Tatooine-Geonosis speed revisted

[2046]

The promenade's windows are tinted, and there's the reflexion of the neon lights which masks what's on the other side.
Notice that in Palpatine's office, there's no discernable light from the room reflecting on the windows, which allow for an almost perfectly undisturbed sight of the exterior.

Oh really?

Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that a dim interior will not noticably reflect on a window to a bright exterior, and that bright or brightly-lit objects will only reflect on a window when the angle is correct for them to do so.

For instance, the Senate walkway tube lighting is bright and at the correct angle, therefore it reflects on the windows. But since much of Palpatine's office is darkly painted, et cetera, shots like this . . .



. . . show no interior reflections.

Ergo, your claim that there is some peculiar sort of difference between the windows in the two locations due to a claim of differing reflectivity is not based on reason, and is to be dismissed.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Then it would have to be dawn of the next day. A Dusk to dawn scene since there such a small amount of purple light reflecting off the clouds in the exterior view as compared to the earlier office scene in which the purple lighted clouds and the sky are much better lit. Dawn does not get darker, it usually gets lighter out as the sun comes up... not unless there is something really weird going on there.
-Mike

The pink clouds are there. They're easy to see, and the darkening afflicts all light sources.
Unless someone tries to argue that there's a sudden dark fog on that zone, the tinted window is the best argument.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The promenade's windows are tinted, and there's the reflexion of the neon lights which masks what's on the other side.
Notice that in Palpatine's office, there's no discernable light from the room reflecting on the windows, which allow for an almost perfectly undisturbed sight of the exterior.

Oh really?

Good.
I retract the reflexion point.

Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that a dim interior will not noticably reflect on a window to a bright exterior, and that bright or brightly-lit objects will only reflect on a window when the angle is correct for them to do so.

I know that. I didn't notice the neon reflexion. I didn't remember there were such intense light in Palpatine's office. I thought they were all smoothed.

Ergo, your claim that there is some peculiar sort of difference between the windows in the two locations due to a claim of differing reflectivity is not based on reason, and is to be dismissed.

Still leaves the tinted window claim, which thus far is still correct.

[2046]

A few final words, since this thread is a profound waste of my time:

Here we have one of the AoTC scenes in question. Note the bright pinks and purples.



Here we have another image of Windu with bright pinks and purples behind him.



Know what's on the other side? Some in this thread would assume it must be pitch-black darkness. Instead, it's the last vestiges of sunset:



Do you know why? Because you don't get a dark moonlit night on one side of the sky with immediate pre-dawn on the other. Yet some would believe that instead of the hues of the terminator tracking with the sun, instead the terminator is a super-sharp division, as if the atmosphere is paper-thin and near-opaque.

Oh, but perhaps I'm being a bit terro-centric. Oh wait, I'm not . . . here's what the Coruscanti sky looks like just after sunset. The first pic shows us the view in one direction. Then we get two views of the sky 180 degrees opposed to one another:



Huh, funny that . . . the whole sky's lit up. One might be confused by that . . . after all, can we not have a moonlit darkness at ground level while just a few stories up the buildings are being lit by the bright pre-dawn? That is, after all, what some in this thread are claiming:



How can you help but note the moonlit ground and the utter lack of pre-dawn lighting on any of the dark buildings? Beats me. Simultaneously, we cannot fail to be struck by shots like this one, where the buildings (such as the one on the left) reflect a rosy glow on their left sides, and which also (most curiously indeed!) show us that the ground level is also experiencing twilight-lighting conditions due to the lit atmosphere, as seen in the little gap to the right of Palpatine's desk.

But surely we must ignore that, since I am always wrong and invariably to be doubted . . . so let not your heart be troubled.

Although, in the midst of doubting me, surely we must consider one other detail.



We know from shots like the above (and the pre-dawn shots, too) that Palpatine's office seems to face south, assuming an eastern sunrise.

So what to make of shots like these two?:





Why, in those two we're looking at a good third of the horizon, yet the whole visible sky is lit up both to the east-southeast and the southwest, with buildings toward the southwest lit with twilight glow and even reflecting pink hues.

Or to put it in easier-to-comprehend terms:

Code: Select all

N-W -N- N-E

-W- P-O -E-

S-W -S- S-E

From Palpatine's office (PO) we can see well toward the SE and into the SW, and the sky and buildings are lit up everywhere from the sunrise off toward the east. Yet we are supposed to believe that, if you only face west, it's a moonlit night with a pitch-black ground and buildings.

And this is supposed to make sense to me? And I'm supposed to be a paragon of patience when confronted with this big waste of time based largely on the fact that you people haven't gone outside in far too long?

The only way the same-dawn claim works is if the sun actually recedes a bit, sort of like a double-pump basketball shot. Of course most of us would find such a notion absurd, but apparently not all. Some might even seek the excuse of orbital mirrors from the RotS novel, which have not been observed in use and certainly have had no discernible effect on Coruscanti day-night cycles. At best these are mere concentrators, not nightlights.

Yet we are supposed to accept the assorted absurdities . . . even ignoring simple things like how reflections in windows work . . . in order to support a claim that makes no sense whatsoever.

Screw that. Go outside . . . I realize the big blue room is a vast mystery full of wonders and dangers, but you guys really need to get some fresh air.

[2046]

Okay, final-final word:

Still leaves the tinted window claim, which thus far is still correct.

The claim is a big heap of fail. The window brightnesses are, if not equal, then quite close, and more than close enough given the even-wee-er hours of the morning in the Senate shot. Only the buildings themselves (walls, et al.) are significantly darker.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, the gradient from left to right is much, much greater in the Senate shot, starting from a less-bright pink/purple and quickly dropping to the point where the right-hand big building almost blends in, unlike its appearance in the Palpatine office shots.

A very slight twinge of purple low in the sky is, of course, the only way you could have a moonlit night on the other side. And that is what we see.

Ergo, it is earlier. And since time did not reverse, then it must be earlier on another, later day.

So cut the crap.

[Mr. Oragahn]

A few final words, since this thread is a profound waste of my time:

You're welcome. On this basis, your whole site is a waste of your time.
That said, for someone so humble as you, you made a tiring display of unconvincing-spiel-typing skills.
Instead of using veiled bile and sarcasm, what about actually making a very simple point, like for example, saying what claim you're adressing precisely, for what purpose, who you disagree with, and above all, cite your hypothesis very clearly before bringing your evidence in a very messy way?
Your argumentation has such no head nor tail, it looks like you're phased out and replying to some thread no one else safe you can read.

So are you saying something different than your own website or not? Because the way you insist on how there can be pink on one side and a sunset on the other would clearly go against your own published article.

At best, what we *could* conclude, is that the meeting in Palpatine's office occured at sunset, with the sun rather low (we don't get an external shot, nor a glimpse of the other side, so we'd have to assume it's there, a bit like in TPM's sunset shot and opposite side, but still a tad later), while the senate session would have occured at dawn/pre-dawn, much in disagreement with your site ("And so, we can state with confidence that Anakin and Amidala departed Tatooine right around dawn, Capital Time.") since it claims both scenes occur at dawn, and would certainly not lead us to a time gap of 21 hours.

But I don't agree with it:

Here are what I consider to be mistakes on your part:

How can you help but note the moonlit ground and the utter lack of pre-dawn lighting on any of the dark buildings? Beats me.

Ah, that's your point?
There's no pinkness on the buildings' side facing the pink zone?

What about "it's not intense enough" or "disrupted by other lighting" or "not catching as much sunlight as the clouds and polluted atmosphere" or "not evident enough due to the moonlight which makes any observation of any pinkness a tad hard"?

But also what about you look better at the big picture below:



We can notice that the senate's dome is covered with reflective tiles. By virtue of light angles, they act more like mirrors, and due to the camera's position, would only show what's occuring up in the sky.
As far as we're concerned, up in the sky, on the right of the picture, is dark blue/purple clouds. So not much pink tint to show there.

As for the rest of the building, it's largely "parasited" by illumination from the ground, other sources and self illumination.

But to complete the argument, we can look at the other buildings on that very shot, and notice that they:

- are very dark for most of them.
- have slightly "pinked" sides for some of them.
- have the spotlights lighting some of their sides from below.

