Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

If you Move something, it either does or does not work, there is no try reactive movement of your own body in either case.

Oddly, in Clone Wars we sometimes see Jedi getting pushed back, usually with their feet sliding along the ground, when they are forming Force "barriers" but this is nonsensical as the reactions are so inconsistent. It is better to just be fully aware that there is no physical connection between the Jedi and the target of Move. Without such a connection, differences in mass and momentum do not result in the Jedi being flung around like a ragdoll.

 

16 hours ago, Red Castle said:

look at this video at 7:05. It explains what Daronil means.

 

 

16 hours ago, Daronil said:

Yeah, you're right. I hadn't thought it through and was sort of connecting the Jedi's body and the remote object, when really the Force manifestation that causes the impact originates between them, not moving from one to another. 

I'll have to rethink some of my in-game stuff...:) 

Because Science completely invalidates HappyDaze' argument regarding Leia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the mercenary said:

 

This. Absolutely this.

 

I got bored the other day and watched TFA and TLJ. They weren't great movies but the scorn and hate levelled at them may be a bit excessive. But then, my main standard for a movie is "Was I entertained?"

That's my primary criteria as well. Did I enjoy the movie? if yes, then it's a good movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

 

 

Because Science completely invalidates HappyDaze' argument regarding Leia. 

I'm still mulling this over. Because Science is basically going with my original interpretation - I used the analogy of the Force being like a tether between the Raddus and Leia. She basically yanked on the tether, which, because Raddus was so much more massive than her, pulled her towards it, rather than the other way around. 

I do think Happy makes a valid point, though, in that if Force Push/Pull had "equal and opposite reactions", then Yoda would have been squished when he pick up Luke's X-Wing? I guess the question it comes down to is: does the Force act "out of" the Jedi? Or is it independent? In other words, when Yoda lifted Luke's X-Wing, or Rey lifted 100 tonnes of boulders, was there a connection between the two, or does the Force act more like a separate entity, picking up the stuff under the direction of the Jedi, but not actually bound to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Daronil said:

I'm still mulling this over. Because Science is basically going with my original interpretation - I used the analogy of the Force being like a tether between the Raddus and Leia. She basically yanked on the tether, which, because Raddus was so much more massive than her, pulled her towards it, rather than the other way around. 

I do think Happy makes a valid point, though, in that if Force Push/Pull had "equal and opposite reactions", then Yoda would have been squished when he pick up Luke's X-Wing? I guess the question it comes down to is: does the Force act "out of" the Jedi? Or is it independent? In other words, when Yoda lifted Luke's X-Wing, or Rey lifted 100 tonnes of boulders, was there a connection between the two, or does the Force act more like a separate entity, picking up the stuff under the direction of the Jedi, but not actually bound to them?

 

I think it's the latter. Independent of the Jedi. It's an energy field that's everywhere, right? It surrounds everyone, penetrates them, binds the universe together. So it seems like the Jedi aren't projecting the Force outward from themselves, but rather, directing the Force which is around whatever it is they're trying to move. 

 

So in the case of Space Flight Leia, she's more pushing or pulling herself back to the ship, rather than using the Force on the ship and getting pulled along because it has so much more mass than her. 

 

In the Yoda example, if Yoda personally tried to lift the X-wing, then he'd be crushed (or just ruin all the muscles in his legs and back). And if the Force had equal-opposite reaction on him, he'd be pancaking it. BUT. It's more like putting a huge air bag under the X-wing, and then inflating it (to use a completely mundane example in an attempt to illustrate what I mean....hopefully it worked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Daronil said:

I'm still mulling this over. Because Science is basically going with my original interpretation - I used the analogy of the Force being like a tether between the Raddus and Leia. She basically yanked on the tether, which, because Raddus was so much more massive than her, pulled her towards it, rather than the other way around. 

I do think Happy makes a valid point, though, in that if Force Push/Pull had "equal and opposite reactions", then Yoda would have been squished when he pick up Luke's X-Wing? I guess the question it comes down to is: does the Force act "out of" the Jedi? Or is it independent? In other words, when Yoda lifted Luke's X-Wing, or Rey lifted 100 tonnes of boulders, was there a connection between the two, or does the Force act more like a separate entity, picking up the stuff under the direction of the Jedi, but not actually bound to them?

