Nature of Empire vs. Federation technology

[Lucky]

Lucky, you're just arguing for the sake of argument now, so I'm leaving this debate.

I'd say the same about you.

I've said what I thought, based my reflexions on real-life experience where no one without basic theoretical knowledge can do the job, so let's agree to disagree.
You'll never convince me, because I've worked in electronics repairs and know you need basic theoretical knowledge to repair stuff, so I won't budge, and I don't agree with your position, which basically is a lot of "what if"...

And, I have been basing my reflexions on real-life experience as well.

[Jedi Master Spock]

More like a stick with missing mass, but the EM energy is still there.
It fits everything, in particular as well as in general: no magic, just plain physics.

A stick isn't solid due to the simple presence of the stick itself (i.e. its mass), but solely due to the invisible, massless energy radiated by its sub-atomic particles-- ie. the like-charges repel each other, while the opposite ones attract.
The electrons in the stick repel each other due to their negatively-charged fields, while the protons attract the electrons (and vice-versa) with their positively-charged fields (while the protons likewise repel other protons).

In short, the stick's solid structure is entirely due to the invisible fields around the protons and electrons in the stick; and likewise even the stick itself is only visible , because the electron-fields absorb and re-emit light which strikes them.

The stick's mass has nothing to do with it-- just the EM-energy; if the electrons in the stick suddenly bound with the protons to form neutrons, then the neutrons would all just fall apart-- invisibly, and anything the stick was holding up would simply fall.

And it doesn't matter that these charged-fields radiate omnidirectionally according to the basic inverse-square law; that's only in their natural state, but they can be artificially manipulated in order to create the same effect as a solid object, by using only the energy-- not the mass. Therefore a wall of negatively-charged energy, would be just as solid as a real one: or even more so, according to the potential energy of the charge in comparison.
This seems to be how particle-shields work: i.e. if you shoot a bullet at it, then the negative charges in the bullet's electrons will repel those in the shield, just like if you shot a brick wall.

Everything in the SW universe behaves according these principles (i.e. no FTL tech other than hyperspace, no deflectors-beams, etc) so it checks out perfectly.
In contast, we know that the ST universe uses graviton-based technology (e.g. FTL weapons, FTL deflector-beams as well as tractor-beams, express statements etc).

And that is the simplest explanation (that makes sense according to the facts presented in the canon for both universes, anyway); there's nothing simpler than the very same forces that already exist in every object, and which make up the world as we know it.

Just like the explanation that SW uses fusion, while ST uses anti-matter; there's no need for the creation of weird "hypermatter" to explain how SW weapons supposedly produce energy-yields that they clearly don't.

Except that it doesn't fit the evidence. An invisible massless extension has a lot of tell-tale features. We would basically expect to see a solid invisible object at work. Cars on Coruscant would smack into them all the time. Artificial gravity doesn't pan out too well, either - you'd have to have lots of extensions from above and below, you'd still feel pretty weightless inside, and the force fields would tend to interrupt blaster fire.

The idea of a massless force "extension" has been around, but it doesn't explain everything very well, and it's particularly awkward for a drive system that works for a couple planetary diameters. It works fine for a few things in Star Wars - shields, for example - but antigrav drive is not one of those.

[Jedi Master Spock]

This is a setting where Storm Troopers are considered elite troops. Those were the Empoer's best men fighting Ewoks. >_<

Which means that on the whole, his troops are not spectacularly competent. What's important to him is loyalty.

To be fair, stormtroopers have their competent moments, too. They mostly just got caught with their pants down and no good contingency plans for dealing with native insurrection.

It proves practical experience, but not all of those are electronics repair, and not all of them sound as if Luke is able to do more then the basics well.

It shows that it's most of what he does, even. Droids do the actual labor. Luke's job is to keep them working and fly them around the place.

The narrator isn't describing AG as I have ever heard it described before, and Electromagnetic systems match better.

Or in other words, the narrator is totally contradicting your model of how SW technology works. What the narrator is saying is canonical fact for Star Wars. I've explained - loosely speaking - how we could fill in some of the technobabble details if we wanted, but fundamentally, that's the difference between fanon and canon. You think that EM would match what you see on screen; but the novelization describes antigravity drive in terms that really suggest that it's gravitational in nature.

There was a rather interesting EM drive talked about last night on American Paranormal.

And? Doesn't matter.

The only anti-gravity thingies I recall ever being talked about are Repulsors.