As you can see on the picture below, it's the same for the buildings there:



But most striking is that the lighting on the buildings of that zone (see previous pages) is the same, in terms of lightsource, reflections and so on.
That picture above is particularily interesting because it shows the both scenes which matter, and we see that whatever the time is in those scenes, the sun is on the same side in both cases.

Which pretty much refutes the idea that one scene could occur at dawn, and other at dusk, or vice versa.

Considering that the senate session occurs at that time, and that we know that sunset officially looks like this, we know that both scenes occur within the same time range, and occur at dawn.

So we're back at the claim that it's either the same dawn, or two different dawns, and that part was already adressed in ample terms, notably with the tinted window argument, which I see you didn't pick up, rather having fun with pompous monologues and providing no counter evidence.

So here's my evidence:



Besides, here's the zone where Palpatine's office and the section of the promenade we saw are:



They're somewhere in there.

[2046]

A few final words, since this thread is a profound waste of my time:

You're welcome. On this basis, your whole site is a waste of your time.
That said, for someone so humble as you, you made a tiring display of unconvincing-spiel-typing skills.
Instead of using veiled bile and sarcasm, what about actually making a very simple point, like for example, saying what claim you're adressing precisely, for what purpose, who you disagree with, and above all, cite your hypothesis very clearly before bringing your evidence in a very messy way?

The truth is that epic levels of pure goofiness and insulting inanity, claimed to be devastating rebuttals to my pages, annoy me no end. Mixed with a general lack of time both for (a) calming down and (b) writing a detailed, webpage-length rebuttal, I end up spitting out quick messages which (a) quickly point you toward the light and (b) are in a pissed-off tone, because it is the only one available at the time.

These quickies should be sufficient were you to bother to think about them, yet you keep digging further, which pisses me off even more and the process repeats.

Eventually, though, fear not . . . you awaken the sleeping giant. I get annoyed enough and set aside (i.e. waste) enough time to sit you down and hold your hand through each little step, drawing you pictures as needed. But by that point you're too far gone, and insist on holding to your weird conclusions, even when I strip, step-by-step, their underpinnings. So then, still in time-wasting mode, I continue to pick your arguments apart piece by piece.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I try to believe you're just joshing around, but frankly you mostly act like a natural fit for SDN. Conclusion-first thinking is bad no matter which side it comes from.

And even if I tell you I'm done, you respond with challenges . . . indeed, moreso than you were before I said I was done, which is just cowardly. That, too, is SDN-standard. If you want to reply to me when I say I'm done, do it in the third-person. Reply to the idea, not the man.

So are you saying something different than your own website or not?

No, I'm not. Think.

Because the way you insist on how there can be pink on one side and a sunset on the other would clearly go against your own published article.

No, it doesn't. Think.

Here are what I consider to be mistakes on your part:

How can you help but note the moonlit ground and the utter lack of pre-dawn lighting on any of the dark buildings? Beats me.

Ah, that's your point?
There's no pinkness on the buildings' side facing the pink zone?

Yes.

What about "it's not intense enough" or "disrupted by other lighting" or "not catching as much sunlight as the clouds and polluted atmosphere" or "not evident enough due to the moonlight which makes any observation of any pinkness a tad hard"?

What about "Darkstar's conclusion is correct, so I should stop trying to find pitiable excuses for mine?"

All your claims above fail. The intensity concept ignores the much brighter-lit buildings visible to the southwest from Palp's office. Disruption by other lighting is, frankly, just laughable ("black light" is just a phrase, not a technically-accurate descriptor). And not catching sunlight is silly . . . it's pre-dawn, and we're talking about light-scatter anyway, but photons . . . direct or refracted . . . are not going to come to a dead stop in mid-sky. It's silly to argue otherwise, and that's precisely what you're arguing with all your messages.

We can notice that the senate's dome is covered with reflective tiles. By virtue of light angles, they act more like mirrors,

I realize turnabout is considered fair play, but your attempt to use the window reflection argument against me is absurd on its face. Not only is it evidence that you're tied up in a snit, but more importantly it is a ridiculous argument.

At best the Senate dome has the properties of a brushed/hammered/etc. metal . . . refractive, not reflective. Were it reflective like a mirror (say, like a polished metal) then we would see a lot more detail, such as flying vehicles and so on, reflected off the dome. We do not.

As far as we're concerned, up in the sky, on the right of the picture, is dark blue/purple clouds. So not much pink tint to show there.

Thank you for noticing what's been on my page for a long time.

That picture above is particularily interesting because it shows the both scenes which matter, and we see that whatever the time is in those scenes, the sun is on the same side in both cases.

Welcome to 2003. While here, please visit ST-v-SW.Net, which just added the Hyperdrive Speed Index (featuring a page on the Tat-Geo trip and one on the hyperdrive speeds of RoTJ's Endor-Sullust journey).

Which pretty much refutes the idea that one scene could occur at dawn, and other at dusk, or vice versa.

No . . . really?

Considering that the senate session occurs at that time, and that we know that sunset officially looks like this, we know that both scenes occur within the same time range, and occur at dawn.

Did you just treat a picture of a single sunset as a rigid and inviolable view of what sunset must look like, thereby concluding that all sun-at-or-near-horizon events that are similar but not exactly the same must be sunrises?

Holy shit!

So we're back at the claim that it's either the same dawn, or two different dawns, and that part was already adressed in ample terms, notably with the tinted window argument, which I see you didn't pick up, rather having fun with pompous monologues and providing no counter evidence.

A stupid, stupid lie. See the "final-final word" post.

So here's my evidence:

My "final-final word" post already has the pics together. Your attempt to brighten one to make it fit your conclusions is dishonest.

I note you also ignore the gradient issue.

Ooooooh, indeed, you appear to have used the right side near the right-hand building as your guide, thereby bypassing the issue, while simultaneously using a shot with different zoom level on the background buildings.

Dishonesty, thy name is Oragahn.

If you want to compare them, use the same piece of sky, not random pieces that ever so conveniently happen to suit your fanciful interpretations. To wit:

Same sky:




Different sky:



With apologies to both JMS and Chevy Chase: "Oragahn, you ignorant slut!"

Besides, here's the zone where Palpatine's office and the section of the promenade we saw are:



They're somewhere in there.

No, they most certainly are not.

Per the sunset shots of the Senate, its ass faces west, within 15-30 degrees. Ergo its face faces east, within the same error margin. (It depends on several factors, including latitude, axial tilt, et cetera.)

As established, Palp's office faces south. And thus the scene in the Senate walkway is also facing south. However, were Windu to face directly away from the center of the building, and thus toward the nearest outside wall, he would actually be facing SW.

My image which you edited shows the face of the Senate building pointing downward. I presume you assumed this meant south, but that is not so in that image. Hence why it is not marked in that manner.

But anyway, long story short, your argument is dead, and I have no pity for you or it. Continue your desperation at your peril, but don't expect me to reply to every ridiculous notion you pin your hopes on.

Indeed, don't expect me to reply at all. I am not here for your education.

[Mr. Oragahn]

A few final words, since this thread is a profound waste of my time:

You're welcome. On this basis, your whole site is a waste of your time.
That said, for someone so humble as you, you made a tiring display of unconvincing-spiel-typing skills.
Instead of using veiled bile and sarcasm, what about actually making a very simple point, like for example, saying what claim you're adressing precisely, for what purpose, who you disagree with, and above all, cite your hypothesis very clearly before bringing your evidence in a very messy way?

The truth is that epic levels of pure goofiness and insulting inanity, claimed to be devastating rebuttals to my pages, annoy me no end. Mixed with a general lack of time both for (a) calming down and (b) writing a detailed, webpage-length rebuttal, I end up spitting out quick messages which (a) quickly point you toward the light and (b) are in a pissed-off tone, because it is the only one available at the time.

These quickies should be sufficient were you to bother to think about them, yet you keep digging further, which pisses me off even more and the process repeats.

