have heard that "Realistic space combat" would be spheres painted completely black missile spamming each other from half a system away

>you are now beginning to realize the orders of magnitude in scale required to conceptualize how retardedly huge these things are

Attached: a big ship for you.jpg (2240x1320, 1.35M)

that doesn't make any sense

Attached: ooga booga.jpg (1200x800, 129K)

They're maybe like 7000 tons in real life but a gram of cgi weights so little the movie models are actually closer to 70kg

someone call nasa this guy is smarter than all of them
earthsky.org/space/aida-didymoon-plan-to-deflect-asteroid

>ITT people who think they know everything about space from information given by ((NASA))

krakowian sexy prostitutes, it's a polish website

>painted completely black
Visual camouflage is completely useless in space because you glow like a cianigger in inferred and would have a drive tail AU long pointing exactly where you are.

Air craft carriers are docked with tug boats my dude.

Attached: mmm captcha.jpg (450x450, 34K)

tell me more about how the earth is flat and gravity isn't real, user

Wouldn't scanners have detected the ship and push back with their own boosters? Or move up/down so it ends up crashing towards the planet?

when i was stationed on an aircraft carrier we had tugs always pushing us into port. one even had to tow us out of port once when we were dead in the water

t. has never seen a tug boat push a freighter

R3-M3, it's in ANH.

Attached: r3-m3-r3-o11.jpg (640x370, 51K)

Because its safer and mitigates damage towards the ship/harbour?

Isn't it curious that it's the "law" of gravity? Whose law is it? Who decided it be written into law, and why is it enforced worldwide when every country is supposedly its own jurisdiction?

Alright you fucking brainlets let me explain what is wrong with this in short:
>small ship can somehow accelerate big ship faster than the other big ship can move out of the way
>small ship can apply that much force to such a small area without it simply going straight through (or, more likely, the small ship breaking)
Here's some actual physics about the last point which is very important, I will also use abstract units and disregard stuff that isn't pertinent to the big picture: lets say D1 and D2 (the start destroyer being accelerated and hit respectively) have 0 velocity at the start as does C (the small ship doing the pushing, C for cuck).
>C accelerates D1 for 10 energy over 10 time units by pushing on a 1 size area
>D1 now has 10 energy worth of speed
>D1 collides with D2 on a 5000 size area over 5-10 time units (since the collision keeps going)
>the 10 energy momentum of D1 is enough to cut through D2 like butter
>yet the same amount of energy being applied to a many times smaller area under a slightly longer or perhaps even similar amount of time was not enough to make C simply push straight through D1
See why that's retarded?

Attached: 1544331220297.gif (335x500, 2.61M)

Obviously. It's an answer to the retard yelling that "small ships can't push big ones".

based&schizopilled

The example of a small ship pulling a larger ship is through a willing co-operation. What would happen if the large ship pulled back? Would the tug boat rip apart? Run out of fuel?

Sure. And how long does it take a couple of tugs to get it up to a slow speed?
Now, how many tugs would it take to push an aircraft carrier THROUGH another one?

That's the problem with the scene. You need big ass engines to move that much mass up to ramming speed, in that short a space.

D1’s hull is made from 1000-times folded durastell, while D2 is made from cardboard. Easy.

I'm the President of Earth and I decided it's everybody's law.

sighs... do you know why that hole ''smack one destroyer int othe other'' woudlet work that way ?... on planets the sort of manover of useing a tool to smack something is brutal becuse gravity turns the weight of an object into added motion energy..in space ,yes you axilerate without problems but that is also all the mommentum energy you get once the basic energy forceing the big ship into the other would only been the corvettes+that bair minute of thruster speed aka..... and since the first big ship obviously is of the same desing and more then capable of withstanding the corvettes full thruster momentum pushing at its exposed side not geeting cleaved in half lite butter ,yes it would made a mess but the other large ships thrusters would swiftly negate the meager mintue of added momentum of the corvette and ...argh..i..just...ffs ...are there any good movies around ? or have evrything turned into cliche shallow characters cutie cuter predictebal plots overdone special effects and plothole riddled propaganda physics ignoreing manure in hollywood ?

sure I agree but I'm not familiar with the engineering plant aspects of the star wars universe compared to the current navy's. if we're really going to nitpick why didnt the bombers just bomb the shield gate with the ion bombs since it seemed to disable electronics

He phrased it poorly, mass doesn't change but your weight does because it's determined by gravity, your weight is basically just how hard your mass is being pulled down towards whatever you're standing on.

