Talk:Physics and Star Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		Star Wars Portal This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 15th, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Revamp needed 2 This is horrible 3 Delete this page 4 Explosions? 5 Original research? 6 Double Suns 7 Twin suns section 8 Tags 9 Worth mentioning

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [2], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)