Ravager = Star Destroyer?

[jedipodo]

Four more points for discussion:

 

- The Rakatan computer interfaces are different from the Leviathan's ones.

 

- Rakatan technology is said to be connected to (or maybe even driven by) the Force. Are the Leviathan class starships supposed to have this ability?

 

- The Sith Fighter model seems to be this much referred to "alien design".

Excerpt from the official SW database:

SITH FIGHTER

 

Four thousand years ago, the Sith fighter was a new model of starfighter introduced during Darth Malak and Darth Revan's terrifying campaigns against the Republic. The Sith capital ships were former Republic vessels taken by their traitorous captains, but the bulk of the invasion force was a seemingly inexhaustible number of these adaptable fighters. (...)

 

Though most of the resources bolstering Sith forces were stolen from the Republic, Sith fighters appeared to be powered by a prototype twin ion drive system exclusive to this design. Analysis indicates a hybrid of technologies, though none that match the products of any known world. (...)

 

 

- My theory:

The developers of the cut scenes gave the Republic only the small weak looking vessels and the Sith the bigger capital ships, due to a much more simple identification who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

[213374U]

or the theory that is an alien ship

 

Actually no. As I said, the databank for example state that it is a republic ship. You can't possibly debate that (it would mean that you're saying that the databank *doesn't* say it's a republic ship, a statement that is easy to check). The game itself have some hints that indicate that it's a republic ship (dialogue, mostly) and some that indicate that it's a Star Forge ship (the design). Both are disputable in various ways, thus we fall back on the only indisputable source, which in this case is the databank which states that it is a republic ship. Hence, the burden of proof lies on whoever claims that it's a Star Forge ship, and unless that person manages to discredit any hints towards a republic ship and any alternative explanation to the "proof" that he or she presents that it is a Star Forge ship, then the only reliable source will remain the databank, which in turn means that we still assume that it is, in fact, a republic ship. It may not be the actual truth, but it is the accepted truth. You may disagree with it (as you have) and try to find other explanations (as you have), but until you've managed to do what I said above, it will remain the accepted truth, not a mere theory.

 

And that, is the scientific method. Feel free to look it up.

Well, in fact what you are doing is nothing like the scientific method, but whatever. The scientific method first stablishes a theory. Then it compares the theory to the observed phenomenon, and if the theory can explain the phenomenon in a satisfactory manner, the theory becomes law. In this case, the theory contradicts the observed. Not to mention that trying to apply the scientific method to something ruled only by the writer's whim is nothing but a waste of time.

 

Let's see. Whoever wrote the stuff in the databank has probably not played the game. All the info on the databank is made up of resumes, design notes, and perhaps, the game script. Not only that, the databank is aimed at people who hasn't actually played the game, because if you had, you wouldn't be reading it in the first place.

 

I am not debating that originally they meant to make the Leviathan a Republic warship. In fact, Carth's dialogues hint that possibility. But there are too many ways to interpret Carth's dialogues to take them as proof. And for whatever reasons, the Leviathan turned out to be a rakatan vessel. It might just have been something as simple as laziness, or time constraints. It's obvious that whoever wrote Carth's dialogues wasn't responsible for CGI cutscenes.

 

Now, all the proof I have seen supporting that the Leviathan is a Republic vessel is nothing but a lot of wild speculation, and interpretation of conversations.

On the other hand, it is clearly stated that Malak's fleet is largely composed of alien vessels. In the cutscenes you see only one kind of ship. It is only logical to assume that those vessels are the alien ships they are making reference to. That is consistent too with the fact that the Republic fleet doesn't have a single one of those "Leviathan" ships. In fact, it is consistent with everything, except Carth's dialogues, and that only if you interpret them in a certain way.

[AngryTarsier]

take all the possibilities, eliminate the impossible and what you are left, however improbable is the truth...

