disappoint
Lifer
Really? A measurement of speed? So his ship's speed was less than 12? You're saying it was slow? I'm thinking you're a little slow.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
i made the kessel run in under 12 parsecs
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Really? A measurement of speed? So his ship's speed was less than 12? You're saying it was slow? I'm thinking you're a little slow.
So in your mind Han misunderstood what Ben was asking? Or he figured Ben would be alive later to read the expanded universe books to understand what he's talking about? Lucas made a mistake, get over it.
EDIT: OK, I see what you saying. I meant time, and time without distance doesnt show speed, which is what he was asked.
Last edited:
disappoint
Lifer
No I'm saying calling it a measurement of speed makes no sense. Please tell me you understand the difference between speed, time and distance. Then try explaining how it could possibly be a measurement of speed.
blankslate
Diamond Member
Perhaps...
just maybe...
Long ago in a galaxy far far away....
A parsec is a measurement of time and not distance...
it's a movie and they didn't have (pseudo-)scientific fact checkers for the script...
_____________
just maybe...
Long ago in a galaxy far far away....
A parsec is a measurement of time and not distance...
it's a movie and they didn't have (pseudo-)scientific fact checkers for the script...
_____________
Yeah, I edited that response. I meant time, and time without distance doesnt convey speed, which was what Ben asked. You're right though, I made a mistake. See, it happens! 😛 I edited that post a few times so I probably started out saying it differently.
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
The most likely explanation is that Lucas simply made a mistake. I'm OK with that, esp. since I don't use "parsec" in my daily language so I can overlook the mistake.
In fact, I lightly applaud JJ Abrahms for repeating this "mistake", almost as if to say, "Just get over it. That's just they way it is."
Last edited:
I guess people still do argue. Here's the best I can explain it. Even if it was a mistake by GL, it makes sense just fine.
How fast do you have to go to escape a black hole? Pretty fast right? All indications would say faster than light speed. In a galaxy where space travel is the norm, I'm sure it's common knowledge the distance a ship would have to keep away from a black hole to avoid the certainty of being sucked into one. That safe distance when navigating the "Kessel Run" is factored to make the run require 18 parsecs (of distance) traveled. To say that a ship has done it in less is to say that that ship is fast enough to get closer than safely recommended to a black hole, thus decreasing the distance the ship has to travel around said black holes.
How fast do you have to go to escape a black hole? Pretty fast right? All indications would say faster than light speed. In a galaxy where space travel is the norm, I'm sure it's common knowledge the distance a ship would have to keep away from a black hole to avoid the certainty of being sucked into one. That safe distance when navigating the "Kessel Run" is factored to make the run require 18 parsecs (of distance) traveled. To say that a ship has done it in less is to say that that ship is fast enough to get closer than safely recommended to a black hole, thus decreasing the distance the ship has to travel around said black holes.
Eug
Lifer
Yeah, but then they'll just slingshot around something to do time travel.
And then beam down without ever have to land the ship. (BTW, the reason they did this in the show was because landing the ship every time was too expensive.)
So its distance in the movie. In the novelization of A New Hope ( which came out a few months later), it says "twelve standard timeparts", not distance. Then Lucas claimed Han was using techno babel to test Ben, which can be somewhat verified in a later draft of the script. But it could also be seen as Han avoiding the question. Its just an incredulous look from Ben which can be interpreted any way you want. Then they retconed the Kessel Run to include black holes to make distance make sense. And after that, Lucas says the falcon's nav computer is so sophisticated it can plan routes better than other nav systems, reducing the distance traveled. That can be an extension of the retconed Kessel Run.
So which is it? I guess anything but a simple mistake. :biggrin:
TheSlamma
Diamond Member
Agredo
destrekor
Lifer
No it doesn't. Saying that would mean you deviated from an established course, which is tantamount to cheating and disqualifies any records if a record is based on said established course.
You can't go off course on a rally. It is a set course with a point-to-point cumulative time.
If the Kessel Run was more like a rally route, where all the smugglers boast about how fast they managed to get from point A to point B on the recognized route, then distance does not make a lick of sense, as everyone has the same distance.
Now, it could be that it was more like the Oregon Trail - there was a widely used and known route, most often safer, but it was a longer trek in distance and time. But there were various shortcuts that other folks either trail-blazed or tried to follow someone else's directions.