Eventually, though, fear not . . . you awaken the sleeping giant. I get annoyed enough and set aside (i.e. waste) enough time to sit you down and hold your hand through each little step, drawing you pictures as needed. But by that point you're too far gone, and insist on holding to your weird conclusions, even when I strip, step-by-step, their underpinnings. So then, still in time-wasting mode, I continue to pick your arguments apart piece by piece.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I try to believe you're just joshing around, but frankly you mostly act like a natural fit for SDN. Conclusion-first thinking is bad no matter which side it comes from.

And even if I tell you I'm done, you respond with challenges . . . indeed, moreso than you were before I said I was done, which is just cowardly. That, too, is SDN-standard. If you want to reply to me when I say I'm done, do it in the third-person. Reply to the idea, not the man.

*Yawns*
Geez. I bow before your Exalted Highness.

Next time, cut the Shakespeare wannabe crap and get to the point.

So are you saying something different than your own website or not?

No, I'm not. Think.

Make a clearer argumentation. I'm not supposed to compensate for your utter lack of clarity.

Because the way you insist on how there can be pink on one side and a sunset on the other would clearly go against your own published article.

No, it doesn't. Think.

Make a clearer argumentation. I'm not supposed to compensate for your utter lack of clarity.

What about "it's not intense enough" or "disrupted by other lighting" or "not catching as much sunlight as the clouds and polluted atmosphere" or "not evident enough due to the moonlight which makes any observation of any pinkness a tad hard"?

What about "Darkstar's conclusion is correct, so I should stop trying to find pitiable excuses for mine?"

All your claims above fail. The intensity concept ignores the much brighter-lit buildings visible to the southwest from Palp's office.

The buildings in the far background aren't darker than the ones in the foreground.

Disruption by other lighting is, frankly, just laughable ("black light" is just a phrase, not a technically-accurate descriptor).

The meaning of disruption is simple. More intense light sources are going to mask the dimmer colouration by distant rays redirected by the clouds.

And not catching sunlight is silly . . . it's pre-dawn, and we're talking about light-scatter anyway, but photons . . . direct or refracted . . . are not going to come to a dead stop in mid-sky. It's silly to argue otherwise, and that's precisely what you're arguing with all your messages.

It's not silly. Only the atmosphere and clouds caught in the direct path of rays (refracted or not) are going to light up so evidently.
The rest of the photons are scattered by the clouds which see their concentration much reduced, to the point where it really matters not, considering the global lighting.
Not to say that anyway, all pictures do show facades to have red hues in their colouration, to various degrees. Yes, you can even pick the night shot of the senate, and you'll see that on the building on the right.

We can notice that the senate's dome is covered with reflective tiles. By virtue of light angles, they act more like mirrors,

I realize turnabout is considered fair play, but your attempt to use the window reflection argument against me is absurd on its face. Not only is it evidence that you're tied up in a snit, but more importantly it is a ridiculous argument.

At best the Senate dome has the properties of a brushed/hammered/etc. metal . . . refractive, not reflective. Were it reflective like a mirror (say, like a polished metal) then we would see a lot more detail, such as flying vehicles and so on, reflected off the dome. We do not.

I didn't claim it was a perfect mirror surface.
Your point doesn't even adress the simple fact that from the camera's position, the dome could not reflect the brightest pink hues which exist above the horizon.

As far as we're concerned, up in the sky, on the right of the picture, is dark blue/purple clouds. So not much pink tint to show there.

Thank you for noticing what's been on my page for a long time.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't use the senate's dome as a proof of a lack of noticeable pink clouds, as bright as the ones seen from Palpatine's office.

That picture above is particularily interesting because it shows the both scenes which matter, and we see that whatever the time is in those scenes, the sun is on the same side in both cases.

Welcome to 2003. While here, please visit ST-v-SW.Net, which just added the Hyperdrive Speed Index (featuring a page on the Tat-Geo trip and one on the hyperdrive speeds of RoTJ's Endor-Sullust journey).

This is not particularily arguing against your site, but just clarifying the very messy argument you've been trying to build.

Considering that the senate session occurs at that time, and that we know that sunset officially looks like this, we know that both scenes occur within the same time range, and occur at dawn.

Did you just treat a picture of a single sunset as a rigid and inviolable view of what sunset must look like, thereby concluding that all sun-at-or-near-horizon events that are similar but not exactly the same must be sunrises?

Holy shit!

*sigh*
I just used a picture to point out where sun... sets.

So we're back at the claim that it's either the same dawn, or two different dawns, and that part was already adressed in ample terms, notably with the tinted window argument, which I see you didn't pick up, rather having fun with pompous monologues and providing no counter evidence.

A stupid, stupid lie. See the "final-final word" post.

Oh no, a very good one.

So here's my evidence:

My "final-final word" post already has the pics together. Your attempt to brighten one to make it fit your conclusions is dishonest.

Way to miss the point I suppose. I brightened only one section. The upper one. The lower one is as it is on the image provided by Kane.

It simply shows that to obtain the same lighting intensity from the windows, you need to compensate for the dark filter. Hence, the corridor's windows being tinted.
As simple as that.

I note you also ignore the gradient issue.

Make yourself clearer.

Ooooooh, indeed, you appear to have used the right side near the right-hand building as your guide, thereby bypassing the issue, while simultaneously using a shot with different zoom level on the background buildings.

Dishonesty, thy name is Oragahn.

Tamper.
The zoom has no incidence on the building I used for comparison, since it's of the same size in both shots, corridor or office.

If you want to compare them, use the same piece of sky, not random pieces that ever so conveniently happen to suit your fanciful interpretations. To wit:

Same sky:




Different sky:



With apologies to both JMS and Chevy Chase: "Oragahn, you ignorant slut!"

I do not think you're helping yourself. Your insults and trantrums don't impress me.
Seems that's the only thing you're left with to win an argument though.
Sad.

Now, as we can see, you, of course, take the most blurred image for the office shot, instead of that one, which of course has an effect on the luminosity of the windows.

I don't know why on Kane's picture, the colours appear brighter, but gloabally, it seems his pictures are all brighter, so I supposed it's up to his version of the DVD or DVD player, and the result of you taking pictures on some downloaded version.
That said, using your own material...




... we see that the luminosity reduction happens there as well.

Besides, here's the zone where Palpatine's office and the section of the promenade we saw are:



They're somewhere in there.

No, they most certainly are not.

Per the sunset shots of the Senate, its ass faces west, within 15-30 degrees. Ergo its face faces east, within the same error margin. (It depends on several factors, including latitude, axial tilt, et cetera.)

As established, Palp's office faces south. And thus the scene in the Senate walkway is also facing south. However, were Windu to face directly away from the center of the building, and thus toward the nearest outside wall, he would actually be facing SW.

My image which you edited shows the face of the Senate building pointing downward. I presume you assumed this meant south, but that is not so in that image. Hence why it is not marked in that manner.

But anyway, long story short, your argument is dead, and I have no pity for you or it. Continue your desperation at your peril, but don't expect me to reply to every ridiculous notion you pin your hopes on.

Indeed, don't expect me to reply at all. I am not here for your education.

Plu-eez. Spare the supergenius riff.
It works rather well, on the contrary. Yes, I assumed pointing downwards = pointing to the south. It was just an easy was to label "downside".
Yes, the senate's entrance does face east (Earth applied to Coruscant).
What is south, east, north or west doesn't matter to me here, it's totally irrelevant, as I worked from the light orientation, not from made up cardinal points.

On a second thought, the left side of the crescent I have drawn is too low, but globally, I expect the promenade to be on the absolute left upper side of that zone, with Palpatine's office being more at the bottom of the crescent.
Here's a better placement:

[Mr. Oragahn]

Just adding one more thing.

Using your former "proof":

http://www.regionalrecycling.ca/photos/ ... ames-2.jpg

See how, despite the rather more intense ambient lighting, the concrete sides of the buildings get very lightly coloured by the offscreen pink horizon, yet we can see, thanks to the windows of that building near the right side of the bridge, how the clouds over there are particularily more luminous than those in AOTC.
Hell, one of the tallest buildings, in the middle of the picture, suggests that there's a very strong lightsource over the unseen horizon, as one of its glassy sides turns to a very clear pink.

