Talk:Physics and Star Wars/Archive 1

Delete this page
I think this page should be deleted. I think it should deleted because:
 * 1) It's just a list of random star wars fictonal technology doesn't compare any of them to the real world.
 * 2) It looks incomplete(realted to the above article)
 * 3) This needs completely revamped.
 * 4) It's going to required to be renamed. "Science of Star Wars" would be a more apporite title for comparing stars technology to real life

For those reasons I think it would be easier(and better) just to delete the article and start over form scartch.--Scott3 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Explosions?
In space battles you can clearly see explosions when, say, a missile strikes a capital ship. But in order for something to combust, there needs to be oxygen... and there is none in space. Does this fit under this page? Inferno 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Chemical explosions, which require oxygen, are the most common, but the term is more general than that. It includes nuclear detonations, for example, and could include any sudden increase in volume and release of energy, like a spaceship getting torn apart and having its internal atmosphere released into space. I think the word is OK.--Chaser T 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is horrible
This is not a comparison of Star Wars technology and the application of such technology in the real world. It doesn't even explain how one single peice of equipment in Star Wars works, it's just a random list of technology in Star Wars. Somebody should cleam this mess up, either put information in the article, or delete it, a random list of technology is useless, considering we already have one. --Voicingmaster 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this could use a lot more work. After Christmas I will have the book "Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination" and I will go through it and maybe find stuff to add or delete. It didn't even cover lightspeed, this article! If someone else could do what I plan to do, with helping clean this article up, that would be so awesome. The sooner the better. May the Force be with us all. 74.60.25.192 05:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Leia 22

I agree as well.This needs major clean up.Most of the article is Trekkie propagated.If you look at the Star Trek version,they state that Star Trek is sci-fi.--Nadirali نادرالی

Double Suns
This article said something interesting about double suns. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6506081.stm

Can anyone track down the article's sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the link. I incorporated it into the article. I'm not sure how to find out about the article's sources. That's a tough one.-- Chaser - T 10:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Twin suns section
I am an astrophysics student and was shocked to learn that this article originally stated that no planets have been found orbiting binary star systems... indeed many have been found in the last 10 years. Furthermore, it was never considered a physical impossibility, which the original tone of the article seemed to imply, but was simply expected to be a rather rare phenomenon. It seems now that it might not be.

I have sourced this to an article on Space.com, since I wasn't sure the legal ramifications for linking to the Journal of Astrophysics without its online-edition permission... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.43.190 (talk • contribs)


 * I based that statement on the original (8-year old) source, and missed fixing it in later modifications as more sources became available. As to linking to online journals, it's fine. You can also cite a source without an internet link, such as a book or journal article, much as one would in academia. Cheers!--Chaser - T 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Expressions like "'wide' binary star systems" (quotes with no attribution), "scientifically confirm some 25 to 30 years after" (source?), "planets are now presumed to orbit binary star systems" (presumed by whom?), "Tatooine presumably" (again, by whom?). This from just two paragraphs right in the middle. therefore, references needed to substantiate what looks like original research. --EEMeltonIV 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Technical Commentaries do not have any objective editorial oversight; they aren't reliable sources. --EEMeltonIV 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Worth mentioning
The Air and Space Museum showed (shows?) a video in one of its exhibits about the discrepancies between Hollywood sci-fi and real science. It uses some scenes from Star Wars, along with 2001 and Moonraker. --EEMeltonIV 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

climate on planets
Climate is not always uniform on Star Wars planets. I.e. Coruscant has iced poles. Also planets like Hoth and Tatooine are not really uniform, they only look like this, but there are still hotter and colder areas and there might be big temperature differences. Because of this, most of the land on these plants is uninhabitable and they have a very low population (according to a map found here all inhabitated land on tatooine is within a rectangle of about 5,000km x 4,000km). Earth probably also looked very uniform some time ago. Also the source only states an opinion, not a fact. So if there is no better source, this sentence should be removed. --MrBurns (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, I read the rest of the National Geographic article. There is a lot nonsense in it. It seems like the persons interviewed have much knowledge of science, but not much knowledge about the Star Wars Expanded Universe. i.e. they assume, that Coruscant is geographically in the center of the galaxy, this is not true, because the "Core Worlds" are not really in the Core, the real Core is called "Deep Core". They are exactly in that reagion, about which Shostak says that it would be better for "sustaining the high-voltage, urban lifestyle of Coruscant". Also, Shostak’s comment, that the top species would dominate the galaxy, because it would be millenias ahead of the number two species might not be true in a galaxy, that has about 20 million sentient lifeforms. It seems like he is assuming, that all sentient life forms of the galaxy are seen in the movies. --MrBurns (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

^^^This is one of the funniest comments I have ever read in a wiki discussion.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.135.138.26 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gravity
What about gravity in Star Wars? Whenever a spaceship makes flips and turns, the characters within seems unaffected. They should at least feel a massive pressure as a result of the G force.