I always thought this guy was dope.

But steel is heavier than feathers???

And how long does it take

if you were to crash that aircraft carrier, at the speed the tug boats were tugging it, into another aircraft carrier, would it smash through?

dont know, dont care

Feathers are made out of iron you brainlets.

The Star Destroyer couldn't push back. There's a reason they waited for the engines to be disabled before ramming.

Skarmory?

i mean hes right though.

now kilograms are determined in terms of their energy and its relationship to photons, which doesn't change depending where you are.

before that kilograms were measured by comparing an object to a prototype kilogram, which was just like a platinum weight. but even using this, if you moved to the moon you would still be the same kilograms because you would move the prototype to the moon as well, and the ratio of weight between you and the prototype would still be the same. because thats what was practically being measured, the ratios of weights between objects, not the weight itself.

is that what planes are made of, iron feathers?

Holy fucking brainlet.

wouldnt his dick be smaller since gravity isnt pulling it down?

when we were tugged dead in the water we were probably getting towed at 5kts. whether they couldve towed us faster, i dont know. When we pull in to ports, the tugs do mostly corrective pushes alongside to keep us in the channel. At that speed damage could definitely be done.
popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28197560/uss-billings-crash/
it is a smaller ship but damage is possible at very low speed

Dong Expands because of internal pressure.
Though thanks to the weakening of the cardiovascular system because gravity isn't doing half the word, erectile dysfunction would be pretty common in free fall.

>not measuring the prototype proton for more accuracy

How the fuck does a spaceship that large not have back up power?

He is not, you will not WEIGHT 70kg everywhere, your mass will be equal 70kg.

>mass
>70KG
>KG
nice bait

kurwa

Its how ion weapons work in universe. It fries every electrical system on board, you may have back up power, but you have to flip every breaker and change every fuse to get things up and running, meanwhile you're a sitting duck to either be boarded, or targeted for sustained fire.

Star Wars is to space as Games of Thrones is to medieval history. They're both utter bullshit.

No, planes are made out of iron wooden planks.

game of thrones is fiction

And Star Wars?

>You will weight 70kg everywhere.
>Weight changes based on gravity.

Attached: by allah.jpg (720x528, 122K)

It's true
all of it.

Attached: han solo.jpg (1280x720, 67K)

The scientific definition of weight is the force an amount of mass in Newtons, mass is the amount of matter in kilograms

Because gravity isn't a real force and you're just feeling downward acceleration.

This is the real reason that this scene is goofy

All?

Attached: Tul'kar-DotJ1.jpg (270x340, 49K)

WHY ARE THE GIANT SHIPS SO FUCKING CLOSE
IT'S FUCKING SPACE

The EU isn't canon.
Also, Disney is doing a KotOR movie and released several books featuring Thrawn.

>C for cuck

Attached: BossNass_laugh.jpg (1150x750, 174K)

There is no atmosphere in space.

>The EU isn't canon
my point

>Disney is doing a KotOR movie
They cannot stop fucking that corpse. Can they?

Most people seem to forget about what was happening on screen. A squadron of Y-wings disabled the engines of the 2 star destroyers so they only needed a little push from that small ship to lose their geosynchronous orbit.

>gravity isn't a real force
What did he mean by this?

Fuck off DIDF. The fan base can decide what's Canon and what isn't, and I'll take anything pre-disney purchase as Canon.

Steel is denser than feathers, but a ton of steel will still weigh as much as a ton of feathers in the same gravitational conditions. Density is a mass issue, not a weight issue.

Niggers cant understand this.

>260 replies
>Ctrl+f
>"leverage"
>0 results
The ramming attack is completely realistic and viable as a tactic, but the damage was way the fuck overblown. at the most, the star destroyers should have have just bounced off eachother, with some serious hull damage, not gutting both of them like they were made out of paper mache

Attached: financial-leverage.jpg (450x218, 12K)

What leverage, retard? Where, in your brainlet mind, do you see a fucking lever?

whoa so mad bro

Attached: Bait.gif (500x207, 3.06M)

Stop applying real world physics to a fucking fantasy magic story you idiots. Why don't you also use physics to explain the Force if you are so smart?

all those faggots who fell for it

This. I could maybe see them getting crumpled together like cars in a serious collision, but the result of the impact was the only unrealistic thing in that entire sequence.

