2014-07-03

Microjumps and Shrinkage

I mentioned ages ago the reference to short jumps and have referred to it specifically in reference to Obi-Wan's escape from Utapau, but as certain parties didn't catch on I should probably expand the reference thusly:

On page 110 of the Revenge of the Sith novelization, we learn how vessels can evade hyperspace tracking, inasmuch as not revealing your destination on account of which way you were headed.
"[Grievous's escape vessel] would then make a series of randomized microjumps to prevent being tracked before entering the final jump to the secret base on Utapau."
 Later, Obi-Wan himself uses such a technique when escaping Utapau in Grievous's own dented fighter:
"Obi-Wan took General Grievous's starfighter screaming out of the atmosphere so fast he popped the gravity well and made jump before the Vigilance could even scramble its fighters.  He reverted to realspace well beyond the system, kicked the starfighter to a new vector, and jumped again.  A few more jumps of random direction and duration left him deep in interstellar space.
     "You know," he said to himself,  "integral hyperspace capability is rather useful in a starfighter; why don't we have it yet?"
     While the starfighter's nav system whirred and chunked its way  through recalculating his position, he punched codes to gang his Jedi comlink into the starfighter's system."
 This is possibly the technique used by Solo when departing Tatooine with Luke and Obi-Wan and the droids, too . . . either at Tatooine or some other locale en route.  It was something like a 1.5 week trip, after all:
"You know, even I get boarded sometimes, Jabba. Did you think I dumped that spice because I got tired of its smell? I wanted to deliver it as  much as you wanted to receive it. I had no choice." Again the sardonic smile. "As you say, I'm too valuable to fry. But I've got a charter now and I can pay you back, plus a little extra. I just need some more time. I can give you a thousand on account, the rest in three weeks." (ANH Novelization, Ch. 7)
I bring this up because it is claimed by Brian Young that Utapau visibly shrinks in the distance behind Obi-Wan as he's leaving Utapau, and this is claimed to represent uber-acceleration.   Obviously, it does not, as we know that Obi-Wan was cutting in the hyperdrive here and there.

One could argue that Obi-Wan getting out of the gravity well and into hyperspace before a ship could launch fighters is indicative of some massive velocity, but since we don't know when the fighter was detected (indeed, technically we don't know it was detected at all), we have absolutely no time limit on this whatsoever.

As such, the scene is useless for sublight acceleration calculations.

(In addition, there are other less important problems, as well.  For one, the shot of Obi-Wan in the cockpit features lighting changes inconsistent with the view through the window . . . that is to say, it's like a bad old movie where the road was projected on a screen behind the actors, but even as the road was winding the light on the actors didn't change.

Similarly, the space shot that Brian makes claims about features a visible star way, way in the wrong place.   For the planets to be lit by that, it would have to be what one might call an "extremely compact quasi-stellar object" (ECQO) in close orbit.  Otherwise, the planets should look like the merest slivers.    The only other alternative would be to argue that the field of view is profoundly monkeyed with in that scene, and even possibly being actively changed throughout it, which is a possibility but would then also render its use as an acceleration guide kaput.  Given that the star moves much like the moons do, it seems it must be either an ECQO or a monkeyed scene.)

5 comments:

  1. I sometimes think you like the sound of your own voice so much, you don't even take the time to actually read what you write.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't have a dictation system that'd make you right.

      What was it about the post that you found so disagreeable that you felt that necessary?

      Delete
  2. Well, frankly, the bit about cherry-picking stood out like a sore thumb. You blast Brian Young for that, but aren't you the same fella who, not too long ago, completely blew off those high-definition stills from EAS? You know the ones to which I refer; and if not, 750 MW Cardie beam weapons might ring some bells. You are anything but stupid or ignorant things Trek, so I do not have to remind you how consistent that value is with many others in TNG and DS9.

    Please note that I do not think TNG-era ships are limited to megawatts, or gigawatts, of firepower. I also have a feeling that you are a superb dude. But so is Brian Young. Please do not regard him, or Curtis Saxton for that matter, as some co-conspirators in a grand plot to put Trek down. I cannot speak for Mike Wong, but I know those other chaps and hold both in high regard. Please trust this anonymous voice when it says the Brians and Curtises among us have no ill intent; they are truly just going where they think the data leads them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, frankly, the bit about cherry-picking stood out like a sore thumb.

    I imagine it does stand out, and impressively so . . . which is quite odd considering there's no reference to cherry-picking in this post.

