2006-02-12

Moderation and Extremism

Opponents from StarDestroyer.Net generally try to color ST-v-SW.net as the location for extremist "OMG Evil Tr3kkieZ!!!!1" arguments. While I freely admit that I stand against the attempts of a small group of fanboys to inflate Star Wars tech with the stated goal of "mak[ing] it a better comparison to Trek" tech, the fact remains that ST-v-SW.Net is a moderate site.

Let's take a moment to ponder how ST-v-SW.Net would be if it were called, say, "GalaxyClassStarship.Net" and featured the same sort of shameless slant as ST-v-SW.Net's wannabe-competitor:

- Star Trek V's journey to the center of the galaxy? Oh, that'd be standard starship top speed in case of emergencies. Sure, we've seen ships seem to top out at lower speeds, but they were just having trouble or dialling down the velocity or whatever. It doesn't matter . . . any analysis of instances of lower speeds would be evil and wrong.
Warp Drive = 20,000,000c in Kirk's era
(SD.Net and its board denizens calc SW velocities by mixing up various non-canon sources to reach millions of c speeds. GCS.Net would at least use a single self-consistent example.)

- "Parallax"[VOY1]'s trip inside a black hole? Baseline hull resiliency calculation, here we come! And it wasn't just Voyager that should've been squished in there . . . a shuttle was inside it too. Sure, we've seen shuttles break when smacking into the ground, but that's different due to some flimsy excuse we'll come up with and all repeat like a mantra. God, don't you know anything?
Starship and Shuttle hulls = roxorz
Starship and Shuttle Acceleration = millions upon millions of g

(SD.Net and its board denizens calc SW ship hull resilience based on an example of the Falcon passing close to a neutron star in one of the books. Speaking of which, if GCS.Net used Trek books then we'd have multiple examples of starships entering black holes.)

- Star Trek III and Sulu's scanning of the planet's core with the tricorder? Baseline tricorder range.
Tricorder = "Sir, my tricorder detects Imperials!" "On which planet?"
(SD.Net and its board denizens calculate Imperial sensor tech off of various outlier EU data, ignoring things like TESB's "Is that a Millennium Falcon on your hull or are you just happy to see me?")

- "Obsession"[TOS] antimatter calcs? Standard for antimatter reactors. After all, the talk of a dilithium matrix actually may serve as the explanation for the extra juice the core puts out over and above what it probably should per real antimatter, not to mention the weird radiation the Malon dealt with in VOY.
Antimatter = about 28.6 million gigatons / gram, give or take
(SD.Net and its board denizens calculate SW reactor tech by way of making false assumptions about the Death Star and then scaling down. IIRC someone once pointed out that this should result in something like 1 gigaton hand weapons, but they drop it down a bit in practice. Isn't that nice of them?)

- "The Die is Cast"[DSN3] planetary attack calcs? Standard weapons yields. Sure we've seen 'em fire with less effect, but these are precision weapons.
Torpedoes = millions of megatons per shot, or better
(SD.Net and its board denizens calculate vessel firepower via the aforementioned false assumptions regarding the Death Star, and again scale downward. They've also taken some EU data and diddled with it until they could inflate it beyond the original EU statements. And, they explicitly ignore the movie yields in favor of comic book versions of weapons shots. I'm sure GCS.Net can jack up the Trek yields even further with effort.)

. . . and so on. Oh, yeah, and while we'd give the appearance of using evidence, we'd really just be trying to persuade readers by any means necessary that Trek could beat Wars, and wouldn't be afraid to say so every once in awhile.

Only then would GCS.Net be equal and opposite.

As it stands, I'm happy to keep ST-v-SW.Net straddling the proverbial fence.

187 comments:

  1. You know, the Rabid Warsies just don't like the fact that in a fair comparison, Star Trek technology is on the whole far superior to the Star Wars analogues. As obvious as that may be, I feel it needs saying still, as it can explain much about how they act the way they do. It's a childish way of reacting, but some people never grow up in some respects, and it seems that Mike Wong and his gang are some of those. Pity. They might actually be friends of yours otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GalaxyClassStarship.Net would rock!!!

    Hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You call your site moderate even though you claim that it took 23.5 gigatons to destroy Alderaan? Let's compare that number to TDiC. The highest numbers for TDiC are generated by assuming that planet's mantle would be destroyed in 5 hours and that destroyed means blown off. Since the mantle of an Earth like planet is 4*10^24kg in mass that would require the energy of 2.5*10^32J. If we took your "moderate" approach in which 10^38J of energy can be released by 23.5 gigatons then 2.5*10^32J can be released by imput of 59 kilotons. Since it would take 5 hours for 20 ships to do it then average power output of a single Cardassian/Romulan ship is 682.8 megawatts.
    Of course unlike "A New Hope" in which we clearly saw Alderaan being torn apart by the Death Star blast we saw nothing but dim brown clouds in "The Die is Cast".
    We have Death Star blowing up a planet with an energy input of over 10^38J and Dodonna saying that it carries the firepower greater than "half of Starfleet" meaning that Imperial starfleet actually has more firepower than Death Star. And it all happened in the very first Star Wars film back in 1977; no need for EU or "rabid Warsies" to exaggerate the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Except, of course, that Death Star energy input is nowhere near 10^38J :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course not, Alderaan blew up by itself as is the tendency of planets ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a tip dudes: try looking up the Superlaser Effect. I dunno about you guys, but I'm pretty damned convinced that's what the Death Star actually did. Unless you want to explain how a fusion reactor the power of--to use Darkstar's generous example--our sun could possibly take less than 8000 years to charge up the amount of power necessary in order to use DET. Oh, but wait. You guys don't listen to reason. My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Note that in ST, there are man-sized weapons which can detonate a STAR.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Indeed. Trek doesn't need a 120 kilometer battle station. We can just blow up the whole system.