Why should the buildings on Coruscant be turning even more pink saumon while the light sources are even less intense?
There's no reason for that.

[2046]

The truth is that epic levels of pure goofiness and insulting inanity, claimed to be devastating rebuttals to my pages, annoy me no end. Mixed with a general lack of time both for (a) calming down and (b) writing a detailed, webpage-length rebuttal, I end up spitting out quick messages which (a) quickly point you toward the light and (b) are in a pissed-off tone, because it is the only one available at the time.

These quickies should be sufficient were you to bother to think about them, yet you keep digging further, which pisses me off even more and the process repeats.

Eventually, though, fear not . . . you awaken the sleeping giant. I get annoyed enough and set aside (i.e. waste) enough time to sit you down and hold your hand through each little step, drawing you pictures as needed. But by that point you're too far gone, and insist on holding to your weird conclusions, even when I strip, step-by-step, their underpinnings. So then, still in time-wasting mode, I continue to pick your arguments apart piece by piece.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I try to believe you're just joshing around, but frankly you mostly act like a natural fit for SDN. Conclusion-first thinking is bad no matter which side it comes from.

And even if I tell you I'm done, you respond with challenges . . . indeed, moreso than you were before I said I was done, which is just cowardly. That, too, is SDN-standard. If you want to reply to me when I say I'm done, do it in the third-person. Reply to the idea, not the man.

*Yawns*
Geez. I bow before your Exalted Highness.

Next time, cut the Shakespeare wannabe crap and get to the point.

I did get to the point quite well, and furthermore Shakespeare would be appalled at my writing above. Your apparent inability to understand English is not my problem.

Similarly, though I remembered this was not our first engagement, it dawns on me that this is the second time we've gotten into a knock-down drag-out over a cityscape, light angles, and atmospheric effects. You've previously demonstrated an inability to understand such things, not to mention your habit of making vague and ill-supported arguments thereon, so I guess this whole thing shouldn't be surprising. Curiously, this is also the second time you've allied with Kane Starkiller against me in a coordinated attack.

In the future, you should avoid any attempt to analyze anything involving light angles, cities, and (just to be safe) geography and atmospheres. You should also not listen to Kane on such matters, for it is the blind leading the blind.

Make a clearer argumentation. I'm not supposed to compensate for your utter lack of clarity.

Here again we have you making the point of your inability to comprehend what I say. This is no doubt why you keep misrepresenting my words, which also pisses me off no end.

Oh wait, sorry, allow me to rephrase in simple, clear, Western-movie-ese pidgin English:

"You no gettum words of ST-v-SW Chief. ST-v-SW Chief no say what you say Chief say. Make ST-v-SW Chief very mad."

What about "it's not intense enough" or "disrupted by other lighting" or "not catching as much sunlight as the clouds and polluted atmosphere" or "not evident enough due to the moonlight which makes any observation of any pinkness a tad hard"?

What about "Darkstar's conclusion is correct, so I should stop trying to find pitiable excuses for mine?"

All your claims above fail. The intensity concept ignores the much brighter-lit buildings visible to the southwest from Palp's office.

The buildings in the far background aren't darker than the ones in the foreground.

"Far background" of what, and why should they be? "Make a clearer argumentation. I'm not supposed to compensate for your utter lack of clarity."

Disruption by other lighting is, frankly, just laughable ("black light" is just a phrase, not a technically-accurate descriptor).

The meaning of disruption is simple. More intense light sources are going to mask the dimmer colouration by distant rays redirected by the clouds.

Wow.

You just claimed that, on a building which is darker than others, that we can't see the pink light on it like we can on the others because there's too much light on it. I mean it'd make sense if you said you couldn't see a flashlight beam on the ground in broad daylight, but you're saying we can't see a flashlight beam on the ground in broad daylight when it's dark outside.

ST-v-SW Chief say that not language barrier. That problem in brain.

And not catching sunlight is silly . . . it's pre-dawn, and we're talking about light-scatter anyway, but photons . . . direct or refracted . . . are not going to come to a dead stop in mid-sky. It's silly to argue otherwise, and that's precisely what you're arguing with all your messages.

It's not silly. Only the atmosphere and clouds caught in the direct path of rays (refracted or not) are going to light up so evidently.

Congratulations. You just described light. You described the direct path of rays irrespective of a direct origin from the light source, thus you described all light everywhere, whether straight from the sun or bounced off a cloud.

And yet you claim it is not silly to argue that photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky.

This must be why you don't think the bright cloud-refraction twilight will light the entire ground (i.e. outside Palp's window and outside the Senate) . . . just the parts convenient for you.

Not to say that anyway, all pictures do show facades to have red hues in their colouration, to various degrees.

Just because the R in RGB is non-zero doesn't mean a building has a red hue.

Yes, you can even pick the night shot of the senate, and you'll see that on the building on the right.

One building, obviously self-illuminated (since none of its comrades demonstrate anything even remotely similar, irrespective of altitude), with a bright but sickly lavender color.

Compare to the multiple buildings showing pink-lit eastern faces as visible from Palpatine's office, and the general brighter color of all the visible buildings.

In effect (ignoring red vs. green), you're trying to equate these two views:





Does that look like the same time of day to you? Clearly it must, given the pattern of your argumentation on here.

We can notice that the senate's dome is covered with reflective tiles. By virtue of light angles, they act more like mirrors,

I realize turnabout is considered fair play, but your attempt to use the window reflection argument against me is absurd on its face. Not only is it evidence that you're tied up in a snit, but more importantly it is a ridiculous argument.

At best the Senate dome has the properties of a brushed/hammered/etc. metal . . . refractive, not reflective. Were it reflective like a mirror (say, like a polished metal) then we would see a lot more detail, such as flying vehicles and so on, reflected off the dome. We do not.

I didn't claim it was a perfect mirror surface.
Your point doesn't even adress the simple fact that from the camera's position, the dome could not reflect the brightest pink hues which exist above the horizon.

But what you don't seem to comprehend is that it doesn't have to reflect them. The problem is that even on the facing parts of the building hidden from moonlight, there's virtually no incident light at all, and certainly none of the proper shade.

As far as we're concerned, up in the sky, on the right of the picture, is dark blue/purple clouds. So not much pink tint to show there.

Thank you for noticing what's been on my page for a long time.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't use the senate's dome as a proof of a lack of noticeable pink clouds, as bright as the ones seen from Palpatine's office.

1. Where the hell did the dome come from regarding that? Changing subjects much?

2. ST-v-SW Chief angry, says you no put words in his mouth no more. You no understandum his words to begin with, so you not qualified to make them up.

Considering that the senate session occurs at that time, and that we know that sunset officially looks like this, we know that both scenes occur within the same time range, and occur at dawn.

Did you just treat a picture of a single sunset as a rigid and inviolable view of what sunset must look like, thereby concluding that all sun-at-or-near-horizon events that are similar but not exactly the same must be sunrises?

Holy shit!

*sigh*
I just used a picture to point out where sun... sets.

No you didn't. You were comparing the look of the two events, not the sun's location. If you'd been comparing locations you'd have used the RotS late-afternoon scene here:



But you didn't, because you weren't trying to talk about location. That's just the excuse you came up with after realizing how stupid the thing you did I pointed out was.

ST-v-SW Chief call BS.

So we're back at the claim that it's either the same dawn, or two different dawns, and that part was already adressed in ample terms, notably with the tinted window argument, which I see you didn't pick up, rather having fun with pompous monologues and providing no counter evidence.

A stupid, stupid lie. See the "final-final word" post.

Oh no, a very good one.

Did you just say your lie was very good and not stupid? ROFL!

So here's my evidence:

My "final-final word" post already has the pics together. Your attempt to brighten one to make it fit your conclusions is dishonest.

Way to miss the point I suppose. I brightened only one section. The upper one.

I know! Hence my saying "your attempt to brighten one". Dammit man, don't make it so easy for me to make fun of your utter lack of reading comprehension!

It simply shows that to obtain the same lighting intensity from the windows, you need to compensate for the dark filter. Hence, the corridor's windows being tinted.

No, it shows that if you dick around with pictures selectively enough, you can then use that as part of a BS claim.