 

fact 1... the jedi describe the sith ships as alien, no specifics if they were refering to the capital ships or fighters or both

 

fact 2... the databank says that the Leviathan is a republic vessel, shang-hai'ed by saul karath in his defection to the sith

 

fact 3... the ravager is an interdictor class capital ship, built before or early in the mandalorian wars, it was present in M5, what happened to it or how it fell to the sith, by deceipt like the works of a certain HK-50 unit or resurection by darth nihilus, is not mentioned.

 

points: the republic have the ability/technology to build and deploy interdictor class ship. (presence of ravager, before the SF was discovered.)

The sith's heavy reliance on fighter technology and bomber squadrons in every engagement.

The rakatan's inert abiliy to feel and weild the force.

The unknown design of the sith fighter as mentioned in the database.

The reliance of republic vessels on gun technology, as in the battle for the star forge, several vessels but only 3 or 4 squadrons of republic fighters.

The inutile status of rakatan buildings and/or consoles to those unable to weild the force.

The star forge's ability to copy and produce en masse, ships and droids

also note the ability to produce military and structural components mentioned in the database(correct me if I'm wrong)

 

my conclusions: the leviathan is therefore a capital ship from the republic re-outfitted for the extensive use of fighter technology, the hangers and personel areas would have been increased to fit the style of the sith.

 

since not all sith officers are force adept it is required to integrate stolen or developed technologies into the rakatan designs to fit the present needs... like the fighters, if they are rakatan design then certain chages would be implemented before a sith pilot, can pilot it..

[213374U]

since not all sith officers are force adept it is required to integrate stolen or developed technologies into the rakatan designs to fit the present needs... like the fighters, if they are rakatan design then certain chages would be implemented before a sith pilot, can pilot it..

The opposite being true as well. The Sith could have modified the Leviathan ships to work without being Force-powered if they ever were. That works for the weird computer terminals too.

 

But again, this is speculation. Hence, it's worthless as proof.

[Aegis]

Well, in fact what you are doing is nothing like the scientific method, but whatever. The scientific method first stablishes a theory.

 

Very well, would you be satisfied if I said part of the scientific method instead?

 

Then it compares the theory to the observed phenomenon, and if the theory can explain the phenomenon in a satisfactory manner, the theory becomes law. In this case, the theory contradicts the observed.

 

More specifically, that part.

 

Not to mention that trying to apply the scientific method to something ruled only by the writer's whim is nothing but a waste of time.

 

Then so is arguing about this in the first place, as it's merely an application of the scientific principle.

 

Now, all the proof I have seen supporting that the Leviathan is a Republic vessel is nothing but a lot of wild speculation, and interpretation of conversations.

On the other hand, it is clearly stated that Malak's fleet is largely composed of alien vessels. In the cutscenes you see only one kind of ship. It is only logical to assume that those vessels are the alien ships they are making reference to. That is consistent too with the fact that the Republic fleet doesn't have a single one of those "Leviathan" ships. In fact, it is consistent with everything, except Carth's dialogues, and that only if you interpret them in a certain way.

 

From one point of view, yes. However, the same argument can be applied to support the exact opposite.

Regardless, fact of the matter is, the highest authority on the issue has already spoken, and that is the databank, unless you can prove that you are of higher authority of course. Unless a higher authority makes a stand, that is the status quo until proven otherwise. The theories may both be valid, but until one is proven and the other is not, one is the right one and the other is the wrong one. You can argue that the databank is wrong, the burden of proof is still yours. Likewise, you can continue to argue all the way up the Star Wars food chain until you reach Lucas himself, at which point you got an answer that cannot be wrong.

[Zilod]

jumping in just to for a fast thing...

 

 

the Rakatan used the force technology, but during the declining(?) phase of infinite empire they lost they ability to use the force and to capability to use that technology.

 

at this point their technology had an involution and they where force to build things that they where able to use even whitout the force.