Artificial gravity, anti-grave drive, and repulsorlifts are not necessarily the same thing. It's worth noting that the EU and the on-screen evidence makes a distinction between things that can only hover and things that can genuinely fly. "Technical" books like the ICS don't tend to offer any distinctions in labels - but they're pretty low-reliability sources in any event.

There are craft that only seem to just hover a more or less fixed distance of the ground. There are also craft that can freely fly and maneuver - and yet don't have turbofans or thrusters. Some are small - the little training remote that Obi-Wan sics on Luke - and others large.

Magnetic fields do a great job reflecting blaster bolts after all, but why does the feild have to have only one purpose?

In general, it doesn't. However, the field in question is quite discreet. It's exerting deflecting forces on objects that are fairly close to it at a small band of radii. The drive system of the Death Star is actually active at that point in time, and needs to be pushing in an entirely different direction.

Don't we see speeders with no obvious propulsion systems?

Well, that fits with what I'm saying.

[Lucky]

This is a setting where Storm Troopers are considered elite troops. Those were the Empoer's best men fighting Ewoks. >_<

Which means that on the whole, his troops are not spectacularly competent. What's important to him is loyalty.

To be fair, stormtroopers have their competent moments, too. They mostly just got caught with their pants down and no good contingency plans for dealing with native insurrection.

When are Storm/clone troopers shown to be competent in G or T canon?

The whole reason the stormies had trouble with the Ewoks was because they tried to kill the teddy bears when the Ewoks tried to be friendly, and the trouble went on for years after that until ROTJ according to the EU.

It proves practical experience, but not all of those are electronics repair, and not all of them sound as if Luke is able to do more then the basics well.

It shows that it's most of what he does, even. Droids do the actual labor. Luke's job is to keep them working and fly them around the place.

Luke and his uncle work their slaves to death and then buy new ones. That is why they needed to buy R2 and C3-PO. They lack the skills and resources not to kill them.

The narrator isn't describing AG as I have ever heard it described before, and Electromagnetic systems match better.

Or in other words, the narrator is totally contradicting your model of how SW technology works. What the narrator is saying is canonical fact for Star Wars. I've explained - loosely speaking - how we could fill in some of the technobabble details if we wanted, but fundamentally, that's the difference between fanon and canon. You think that EM would match what you see on screen; but the novelization describes antigravity drive in terms that really suggest that it's gravitational in nature.

The Narrator is contradicting how I understand a anti-gravity system to work, but matching how I understand an E.M. system would work.

There was a rather interesting EM drive talked about last night on American Paranormal.

And? Doesn't matter.

It matches what we see in Star Wars reasonably well. The system worked by causing superconductors to vibrate. The big problem with the system is that it is very power hungry.

"UFOs Over Phoenix" is the title of the episode if you what to look it up.

If the narrator calls something an elephant, and then goes on to describe a mouse I assume the narrator/writer meant a mouse, and made a mistake. I don't assume a mouse is suddenly an elephant.

The only anti-gravity thingies I recall ever being talked about are Repulsors.

Artificial gravity, anti-grave drive, and repulsorlifts are not necessarily the same thing. It's worth noting that the EU and the on-screen evidence makes a distinction between things that can only hover and things that can genuinely fly. "Technical" books like the ICS don't tend to offer any distinctions in labels - but they're pretty low-reliability sources in any event.

There are craft that only seem to just hover a more or less fixed distance of the ground. There are also craft that can freely fly and maneuver - and yet don't have turbofans or thrusters. Some are small - the little training remote that Obi-Wan sics on Luke - and others large.

Where are these system shown, and what are they callled?

Magnetic fields do a great job reflecting blaster bolts after all, but why does the feild have to have only one purpose?

In general, it doesn't. However, the field in question is quite discreet. It's exerting deflecting forces on objects that are fairly close to it at a small band of radii. The drive system of the Death Star is actually active at that point in time, and needs to be pushing in an entirely different direction.

Sure they do., Han nearly killed everyone because magnetic fields do such a great job of deflecting blasters, and such fields could be used for propulsion.

[KirkSkyWalker]

More like a stick with missing mass, but the EM energy is still there.
It fits everything, in particular as well as in general: no magic, just plain physics.