As simple as that.

Yep.

I note you also ignore the gradient issue.

Make yourself clearer.

"Further, and perhaps most importantly, the gradient from left to right is much, much greater in the Senate shot, starting from a less-bright pink/purple and quickly dropping to the point where the right-hand big building almost blends in, unlike its appearance in the Palpatine office shots."

It doesn't get much clearer. Learn to read. Look up words as needed. Gather meaning from context. Don't forget grammar.

Ooooooh, indeed, you appear to have used the right side near the right-hand building as your guide, thereby bypassing the issue, while simultaneously using a shot with different zoom level on the background buildings.

Dishonesty, thy name is Oragahn.

Tamper.

Yes, attempting to tamper with evidence dishonestly is precisely what I'm referring to.

The zoom has no incidence on the building I used for comparison, since it's of the same size in both shots, corridor or office.

Apparent building size has nothing to do with it. We (and by "we" I mean myself and everyone who can read) are reviewing the fact that you attempted to use different fields of vision in making your BS claims. You can't compare 10 degrees of sky to 60 degrees of sky, for instance, and hope to get a good reaction.

I do not think you're helping yourself. Your insults and trantrums don't impress me.

I couldn't care less whether or not I impress you. I owe you nothing. Your dishonest and ignorant tactics cause you to embarrass yourself thoroughly and yet you plod on, digging that hole ever deeper.

Now, as we can see, you, of course, take the most blurred image for the office shot, instead of that one, which of course has an effect on the luminosity of the windows.

I showed both the in-focus and out-of-focus views. You are a liar to suggest otherwise.

I don't know why on Kane's picture, the colours appear brighter, but gloabally, it seems his pictures are all brighter, so I supposed it's up to his version of the DVD or DVD player, and the result of you taking pictures on some downloaded version.

Haha . . . this was cute, trying to cast doubt on my source material. But back to the point of reading comprehension and my complaint that you two had not actually read my page, let's consider what shows up on the page:

"However, I'm now able to employ a rather more rigorous method for estimating the travel time. (Have I mentioned that I love my new DVD player?)"

Huh . . . it's almost enough to make you think that, oh, gee, maybe I got those off the DVD. "But waaaah, they're small!" you say? Well, back when the page was made, they would not have been considered so.

The odds are, assuming Kane did not modify his screencaps in a dishonest fashion, that he was using a program like PowerDVD, in which screencap color and brightness balances differ depending on the settings you're using to watch the movie.

That said, using your own material...




... we see that the luminosity reduction happens there as well.

There's almost no left-to-right gradient in the office shot. However, in the Windu Windo scene, there is an obvious difference between what is right behind Windu's head and the sky as seen on the right.

You are wrong, and rather obviously so.

Plu-eez. Spare the supergenius riff.

Who's a super-genius? One clearly need not be a super-genius to be smarter than you.

So are we done yet? I mean, your argument's done, but are you gonna keep talking?

ST-v-SW Chief not amused.

[2046]

Just adding one more thing.

Using your former "proof":

No, just a pic that would hopefully show you what sunsets look like, since you clearly don't get outside much. But in looking at it now it appears (judging from a road on the right) that the shutter was left open for a bit, so this isn't a "pure" shot.

http://www.regionalrecycling.ca/photos/ ... ames-2.jpg

See how, despite the rather more intense ambient lighting, the concrete sides of the buildings get very lightly coloured by the offscreen pink horizon

What offscreen pink horizon? Did you just make up an offscreen pink horizon to try to justify your Senate BS?

yet we can see, thanks to the windows of that building near the right side of the bridge, how the clouds over there are particularily more luminous than those in AOTC.

In one spot, yep. And we can see that the twilight is quite visible on the assorted domes to the right even with the darker sky behind them, and how the building faces are lit . . . even the boats in the little midtown marina there.

Hell, one of the tallest buildings, in the middle of the picture, suggests that there's a very strong lightsource over the unseen horizon, as one of its glassy sides turns to a very clear pink.

Holy crap, are you talking about the building with two bright-red S's on it, or the one with other red neon-looking light (letters?) shining out of it?

You can see them both again here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ight_2.jpg

Jeez, man.

Why should the buildings on Coruscant be turning even more pink saumon while the light sources are even less intense?
There's no reason for that.

You have no comprehension of what you're arguing about.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Similarly, though I remembered this was not our first engagement, it dawns on me that this is the second time we've gotten into a knock-down drag-out over a cityscape, light angles, and atmospheric effects. You've previously demonstrated an inability to understand such things, not to mention your habit of making vague and ill-supported arguments thereon, so I guess this whole thing shouldn't be surprising. Curiously, this is also the second time you've allied with Kane Starkiller against me in a coordinated attack.
In the future, you should avoid any attempt to analyze anything involving light angles, cities, and (just to be safe) geography and atmospheres. You should also not listen to Kane on such matters, for it is the blind leading the blind.

So you need to rely on another issue now...
The other topic pretty much showed that the shadows and even building sizes were all messed up, which put a blow to your page. You never understood that.
I also admire how you waste time typing an awful prose I couldn't care less, instead of using this energy to make a clear strong argument.
Failing on many points, you can't do anything else but get on your high horses and use ad hominems repeatedly.
So I'm going to cut through the pointless gibberish, and get to your claims.

What about "Darkstar's conclusion is correct, so I should stop trying to find pitiable excuses for mine?"

All your claims above fail. The intensity concept ignores the much brighter-lit buildings visible to the southwest from Palp's office.

The buildings in the far background aren't darker than the ones in the foreground.

"Far background" of what, and why should they be? "Make a clearer argumentation. I'm not supposed to compensate for your utter lack of clarity."

It was nothing more than an attempt at trying to understand what your few words were supposed to mean, as you were not bothered enough to make your point clearer.
Sometimes just one sentence comprising of a few words isn't enough to convey your thoughts, and I'm not supposed to read your mind.
So either you start debating properly, or you drop the issue.

The building seen from Palp's office aren't particularily receiving much sun rays at all, safe for those which have spotlights casting light upon them, be it pink, yellow, purple of blue.

Disruption by other lighting is, frankly, just laughable ("black light" is just a phrase, not a technically-accurate descriptor).

The meaning of disruption is simple. More intense light sources are going to mask the dimmer colouration by distant rays redirected by the clouds.

Wow.

You just claimed that, on a building which is darker than others, that we can't see the pink light on it like we can on the others because there's too much light on it. I mean it'd make sense if you said you couldn't see a flashlight beam on the ground in broad daylight, but you're saying we can't see a flashlight beam on the ground in broad daylight when it's dark outside.

ST-v-SW Chief say that not language barrier. That problem in brain.

No, that is not what I'm saying, but if you'd pay more attention to the words, and less time trying to come with bad humour as wrapping yourself in prestigious offense, you would have understood that I was talking about various intensities.
To different degrees, the reason why the buildings, illuminated by street lights, spotlights and other things, don't show enough of the pink reflection is for the same reason that you don't see much of the light from a torch in day.
It doesn't mean there's no pink, it just means it's overwhelmed by the more intense light coming from other artificial light sources.

And not catching sunlight is silly . . . it's pre-dawn, and we're talking about light-scatter anyway, but photons . . . direct or refracted . . . are not going to come to a dead stop in mid-sky. It's silly to argue otherwise, and that's precisely what you're arguing with all your messages.

It's not silly. Only the atmosphere and clouds caught in the direct path of rays (refracted or not) are going to light up so evidently.

Congratulations. You just described light. You described the direct path of rays irrespective of a direct origin from the light source, thus you described all light everywhere, whether straight from the sun or bounced off a cloud.

And yet you claim it is not silly to argue that photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky.

This must be why you don't think the bright cloud-refraction twilight will light the entire ground (i.e. outside Palp's window and outside the Senate) . . . just the parts convenient for you.

I never claimed that "photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky".
You're building strawmen on and on, and it is tiring to have to get behind you to correct what you didn't get.
The point is simple. The amount of light a cloud high in the sky gets, a building on the ground will never get it.
That's the point of the big scenery picture I posted (which you presented earlier on) which simply shows that even an intense light source (bright clouds) in the sky won't illuminate the buildings to the extents you need for your argument to still hold.