 

13 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

 

I think it's the latter. Independent of the Jedi. It's an energy field that's everywhere, right? It surrounds everyone, penetrates them, binds the universe together. So it seems like the Jedi aren't projecting the Force outward from themselves, but rather, directing the Force which is around whatever it is they're trying to move. 

 

So in the case of Space Flight Leia, she's more pushing or pulling herself back to the ship, rather than using the Force on the ship and getting pulled along because it has so much more mass than her. 

 

In the Yoda example, if Yoda personally tried to lift the X-wing, then he'd be crushed (or just ruin all the muscles in his legs and back). And if the Force had equal-opposite reaction on him, he'd be pancaking it. BUT. It's more like putting a huge air bag under the X-wing, and then inflating it (to use a completely mundane example in an attempt to illustrate what I mean....hopefully it worked).

Pretty much. In the case of Leia, your original example of a "tether" is very accurate. Because she isn't anchored by friction or gravity, using Move on the ship would logically pull her to it, given their differences in mass and the lack of anything holding her in place. It's all relative. With Yoda, think of the Force analogous to a "lever" or "block and tackle", multiplying Yoda's lifting power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we generally don't see Jedi levitating although they seem to be able to lift each other. They also do not seem to bear the weight of what they are lifting either, so it's probably not an equal reaction sort of thing, because in that case, instead of pulling something heavy off the ceiling the Jedi would instead lift themselves up, and we don't see that happening.

Of course, I have this nagging feeling that we've seen a force user levitating at some point, but I can't really think of where that would be. Regardless, I don't think it has to do with the classic way they use pull.

Rather, I think it has more to do with force jumping and falling. We've seen countless examples of force users launching themselves through the air reaching great speed and height, and also plummeting to the ground and landing precisely at the right point with no harm whatsoever. Just look at Obi-wan's and Anakin's antics during the speeder chase in AotC or Luke falling with pinpoint precision into a narrow chute at the end of TESB. Jedi might not be able to make their own body defy gravity completely, but it seem quite evident that they can exert quite a bit of control over their position in freefall, just not that much in the up-down axis.

You know which direction is up and down in space? None. There is no gravity to fight, so if a jedi in gravity can control their fall well enough to fall into the seat of a speeder, on top of another speeder or into a narrow chute, a jedi in no gravity can most likely "fall" in whichever direction they please. Think of it as Leia impelling herself in the same way as with a force leap, with no gravity or air resistance to slow her down.

OR...

Just say "It's space magic!" for an equally valid point.

 

Edited by penpenpen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's my primary criteria as well. Did I enjoy the movie? if yes, then it's a good movie. 

Myself, I’m fully capable of recognizing if a movie I enjoy is a bad one (for example, Shock Treatment) or a movie I don’t enjoy is a good (that is, well made) one (hi there, Harry Potter movies). Some (maybe most?), however, can’t separate the objective from the subjective. Which is fine.

That said, TLJ is both one that I enjoyed, and pretty well made. It’s just not what some (very vocal) people wanted from a movie in this franchise, and their attachment to the franchise had led to a disproportionate response to the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the mercenary said:

But then, my main standard for a movie is "Was I entertained?"

That's about my metric for any film, Star Wars or otherwise.  And it's served me pretty well over the years.

That said, for the most part I've enjoyed the new Star Wars films, with TFA being one my favorite "watch to just watch" flicks.  They're not perfect, but then quite frankly neither were the originals, which fall apart just as fast under the same level of scrutiny as the new films are being put under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

Well... err... that kicked up a ****storm. I'm logging off to watch Christmas films and drink more mulled wine than I should as it's a school night 🍷

My other advice for rehabbing your GM would be to not mention this thread at all.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the mercenary said:

In the Yoda example, if Yoda personally tried to lift the X-wing, then he'd be crushed (or just ruin all the muscles in his legs and back). And if the Force had equal-opposite reaction on him, he'd be pancaking it. BUT. It's more like putting a huge air bag under the X-wing, and then inflating it (to use a completely mundane example in an attempt to illustrate what I mean....hopefully it worked).

