Explosion of Alderaan (was Re: Star Trek: Nemesis [message #910] |
Fri, 04 May 2012 05:16 |
Duggy
Messages: 316 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
On May 4, 5:57 pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> In article
> <2c515af9-02eb-410e-bcfb-c096d769e...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Remysun wrote:
> >On May 2, 10:22=A0pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <00ce304b-ccfa-497d-8801-83f94a2e2...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>
> >> wrote:
> >> But the collision was a bit slow to my thinking.
>
> >> The explosion of Alderaan was a counterexample. If something large
> >> explodes (or collides) in space it will be s l o w . But it would have
> >> been counterproductive in Star Wars to have the planet explode so slowly
> >> it would take five minutes before you could see anything.
>
> >Why would it necessarily be slow when it's a matter of scale.
>
> If the pieces were moving at near lightspeed, from a big distance they
> would still seem slow. In this case we have no reason to believe the
> pieces would be anywhere near that speed.
True, but the image were saw was probably Earth-from-the-Moon sized.
That's less than 1.5 light seconds away. Obviously Alderaan could be
bigger, but it would still be a matter of light seconds.
===
= DUG.
===
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
|
|
|
Re: Explosion of Alderaan (was Re: Star Trek: Nemesis [message #911 is a reply to message #910] |
Fri, 04 May 2012 19:19 |
YourName
Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
In article
<840393a7-1d92-4833-b47f-1ea51da3330e@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
wrote:
> On May 4, 5:57=A0pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > In article
> > <2c515af9-02eb-410e-bcfb-c096d769e...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Remysun wrote:
> > >On May 2, 10:22=3DA0pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > >> In article
> > >> <00ce304b-ccfa-497d-8801-83f94a2e2...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Duggy
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> But the collision was a bit slow to my thinking.
> >
> > >> The explosion of Alderaan was a counterexample. If something large
> > >> explodes (or collides) in space it will be s l o w . But it would have
> > >> been counterproductive in Star Wars to have the planet explode so
> > >> slowly it would take five minutes before you could see anything.
> >
> > >Why would it necessarily be slow when it's a matter of scale.
> >
> > If the pieces were moving at near lightspeed, from a big distance they
> > would still seem slow. In this case we have no reason to believe the
> > pieces would be anywhere near that speed.
>
> True, but the image were saw was probably Earth-from-the-Moon sized.
> That's less than 1.5 light seconds away. Obviously Alderaan could be
> bigger, but it would still be a matter of light seconds.
It of course depends on how far away you are, but when an object that's
moving at thousands of miles per hour through space explodes, the pieces
will be moving even faster - much faster than anything you'll see on Earth
moving.
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
|
|
|