A stick isn't solid due to the simple presence of the stick itself (i.e. its mass), but solely due to the invisible, massless energy radiated by its sub-atomic particles-- ie. the like-charges repel each other, while the opposite ones attract.
The electrons in the stick repel each other due to their negatively-charged fields, while the protons attract the electrons (and vice-versa) with their positively-charged fields (while the protons likewise repel other protons).

In short, the stick's solid structure is entirely due to the invisible fields around the protons and electrons in the stick; and likewise even the stick itself is only visible , because the electron-fields absorb and re-emit light which strikes them.

The stick's mass has nothing to do with it-- just the EM-energy; if the electrons in the stick suddenly bound with the protons to form neutrons, then the neutrons would all just fall apart-- invisibly, and anything the stick was holding up would simply fall.

And it doesn't matter that these charged-fields radiate omnidirectionally according to the basic inverse-square law; that's only in their natural state, but they can be artificially manipulated in order to create the same effect as a solid object, by using only the energy-- not the mass. Therefore a wall of negatively-charged energy, would be just as solid as a real one: or even more so, according to the potential energy of the charge in comparison.
This seems to be how particle-shields work: i.e. if you shoot a bullet at it, then the negative charges in the bullet's electrons will repel those in the shield, just like if you shot a brick wall.

Everything in the SW universe behaves according these principles (i.e. no FTL tech other than hyperspace, no deflectors-beams, etc) so it checks out perfectly.
In contast, we know that the ST universe uses graviton-based technology (e.g. FTL weapons, FTL deflector-beams as well as tractor-beams, express statements etc).

And that is the simplest explanation (that makes sense according to the facts presented in the canon for both universes, anyway); there's nothing simpler than the very same forces that already exist in every object, and which make up the world as we know it.

Just like the explanation that SW uses fusion, while ST uses anti-matter; there's no need for the creation of weird "hypermatter" to explain how SW weapons supposedly produce energy-yields that they clearly don't.

Except that it doesn't fit the evidence. An invisible massless extension has a lot of tell-tale features. We would basically expect to see a solid invisible object at work. Cars on Coruscant would smack into them all the time.

If someone was putting up particle-shields all over the place for no reason.
However tractor-beams are a lot easier to set up than deflector-beams, due to the physics involved-- just like it's easier to pull something with a rope than push it.

Artificial gravity doesn't pan out too well, either - you'd have to have lots of extensions from above and below, you'd still feel pretty weightless inside,

nd the force fields would tend to interrupt blaster fire.


The idea of a massless force "extension" has been around, but it doesn't explain everything very well, and it's particularly awkward for a drive system that works for a couple planetary diameters. It works fine for a few things in Star Wars - shields, for example - but antigrav drive is not one of those.

It would be just like a short-range tractor-beam, and the EM-based attraction would be indistinguishable from gravity, acting on molecules with the same result. There's also no indication that tractor-beams interrupt blaster-fire.

As for "working for planetary diameters:" when the Falcon takes off then we see the rear ion-thrusters ignited clearly, so you're talking pure EU.

[Praeothmin]

However tractor-beams are a lot easier to set up than deflector-beams, due to the physics involved-- just like it's easier to pull something with a rope than push it.

Please explain how tractor beams are easier then deflectors, and please do it by using a far better analogy than the one you used.
The reason pulling is easier than pushing is simple:
When pushing or pulling, you can use your body weight as "extra muscle", and your legs will be used pretty much the same way, but when you pull on an object, you can make it "lean" on you, thus reducing the friction surfaces, thus easing the process.
When you push the same object, you'll most likely push on its upper portion, thus the object will have a tendency to "lean" away from you, which, while reducing the friction surface, will increase the chance of the object flipping, or trying to "borrow" in the ground (because of the vector of the forces in play).

The way using a rope makes pulling easier than pushing is by attaching the rope on a lower part of the object to be pulled.
When pulling on the rope, the front of the object lifts up, thus leaving less surface of the object touching the ground, thus lessening the friction between the object and the ground.
Also, for most people, their stronger upper body muscles are the biceps and the deltoids, the two muscle groups used in addition to the legs when pulling.

All of this have everything to do with physical constraints that have no relation to pulling or pushing objects in space, a zero-g, frictionless environment, where the objects aren't pulled down, and aren't slowed down by friction...

[KirkSkyWalker]

However tractor-beams are a lot easier to set up than deflector-beams, due to the physics involved-- just like it's easier to pull something with a rope than push it.

Please explain how tractor beams are easier then deflectors, and please do it by using a far better analogy than the one you used.