    ...

    'Course Starfleet would never do that and the plans for the trilithium weapon were probably lost when Soran died...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Carpenter you are saying that Death Star is limited to nuclear fusion reactors yet it posesses this magical beam that can shoot 23.5 gigatons into a planet and create 10^38J explosion. So why don't they simply use that in their reactors? Shoot a 1 milliwatt "superlaser effect" beam into a 1m rock and you get 1000TW back.
    To say that you can destroy a planet with 23.5 gigatons is like saying you can turn on a 100W lightbulb 55km from a 100m asteroid and the resulting release of energy will "somehow" destroy it.
    Who is the one not listening to reson Mr.Carpenter?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Consider this: it's far easier to utilize a runaway power source for destruction than it is to stabilize it and use it for power generation. If you will allow me to quote directly from Darkstar's page on this effect: "I believe that what follows constitutes the best synthesis of the evidence. The short version would simply be this:

    The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain."

    So you see, it essentially causes a run-away mass-energy conversion that is quite happy to swallow up all available matter. Now, it seems to me that this would be incredibly hard to control, especially since it seems to require an enormous amount of power to get it into motion. I agree, if it were possible to control, it would be a wonderful power source. But it probably is not.

    Oh, and by the way. Next time you want to argue against Darkstar, I highly suggest you read all of his material before you try arguing against it. Follow these four basic rules before you respond to anything:
    1. Read the material completely.
    2. Understand what the author is trying to say. (Or prove as the case may be.)
    3. Understand the material itself.
    4. Then, and ONLY then can you pass judgement upon it and argue against it.

    Also, I suggest not parroting Mr. Wong in the future. Mr. Wong doesn't know what he's talking about and you only make yourself look like a fool by following in his footsteps.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, it is easier to use a stabilized reaction. The first controlled nuclear reaction was accomplished December 2, 1942 while first atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.
    Darkstars quote you provide explaines nothing. Hyperspace domain? What is that?
    And why wouldn't the superlaser effect be possible control if it existed(which of course it doesn't)? Once the material is spent the reaction stops. They could use a metal ball for example suspended in a magnetic field.

    I have read most of the "Superlaser effect" and read the debate between Darkstar and Michael Wong regarding the superlaser. Darkstars entire "theory" hinges upon him not addmiting even the possibility of planetary shields and pretending that planar rings which shoot from the planet somehow prove his superlaser effect theory. They don't.

    And could you please point to an error on Michael Wong's page. I must admit that even though I read most of it I can't find a single one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's an error you want, look at the tech overview. It says the Federation includes fighters in their ship counts, while actually, we don't.

      Delete
  12. I don't have to. The fact that it's Mike Wong should prove that in and of itself. But I digress.

    It clearly seems you've fallen into the same trap that many Rabid Warsies do: not listening to the evidence no matter how much it disproves what you say. You continue to throw around your claims of planetary shields(which have been disproven time and again) and lots of other bullcrap I don't feel like getting into. You remind me of my dad whenever I speak to him about political issues: he's such an extremist liberal that he refuses to ever consider anything close to a moderate viewpoint.

    So, if only because I do not know the subject anywhere near well enough to truly argue this, I shall stop attempting to debate your points, and allow Darkstar to take over, as I bow to his superior knowledge and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why should the mere fact that it is Micheal Wong be enough of a proof that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Provide some examples.

    What evidence am I not listening? Yes there are peculiar rings but that doesn't change the fact the planet was blown up. The existence of the shields was not disproven. The only thing Darkstar has proven on his shield page is that Alderaan shields do not extend many hundreds of km from the surface. We know that they can build shields like the one on Hoth, there is no reason why those shields couldn't be connected to a planet covering network. It is certainly a better explanation than superlaser effect which has no basis in film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, the Empire wouldn't let a Rebel planet get a shield generator.

      Delete
  14. 1. GStone - The domain GalaxyClassStarship.Net is available. ;)

    2. You call your site moderate even though you claim that it took 23.5 gigatons to destroy Alderaan? {...} we saw nothing but dim brown clouds in "The Die is Cast".

    Yes, I call my site moderate, because (among other things) I don't claim what you claim I claim. The 23.5 gigaton value is an upper limit of the (DET) energy of the superlaser beam based on its utter lack of visible atmospheric disruption (at least in the SE days . . . I'm behind on the DVD versions).