However, even if, say, the Donner Party had made it, would you expect them to say, "we made the Oregon Trail Run in 1500km" if the common trial was 2000km? No, we would usually expect a better frame of reference, especially because a shorter distance does not always equal a faster course (also see Donner Party. The short path was very difficult and slow going). So, one might say, if boasting of the achievement, that they made the run in 28 days, as opposed to 40. (note: numbers complete pulled out of my ass.)
Even if the run was simply a known starting point and ending point, and you could go whatever route you wanted but dammit just get there fast... you'd boast of the time achieved/saved, not of the distance, because distance in largely irrelevant in these situations.
You'd say that the airplane got you from Atlanta to Detroit in, what, 3 hours? Not that the as a crow flies distance is whatever number of miles in comparison to the road route. Sure it's a shorter distance, but what does that mean?
It is tough to determine, but I am going with my gut in that it was a guffaw. Less likely, it was intentional as a means of showing that Han may be one who simply talks out of his ass, or simply is a good pilot but not necessarily the smartest individual. Again, I still think it was an unintentional mistake.
Alas, who cares, it's hardly the first sci-fi movie to demonstrate a serious misuse of science or scientific terms in the name of entertainment.
Which is to otherwise say: in this thread there be nerds arguing over scientific semantics as found in sci-fi. 😉
and may I please join you?
Eug
Lifer
DigDog
Lifer
actually, that particular rally is based on the fact that there is no set route.
MongGrel
Lifer
:hmm:
Hmm, a Sci-Fi Movie from the 70's with explosions and pew pews in space made a scientific error.
D:
()🙂
Last edited:
SKORPI0
Lifer
Possible explanation... Star Wars FAQ: Why Did Han Solo Say He Made the Kessel Run in 12 Parsecs? ^_^
sdifox
No Lifer
Even my Star Wars explanation it doesn't work. Ships can be brought out of hyperspace or prevented from going to hyperspace if the nav comp detects a large mass that hasn't been factored into the pre jump calc. That is how interdictors work, they project an imaginary mass in the path.
And since interdictor exist and work (and hover tank) then SW universe is one where gravitons exist. Thus no ship computer could possibly ignore the giant holes in graviton field that blackholes create.
And since interdictor exist and work (and hover tank) then SW universe is one where gravitons exist. Thus no ship computer could possibly ignore the giant holes in graviton field that blackholes create.
Eug
Lifer
While I know it's wrong now, it still just sounds better. Maybe it is partially because when I saw Star Wars for the first time as a little kid, I didn't know it was wrong back then and it sounded good. I'm glad they kept it in the reboot. It would be a shame if they changed it now.
Not as big of a shame as changing the Han vs Greedo scene or those horrible CG sequences though.
Not as big of a shame as changing the Han vs Greedo scene or those horrible CG sequences though.
destrekor
Lifer
Yeah, the latter are outright travesties.
Sci-fi getting science wrong should honestly be mostly acceptable, if accurate science isn't truly a part of the plot. Examples of where real science helps a film entirely: Europa Report, and The Martian. Both, of course, also have fiction involved or take some shortcuts in the name of plot, but they went out of their way to hit the big points with realism.
But would something like Farscape do well to have full realism in space? Whereas Battlestar Galactica and now The Expanse have more gravity (ahem) thanks to portraying most things accurately, Star Trek and Star Wars would only be hindered by trying to be 100% accurate. They are cult sci-fi, and cult sci-fi are hardly ever known to be truly realistic.
Nerds sometimes like to argue that all sci-fi should strive to portray what we know as accurately as possible, but let's be honest, that will not sell as strongly with the public, and it doesn't serve the plots well at all. Space is simply a backdrop in most of these cult sci-fi examples, not a major plot element in of itself.
Parsec just sounds like a cool thing to say, and I still think it's one of two things: Lucas got it wrong, not understanding what parsec really meant but thought it sounded like a good term to use; or, Han lied. I sort of like that idea, it fits with Han's character, at least for the character who shot first. 😉
I need to rewatch that scene, as about.com references Luke giving Han an "incredulous look" after hearing that. Could lend credence to an outright bluff that didn't get past the target.
In a world of light-sabers, forces, midichlorians, brothers kissing sisters... maybe "parsec" just has a different meaning in that galaxy far, far away. Star Wars takes place "A long time ago", while Parsec was only defined in 1913 on Earth. We're the ones who likely have the terminology wrong 😉
Last edited:
IronWing
No Lifer
Cubby, you ignorant slut! Lucas can do no wrong. If parsec is wrong then there is no force, no light sabers, no incest, no tie-wings, nothing fun in this world. :'(
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