 

is quite probable that Rakatan ships/fighters stored in starforge database and build by Revan/Malak used this technology and not the force one is also for this reason these ships/fighters are not extremely superior to the republic ones.

 

is also plausible that Revan's programmers/engineers modified the original design to make it suitable to the siths

and even in this case it can apply to fighters or ships

[AngryTarsier]

Now, all the proof I have seen supporting that the Leviathan is a Republic vessel is nothing but a lot of wild speculation, and interpretation of conversations.

On the other hand, it is clearly stated that Malak's fleet is largely composed of alien vessels. In the cutscenes you see only one kind of ship. It is only logical to assume that those vessels are the alien ships they are making reference to. That is consistent too with the fact that the Republic fleet doesn't have a single one of those "Leviathan" ships. In fact, it is consistent with everything, except Carth's dialogues, and that only if you interpret them in a certain way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

the presence of the Ravager is proof enough that before or during or shortly after the start of the mandalorian war, the republic had the ability, funds and technology to build and deploy ship(s) of this class...

[jedipodo]

Now, all the proof I have seen supporting that the Leviathan is a Republic vessel is nothing but a lot of wild speculation, and interpretation of conversations.

 

 

Please, read the SW database entries of the Leviathan, the Sith Fighter and the Star Forge carefully!

 

There one can find at least four different statements that substantiate these so-called "wild speculations".

[213374U]

Likewise, you can continue to argue all the way up the Star Wars food chain until you reach Lucas himself, at which point you got an answer that cannot be wrong.

I know that. But the answer given by the databank or Lucas himself, while being law, would still be inconsistent with reality.

 

If God himself came down and said, "I created the Universe, and I'm telling you, all that stuff about gravity is nothing but BS", he would be technically right, since he created the freaking thing and if he doesn't know, no one does. But it would be inconsistent with reality. That's all I say.

 

Is the Leviathan a Republic ship? Yes.

Is the Leviathan a rakatan design? Yes.

 

Both are true, and both exclude each other. In the real world such a thing would not be possible, because the real world's laws are not established by writers. That's why the scientific method and fiction are incompatible.

 

You are right on something, though. Discussing this is a waste of time, and hence, I'm quitting now.

[Aegis]

I know that. But the answer given by the databank or Lucas himself, while being law, would still be inconsistent with reality.

 

Oh, that is certainly possible. To be honest, I'm leaning towards alien design myself, but that doesn't change the fact that I will believe that it's a republic ship until I or someone else can prove otherwise (I won't be bothered, because like I said, it's not important). Do that, and I'll gladly acknowledge it as an alien ship. Don't, and I'll stick to what is true right now.

 

If God himself came down and said, "I created the Universe, and I'm telling you, all that stuff about gravity is nothing but BS", he would be technically right, since he created the freaking thing and if he doesn't know, no one does. But it would be inconsistent with reality.

 

...as you perceive it, yes. However, if God drops down and he actually is all-knowing and all-mighty etc. (which he would need to be to actually be able to give you an ultimate truth), it's fairly safe to assume that reality is not as we perceive it because such a God cannot exist under it (fairly easy to prove with the whole rock-being-bigger-than-He-can-lift paradox). If so, then in that respect, our reality could be compared to this scenario where the reality is fiction.

[213374U]

if God drops down and he actually is all-knowing and all-mighty etc. (which he would need to be to actually be able to give you an ultimate truth), it's fairly safe to assume that reality is not as we perceive it because such a God cannot exist under it (fairly easy to prove with the whole rock-being-bigger-than-He-can-lift paradox).

Uh? Can you prove that a God can't exist? I think a lot of people would be very interested in that. On second thought, don't bother. If philosophers throughout History have failed, you will understand I don't have much faith in your chances to succeed at that task.

[jedipodo]

The "rock-being-bigger-than-He-can-lift" paradox, actually, isn't a paradox.

 

Somebody who is all-mighty could put an end to his all-mightiness whenever he/she/it wants to.