    The interesting thing you failed to grasp is this: in both the 23.5 gigaton example and your "dim brown cloud" claim about TDiC, the arguer is making reference to atmospheric effects (or a lack thereof). In other words, you want it both ways . . . you want to ignore TDiC firepower due to atmosphere, yet you want to keep the DET superlaser by ignoring the atmosphere of Alderaan (not to mention direct canon statements of DS operation, canon statements on SW reactor tech, freaky disappearing shit, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum).

    You can't have it both ways.

    In other words, GCS.Net would be *less* extremist than you and SD.Net in that case, because even when it ignored things in order to wank out Trek it would be ignoring far less (both in general and "per capita" of the canon) than you guys do.

    But then, you ignored me when I explained what the 23.5 gigatons meant on the Superlaser Effect page, so I don't suppose I should be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another example of "moderation". When Leia says that "the fleet will be here any moment", DSG2k says that it's "absurd" and that the fleet, according to his timeline, really arrives four days later. "Moderate" uh?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, I call my site moderate, because (among other things) I don't claim what you claim I claim. The 23.5 gigaton value is an upper limit of the (DET) energy of the superlaser beam based on its utter lack of visible atmospheric disruption (at least in the SE days . . . I'm behind on the DVD versions).
    Which is even worse, you claim that no more than 23.5 gigatons can cause a massive planetary explosion. Why should we buy this theory when a shield can perfectly explain the lack of atmospheric disturbance.

    The interesting thing you failed to grasp is this: in both the 23.5 gigaton example and your "dim brown cloud" claim about TDiC, the arguer is making reference to atmospheric effects (or a lack thereof). In other words, you want it both ways . . . you want to ignore TDiC firepower due to atmosphere, yet you want to keep the DET superlaser by ignoring the atmosphere of Alderaan (not to mention direct canon statements of DS operation, canon statements on SW reactor tech, freaky disappearing shit, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum).
    First of all, I'm not ignoring the atmosphere of Alderaan, the shields explain it perfectly. Secondly while there are unexpected effects during Alderaan explosion the planet iteself did blew up violently. I see no reason why those unexpected phenomenons would decrease the energy requirement for the Death Star.
    The Die is Cast on the other hand shows nothing but unexpected atmospheric effects, there is no visible damage and "destroy the mantle" can mean anything. So no, Alderaan destruction and TDiC are not even remotely comparable.

    In other words, GCS.Net would be *less* extremist than you and SD.Net in that case, because even when it ignored things in order to wank out Trek it would be ignoring far less (both in general and "per capita" of the canon) than you guys do.
    You cannot ignore something which doesn't exist. TDiC shows no damage only strange clouds. But you do wank out Trek; take a look at your Rise calculations. You assume that torpedo is 10m in diameter even though it is actually 2m in diameter. You say that Occam Razor favors your "torpedo growth" even though conventional explanation (perspective+change of trajectory) is sufficient to explain the growth and adds no extra terms into Star Trek universe. You say that we must use near-vaporization figures because torpedo couldn't fragment the asteroid without vaporizing most of it yet that is exactly what happened in the episode: torpedo struck an asteroid and fragmented it without vaporizing most of it. In essence you turn a 0.1-5 kiloton example into 44 megaton which you then called "bend-over-backwards" lower limit. That is not what I call moderate.

    But then, you ignored me when I explained what the 23.5 gigatons meant on the Superlaser Effect page, so I don't suppose I should be surprised.
    This is your first post in the comments so how did I have the chance to ignore you?
    Unless of course Matt Carpenter is your sockpuppet:)
    As for 23.5 gigatons see above.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What you have failed to grasp is that first you have to prove the existence of said shield before you can claim that it "can explain the lack of atmospheric disturbance." Otherwise, I can just easily say "explosion of a giant reactor inside Alderaan can easily explain weak superlaser".

    It is my personal opinion that OT showed us exactly how failing planetary shields looks like. Since there's no such effect in SE or DVD version, therefore, George Lucas chose to strip Alderaan of its shield. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And, anny, exactly what part of "I explained what the 23.5 gigatons meant on the Superlaser Effect page" you don't understand? DSG2k explained what does he mean on his page. Not here. Pay more attention next time, please.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What you have failed to grasp is that first you have to prove the existence of said shield before you can claim that it "can explain the lack of atmospheric disturbance." Otherwise, I can just easily say "explosion of a giant reactor inside Alderaan can easily explain weak superlaser".

    It is my personal opinion that OT showed us exactly how failing planetary shields looks like. Since there's no such effect in SE or DVD version, therefore, George Lucas chose to strip Alderaan of its shield. Simple.

    No, it is you who must prove that shields don't exist. The atmosphere was unnafected. Darkstar says it's because of his "superlaser effect". I say it's because of a shield. Since smaller planetary shields like the ones on Hoth and Endor are known to exist it is logical to conclude that they can connect many of those generators into a planet covering network. So the lack of atmospheric disturbance can be explained by technology we saw in the original trilogy. No need for "superlaser effect". Therefore it is up to you to disprove the shields.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's really simple:

    No shield interaction was seen. Therefore there is no shield.

    On top of that the death star 'laser' acted in a funny way when it hit the atmosphere by err, not doing anything too it. Therefore there is a 'superlaser effect'.

    See how easy it is to claim stuff without base like you do about the presence of a shield.