Not to say that anyway, all pictures do show facades to have red hues in their colouration, to various degrees.

Just because the R in RGB is non-zero doesn't mean a building has a red hue.

If R is sufficiently superior to one of the other values, you'll get a red hue. Which is the case in the senate night shot.

In this case, due to the time, the hue turns to purple, because of a good amount of blue as well. My mistake in saying red hue, it's more a mix of red and purple.

Truth is, safe for the few dim clouds, most of the sky seen from Palpatine's office is dominated by a purple hue in fact, with blue values mainly surpassing red values.
It is not a wonder, then, that the building would mostly reflect purple hues.

Yes, you can even pick the night shot of the senate, and you'll see that on the building on the right.

One building, obviously self-illuminated (since none of its comrades demonstrate anything even remotely similar, irrespective of altitude), with a bright but sickly lavender color.

Compare to the multiple buildings showing pink-lit eastern faces as visible from Palpatine's office, and the general brighter color of all the visible buildings.

It's wrong for several reasons:

1. Check this picture. It's during the meeting. As we can see, the buildings are dark, and little no none even has its "eastern" side reflect pink light. Notice that due to the office's window curvature, some of these buildings, notably the one with the purple lightspots, behind the creature's right eye, has its facade actually well orientated to receive a good amount of pink light.
Yet, its facade remains very dark. Just like the others, which for some of them have rounded surfaces (we clearly see that in the day shots from this same office).

2. Interesting, that is, that the picture in question, in point 1, is very similar to the right section of the external night shot. Indeed, in both ensembles, buildings are very dark, show almost no pink edge, and the sky is a dark purple. Oh, the pain, it must mean that the time, outside of the office, is split over two days and caught in a time paradox!

2. The senate shot doesn't offer enough buildings to look at.

3. The buildings which can be studied are far in the background, and the background in question is blurred, which means pixel colouration overloaps, and there can't be noticeable clear edges.

4. In the office shots, only the edges strictly facing the most intense light source, do reflect pink light. Which means that a few degrees off and you wouldn't catch any lighting at all, which pretty much explains why we don't see much on the external night shot.

In effect (ignoring red vs. green), you're trying to equate these two views:





Does that look like the same time of day to you? Clearly it must, given the pattern of your argumentation on here.

Not really, but well, nevermind.
It's amsuing seeing someone use visual evidence to make a point, when said evidence is actually pretty much useful for the opposite side; in this case, me.
It helps me to show how you pick examples which show a much greater difference of lighting between two times, and shows how you fancy coating your mistake with a good spoon of strawman icing.

I didn't claim it was a perfect mirror surface.
Your point doesn't even adress the simple fact that from the camera's position, the dome could not reflect the brightest pink hues which exist above the horizon.

But what you don't seem to comprehend is that it doesn't have to reflect them. The problem is that even on the facing parts of the building hidden from moonlight, there's virtually no incident light at all, and certainly none of the proper shade.

You claim that the sun rises from a given point. You also point out that the purple hue we see in the night shot is only the rim of the coloured horizon.

Which means that by your own words, there is a good amount of pink hues we can't see, because it's offscreen, on the left.

And yet, none of that is seen on the senate's dome, for a simple, reason, being that very little of said dome directly faces the pink horizon, and very few tiles of that dome are adequatedly orientated to reflect the pink hues towards the camera.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't use the senate's dome as a proof of a lack of noticeable pink clouds, as bright as the ones seen from Palpatine's office.

1. Where the hell did the dome come from regarding that? Changing subjects much?

No, just showing that some buildings will simply not reflect much of the that pink light coming from the horizon, to debunk your claims that it's darker outside than it was during the office shots.

*sigh*
I just used a picture to point out where sun... sets.

No you didn't. You were comparing the look of the two events, not the sun's location. If you'd been comparing locations you'd have used the RotS late-afternoon scene here:



But you didn't, because you weren't trying to talk about location. That's just the excuse you came up with after realizing how stupid the thing you did I pointed out was.

ST-v-SW Chief call BS.

*sigh* (bis)
I repeat it, for you: I used the picture just to show where the sun sets, as a part of the argumentation to know where the sun is also ought to rise, and thus where the highest concentration of dawn pink light would come from.

A stupid, stupid lie. See the "final-final word" post.

Oh no, a very good one.

Did you just say your lie was very good and not stupid? ROFL!

Generally, people using ROFLz and LOLz don't rate high in my book.
As you missed it, I bolded the part which the "very good one" refered to.

My "final-final word" post already has the pics together. Your attempt to brighten one to make it fit your conclusions is dishonest.

Way to miss the point I suppose. I brightened only one section. The upper one.

I know! Hence my saying "your attempt to brighten one". Dammit man, don't make it so easy for me to make fun of your utter lack of reading comprehension!

Ah, so you basically had no point to make and just whined because I openly pointed out that I fiddled with lighting to provide evidence for my tinted window claim, and certainly not tried to deceive people.
So not only you're wasting your time, but you were wasting mine, as you had nothing better to say.
Good job.

Now, you still can try to adress my argument, instead of building up pointless red herrings.
It's not like it's particularily new either. I've presented it more than three pages ago.

It simply shows that to obtain the same lighting intensity from the windows, you need to compensate for the dark filter. Hence, the corridor's windows being tinted.

No, it shows that if you dick around with pictures selectively enough, you can then use that as part of a BS claim.

No, it just shows that you don't understand it.

First, as I said, but you conveniently back handed that, if you were right about how it's even sooner in dawn during that corridor shot, by the sheer virtue of having less ambient light, the windows and spotlights would stick out more, not less.
Unfortunately for you, they don't stick out more.

Secondly, simply showing that adjusting the lighting to obtain roughly the same luminosity for the windows, we realize that the sky outside is clearer than previously thought via superficial observation.
Of course, I also point out on my comparison picture, that I didn't lighten the building (seen through the corridor's window) enough to match its characteristics as seen through the office's window. Which means that there's a margin to get even a slightly brighter sky outside.
Which would precisely show that Windu joined Yoda shortly after the office meeting, during the same dawn.

The thing is, since a filter has been applied, it is possible that it's not just a dark filter, but a slightly coloured one, and that certain colours could be forever lost, so even fiddling with lighting would only show that there's a dark filter on the corridor windows, but it wouldn't recreate the original true external brightness, nor the exact colour.
That said, it nixes the idea that it's darker outside than it was during the office shot.

"Further, and perhaps most importantly, the gradient from left to right is much, much greater in the Senate shot, starting from a less-bright pink/purple and quickly dropping to the point where the right-hand big building almost blends in, unlike its appearance in the Palpatine office shots."

It doesn't get much clearer. Learn to read. Look up words as needed. Gather meaning from context. Don't forget grammar.

It would have been quickier to simply quote your website the first time. It was just one single line, you knew what you were refering to, I didn't (remember, I can't read your mind), so it would have been, again, simpler if you provided a clear answer instead of messing around.

So, on the argument itself, what does it say, exactly?

I think I've adressed it in this post, a bit earlier on.
But let's look at it in detail, working from the picture below:



There's no difference with the office shot.

Office:



We see the far left side of the background.



We see the far right side of the background.

We can clearly see that though both backgrounds (office shots vs. senate shot) don't point to the same zone (the office shots's background is clearly closer to the pinker regions of the sky than the senate shot's background is), the gradient is present in both, and the dropping happens in both with the sams quality.

The zoom has no incidence on the building I used for comparison, since it's of the same size in both shots, corridor or office.

Apparent building size has nothing to do with it. We (and by "we" I mean myself and everyone who can read) are reviewing the fact that you attempted to use different fields of vision in making your BS claims. You can't compare 10 degrees of sky to 60 degrees of sky, for instance, and hope to get a good reaction.

Hello? I used two shots were the building in question is of the same dimensions.
The two pictures I use are even placed one above the other, and we can clearly see that the proportions and width are roughly the same.
The one making BS here is you.
The arguments you use to dismiss the information are poor.

I do not think you're helping yourself. Your insults and trantrums don't impress me.