Willer23 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research?

 * The first two comments are copied from our talk pages.--Chaser T 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your tagging of Physics and Star Wars as containing original research, I would appreciate some more explanation on the article's talk page about what is original research. I wrote the "Specific phenomena" section and know my way around the OR (now Attribution) policy, so I'm sure we can work together to excise any existing OR and resolve this issue. Thanks.--Chaser T 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot for your message.Regarding the article I stated in my edit summary that the article is not presenting any evidence that the charecters in the Star Wars galaxy can hear the sounds in space.So what would be the purpose of adding the sounds in space section?
 * No part in either trilogies as far as I can see indicates that the charecters can hear any sounds in space which the audiance can.So the reason I put the template there is because the writer merely assumed that there was sound in space.


 * Furthermore I find that the article is only pointing to minor unrealistic elements (science fiction is not technicly reality,only possibility) while ignoring the mostly realistic concepts.
 * Take for example the tie fighters.They possess solar panels on either wing.Basicly they run on solar energy.Now that's realistic is it not? Don't we use spaceships and sattelights that run on solar power today? Why was this not added in the article?
 * Most of the Star Wars technical commentries written by Dr Curtis Auxtin who has a PHD in astrophysics.
 * Dr Micheal Wong who has a PHD in engineeering is another individual who points to the sceintific concepts of Star Wars.


 * I suspect the contents of the article is the work of some Trekkie.No offence intended, but I find Trekkies to be ignorent of what science fiction really is and they will insist on calling Star Trek (a fantasy franchise,their favorite) the most realistic no matter how many other franchises present more realistic science in it.I believe they are now bringing their enthusiasm to wikipedia and trying to validate their views.See criticisms of Star Trek.Though I didn't write the article (a Trekkie wrote it) I still contributed to it.


 * Coming back the the Physics and Star Wars article,I agree with the elements mentioned such as the twin suns of tatooine.
 * But those are still minor elements if you look at how few are mentioned.It's time we add the realistic elements.Do you happen to have the book Star Wars:where science meets imagination? If you don't maybe you can borrow it from a library.You can also buy the technical commentries from the science fiction section of the Indigo bookstore.I have it with me.We can use these as our sources after we add the realistic elements of Star Wars to the article.
 * Further more I think w should remove that "sounds in space section" as there is no evidence that proves the charecters can hear the sounds in space.
 * Look forward to hearing from you on this.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * I'm still unclear why this would be original research. The point is that sound is, in fact, impossible in the vacuum of space, but does exist in the space of the Star Wars universe. It seems natural to assume that characters in a film can hear sounds (besides background music), but it's also fleshed out more in the linked source, . The source also includes some examples that indicate that they apparently can hear the sounds (such as the characters reacting to said sounds).


 * I wrote the bulk of this article during its AFD. If you want to expand it with sources, go for it. More examples could only help. I'm a little uncertain about the solar-powered tie fighters, but if you can find a source, go for it.--Chaser T 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying.But there is no direct proof that the charecters react to the sound.Yes there are reactions to sounds such as episode 5 but that's when an asteroid gets hit and the vibrations are spread on it.But the assumetion itself that the charecters are reacting to the sounds is original research.As for the other parts I have no problem with.Now that we have the few unrealistic elements,I think we should add the realistic ones.About the solar panales of the tie fighters which can be seen see the sources for it on the TIE fighter article.Atleast we'll e able to use that as a start and then we can proceed to adding other scientific elements.Speaking of that,the force has been sceintified as well to make it more realistic,so no point in adding that to the list of unrealistic elements which we have.See the midichlorians article for that.Once we collect the Sci-fi elements,let's add them.I think we should seperate this article into 2 sections:1)Unrealistic section which we already have 2)Realistic section which contains more sceintific elements(we obviously can't add them all since there are too many).The same should be done for the Physics and Star Trek article which I feel has too many of the realistic parts while ignoring most of the unrealistic parts.But we should take this one step at a time.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * OK, I have changed the language to more faithfully reflect the source, indicating that they are apparently aware of the sounds. Since the source indicates exactly that and I'm not assembling it from other sources, I don't think it is any longer original research. Can we remove the tag?--Chaser T 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag.--Chaser T 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters react to sound in space because George Lucas wanted them to. IMO wikipedia isn't the place to scientific explain things that are made up. Maybe just mentioning the discrepance between physics and star wars will do.--89.245.121.207 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does this section still have a [citation needed] tag on it? That there can be no sound in space is common knowledge, and one only has to watch the films to verify that the space-bound visual effects are accompanied by sound. The section contains no statement on whether characters can hear it, which makes the only contentious topic irrelevant, the paragraph self-evidently factual, and the citation tag completely inappropriate. 91.135.1.212 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Revamp needed
This introductory paragraphs (written in 2003) are virtually copy-&-paste from the 2001 Physics and Star Trek. It's technically alright, but for the reader, it's quite annoying + boring. Please replace with different contents -- failing that, paraphrase. --Menchi 00:08, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Russell Dovey has re-worded it. --Menchi 02:43, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Any comments? Anything I could improve? - Russell Dovey