    For the DS laser to operate like you want it too you need a shield. Hence, it is your responsibility to prove said shield exists. Fail to do that and your hypothesis is false by default.

    In other words, yes you do need to prove a shield. Stating such proof is unneeded (as you do) invalidates your claim immediatly. Irrespective of wether there actually is a 'superlaser effect' even.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And here we see that you claim that your model is correct by default and must be proved wrong.

    This is so typical of SDNers... and completely ungrounded. Note that the VFX are not the only support for the SLE.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh yes, Roondar, shield interaction could be seen. It's even possible to see where the beam interacts with the shield.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry, to make it clear, I'm an other "anonymous" from the one that has been commenting on the DS issue before (in my reply to Roondar).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, Anonymous #2, my point was not wether or not something was visible. It rather is that claiming something without backup is a bad idea.

    And even if there was a shield, there is nothing to say that

    a) The DS laser must have added all energy present in the explosion of alderaan. After all, the 'shieldgenerator', other powersources, even fosil fuels or other additions could have played a significant role in the end result. Since these are not exactly known (and since the claim to fame is that these generators use hypermatter it's not even possible to guess at such an effect. Present or not) it is incredibly far fetched to just blindly assume the Deathstar Laser did all the work.

    b) The effects of the DS laser on the atmosphere would be totally countered by suchs a shield even after it breached. After all, after the 'shield' is 'breached' the atmosphere still does err, nothing.

    And on a sidenote, the whole discussion is meaningless. As long as TDIC is seen by the SW side as 'merely some weak brown clouds', never mind the energy content displayed on-screen in these clouds, I feel perfectly justified to expect very much better proof from them than they show about the DS.

    At least the ST side calculated the effects of TDIC assuming the clouds are gas/atmosphere and not, for instance, the crust in vapor form. The SW side did little else than laugh and say 'nope, that can't be true cause ST must be weak'.

    In other words: As long as ST events require more evidence to be proven for the SW side than SW events require you've allready lost any credibility you might have had.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Forget it guys. They're not going to listen. They're too convinced of Star Wars superiority to listen to anything that says otherwise.

    Just so you know, anonymous peeps, I'm no sockpuppet. So don't accuse me of such, please.

    Oh, and by the way, learn the rules of debate: it is up to the accuser to prove a positive, not the defender to prove a negative. Hence why it's "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Since Omega took over the board, I was free to invest the capital elsewhere and don't have it now. Otherwise, I'd get that domain and really pimp GalaxyClassStarship.net out. Of course, I'd make my site so much harder to have the wank be underminded. The fiction debate sections of the SD.net board and the site are great teaching tools for hiding it, but fail to ineptitude in what makes better BS-ing. There are so many ways to bolster the STV speeds being highest canon. GCS.Net would be a fun diversion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fun, but perhaps counterproductive. I, personally, would rather not see us stoop to their level in terms of arguments, even for fun. But that's just my opinion.

    In any case, the fact remains that Darkstar's site is a moderate site. It is true that for the most part it shows Trek technology as being superior, but that is merely due to the fact that when the evidence is weighed and examined carefully, that result is shown to be true. I have no doubt that Darkstar would freely admit Star Wars superiority in any field where the evidence proves this, and he has in fact done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Meanwhile Wong and his cronies refuse to ever admit anything even in the face of overwhelming evidence. To me, that says that Darkstar is moderate, while they're a bunch of extremists, and should be ignored as such. If only it were that easy...

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is anonymous1:
    And here we see that you claim that your model is correct by default and must be proved wrong.

    This is so typical of SDNers... and completely ungrounded. Note that the VFX are not the only support for the SLE.

    If a beam impacts an inert object such as a planet and it blows up then the obvious conclusion is that the beam carried the neccesary energy. I don't see why would fire rings decrease that energy.

    a) The DS laser must have added all energy present in the explosion of alderaan. After all, the 'shieldgenerator', other powersources, even fosil fuels or other additions could have played a significant role in the end result. Since these are not exactly known (and since the claim to fame is that these generators use hypermatter it's not even possible to guess at such an effect. Present or not) it is incredibly far fetched to just blindly assume the Deathstar Laser did all the work.
    We see the Death Star shooting the beam into planet, the planet blows up. Obviously the beam imparted the neccesary energy. And seriously, fossil fules?

    b) The effects of the DS laser on the atmosphere would be totally countered by suchs a shield even after it breached. After all, after the 'shield' is 'breached' the atmosphere still does err, nothing.
    Have you wathced the films? The shield spread the energy across almost entire hemisphere until it glowed white, then it collapsed and planet blew up along with it's atmosphere.

    And on a sidenote, the whole discussion is meaningless. As long as TDIC is seen by the SW side as 'merely some weak brown clouds', never mind the energy content displayed on-screen in these clouds, I feel perfectly justified to expect very much better proof from them than they show about the DS.
    Here you apply double standard. The Death Star did actually blow up the planet in addition to creating funny fire rings. The Romulan/Cardassian fleet caused no visible damage.