I couldn't care less whether or not I impress you. I owe you nothing. Your dishonest and ignorant tactics cause you to embarrass yourself thoroughly and yet you plod on, digging that hole ever deeper.

I do not care, you're violating board rules and making your claims all the more silly.

Now, as we can see, you, of course, take the most blurred image for the office shot, instead of that one, which of course has an effect on the luminosity of the windows.

I showed both the in-focus and out-of-focus views. You are a liar to suggest otherwise.

No. The section I quote precisely has you using the blurred shot from the office against the corridor shot. You may have presented the other office shot earlier on, but you cleverly left it out here.

You posted all images in another post, which I wasn't replying to, that went in between your last reply and my post. I simply didn't even notice you posted an extra bit at that moment.

Now reading it, it's very sad that even with the pictures right under your nose, you claim with a straight face, that "[the] window brightnesses are, if not equal, then quite close", when it's clearly not the case.
Proof being that I had to fiddle with lighting to actually make the corridor shot provide a similar window luminosity as the one in the office shot.

So basically, you have nothing more than a glaring lie and being in denial against the very proof of objective tools.

I don't know why on Kane's picture, the colours appear brighter, but gloabally, it seems his pictures are all brighter, so I supposed it's up to his version of the DVD or DVD player, and the result of you taking pictures on some downloaded version.

Haha . . . this was cute, trying to cast doubt on my source material.

No. Stop being on the defensive, it's ludicrous.
I was just saying that his batch of pics were globally brighter than yours.
Which, like it or not, does affect the observation, especially as we're nitpicking on pixel colouration.

But back to the point of reading comprehension and my complaint that you two had not actually read my page, let's consider what shows up on the page:

"However, I'm now able to employ a rather more rigorous method for estimating the travel time. (Have I mentioned that I love my new DVD player?)"

Huh . . . it's almost enough to make you think that, oh, gee, maybe I got those off the DVD. "But waaaah, they're small!" you say? Well, back when the page was made, they would not have been considered so.

The odds are, assuming Kane did not modify his screencaps in a dishonest fashion, that he was using a program like PowerDVD, in which screencap color and brightness balances differ depending on the settings you're using to watch the movie.

Your antics aside, then it means he has different parameters. As simple as that. No need to hyperventilate.

That said, using your own material...




... we see that the luminosity reduction happens there as well.

There's almost no left-to-right gradient in the office shot. However, in the Windu Windo scene, there is an obvious difference between what is right behind Windu's head and the sky as seen on the right.

You are wrong, and rather obviously so.

No, the gradient is adressed and shows you wrong.
But above all, I was not speaking of the gradient, but the windows' luminosity, which is precisely why, of the surprise, I compared the same building on two different shots.
Way to miss the point, again.

Just adding one more thing.

Using your former "proof":

No, just a pic that would hopefully show you what sunsets look like, since you clearly don't get outside much.

I know what sunsets look like very much, thank you.

But in looking at it now it appears (judging from a road on the right) that the shutter was left open for a bit, so this isn't a "pure" shot.

15 frames for the info.
It won't make a difference, safe, in fact, maybe enhance a little bit the luminosity of the shot (which would just support my point even more).

http://www.regionalrecycling.ca/photos/ ... ames-2.jpg

See how, despite the rather more intense ambient lighting, the concrete sides of the buildings get very lightly coloured by the offscreen pink horizon

What offscreen pink horizon? Did you just make up an offscreen pink horizon to try to justify your Senate BS?

... if you actually bothered reading what follows, and looked at the picture, you'd notice which bright horizon I'm speaking of. We see it reflecting on some of the transparent windows, and as we can see, it's particularily luminous, contrary to our AOTC context, yet the buildings don't light up that much.

So it comes as logical that in even tamer ambient lighting conditions, the buildings would barely get illuminated by the distant pink clouds and horizon of Coruscant, at that time.

Let's look at that bright horizon with a selection of appropriate building facades:



Way brighter than anything we can notice on the AOTC shots, yet those real life buildings aren't that much illuminated. Reduce the intensity of the distant light source, and you'll equally reduce the building illumination.
Which will, oh teh shock, bring us to the AOTC context for both senate and office shots.

yet we can see, thanks to the windows of that building near the right side of the bridge, how the clouds over there are particularily more luminous than those in AOTC.

In one spot, yep. And we can see that the twilight is quite visible on the assorted domes to the right even with the darker sky behind them, and how the building faces are lit . . . even the boats in the little midtown marina there.

The point is that despite the rather very clear intensity of the distant light source, the buildings don't lit up that much.

Most interesting, while talking domes, is noticing that despite the light source is clearly on the far left, and is only reflected by windows which are 40-45° from a perpendicular plane to the camera, the right side of all domes on that picture displays no gradient colouration.

Even the snowy white peaks right up there, which would catch more light than the buildings on the ground, don't turn to super pink that much, despite, again, the intensity of the distant light source.

Apply this to the senate shot, and we see that there's no reason to claim that the senate shot occurs earlier in dawn than the office shots, just because we couldn't see much pink (which is not entirely true, as seen earlier) on distant dwarfed and blurred buildings.

Hell, one of the tallest buildings, in the middle of the picture, suggests that there's a very strong lightsource over the unseen horizon, as one of its glassy sides turns to a very clear pink.

Holy crap, are you talking about the building with two bright-red S's on it, or the one with other red neon-looking light (letters?) shining out of it?

You can see them both again here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ight_2.jpg

Jeez, man.

Jeez, indeed. I said middle of the picture. Not off to the right.

Why should the buildings on Coruscant be turning even more pink saumon while the light sources are even less intense?
There's no reason for that.

You have no comprehension of what you're arguing about.

Oh yeah, that's such a compelling argument. Try harder.

Again, since you didn't formulate any correct debunking to this:

[2046]

Dear Oragahn,

I am done with you, because, after this thread and having re-read the other, I cannot escape the opinion that you make SDN'ers look like paragons of virtue and reason.

Examples:

A. The Gradient Issue

Background: Comparison of equivalent shots of the out-the-Senate-window view and the Palpatine office view make it clear that the Senate scene sky suffers from a much higher color and luminosity gradient . . . i.e. that the sky isn't as bright where the sun's coming up. Ergo, it is earlier on a separate sunrise event.




1. When you tried to use images where the background did not match up as evidence for your cause, I called you on it, noting that you were using a zoomed piece of sky instead of an equal portion. Yet you claim that my complaint about your picture-mixing was based on irrelevant building proportions, instead of field-of-view, despite having already been corrected on this point.

2. When finally forced to acknowledge the gradient issue, you again engage in field-of-view hucksterism. Whereas before you were trying to compare the Senate's ~20 degree field of view with another picture showing ~40, now you're attempting to equate a ~120 degree field of view with the existing ~20, and claiming there's "no difference".

B. The Tinted Window Assumption

Background: You claim that the Senate walkway windows must be tinted for brightness and color, and that if untinted they would show the same sunrise. (Of course this ignores the gradient issue, et al., but whatever.) As evidence you point to our view of the windows of other buildings, assuming that the light coming out of them must be of equal brightness.





1. You have complained about the fact that the two separate shots from Palpatine's office featuring a slightly different focus level on the background result in different window brightnesses on the same building. However, you fail to apply this reasoning to the Senate scene, instead assuming that the focus level must be perfectly equal to the image showing the brightest windows. For this you provide no evidence, instead simply showing modified images.

However, you once again employ the focus level argument in regards to the Senate night shot when it hurts your view. Why the selective approach? The answer is obvious.

2. When shown all three images (as above, since I quoted them) in response to your mention of the tinted window claim, you instead chose to quote only the use of two images (as in (A) above) which were specifically regarding the gradient issue, claim I was using them regarding the tinted windows, and from this anti-contextual basis you claimed that I had been dishonest.

On that basis I correctly called you a liar in my reply, having been forced to that point by your frequent and repeated dishonesty in the thread. Yet in your response you claim to have quoted me "precisely", claiming I "cleverly" hid the other image to engage in my "glaring lie". Yet even in your own "precise" quotation my context is obvious to anyone.