>all the brainlets who think this is incorrect aside from his mistake in the second line
Jesus Christ are you all niggers or what? Holy fuck I bet you people all think weight is measured in kilograms (or pounds).

Attached: 1558762376137.jpg (221x250, 5K)

weight can be measured in pounds (force), lbf

right but the one spaceship in OP went THROUGH another equal spaceship. From rest. In like 20 seconds.

>call up a hammerhead corvette

Attached: 4L_0cukr3Pa.jpg (1003x506, 258K)

>car tires push off the ground
>boats push off the water
>planes push off the air
>spaceships push off ????????????

each other, this is what the thread is about

>He doesn't understand how rockets work.

>he thinks rockets work in a vacuum

Attached: COOM2.png (1044x869, 183K)

W=FD
F=MA

based

U=FG

They teach you this in fucking middle school. Did any of you fucks go to school? Had your faces in your smart phone while you should have been learning? There's lots wrong with Star Wars physics, but that scene isn't one of them.

>U=FGT
Fixed. You forgot the time variable.

whoa whoa whoa
this is starting to sound like Star Trek thread.

Agreed. There should have been a couple of Hammerheads doing the work, and the collision should have looked more like a slow speed crash.

>he doesn't think rockets work in a vaccum

Attached: Pepe Thinks.png (741x609, 27K)

>he thinks space is vacuum

>at the most, the star destroyers should have have just bounced off eachother, with some serious hull damage, not gutting both of them like they were made out of paper mache
This, but normie retards that watch Soi Wars wouldn't understand that those two star destroyers are knocked out of combat unless they're completely blown to smitheroons.
>ship no explode, me no understand, me clap or no clap? me head hurt

Attached: brainlet.webm (700x370, 443K)

You successfully baited four autists who specifically came into this thread to ACKSHUALLY. Based and baitpilled.

Bro its about the high amount of force pushing on a small enough area that doesnt cut the star destroyer being pushed in half

that's kind of the star wars trademark though, they know it's not realistic, but it looks great and it's exciting to watch. at least it was in the OT.

for all intents and purposes, one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space is a vacuum, yes

>It would be nice to see someone try and tackle what actual space combat would look like
it was tackled in Forever War in 1974 and Ridley Scott wanted to film it for 20 years or so but instead he got senile and has been dishing out garbage

Besides, his original point was that spaceships shouldn't work. Even if he's right, and space isn't a vacuum, he's refuted his own argument.

Silly. They are not pushing the ship forwards. They are pushing the space backwards. Space is massless.

>spaceships push off ????????????
The mass they are throwing in the opposite direction.

>changing subject

>t. smooth brain

>Being THIS much of a brainet.

>he thinks he's talking to the same person instead of several random brainlets dropping by to derail the conversation

I get bugged in space battles when the fights are all on the x or y axis and nothing is done on the z axis. You always get "full reverse" or "starboard 45degrees" or some other shit and never "go from 0 to -120 on the z axis"

I read a book once that dealt with teleportation and it had tanks of of some bio goo that was used to rebuild people when they teleported. In the book when you teleported your original body was broken down, the info was sent across space and when you got where you were going you were rebuilt from scratch out of this goo and popped our like a giant newborn so technically everytime you teleported your body was only a day old

There was an episode of aeon flux like that.
They were broken down into biomatter and then extruded into people molds to enter a maximum security institute. Hilarity ensues.

And the thing is that would still be limited by the speed at which you can send the information to the target destination which would be at most the speed of light, so no instant teleportation between planets or solar systems or anything for you

In Aeon Flux it was just a regular submarine, thing, but instead of it transporting people, it was just a pressurized vessel of goo that is reconstituted at the other end.
Stephen Baxter's Manifold Space has teleportation nodes all over the galaxy that are subjectively instantaneous (you're matter is annihilated and entangled with the gate which is in turn entangled with its end node, and spits out a copy of you at the other end, after the lag of light speed transmission of the information.
Still, better than the alternative.

>niggers who cant science
lmao

Interesting concept, but irl in the far future I doubt it would be used too much with the huge issues it opens up with self and whatnot.

However it would be neat for logistics, transporting products as data instead of actually shipping them across interstellar space.