    At least the ST side calculated the effects of TDIC assuming the clouds are gas/atmosphere and not, for instance, the crust in vapor form. The SW side did little else than laugh and say 'nope, that can't be true cause ST must be weak'.
    The clouds look nothing like a shockwave which would glow white hot. Secondly those shockwaves moved with a speed of hundreds and perhaps thousands of kilometers per second. If they were truly aerial shockwaves why didn't they shoot upwards from the planet since the escape velocity of an Earth like planet is 11km/s? Instead they were following the circumference of the planet.
    I ask you to provide evidence of actual damage to the planet the same way Death Star did. Only then will those two incidents be equal.

    In other words: As long as ST events require more evidence to be proven for the SW side than SW events require you've allready lost any credibility you might have had.
    I am not asking more evidence for ST. Show me the damgage to the planet in TDiC like it was shown in ANH. Show me an asteroid being vaporized like it was in ESB. You wan't to equate ST dialouge which is open to interpretation and shown SW events. That as I already said is double standard.

    Oh, and by the way, learn the rules of debate: it is up to the accuser to prove a positive, not the defender to prove a negative. Hence why it's "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.
    This is not a court and I am not a prosecutor. We are trying to determine which theory better explains why Alderaan's atmosphere wasn't burned off. The shield is better explanation since it uses existing technology while "superlaser effect" is fan invention.

    It is true that for the most part it shows Trek technology as being superior, but that is merely due to the fact that when the evidence is weighed and examined carefully, that result is shown to be true.
    The evidence is weighted carefully? He uses exactly one example for Imperial weapons range ignoring such scenes as Ion cannon on Hoth hitting an ISD which was thousands of km distant. He uses exactly one example for Federation weapon range ignoring dozens of other examples including Battle of Chin'toka where Federation/Klingon/Romulan fleet had to approach a bunch of stationary defense probes to few kilometers before opening fire.

    I have no doubt that Darkstar would freely admit Star Wars superiority in any field where the evidence proves this, and he has in fact done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
    What advantage for the Empire has he ever admitted?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous #2 here.

    As I pointed out earlier, is it "moderate" to claim Princess Leia's statement that the "Fleet will be here any moment" in ROTJ to be absurd and instead claim that she actually means four days later? Is it "moderate" to claim that the normal speed for Federation starships is 2,000c when consistent evidence in both Voyager and DS9 (Voyager, entire series and DS9 "Battle Lines") puts a fast ship at 1,000c? Is it "moderate" to ignore all-higher order canon and claim either that a) the Star Wars galaxy is the tiniest there is at about 10,000 to 12,000 ly (which is smaller than the tiniest known spiral galaxy) instead of acknowledging that it's a completely normal spiral galaxy (as shown in AOTC)and to ignore that they can traverse their galaxy in a very short amount of time (ROTS being the most damaging to his position). To ignore movie canon evidence and claim that the DS weapons operates with some sort of chain reaction despite statements from the opening scroll and Dodonna's statement about its firepower. Oops, I can't go through the entire site, but if that is "moderate", then I'm the Easter Bunny.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anon, you don't see why it's not reasonable because all you're doing is looking at pretty fireworks and saying "oooh, shiny."

    First, the details of the VFX themselves bar the superlaser from being just a really big turbolaser. That's enough if you believe in absolute accuracy of VFX (i.e., SOD).

    Second, the various supporting data available make it absolutely ludicrous. We know exactly how much matter/energy you need to blow up a planet; the Death Star shows no signs of carrying this. We know what kind of power generation techniques are standard in Star Wars; they also make it impossible. Etc etc etc.

    Read my blog post several down about "naive suspension of disbelief" (titled "Anatomy of an Argument." You're exhibiting a form of it.

    What advantage for the Empire has he ever admitted?

    If you'd actually read his page, you'd know that G2K's overview page alone gives the Empire advantages over the UFP in fleet numbers, cloaking devices (by treaty limitation, not technological basis), antigravity technology, territory, and population... while sites like SDN are unwilling to grant even the most cosmetic advantage to the UFP.

    That, anon, makes him more moderate by any objective measure.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon, you don't see why it's not reasonable because all you're doing is looking at pretty fireworks and saying "oooh, shiny."
    No I'm going "oooh they blew up the planet at the speeds of thousands of km/s".Which requires 10^38J. Prove that Death Star can do it through some kind of shortcut.


    Second, the various supporting data available make it absolutely ludicrous. We know exactly how much matter/energy you need to blow up a planet; the Death Star shows no signs of carrying this.We know what kind of power generation techniques are standard in Star Wars; they also make it impossible. Etc etc etc.
    The highest order of canon, namely the films, show a planet being blown up. The opening scrool states that Death Star has enough power to destroy a planet. Prove that Death Star could accomplish that without imparting 10^38J into the planet. Oh, and how do you know that Death Star doesn't carry enough matter/antimatter?

    Read my blog post several down about "naive suspension of disbelief" (titled "Anatomy of an Argument." You're exhibiting a form of it.
    Let's see:

    Find a small detail of VFX.
    Exactly what Darkstar is doing on his Death Star page.
    Interpret this detail in a fashion that maximizes or minimizes whatever you're looking to maximize or minimize.
    Exactly what Darkstar did in order to generate the 23.5 gigaton figure.