Nope. My analogy is fine; yours is off. An EM-based -beam operates in the same way as a rope transfers energy by pulling, vs. a stick by pushing; and so it's easier to generate over a long distance; think of how you'll bend a really long, skinny stick if you try to push something with it, vs. pulling it.

In contrast, a subpace-based beam is like placing an object in a downhill track, i.e. it creates a "river" for it, via the path of lowest energy; and thus the second law of thermodynamics causes it to move in that direction via entropy-- which is why an object rolls in the straightest path to the Earth's center, i.e. it's the path of lowest energy.

Therefore ST can use both tractors and deflectors via the same principle of subspace distortion-- and do so from much greater distances, thus allowing the main deflector-dish to sweep particles out of the ship's path while moving at high-warp speeds-- as well as fusing the hydrogen-particles to regenerate the ship's energy lost to entropy and other factors.

The reason pulling is easier than pushing is simple:

Yep: it requires a rigid structure, which is more difficult to sustain than simply pulling.
Again, try pushing something with a rope-- or a magnet. Or simply try moving without your muscle-fibers pulling via, since they can't push-- all for the same reason of attractive vs. repulsive EM factors, when the actin-molecules release troponin and tropymyosin resulting in muscle contraction. That's why the human body requires two sets of muscles, while someone like Data would only need one servo which could move in either direction via EM repulsion in a closed rigid structure.

[Praeothmin]

An EM-based -beam operates in the same way as a rope transfers energy by pulling, vs. a stick by pushing;

Please, provide proof of this, for you see, in ST, Tractor Beams are used for pulling just as much as they are used for pushing, and we never receive any indication one is harder than the other (see Wesley's experience with his portable Tractor Beam).
If indeed the beam worked as you stated, then explain how they can push objects with it?

Also, if the Deflector works as you think, wouldn't the stray particles be attracted to the ship, since the Deflector is creating a "river" for the particles, forcing them to come down to the ship because of Entropy...

Yep: it requires a rigid structure, which is more difficult to sustain than simply pulling.
Again, try pushing something with a rope-- or a magnet

Actually, try pushing a crate with your arms, and pulling it with the same body parts.
While the muscles being used are opposites for both actions, your leg muscles will work the same way, and pushing and pulling becomes exactly as I described it previously.
And it still has nothing to do with your example...


Oh, and in case your had forgotten, SW also has Tractor Beams, just like ST... :)

[User1460]

I think the question is gravity-bending physics, since that's the essence of the space-warp. Have we seen any incidents of this in SW, like Star Trek's warp-drive, deflector-shields, subspace-distortion deflectors or weapons, which couldn't be done with the ordinary EM forces exerted by protons and electrons?
Star Was clearly doesn't have warp-drive; and the series "Enterprise" showed that warp-drive and deflector-beams came before things like subspace tractor-beams and deflector-shields. So since Star Wars doesn't have warp-drive and deflectors, then they wouldn't have space-warps.

And you know something? I hard Michio Kaku say that you can create point-to-point hyperdrive using EM physics, just by having 2 metal plates and moving tem apart from each other, and then you can create a wormhole between them by running a super-strong current through one of them, which will zap you from one to the other much faster than lightspeed.

This sounds like what I've read about SW tech, since they took a long time to build the hyperdrive lanes, which the Trade Federation wanted to control: and so it's conceivable that they used something like this. Otherwise when Han was being chased by star destroyers, why didn't he just punch it to warp and go halfway to the nearest star, and then change directions and lose them in the moons of Bogden or something-- why was it "Alderaan or bust?"
If Kirk or Picard had a faster ship than an enemy, clearly they'd just punch it to warp, not wait to plot out a course first. Like in "Generations," when the star blew up and was closing on the Enterprise, Picard just said "away warp 1!" and pow they were gone: if they had to plot the course first, it would be too late.
Also you can't control warp-routes in Star Trek, like they could the Trade Federation could in The Phantom Menace: warp drive works anywhere in space at about the same speed it seems, and so space is just too big for anyone to hold a monopoly. Star Wars lanes seem a lot smaller, IMHO, meaning that the ships aren't that FTL fast in themselves, but that it's some outer network of space-roads that the ships have to travel in. Outside of that, they're limited to STL speeds.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I think the question is gravity-bending physics, since that's the essence of the space-warp. Have we seen any incidents of this in SW, like Star Trek's warp-drive, deflector-shields, subspace-distortion deflectors or weapons, which couldn't be done with the ordinary EM forces exerted by protons and electrons?
Star Was clearly doesn't have warp-drive; and the series "Enterprise" showed that warp-drive and deflector-beams came before things like subspace tractor-beams and deflector-shields. So since Star Wars doesn't have warp-drive and deflectors, then they wouldn't have space-warps.

