Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[slikkerias]

Yes yes, that is clear. My point was -and this is pure nerdthink- if the ships have artificial gravity, then there has to be a boundary to this gravitational force. So the boundary must stop at the edge of the ship, ergo, shouldn't the bombs "dropped" in TLJ (as opposed to ejected, as it looks like in ESB) stop at that boundary? It's just silly nerdthink, nothing terribly serious.



Agreed, that could probably generate enough momentum to break the boundary.
As for the second thought, disagree. Whether we like it or not, there's gravity on the big asteroid, so in the "logic" of the film, the asteroid has enough gravitational pull to make bombs fall. But that's just part of it, because, as I pointed out, it's quite clear the bombs are ejected at speed during the asteroid bombing run, they don't just "drop".

Again, it's the little details that make what you're seeing onscreen make sense within the logic of the movie. Something that doesn't happen in this particular instance that we're discussing.

There’s no boundary to break. The artificial gravely is clearly not realistic, but it never was. And an asteroid does not have enough gravity to pull bombs like that.
This criticism is just desperate and shows a loss of imagination in my opinion.

 

[abake]

Well, we're clearly in the realm of make believe anyway, but to me, there has to be a boundary for the gravitational pull of the ships. Never mind the actual science, it just makes sense that the ship generates a gravitational field which has to have a boundary, so, logically, when the bombs start falling (in the case of TLJ), the question remains why they don't stop at that boundary, but your explanation made sense to me: that the momentum carried by the falling bombs was enough to break that boundary.
What I didn't agree with was your assertion that the asteroids having gravity was an even dumber idea in regards to the bombs "falling" in ESB, because, as I pointed out, it wasn't just because of the asteroids having gravity, it was also because they are clearly ejected from the TIE bombers, not just "dropped", which makes all the difference in the world. Also, as I pointed out, within the logic of the movie, it has already been established that the asteroid has gravity, so even bombs just "falling" would have made sense within ESB's movie logic.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but to me, there is no "lack of imagination" or "desperation", it's just looking into the logic within the story and the universe set up in the movies. Like the parabolic arcs of the laser shots in TLJ. That makes no sense within the logic set up in the movies.

 

[a-dev]

Just because there's a boundary to the ships internal gravity wouldn't mean that the bombs just abruptly stop when they meet open space. Only a physical barrier would stop them at that point.

 

[rushmore223]

Just because there's a boundary to the ships internal gravity wouldn't mean that the bombs just abruptly stop when they meet open space. Only a physical barrier would stop them at that point.

Considering that this stuff is considered "geeky", I would think the people on here would have a firmer grasp of physics.

Always thought science and "geekiness" went hand in hand.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[slikkerias]

I believe what he means by ‘boundary’ is the center of gravity. Which would make sense in the real world, but since the artificial gravity clearly doesn’t work like that (it’s like a ‘flat’ pull and how it works is a mystery) we have to assume that the bombs would just clear the artificial gravity when entering open space.
Better just to accept this stuff and move on. There’s nothing wrong with this that isn’t an accepted part of the SW fantasy universe. This is a direct consequence of for instance how they moved around in the Millennium Falcon back in 1977. Like there’s a flat gravity field where you can move around like you aren’t in space...

 

[ajp4mgs]

I believe what he means by ‘boundary’ is the center of gravity. Which would make sense in the real world, but since the artificial gravity clearly doesn’t work like that (it’s like a ‘flat’ pull and how it works is a mystery) we have to assume that the bombs would just clear the artificial gravity when entering open space.
Better just to accept this stuff and move on. There’s nothing wrong with this that isn’t an accepted part of the SW fantasy universe. This is a direct consequence of for instance how they moved around in the Millennium Falcon back in 1977. Like there’s a flat gravity field where you can move around like you aren’t in space...

Well said!

In the OT, when ships were docking into the Death Star hangar, and the officers/troopers walking around there weren't sucked into space, we can just assume that there was a force field of some sort that allowed objects (ships) to pass through while still maintaining a simultaneous barrier from the effects of the vacuum of space. We didn't need to be told the specifics, or question the science; we just went with it.

When everyone is walking around the Falcon as if they're on a planetary surface, we didn't question how that kind of artificial gravity could possibly work in a confined (and much smaller) space. We just went with it. Because that's how *fantasy* works.

Now there seems to be this brand new objection to how objects can fall while in the artificial gravity of a ship, yet still pass through a barrier that doesn't suck everything out into space. Whatever.

 

[abake]

I believe what he means by ‘boundary’ is the center of gravity. Which would make sense in the real world, but since the artificial gravity clearly doesn’t work like that (it’s like a ‘flat’ pull and how it works is a mystery) we have to assume that the bombs would just clear the artificial gravity when entering open space.
Better just to accept this stuff and move on. There’s nothing wrong with this that isn’t an accepted part of the SW fantasy universe. This is a direct consequence of for instance how they moved around in the Millennium Falcon back in 1977. Like there’s a flat gravity field where you can move around like you aren’t in space...

Exactly, thanks for clearing that up. That's the whole point: there has to be some boundary to the artificial gravity being generated by the ship, and clearly that boundary is at the bay doors, just like there is a force field there that prevents the ship's atmosphere from being sucked out. So, begging your pardon Rushmore, I think my grasp of physics is doing fine...
Anyway, it was (mostly) a fun discussion.

 

[slikkerias]

Exactly, thanks for clearing that up. That's the whole point: there has to be some boundary to the artificial gravity being generated by the ship, and clearly that boundary is at the bay doors, just like there is a force field there that prevents the ship's atmosphere from being sucked out. So, begging your pardon Rushmore, I think my grasp of physics is doing fine...
Anyway, it was (mostly) a fun discussion.