 * It's great! Now readers happen to be interested in both Star Trek and Star War will not find the two articles like clones attacking each other. --Menchi 04:43, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * How about the page gets renamed the Laughable Physics of Star Wars? In Ep III, which I barely remember, weren't Anakin and Kenobi on a Star Destroyer or something? On a ship orbiting a planet, which is a microgravity environment, when the ship keels forwards they all slide along the floor. Holy shit, I thought, George Lucas, the God SciFi, doesn't know shit about science. I'm sure he's surrounded by a bunch of well-educated techs, is everyone afraid to tell him he's an idiot? If the gravity of the planet was strong enough to drag them across the floor, it'd sure as fuck be strong enough to pull down a skyscraper-sized ship. And judging by how no one floats around any ships in Star Wars, I'd say they had artificial gravity, and that it gravitized them to the floor. If a ship tilted forward, no matter how steep the angle, no one should have noticed. // I also remember in Ep III, a fighter had something on its wing, maybe a droid or something, it got shot and began to break up, while pieces of it were blown and back and eventually the thing itself lost its grip and was blown from the wing. blown from the wing. in space. by what, may i ask? DELETE THE PAGE!!!!! Stabbycat (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To the above reader: You are incorrect on your first point. Any object, in orbit (meaning held in orbit by gravity) can still experience gravity and its effects. The reason it isn't pulled into the planet is because the craft is moving. The second point you make is correct, however. I made small edits to a section on faster than light travel for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.156.79 (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Incorrect - objects in orbit are in free-fall, which, by Einstein's equivalence principle, dictates that they should feel only tiny tidal forces (thus the term microgravity). However, it's true that if the craft were being held above the planet (i.e. not in orbit but just at a fixed point) by its engines, the acceleration required would produce apparent gravity inside the ship. Even ignoring the vast expense of hovering like this (rather than orbiting in free-fall), the tilting effect could only occur if, the instant the ship changed attitude, its engines readjusted to point towards the planet, which is highly unlikely. Another possible explanation is that the sliding was actually down to centrifugal force from the ship's rotation, but the characters' position and orientation on the ship would have to be right for this to work. 91.135.1.212 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like the opportunity to try re=writing this page.

I have very little experience of writing on Wiki (one small amend to a single article) but as an avid fan, I have spotted a huge number of material flaws both in the article and the talk page.

I have numerous sources, include a particular source who is simply too well informed of the details of the star wars universe. Whilst I would cite/use this source, I would need to remove a massive amount of detail from his work as he has, in many cases, simply gone too deep.

With that in mind, would anyone have an objection to me having a go? I am very conscious of my being "Close" to the subject matter, but I am quite capable of being dispassionate in the matter. I look forward to any responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior1138 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RoTS Space Exposure Scene
When Grevious escapes his flagship by destroying the glass windows of the bridge, Obi-Wan, Anakin and Palpatine are presumably exposed to vacuum and it takes a while for the automatic airlock to close, wouldn't they have lost consciousness in that time from lack of oxygen?

--70.52.254.141 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They would have lost consciousness in at most 11 seconds.

--Godisgood737 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Banking
In a spacecraft, you can feel G forces when accelerating, which includes turning. Hence, if you try turning by yawing in space, you are going to get jerked to the side, which can throw you around. If you do banked turns, the effect of the G forces is effectively reduced for the pilot. 125.237.33.194 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The G-Forces are still too high to be survived, they need inertia dampers. But the banked turns can be used to reduce the power conbsumption of the inertia dampers. --MrBurns (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to turn in non-atmospheric flight, some force must still be applied to the craft, presumably by some sort of thruster, the location of which (in relation to the craft's centre of gravity) will dictate the orientation of the ship, or bank angle, required to make the turn. 79.78.210.161 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow what you posted for the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we add these in the article?
Would they be useful or too in-universe:. Discuss.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)