SW has deflectors.
They even mounted them on the Death Star, which nudged mountain sized rocks...
They can be as strong as any shield, as a ship can literally crash into a particle shield. They just call them shields, but there's no difference in principle.
They have artificial tech and a large use of tractor beams and an extensive use of somehow graviton-based tech.

And you know something? I hard Michio Kaku say that you can create point-to-point hyperdrive using EM physics, just by having 2 metal plates and moving tem apart from each other, and then you can create a wormhole between them by running a super-strong current through one of them, which will zap you from one to the other much faster than lightspeed.

Hey? WHat? Isn't it that obscure guy running around the world to get a million dollars budget without having proven that his tech can even work at a smaller scale or something?

This sounds like what I've read about SW tech, since they took a long time to build the hyperdrive lanes, which the Trade Federation wanted to control: and so it's conceivable that they used something like this. Otherwise when Han was being chased by star destroyers, why didn't he just punch it to warp and go halfway to the nearest star, and then change directions and lose them in the moons of Bogden or something-- why was it "Alderaan or bust?"

Because his ship's hyperengines were fast, but the gain would only be noticeable over long distances. Over a short distance, the Imperials would have easily found them, and Han and co were running against the clock to get the plans back to the Alliance HQ ASAP.

If Kirk or Picard had a faster ship than an enemy, clearly they'd just punch it to warp, not wait to plot out a course first. Like in "Generations," when the star blew up and was closing on the Enterprise, Picard just said "away warp 1!" and pow they were gone: if they had to plot the course first, it would be too late.

And the enemy would punch warp as well.

Also you can't control warp-routes in Star Trek, like they could the Trade Federation could in The Phantom Menace: warp drive works anywhere in space at about the same speed it seems, and so space is just too big for anyone to hold a monopoly. Star Wars lanes seem a lot smaller, IMHO, meaning that the ships aren't that FTL fast in themselves, but that it's some outer network of space-roads that the ships have to travel in. Outside of that, they're limited to STL speeds.

Actually it's largely believed that proper starmaps can considerably shorten warp travel durations. This could only make sense if the various stellar objects found in space had some effect on warp drives. See "ST: Voyager".

[User1460]

I think the question is gravity-bending physics, since that's the essence of the space-warp. Have we seen any incidents of this in SW, like Star Trek's warp-drive, deflector-shields, subspace-distortion deflectors or weapons, which couldn't be done with the ordinary EM forces exerted by protons and electrons?
Star Was clearly doesn't have warp-drive; and the series "Enterprise" showed that warp-drive and deflector-beams came before things like subspace tractor-beams and deflector-shields. So since Star Wars doesn't have warp-drive and deflectors, then they wouldn't have space-warps.

SW has deflectors.
They even mounted them on the Death Star, which nudged mountain sized rocks...
They can be as strong as any shield, as a ship can literally crash into a particle shield. They just call them shields, but there's no difference in principle.
They have artificial tech and a large use of tractor beams and an extensive use of somehow graviton-based tech.

If we haven't seen it in the films or validated in the Holocron, it's wanked.

This sounds like what I've read about SW tech, since they took a long time to build the hyperdrive lanes, which the Trade Federation wanted to control: and so it's conceivable that they used something like this. Otherwise when Han was being chased by star destroyers, why didn't he just punch it to warp and go halfway to the nearest star, and then change directions and lose them in the moons of Bogden or something-- why was it "Alderaan or bust?"

Because his ship's hyperengines were fast, but the gain would only be noticeable over long distances. Over a short distance, the Imperials would have easily found them, and Han and co were running against the clock to get the plans back to the Alliance HQ ASAP.

I don't recall a time-lmit being mentioned, just the ability to avoid Imperial ships; be careful not to mix up canon with your own take.
If he wanted to avoid the Empire-ships, then the best way would start with not getting blown up.
And they can't find him once he's gone to hyperspace.