    If you'd actually read his page, you'd know that G2K's overview page alone gives the Empire advantages over the UFP in fleet numbers, cloaking devices (by treaty limitation, not technological basis), antigravity technology, territory, and population... while sites like SDN are unwilling to grant even the most cosmetic advantage to the UFP.
    The trouble is Empire actually does have advantage in all those areas which is much greater than Darkstar admits.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You know, I could go through each point in your argument and show how Darkstar has defeated these points already. I could, but I won't. Because you won't listen. You're clearly not going to listen. And I'm starting to wonder if you're actually Mike Wong, Ossus, Poe or some other big name dude from SDN instead of just some random SDNer parroting Mike Wong. And frankly? You disgust me. You read his pages then immediately dismiss it all because you don't like the fact that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT TREK TECHNOLOGY IS, ON THE WHOLE, SUPERIOR TO STAR WARS TECHNOLOGY. Face it. Star Trek is superior both in terms of technology AND the quality of the entertainment, especially in terms of writing. Sheesh. I could write a better love story than the one we saw in RotS.

    ...

    But then again, this is what you're trying to do, isn't it? Distract peeps like me from the real issue and get us going on tangents so you can hide behind your bullshit. Uh-uh. Not falling for it. I just wish I had the time to become as well educated on the subject matter as Darkstar and his blogger pals are. I'd be a formidable opponent of yours. As it stands, I'm happy to let them debate instead. Darkstar, the ball's in your court.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You know, I could go through each point in your argument and show how Darkstar has defeated these points already. I could, but I won't.
    Of course you won't. Beacuse you have no rebuttal.

    And I'm starting to wonder if you're actually Mike Wong, Ossus, Poe or some other big name dude from SDN instead of just some random SDNer parroting Mike Wong.
    No, actually I go by the user name Kane Starkiller on SD.net and former strek-v-swars.net

    And frankly? You disgust me.
    Jesus, lighten up. It's not like we are debating right of abortion or something.

    You read his pages then immediately dismiss it all because you don't like the fact that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT TREK TECHNOLOGY IS, ON THE WHOLE, SUPERIOR TO STAR WARS TECHNOLOGY.
    Hm let's see: Empire can cross galaxy in hours or days. Can blow up planets and build 120km starships. Federation can build 700m starships and takes 70 years to cross 70,000ly. Yeah, I think Star Wars thechnology is superior.

    Star Trek is superior both in terms of technology AND the quality of the entertainment, especially in terms of writing. Sheesh. I could write a better love story than the one we saw in RotS.
    Sure it is. That's why Star Wars earns hundreds of millions while Star Trek gets cancelled. "Hey let's polarize the chromo-tachyon beam so we can reverse the polarity of their shield matrix"; yeah real quality writing. And RoTS was not a love stroy in case you missed it.

    But then again, this is what you're trying to do, isn't it? Distract peeps like me from the real issue and get us going on tangents so you can hide behind your bullshit.
    Real issue? Why don't you provide something substantial instead of yours constant stream of insults.

    Uh-uh. Not falling for it. I just wish I had the time to become as well educated on the subject matter as Darkstar and his blogger pals are. I'd be a formidable opponent of yours.
    Yeah you really should get more education. Maybe then you'd see that it's not that easy to blow up a planet with 23.5 gigatons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jesus, lighten up. It's not like we are debating right of abortion or something.

    I'm afraid that I must agree. I think we're letting the hostilities get a little high. I think we can respect each other's opinions and have an honest debate without overreacting.

    Hm let's see: Empire can cross galaxy in hours or days. Can blow up planets and build 120km starships. Federation can build 700m starships and takes 70 years to cross 70,000ly. Yeah, I think Star Wars thechnology is superior.

    I'd just like to point out that being able to build a 120km starship isn't so much a feat in technology as it is in pure resources and manpower.

    As for the speed, while I personally disagree with G2k's opinion of hyperspace speeds, I can respect his opinion and I fully understand how he came to his conclusions. I don't find it the least bit extreme that he used the visual elements in the movies to help guide his conclusion. With that being said, while I do believe that hyperspace travel is faster than Warp drive (at least any warp speeds used by the Federation thus far except for the few minor examples as G2k noted) that is only one element of technology. Trek has transporters, replicators, holodecks, and many other interesting aspects. To simply say that Trek technology or Wars technology is superior simply because we can each name some elements on both sides isn't logical.

    Sure it is. That's why Star Wars earns hundreds of millions while Star Trek gets cancelled.

    While I have been pretty disappointed with both Voyager and Enterprise, I don't attribute that so much to Star Trek in general as just bad writing mainly because of Berman and BB (but let's be honest, we've beaten that horse to death enough times). I was also disappointed with SW Episode 1,2, and 3 there are still parts of both that, and Voyager/Enterprise which I found enjoyable. I will say though that if Star Wars is able to crank out the amount of material in the form of movies and or TV episodes as Star Trek has, only then can we actually make a fair comparison.

    And RoTS was not a love stroy in case you missed it.

    I think he was just referring to the love aspects in the movie, not the movie as a whole, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous #1 (Kane)

    Of course you won't. Beacuse you have no rebuttal.
    What part of "Darkstar has defeated these points already" you don't understand?