    Of course, it seems to me that someone would have to be awfully sensitive to being labelled a cherry-picker to see it where it doesn't exist. The last time I saw someone that sensitive, he made a video where he crazily lashed out at another site because they had the audacity to criticize his presentation and use prepositions in sentences about him.

    One might even think it best here if I simply refer to you as "Branon".

    You blast Brian Young for that, but aren't you the same fella who, not too long ago, completely blew off those high-definition stills from EAS? You know the ones to which I refer; and if not, 750 MW Cardie beam weapons might ring some bells. You are anything but stupid or ignorant things Trek, so I do not have to remind you how consistent that value is with many others in TNG and DS9.

    You mean the "Leaky Wounded Megawatts" post in which I explain with math how the revised TNG screen doesn't make any sense compared to the rest of canon, and how the TNG TM numbers don't work?

    http://dsg2k.blogspot.com/2014/04/leaky-wounded-megawatts.html

    It isn't like this is even new information . . . I've been pointing that out since at least 2005, just per the text of this page:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSW102.html

    It's hardly cherry-picking to reject new outlier values that are wildly inconsistent with the rest of the canon and which came from a non-canon source that is inconsistent with itself.

    Compare this with real cherry-pickers, who reject values that are inconsistent with non-canon sources (e.g. books they helped create, their imaginations, et cetera)

    Please do not regard him, or Curtis Saxton for that matter, as some co-conspirators in a grand plot to put Trek down.

    Why not? There's plenty of evidence to that effect, from Saxton's old posts against "Trekkists" to the snippets of discussion group e-mails we have in which they explicitly seek to make me look bad, make Star Wars a better comparison to Trek, and do their ICS calculations, all in the same group.*

    However, I think it more a case of wanting to inflate Star Wars, especially in Saxton's case, rather than explicitly deflate Trek numbers, though they'll do both as the need arises.

    Certainly Brian Young gives all the credit in the world to Star Wars and very little to other universes . . . I recall him arguing a point in favor of Star Wars combat abilities based solely on the fact that the Empire is a "mature galactic civilization", whereas Star Trek firepower was limited strictly to Brian's claims of what he'd seen when it came to comparing the Enterprise against a nuclear submarine.

    In other words, you will know him by who gets the benefits of his doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (* Brian has tried to dismiss this as overstating the case, but then this *is* the same guy who declared StarfleetJedi.Net a haven of hate and venom because the site's wiki said he went to ASVS to "answer to" questions about his work instead of "answer", which to his mind made it somehow leap into "lie" territory. SFJ and their accursed prepositions!

    And, of course, he also had a cow because a fellow resident of the US southeast, an area notorious for unique accents, found his particular accent quite grating on the nerves. (That'd be me.) From there he has created this entire peculiar arc wherein he goes on anti-American diatribes and also claims people said he was ugly. I still haven't found any evidence for that, though given that he discusses the attractiveness of actresses in his videos I don't see how he can go from talking about their presentation to refusing to allow discussion on his own. He does video . . . his accent is thus like the spelling of a normal website. I can still read a site that uses extra British U's euveurywheureu aund iun euveury endeavour, but I don't have to like it, and it's part of the presentation and I can certainly comment on it if I wish. Whatever form you put yourself out there in, you invite criticism about your presentation . . . just as he gave his opinion of actresses.)

    I cannot speak for Mike Wong, but I know those other chaps and hold both in high regard. Please trust this anonymous voice when it says the Brians and Curtises among us have no ill intent; they are truly just going where they think the data leads them.

    Then they should find new hobbies, since they suck at this one. Seriously, how can one go about this sort of thing with a straight face and never acknowledge or even try to correct for one's own biases? They can lie to themselves and try to claim that they are being purely objective, but it's pretty obvious that they seek to crank Star Wars up to 11 at all times, invariably latching on to the highest possible examples or interpretations rather than finding widescale consistency. No one can watch Star Wars and believe the things they believe about it.

    And y'know, I'm still waiting for Brian to reveal who it is who can beat Star Wars, in his mind. In one of his years-old videos he said he already knew who it would be. I assumed based on his rather questionable war criteria that it would be the Andromeda group from that show with the Hercules guy since he said they controlled three galaxies, but then it turned out that Star Wars suddenly started controlling two extra galaxies instead and blammo, they could suddenly beat Hercules.

    So, I really don't know who's left in his list that could do it.

    ReplyDelete