If Kirk or Picard had a faster ship than an enemy, clearly they'd just punch it to warp, not wait to plot out a course first. Like in "Generations," when the star blew up and was closing on the Enterprise, Picard just said "away warp 1!" and pow they were gone: if they had to plot the course first, it would be too late.

And the enemy would punch warp as well.

Ok, one more time: "If Kirk or Picard had a faster ship than an enemy,"
Faster, as in "faster at warp." Gone, as in bye-bye.

Also you can't control warp-routes in Star Trek, like they could the Trade Federation could in The Phantom Menace: warp drive works anywhere in space at about the same speed it seems, and so space is just too big for anyone to hold a monopoly. Star Wars lanes seem a lot smaller, IMHO, meaning that the ships aren't that FTL fast in themselves, but that it's some outer network of space-roads that the ships have to travel in. Outside of that, they're limited to STL speeds.

Actually it's largely believed that proper starmaps can considerably shorten warp travel durations. This could only make sense if the various stellar objects found in space had some effect on warp drives. See "ST: Voyager".

Solo said that the nav-comp only needed to avoid dangers: nothing about going faster. He was being shot at by Star Destroyers, so I think speed would be secondary to escape.

Hey? WHat? Isn't it that obscure guy running around the world to get a million dollars budget without having proven that his tech can even work at a smaller scale or something?

How do you know that it's possible on a smaller scale? You could have said the same about the Manhattan Project, demanding that they start with an atomic firecracker; it doesn't work that way.
But he's not alone about this about magnetic wormholes, this is fairly well upheld by others including Hawking. The problem today is that it would take the energy of a supernova, but that could change with advanced tech.

[Picard]

If we haven't seen it in the films or validated in the Holocron, it's wanked.

Actually, I believe to know to what instances of SW canon Oragahn refers to:

They even mounted them on the Death Star, which nudged mountain sized rocks...

Pieces of Alderaan.

They can be as strong as any shield, as a ship can literally crash into a particle shield. They just call them shields, but there's no difference in principle.

Shield that protected DSII.

They have artificial tech and a large use of tractor beams and an extensive use of somehow graviton-based tech.

Repulsorlifts, artificial gravity.

[Mike DiCenso]

They even mounted them on the Death Star, which nudged mountain sized rocks...

Pieces of Alderaan.

Actually, the only indication of large asteroidal debris from Alderaan that we know of is mentioned in the ANH novelization, but the pieces are not quantified other than being "gigantic chunks", not necessarily mountain size, which would suggest debris hundreds of meters long. However in the movie, we do see the debris, and the visuals show much smaller debris, perhaps a few meters in diameter, which the shields on the Falcon are able to deflect.
-Mike

[User1460]

Again, we don't see any warp or impulse-drive in SW, so that would rule out actual gravity-bending tech.
There was definitely artificial gravity of some other sort however, obviously, i.e. they weren't floating around inside the ships, but walking around as if in normal earth-gravity.
Another instance of the lack of gravity-bending tech is hyperdrive: i.e. when they go to hyperdrive at the end of TESB: R2 activates the drive, and then goes flying across the ship and into the hold as the ship jumps; this is from the G-forces on the ship, and R2's inertia relative to it.
If the acceleration into hyperspace were due to warp-drive, or some other actual gravity-bending tech, then it would affect R2 just as much as the ship itself; and so R2 would thus experience no relative inertia, and wouldn't have budged an inch. (This is also why Picard doesn't go flying through the back of the Enterprise, when they go from zero to 1000C in 0.1 seconds, i.e. he's accelerated by the warp-field just as much as the ship-- which is also why the engines don't break off from those flimsy-looking pylons).

And these are both G-canon examples, obviously.
So the same type of artificial grav-tech used for onboard ships, could easily be used for the shields, tractor-beams etc; but it couldn't be real gravity like Star Trek, i.e. involving bending space and using gravitons etc.

[Lucky]

They even mounted them on the Death Star, which nudged mountain sized rocks...

Pieces of Alderaan.

Actually, the only indication of large asteroidal debris from Alderaan that we know of is mentioned in the ANH novelization, but the pieces are not quantified other than being "gigantic chunks", not necessarily mountain size, which would suggest debris hundreds of meters long. However in the movie, we do see the debris, and the visuals show much smaller debris, perhaps a few meters in diameter, which the shields on the Falcon are able to deflect.
-Mike

Didn't most of Alderaan continue to stay in orbit? Hours/days/weeks later when the Falcon arrived the debris was where Alderaan should have been.