    If a beam impacts an inert object such as a planet and it blows up then the obvious conclusion is that the beam carried the neccesary energy.
    Since Alderaan blew up after beam has been terminated, then obvious conclusion is that the beam couldn't carry the neccesary energy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. What part of "Darkstar has defeated these points already" you don't understand?
    Nowhere in his site did Darkstar disproven the existence of shield or demonstrated why the appeatance of fire rings would decrease the energy requirement for Death Star.

    Since Alderaan blew up after beam has been terminated, then obvious conclusion is that the beam couldn't carry the neccesary energy. :)
    I suggest you rewatch the film. The planet starts expanding before the last of the beam dissapears from view.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon, you're not quite grasping this.

    You're taking one specific model (DET) which fails to match all available evidence. The SLE, on the other hand, is a synthesis of all available evidence, and meets all of it. Your argument? "Prove absolutely that I'm wrong that the Death Star needs energy."

    All that's needed is proof of the possibility that the Death Star uses less; Occam's Razor, properly applied, gives all the reason in the world to favor the SLE.

    Now, I offer you a challenge. Show that SDN is more moderate than ST-v_SW.net, by showing that it's more generous with Trek than G2K is with Wars... using examples of how SDN shows the UFP has advantages over the Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Right, sorry gang. I've been a wee bit worked up over other stuff, so I think it carried into this inadvertently. Sorry about that. Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If a beam impacts an inert object such as a planet and it blows up then the obvious conclusion is that the beam carried the neccesary energy. I don't see why would fire rings decrease that energy.

    Oh, I see. Big green beam. Big Boom. DET.
    Of course, the fact that the part that really destroys the planet occurs long after the beam has already finished hitting the planet must prove that it is a pure DET mechanism in the way SD.net describes it.

    How couldn't we see that!

    I suggest you rewatch the film. The planet starts expanding before the last of the beam dissapears from view.

    No. The planet doesn't expand. Only a zone on the visible hemisphere. The planet gets turned to debris only several frames later. You rewatch the film.

    The point is that you're not forced to agree with G2K's theory, but you still have to provide one which makes sense. Wong and the whole SD.net community has always come with one completely flawed and absurd interpretation.

    Let's even pretend that there was a shield.
    Page of reference for necessary pictures:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperl-1.html

    So say that the shield collapses in image 4 (see the set of pics at the top of the page). What do we get once the shield is down? We get a large part of the visible hemisphere being heated up ultra white, with several continent sized explosions occuring thereafter.

    But it's only a dozen frames later that the planet explodes once for all.

    The problem with you is that though you don't agree with G2K's explanation, and we're not forced to, your side doesn't come with anything better.
    You limit yourself to an explanation where the weapon system is just a giant beam which directly and immediately delivers its energy in the most crude way.

    A large amount of evidence proves that it can't be, and it should be time for you to understand that.

    For years, I've been considering the possiblity that the beam actually drills in the planet and plants some kind of exotic building up energetic bomb, something that has to do with the pulses seen travelling along the beam. This easily explains the delayed explosion, and even LETS us envision a system which still acts like a DET weapon, but more like a bomb.
    To sum up, the system comes in two phases:

    1. Drill a hole.
    2. Plant the exotic bomb.
    3. Wait.
    4. Boom!

    ReplyDelete
  40. You know, now that I think about it...wouldn't the SLE be far more impressive than a simple DET? With just a few huge fusion reactors and an initial energy burst of 23.5 gigajoules, they're able to destroy an ENTIRE BLOODY PLANET! Quite frankly, I'd find that far more impressive than just doing it with a DET, because it shows how resourceful they can be. Makes you wonder what they could do with antimatter/matter annihilation power generation technology.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It isn't so much the fact of whether or not a SLE would be impressive. But many people see the notion as a deliberate attempt to diminish Imperial firepower capabilities. That's why you're going to find that so many people stand against it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Whoa... this is still going on with the SLE? Anon 1, you can't honestly be arguing for DET, right? I don't really care if you're arguing for even more power in the death star but PLEASE tell me you don't seriouslly think the death star is a DET weapon like... say a bullet and that it isn't a weapon that is chain reaction or something else... like say.. a nuke.

    ReplyDelete
  43. a) The DS laser must have added all energy present in the explosion of alderaan. After all, the 'shieldgenerator', other powersources, even fosil fuels or other additions could have played a significant role in the end result. Since these are not exactly known (and since the claim to fame is that these generators use hypermatter it's not even possible to guess at such an effect. Present or not) it is incredibly far fetched to just blindly assume the Deathstar Laser did all the work.
    We see the Death Star shooting the beam into planet, the planet blows up. Obviously the beam imparted the neccesary energy. And seriously, fossil fules?

    Actually, I gave you a number of reasons why it is not obvious at all. You haven't countered even one of them.

    Therefore, no it is not obvious. You either tell me why any of my suggestions can't work or conceed the point.

    No doubt this will spawn more rethoric from your side that ammounts to nothing but 'you are wrong because I say you are' and provides no reasons at all as to the why.

    As to TDIC, you muddle the issue. I am not using a double standard. I'm arguing for what I see in TDIC and for what I see in AHN. In AHN I see Alderaan get blown up, in TDIC I see dustclouds that have by necessity of their high velocity gigatons worth of energy in them. Wether or not they move outwards or not is not relevant, the energy is there. On screen. And your failure to acknowledge this is why your position is so weak to begin with.