C. The Senate by Moonlight

Background: In the establishing shot of the Senate, we are clearly able to see that we are dealing with a moonlit night. Only a hint of purple on the clouds on the right, which I noted circa 2003, gives us the suggestion that dawn may be approaching. (This suggestion is picked up on by the interior shots, which show that there's more than a hint in other directions.)



1. You consistently ignore the fact that despite the twilight illumination of buildings even toward the west of Palpatine's office (as visible in the southwest view), the Senate and surrounding buildings are comparatively dark. Your continuing excuse for this . . . one of many utterly astonishing claims you've made . . . is that the twilight illumination cannot be seen due to brighter light sources washing out the pink glow. This you maintain despite the aforementioned fact that the buildings are darker.

2. You consistently ignore the fact that the Senate exterior view is lit only by moonlight and ground-level sources, whereas we can see from Palpatine's office that the ground in that scene is lit in the pinkish-purple hues of twilight, as occurs on the ground here on Earth. Presumably the moonlight represents one of your brighter light sources . . . but what, then, of the dark ground?

3. Despite your claim (regarding office scene building illumination only) that numerous Coruscanti buildings are self-illuminated with floodlights or other light sources illuminating their facades, you have pointed to a lone structure in the moonlight that has a lavender glow, ignoring the fact that all the other buildings are rather dark, and you have therefore claimed that a bright dawn equivalent to what is seen outside Palpatine's office exists.

This is putting the cart before the horse. If anything, you should look to night shots as a determinant of how many buildings feature such self-illumination, and then apply that data to the twilight scenes. Were you to do so, however, you would know your point is flawed, which is why you avoid it.

D. Palpatine's Office

Background: While some of this has been covered already, the simple fact is that out of Palpatine's office we see a pre-dawn twilight sky, with clouds and buildings and even ground lit in keeping with what one would expect based on Earth dawns.

1. As noted elsewhere, you ignore most of the twilight lighting of buildings, since this is devastating to your attempt to equate the two dawns. Specifically, though, you ignore the buildings lit by twilight to the southwest, which universally show more incident lighting than their Senate-exterior counterparts. You even claim that the building "behind the creature's right eye" is "very dark" on its walls, which is obviously false.

2. You also choose to ignore the fact that approximately one-third of the sky is brightened in the pre-dawn, excepting of course to try to use that fact in the aforementioned field-of-view hucksterism.

E. Errata

Background: You've made a number of just plain damn peculiar claims in this thread.

1. For instance, regarding the Empire State Building pictures . . . one in which the building walls are dark along with the sky, and another in which the walls are showing the rosy tint of the sun just below the horizon . . . you claim that the pictures actually help you, because they are more "extreme" than the Coruscant scenes.

Yes they are more extreme, but only slightly. It's a dark night versus moonlit, and a twilight sky probably less than an hour off from the office view. However, the principle remains, and it is irrational to complain about it.

2. You claim it is not silly to have argued that photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky, yet simultaneously you claim that you don't argue that. Yet obviously you do, given your bright-sky-one-way dark-sky-the-other-way claims, not to mention your self-defense of having made that argument when I called it silly.

3. Regarding the Vancouver panorama you claim there is a pink glow somewhere offscreen, a claim for which you provide no worthwhile evidence. You also choose to ignore the fact that the buildings are illuminated in the twilight conditions, instead claiming that they are insufficiently illuminated when compared to your illusory pink glow somewhere offscreen. And then you audaciously attempt to appropriate the gradient argument, strangely trying to apply it to domed structures in Vancouver where there is no cause for gradients to exist, except in your pink glow fantasy.

This fantasizing about pink glows is your sole challenge to the picture, a picture you needn't have challenged in the first place given that it was merely a demonstration of what twilight looks like, since you apparently don't know what the outside world is like.

4. You keep trying to suggest that I view myself as some sort of supergenius. This is entirely silly. While I am far better at this topic and logic in general than you, it does not require triple-digit IQ to achieve that. Only your own misbegotten arrogance would assume so.

5. You have a very poor grasp of English, which is not a good idea when you intend to challenge native speakers on an English-speaking board. You have frequently and repeatedly failed to understand simple phrasings, failed miserably at more complex ones, and generally presented yourself as full of nonsense. Given that your correctly-expressed thoughts have also been full of nonsense, the addition of incorrectly-expressed ones is all the more terrible.

Where I have become angry and presumed you to be dishonest based on mere misunderstandings on your part, I apologize. However, given the frequency of the events, you really ought to try to do better. Perhaps you could find someone with superior English skills to serve as a proofreader, or at least engage in conversations with them to get your skills in order.

F. Conclusions

There is much more to go into . . . long as it is, the above constitutes merely a short overview of your follies.

Shortening still further, the simple fact is that you are trying to ignore obvious and basic facts which are clear to anyone who has been outside in their lives in order to support your preferred conclusion. It's not like we're discussing quantum physics or subspace dynamics or interplanetary economic structures in the early Republic era . . . it's a fucking sunrise, and you just don't get it.

As noted previously, you have a deep and seemingly unrecoverable problem with issues of spatial orientation, light angles, buildings, atmosphere, and so on, and though I've tried to figure out where the flaws in your thinking come from (i.e. looking at too much bad CGI, thinking planets are much smaller than they are, not recognizing the depth of the atmosphere, et cetera), the simple fact is that the flaws are too numerous and interrelated . . . and their presentation too annoying . . . for me to untangle.

It is clear that you refuse to be educated further . . . nor is it my job to try. You are invested and entrenched in your ignorance, and willing to use a great deal of intellectual and direct dishonesty to maintain it.

Perhaps the most annoying thing is that I've allowed you to waste a great deal of my time. This was my error . . . a hope that you would, literally and figuratively, see the light. However, hopefully someone who might've initially been snookered by your attempts to mislead and obfuscate has come to realize how full of shit your argument has been.

But of course, had they simply read my page to begin with, without a liar trying to mislead them about it in the first place, such would not have been necessary.

In your inevitable response, you will undoubtedly engage in further attempts to mislead, not to mention continuing your attempts to misrepresent my self-opinion. Though pitiful, such dishonesties are par for the course for a natural-fit-SDN'er like yourself.

[Narsil]

Dear Oragahn,

I am done with you, because, after this thread and having re-read the other, I cannot escape the opinion that you make SDN'ers look like paragons of virtue and reason.

And yet again, Darkstar alienates the people who are usually on his side and refuses to bow down when he has been soundly defeated. You seem to think that all people who debate even remotely in a pro-Wars fashion are all in some big wide conspiracy that happens to centre around SDN. You also seem to be unable to make any reference to anything without dragging the board of SDN into it. In fact, that seems to be your biggest buzzword; 'SDN! SDN!' You're like a small child who's discovered a naughty word and wants to use it as much as possible before being scolded by your parents.

Mr. Oragahn is a pretty damn staunch pro-Trek debater as far as I know, but since he isn't so rabid as to have every single conceivable (and incorrect) point be against Star Wars, he gets to enjoy the wonders of being insulted by an idiot like yourself.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

You're unhealthily obsessed, get some help.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Dear Oragahn,

I am done with you, because, after this thread and having re-read the other, I cannot escape the opinion that you make SDN'ers look like paragons of virtue and reason.

And yet again, Darkstar alienates the people who are usually on his side and refuses to bow down when he has been soundly defeated. You seem to think that all people who debate even remotely in a pro-Wars fashion are all in some big wide conspiracy that happens to centre around SDN. You also seem to be unable to make any reference to anything without dragging the board of SDN into it. In fact, that seems to be your biggest buzzword; 'SDN! SDN!' You're like a small child who's discovered a naughty word and wants to use it as much as possible before being scolded by your parents.

Mr. Oragahn is a pretty damn staunch pro-Trek debater as far as I know, but since he isn't so rabid as to have every single conceivable (and incorrect) point be against Star Wars, he gets to enjoy the wonders of being insulted by an idiot like yourself.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

You're unhealthily obsessed, get some help.

Dang! Do I have to sleep with God for people stop thinking I'm Pro-Trek?
I'd watch a SW series a thousand times over any Trek, even DS9. :)