Point: Someone pointed out that R2 flying was stupid and used physics to back it up.
Point: Jariten pointed out many other things, all from the OT, that also defy physics, but which are not attacked by prequel haters.
Conclusion: Jariten hoped that readers would remember that STAR WARS is FICTION, and that their complaints have no basis, since they don't complain about the first three films (or at least, not as much as they do about the PT). If you buy the one bit, he says, you buy the whole thing. That is Jariten's argument.
When you tell Jariten that STAR WARS is fiction, and then proceed to dive in at him with various arguments to show that he shouldn't be concerned about hover technology, then you're showing him that you didn't get that that was his point all along. You see, there is no sense in using a guy's argument against him; it's a pretty clear indicator that you didn't understand him.
Example:
Safety inspector: "This lampshade is tested to 200 degrees, so it should be ok."
Customer: "200 degrees? So what; this lamp only gets up to about 160, tops!"
Another good example would be all that stuff above about Ion Repulsion to prove to Jariten that STAR WARS is make believe.
All that stuff above about ion repulsion was not intended to prove to Jariten that Star Wars is make believe. It was intended to prove to Just another wretched fan that it was make believe.
So, again... I got Jariten's point, otherwise I wouldn't have broken it down to: Star Wars = make believe. I got Just another wretched fan's point as well... I just found it to be redundant. I don't care what kind of schooling in aeronautical engineering he's been through... Star Wars is still make believe.
Maybe Lucas should have put a disclaimer at the beginning of each film stating: This film is not proof that physics are non-existent "in a galaxy far, far away". This motion picture is fictional. Here at Lucasfilm, we realize there are laws of physics, which are applicable to everyday life here on Earth. However, since this film is classified as 'science fiction', there are some things "in a galaxy far, far away" that work on different principles, than they do in real life. If you accept this film as 'real life', you should be ashamed of yourself. What would your mother say?
Some things in Star Wars you can actually deem feasible. However, certain technologies, such as the 'lightsaber', 'repulsor-lift', and 'hyper-drives' are not. They are fictional technologies. There is no way to build an actual lightsaber in the manner in which they are portrayed in the films. You can make a 'laser sword', but the laser would be infinite, unless you discovered a way to regulate the length of the blade. Ion repulsion is still in the theoretical process. It is possible to ionize the particles in the atmosphere, but to produce ionized columns of air that are strong enough to provide 'lift' for a craft, is still a thing of the future. Hyper-drives don't exist. We don't know how they work, or we would have built one by now. NASA still has problems getting their shuttles off the ground. Light speed travel is in the distant future... if we ever invent such a technology. You can't accept the whole movie as a lesson in physics because it is fictional. There are small amounts of science in each film, but it is fictional, so you can't believe every little thing as either being possible, or impossible.
I agree with Jariten. It's all make believe. I wasn't arguing against his point. Please... if you're going to read my post at all, read it thoroughly. I did mention something about "aeronautical engineering school not teaching the laws of physics behind ion repulsion". Unless Jariten made an arguement based on having aeronautical engineering schooling, I wasn't arguing against his point.