There's also the "size matters not" which we learn does not refer to the size of the object being moved (because the size of the object most certainly does matter) but rather refers to the size of the Force-user. This is because there is no opposing reaction back on the body of the Force-user. A Silhouette 2 Dowutin Force-user with FR1 is no better or worse at using Move than a Silhouette 0 Chadra-Fan Force-user with FR1. In neither case does using Move on objects cause their own body to move unless the moved object comes into contact with their body. They can certainly move other people's bodies directly, and Leia can apparently move her own body directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Daronil said:

I'm still mulling this over. Because Science is basically going with my original interpretation - I used the analogy of the Force being like a tether between the Raddus and Leia. She basically yanked on the tether, which, because Raddus was so much more massive than her, pulled her towards it, rather than the other way around. 

I do think Happy makes a valid point, though, in that if Force Push/Pull had "equal and opposite reactions", then Yoda would have been squished when he pick up Luke's X-Wing? I guess the question it comes down to is: does the Force act "out of" the Jedi? Or is it independent? In other words, when Yoda lifted Luke's X-Wing, or Rey lifted 100 tonnes of boulders, was there a connection between the two, or does the Force act more like a separate entity, picking up the stuff under the direction of the Jedi, but not actually bound to them?

Regarding Yoda lifting the X-Wing, or Rey with the boulders. The difference with the Leia scene is that Yoda is not pulling the X-Wing toward him, but lifting it up in the air and then controling it to move toward him. The Force opposition is not between Yoda and the X-Wing, but the X-Wing and the ground. If Yoda were to try and pull the X-Wing directly toward him, yes, I do believe that he would be the one flying in the air toward the X-Wing. What Leia is doing in The Last Jedi is what Luke is doing in The Empire Strike Back with his lightsaber: pulling it directly into his hand.

The Force doesn't work directly out of the Jedi but is an energy that surrounds us. The Jedi is just able to manipulate this Energy. In the case of telekinesis, it is an energy that works between two bodies, more often than not in the case of lifting object one of those bodies is the planet, or the structure they're on.

Edited by Red Castle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Red Castle said:

Regarding Yoda lifting the X-Wing, or Rey with the boulders. The difference with the Leia scene is that Yoda is not pulling the X-Wing toward him, but lifting it up in the air and then controling it to move toward him. The Force opposition is not between Yoda and the X-Wing, but the X-Wing and the ground. If Yoda were to try and pull the X-Wing directly toward him, yes, I do believe that he would be the one flying in the air toward the X-Wing. What Leia is doing in The Last Jedi is what Luke is doing in The Empire Strike Back with his lightsaber: pulling it directly into his hand.

The Force doesn't work directly out of the Jedi but is an energy that surrounds us. The Jedi is just able to manipulate this Energy. In the case of telekinesis, it is an energy that works between two bodies, more often than not in the case of lifting object one of those bodies is the planet, or the structure they're on.

Interesting perspective. Simply lifting something is more about having the fore lifting something for you, and pulling something towards yourself requires a "tether" to be established. Possibly, these two effects could be combined to pull something large towards you. And if you pull something large towards you without lifting it with the force could indeed instead pull you towards the object. For all we know, it could be how Force Leap works.

But yeah, taking the scientific approach to something which's most defining characteristic is telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down while it does it's thing, might be a moot point anyway. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, penpenpen said:

But yeah, taking the scientific approach to something which's most defining characteristic is telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down while it does it's thing, might be a moot point anyway. ;)

I absolutely agree, that's why I never bother with these kind of details when watching Star Wars or other fantasy movies. It's only when someone else bring the subject that I'll stop and reflect on it. Funny thing is when people makes selective nitpicks (unacceptable in the new movies but in the original ones there's no problem at all). Looking at all the negativity the new movies get, I'm glad to be a positive person that kept its child heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 2:30 AM, Mefyrx said:

Like I said before, after listening to my friends comments, It therefor lead me to read about the spoilers alert etc etc...

This is what you have to do these days....not like you could ask for a refund going out of the theater....not that I can't pay for my ticket....its more I do not want to give my money to Disney for giving me garbage in return

What you're saying is that you're listening to other people's opinions (your friends) and then using them as your own opinions instead of actually watching the movie and having an opinion of your own...