BUT clearly there aren’t a center of gravity in this weird space wizard artificial gravity world since you can walk around in the millennium Falcon without being dragged towards a specific point in the ship. So, why should there be a “boundary”. Also if it’s important to you that the whole surface becomes the “center” of gravity, the bombs still in the ship would still be able to push the lower bombs out and into open space. So all is good, nothing to see here! ;-)

 

[rushmore223]

Abake...

While much of this is fantasy obviously, I'm mostly speaking about objects in motion staying in motion in the confines of space. I also think that there is a certain amount of common sense involved here. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the bomb Bay doors in a bomber will allow bombs to go through and not meet resistance. Sincee it is space, It is also safe to assume that there is some type of field that keeps the atmosphere inside the ships, without hindering the effectiveness of the bombs, the ships entire reason for existing.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[slikkerias]

Abake...

While much of this is fantasy obviously, I'm mostly speaking about objects in motion staying in motion in the confines of space. I also think that there is a certain amount of common sense involved here. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the bomb Bay doors in a bomber will allow bombs to go through and not meet resistance. Sincee it is space, It is also safe to assume that there is some type of field that keeps the atmosphere inside the ships, without hindering the effectiveness of the bombs, the ships entire reason for existing.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Exactly. And that is also an established part of the physics of this galaxy.

 

[Prime Clone]

RJ did the only thing he could with Luke.

Kudos to him for taking the heat without blaming his predecessors!

 

[Khev]

Kudos to him for taking the heat without blaming his predecessors!

Or the fans! Oh wait...

 

[Wor-Gar]

I like the utilitarian use of "gravity" inside space ships.

It all started with Star Wars (ANH)... if you notice, before Luke and Han do battle with the Sentry ships, they climb up (or down) to their respective gun mounts. Keep this in kind. Once inside the gunner stations however, gravity has adjusted in this room to their seated position (as indicated by the hanging wire of their head-sets) -- instead of Luke falling forward toward his guns (remember he climbed down) or Han falling back deep into his chair (he climbed up).

You can even see the walkway Han came from below which indicates the gravity adjustment in the "gunner bubble". I always loved that.

 

[xipotec]

Yes, the bombs would not stop at the bottom of the ship unless there’s a force pushing the other way to stop them. The bombs would “drop” as we see them do. Also, the bombs hang in lines in the ship pushing each other down creating momentum.
And therefor what we see on screen is pretty much how it would go if the bombs were ejected by the artificial gravity of the ship.
The asteroids in ESB having their own gravity strong enough to pull the bombs is a much “dumber” and less plausible possibility - but then again, it’s Star Wars. And asteroids and ships have gravity - so who cares!?

Yes , correct. The size of a floating body needed to pull bombs down like those in EBS would have to be significantly larger that our moon obviously.

Which those asteroid were not. Plus if I am correct , the technical guides say those Tie bombers launched those bombs as well.

Just more bashing TLJ for stuff we already have seen. Luke , Owen and Beru all drank blue milk. Sorry for those guys and gals that didn’t know that milk comes from a mammal, with **** of some kind. They didn’t go buy it at the grocery store.




Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Prime Clone]

Or the fans! Oh wait...

Touché

 

[ShadowX81]

Abake...

While much of this is fantasy obviously, I'm mostly speaking about objects in motion staying in motion in the confines of space. I also think that there is a certain amount of common sense involved here. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the bomb Bay doors in a bomber will allow bombs to go through and not meet resistance. Sincee it is space, It is also safe to assume that there is some type of field that keeps the atmosphere inside the ships, without hindering the effectiveness of the bombs, the ships entire reason for existing.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Is it possible that the bombs were still under the effect of gravity from the planet below? A lot of people don't know that even in earth orbit (at the elevation of the ISS), there is still 90% of the gravity of sea level; its just the horizontal movement and constant freefall that provides astronauts on the space station the illusion of weightlessness.

Obviously the ships in star wars use some sort of gravity manipulation to get them off the ground (as well as keeping gravity on the ships while in deep space), but the ships in TLJ didn't look too far above the atmosphere and the bombs would still be well under the influence of the planet's gravity.

 

[Prime Clone]

Perhaps, but it would be pretty limiting for bomber craft to rely on planetary gravity.

 

[slikkerias]

Is it possible that the bombs were still under the effect of gravity from the planet below? A lot of people don't know that even in earth orbit (at the elevation of the ISS), there is still 90% of the gravity of sea level; its just the horizontal movement and constant freefall that provides astronauts on the space station the illusion of weightlessness.

Obviously the ships in star wars use some sort of gravity manipulation to get them off the ground (as well as keeping gravity on the ships while in deep space), but the ships in TLJ didn't look too far above the atmosphere and the bombs would still be well under the influence of the planet's gravity.

Possibility. Depending on weather the planet was in the right position. Would limit the bombers a lot if they were depending on it though. ...but but but, now we have many more possible explanations for this detail than for most other technical issues in SW - it should be in the clear.
...so, on to the blue milk! Liked that scene. It’s fun, it has links to the first one and it gives zero *******. [emoji106]

 

[Otomofan]

My god. Pages and pages of fighting about "gravity" in a Star Wars movie.

Nose Lady says get back on topic, or else she's gonna make out with her boyfriend!

 

[TaliBane]

Let's keep it on topic and 100% positive in here, people. Don't make me pull this badge again.

Stranger Things 3 is about to hit and there's like three movies I'm seeing in the next 2 weeks, so I'll be near here and checking often.