[Aegis]

I can't prove that God does not exist, but I can prove that God does not exist as an ultimate being under the reality as we perceive it. It's easy actually, and a fairly well-known paradox.

 

If God is all-mighty, he can create a rock that even he cannot lift.

 

Either way, God lose. Either he can't create the rock (thus he is not all-mighty) or he can create it but cannot lift it (which would also make him less than all-mighty). This is not proof that God is not all-mighty, merely that he is not in our reality. However, that does not mean that our reality is real, any more than the reality for the characters in Star Wars is real. God does not have to abide the rules in our reality, which would of course make reality, well, not real. It would merely be a simplification of the true reality, which we cannot perceive.

 

Edit:

Somebody who is all-mighty could put an end to his all-mightiness whenever he/she/it wants.

 

Which unfortunately would make him/her/it not all-mighty, which in turn more or less proves that God cannot be all-mighty (under our reality blah blah).

[AngryTarsier]

my dabble: you guys know the theory of relativity, you guys might be relatively close but the topic is at rest.. and you are moving, guess what.. you guys are going off topic relative to the topic

 

for someone who works under the Bioware, someone obviously did not try hard enough to connect the two.. which would be better, put nihilus in a endar spire vessel or upgrade carths fleet??

[Aegis]

On-topic discussion is actually quite pointless and was already decided on a fairly long time ago. Everything leading up until now has actually been about explaining why it already is decided.

[213374U]

If God is all-mighty, he can create a rock that even he cannot lift.

 

Either way, God lose. Either he can't create the rock (thus he is not all-mighty) or he can create it but cannot lift it (which would also make him less than all-mighty). This is not proof that God is not all-mighty, merely that he is not in our reality. However, that does not mean that our reality is real, any more than the reality for the characters in Star Wars is real. God does not have to abide the rules in our reality, which would of course make reality, well, not real. It would merely be a simplification of the true reality, which we cannot perceive.

A paradox which is only such if you admit that God is subject to worldy proportions, limitations, notions, etc. But you could have a God that could fulfill both premises simultaneously. Why? How? Simple, he is God. If such mundane judgements could be used to solve metaphysical questions, we would be Masters of the Universe long ago.

[AngryTarsier]

right sorry... I realy have no apetite for discussing the premise of God.. or that of His existance.. might be that I was excommunicated more recently kicked out of 2 churches...

[Aegis]

A paradox which is only such if you admit that God is subject to worldy proportions, limitations, notions, etc. But you could have a God that could fulfill both premises simultaneously. Why? How? Simple, he is God.

 

Er, yes. That's kind of the point. If He is not subject to the limitations of our reality, then obviously our reality is not a true reality. If He is all-mighty etc., then He must also exist beyond our reality. If He existed within it, He would not be all-mighty, for those are the laws we have within it.

 

If such mundane judgements could be used to solve metaphysical questions, we would be Masters of the Universe long ago.

 

It doesn't "solve" anything, it merely states that if an all-mighty God exists, then our reality as we perceive it is not ultimate.

[jedipodo]

Somebody who is all-mighty could put an end to his all-mightiness whenever he/she/it wants.

 

Which unfortunately would make him/her/it not all-mighty, which in turn more or less proves that God cannot be all-mighty (under our reality blah blah).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct me if I'm wrong:

In your opinion, such a being must be able to be both, all-mighty *and* incapable at the same time, to be all-mighty at all?

[213374U]

Er, yes. That's kind of the point. If He is not subject to the limitations of our reality, then obviously our reality is not a true reality. If He is all-mighty etc., then He must also exist beyond our reality. If He existed within it, He would not be all-mighty, for those are the laws we have within it.

Not really. There was this little neat experiment in which a cat was put inside a closed box. There was some deadly trap or poison that would kill the cat depending only on a certain isotope's possible disintegration. According to theory, at certain point, the isotope would have disintegrated and it wouldn't. Thus, the cat would be simultaneously alive and dead in that scenario, the only deciding factor would be opening the box.