As for "what you have to do these days", the movie is out on rental. It's a pittence to rent a movie these days, so just rent it and watch it and get your own opinion instead of relying on other peoples opinions and other peoples arguments to argue against a movie that you think is bad despite never having watched it.


Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. 

I should have known better. Never argue with a fool. They'll only drag you down to their level and win by experience.

Edited by OddballE8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OddballE8 said:

As for "what you have to do these days", the movie is out on rental. It's a pittence to rent a movie these days, so just rent it and watch it

It's also on Netflix. So, if one already has Netflix, it's available to watch for no extra cost.

(Despite having a physical copy that came with a digital code, most times I watch it, it's via Netflix just for the sake of convenience. Until it goes away sometime next year when Disney+ launches.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

It's also on Netflix. So, if one already has Netflix, it's available to watch for no extra cost.

That depends on how much you value your time.

I watched it once when it came on Netflix. I didn't like it, and I'm not willing to put the time in to watch it again just to numb myself to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

That depends on how much you value your time.

I watched it once when it came on Netflix. I didn't like it, and I'm not willing to put the time in to watch it again just to numb myself to it.

Amazingly, an apple doesn't taste like an orange.

You watched it. You determined that you didn't care for it. But, you watched it and formed your own opinion. Apple.

That's as opposed to someone who's not only decided that they don't like it without seeing it, then citing some self-fulfilling prophecy about not wanting to pay for a movie that they've determined is "garbage" without seeing it. A means of (potentially...no guarantee they have Netflix) viewing the movie without additional cost has been pointed out. Orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

 A means of (potentially...no guarantee they have Netflix) viewing the movie without additional cost has been pointed out.

It's available to rent, like you previously said - for something like $5.  Perhaps I'm just rich ol' uncle moneybags themensch over here, but I shudder to think of the living conditions that enforce that level of budgeting and why anyone in that situation would sit around complaining on a forum.  Are the straights really that dire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, themensch said:

It's available to rent, like you previously said - for something like $5.  Perhaps I'm just rich ol' uncle moneybags themensch over here, but I shudder to think of the living conditions that enforce that level of budgeting and why anyone in that situation would sit around complaining on a forum.  Are the straights really that dire? 

I can at least give the benefit of the doubt on this aspect. It's probably not that the rental price would be a hardship but that if - based on promotional materials intended to spark interest having the opposite effect - not wanting to spend anything in direct support. I, myself, take the same approach with some things (the current DC movie franchise or Star Trek: Discovery, for example; in fact, as a lifelong Teen Titans fan, the new Titans series has changed my mind regarding the DC Universe streaming service...I won't be subscribing, after all, and will instead rent or purchase the series that I'm interested in like Young Justice season 3 when/if they're released on home video). That said, I've seen enough of them on cable (or, in the case of Discovery, when CBS aired the pilot on broadcast) to know I was right to think I wouldn't enjoy them. But, what I've seen has been watched through means that incur no additional cost at all to me. (I already pay for the various movie channels and Netflix...checking out these movies out of morbid curiosity doesn't up the bills).

Worth noting...I've never disparaged anyone who does enjoy them. In fact, I try to be sure that my reactions are put forth as, "This is why I don't like them," instead of, "I don't like it, so it's garbage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Amazingly, an apple doesn't taste like an orange.

You watched it. You determined that you didn't care for it. But, you watched it and formed your own opinion. Apple.

That's as opposed to someone who's not only decided that they don't like it without seeing it, then citing some self-fulfilling prophecy about not wanting to pay for a movie that they've determined is "garbage" without seeing it. A means of (potentially...no guarantee they have Netflix) viewing the movie without additional cost has been pointed out. Orange.

Imagine I'm sitting down at a restaurant with friends and we order a pizza. While I'm up using the restroom the pizza arrives and my three friends each grab a slice and take bites. They all spit it out saying it tastes like crap and tell the waiter to take it away. I return to the table and see my friends looking nauseated and unhappy as we all quickly leave the restaurant to find food elsewhere. I certainly did not need to taste the pizza myself to understand it was bad, nor to say that in a review on some internet site. I can also feel good about warning customers away from the place with the crap pie. TLJ is a crap pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...