 

That is an instance of something seemingly impossible and obviously illogical happening within our very reality. If it's possible for a particle, why should it be impossible for God? And, at any rate, what makes you think that God would exist inside reality?

Our not understanding reality doesn't mean it's not "true".

 

 

It doesn't "solve" anything, it merely states that if an all-mighty God exists, then our reality as we perceive it is not ultimate.

The key word here being "perceive". If you mean measure, or calculate, then by all means. But if you mean "exist in", it's pretty arrogant to think that what we know so far is set in stone and true.

[Aegis]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

In your opinion, such a being must be able to be both, all-mighty *and* incapable at the same time, to be all-mighty at all?

 

Yes, but only if He exist under our reality (which is constructed on logic). Outside our reality, such logic may be irrelevant, therefore it may be possible for God to be all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time. Being both all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time is of course logically impossible, which means that if such an ultimate being does exist, it cannot exist under a reality built on logic, which is pretty much the entire point of the argument in the first place.

[Laozi]

Or maybe string theory is correct and that anything can happen anytime in any reality the best you can do is calculate the best probability of something happening.

[Aegis]

Not really. There was this little neat experiment in which a cat was put inside a closed box. There was some deadly trap or poison that would kill the cat depending only on a certain isotope's possible disintegration. According to theory, at certain point, the isotope would have disintegrated and it wouldn't. Thus, the cat would be simultaneously alive and dead in that scenario, the only deciding factor would be opening the box.

 

Oh yes. That. However, you left out a key word here and that is "observe". It's also important to note that it's just a theory, as we cannot observe it (that would ruin the entire point).

 

And, at any rate, what makes you think that God would exist inside reality?

 

Sorry? Isn't that what I've been saying? That He wouldn't exist inside reality?

 

The key word here being "perceive". If you mean measure, or calculate, then by all means. But if you mean "exist in", it's pretty arrogant to think that what we know so far is set in stone and true.

 

Once again; huh? I've been saying more or less the exact opposite, that if He does exist, then our reality is not set in stone and true, because He would exist outside of it and therefore our reality would not be ultimate.

 

At any rate, it's 3AM over here and I've been up for 21 hours, so I think I'm going to get some sleep if you don't mind. Maybe I'll continue this tomorrow, I think there's a fairly large amount of misunderstandings floating around right now, but otherwise I believe I'll just retire from this discussion.

[jedipodo]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

In your opinion, such a being must be able to be both, all-mighty *and* incapable at the same time, to be all-mighty at all?

 

Yes, but only if He exist under our reality (which is constructed on logic). Outside our reality, such logic may be irrelevant, therefore it may be possible for God to be all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time. Being both all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time is of course logically impossible, which means that if such an ultimate being does exist, it cannot exist under a reality built on logic, which is pretty much the entire point of the argument in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this paradox presents a common human problem. Many people believe that everything which is thinkable can exist.

 

But the universe, as we observe it, we are living in, tells us a completely different story. "All-mightiness" has never been found in it.

And because of this fact, a serious definition of "all-mighty" isn't even possible.

 

For example, who has ever defined that "all-mighty and not all-mighty at the same time" is a property of "all-mightiness"?

[jedipodo]

Not really. There was this little neat experiment in which a cat was put inside a closed box. There was some deadly trap or poison that would kill the cat depending only on a certain isotope's possible disintegration. According to theory, at certain point, the isotope would have disintegrated and it wouldn't. Thus, the cat would be simultaneously alive and dead in that scenario, the only deciding factor would be opening the box.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This wasn't a real experiment but a thought experiment concluded from a theory.

 

Of course, it cannot be in reallity, that the cat is dead and alive at the same time!

 

Imagine you are in the place of the cat. You should know whether you are alive or not, shouldn't you...?