    Oh and FYI, a dead world (as the founders world was claimed to be repeatedly and this duplicate most certainly had to be as well to not cause suspiscion of the Romulans and Cardassians present) won't show magma when it gets hit below the crust.

    Nor will the likely particles to escape from Photon torpedo and Phaser fire be very visible. I distincly recall rock etc just 'going away' when hit with these types of weapons and I fail to see why using them against planets will get you a different result. In fact, we have precedent in a Startrek episode where the phasers of a starship are used vs a planetary surface and they cause... Matter to vanish, not explode.

    Now, ofcourse the Phaser in said episode had to be finetuned as to not cause TDIC scale devastation, but that won't stop the basic idea of it's operation.

    Besides, the projections for killing that world where 'six hours', not '20 seconds of screen time'. But then, that surely can't count. (I'm betting that you'll state as much anyway)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Now here could be an interesting comparison: Since this has been hijacked by the "VS debate that just won't die" Superlaser stuff, I'll start a digression. I even have a better Trek example than 'The Die is Cast'.

    Species 8472 could destroy planets with pretty much equal ease as the Death Star with a combination of eight bioships and a larger focusing vessel. The resulting beam was able to destroy a Borg planet quite spectacularly. If I were rabid, I would assume that the planet had impenetrable planetary shields, but I won't (Although there is more expectation for a Borg planet that knew it was under attack to have a shield than the 'peaceful and defenceless' Alderaan). Although the effect takes longer, both weapons are obviously functioning at the same order of magnitude.

    Individual 8472 bioships could destroy a Borg Cube with at most two good shots. Now, how can I wank this out in favor of the Federation?

    In 'Endgame', Voyager gets some nifty new 'Transphasic Torpedoes', which are able to do the same damage as the individual 8472 weapons, using the 'amount of energy needed to destroy a Borg Cube in two shots' as a yardstick. Could be interesting to see what a full volley could do to a planet, huh? If Starfleet uses Voyager to develop these weapons, they could probably have them by the turn of the century.
    ___________________________________________________________

    As an aside, I'd like to see a fanfic dealing with an Empire-Borg confrontation. 'Clash of the Titans' attempts this, and while it is very good, I believe it misses the mark, with an ISD being more than a match for a Cube. Then again, in their very first engagement, so was the Enterprise-D (they really should have finished it off...). Then the Borg adapted to Federation weapons. So I'll forgive the first encounter in the fanfic, but in future ones, it would be ... interesting ... I've never seen SW canonically attempt to adapt to new technology. Sounds like fun. 8472 smiting Coruscant would be fun to read about, too.... ;)

    This latter speculation is just me thinking 'aloud'. I really don't mean to sound so rabid. If any (TRULY MODERATE) person wants to try to write said fanfics, I for one would like ot see them!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon, you're not quite grasping this.

    You're taking one specific model (DET) which fails to match all available evidence. The SLE, on the other hand, is a synthesis of all available evidence, and meets all of it. Your argument? "Prove absolutely that I'm wrong that the Death Star needs energy."

    You just don't understand do you? No one needs to disprove anyones theory nor did I aked you to. I challenged to disprove the existence of shields. What we need is a theory that better explains the observations. Both theories cannot explain how the beam is created or what is it's nature. However the conventional theory explains that beam destroyed the planet simply by carrying neccesary energy, heating the planet and causing it to expand. Your simply adds another complication by stating that 23.5 gigatons somehow caused the planet to blow up. How?
    Additionaly I can think of theorethical model for Death Star reactor: neutronium antimatter.
    They can store the antimatter by using artificial gravity technology which we know they have.
    At 10^18kg/m3 density it can easily be stored in the Death Star to blow up millions of planets before refuelling.
    Now, you explain how a 23.5 gigatons could cause a planet to blow up. Explain why should we further complicate matters by declaring a chain reaction occured on the planet instead of simple heating.

    Now, I offer you a challenge. Show that SDN is more moderate than ST-v_SW.net, by showing that it's more generous with Trek than G2K is with Wars... using examples of how SDN shows the UFP has advantages over the Empire.
    Are you joking? Moderation is not claiming both sides are equal but sticking to the truth. If there was a vs scenario between USA and Trinidad and Tobago would you call someone who gave advantages to Tobago moderate?

    Roondar look at this picture:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg
    As you can see the beam is still not gone and Alderaan has started to blow up.

    Whoa... this is still going on with the SLE? Anon 1, you can't honestly be arguing for DET, right? I don't really care if you're arguing for even more power in the death star but PLEASE tell me you don't seriouslly think the death star is a DET weapon like... say a bullet and that it isn't a weapon that is chain reaction or something else... like say.. a nuke.
    Your analogy with a nuke is false. A fission bomb will create it's energy by chain reaction but the energy that it delivers on target will be purely DET. Darkstar on the other hand is claiming that superlaser creates a chain reaction on the target. I see no reason why this would be so.

    Actually, I gave you a number of reasons why it is not obvious at all. You haven't countered even one of them.
    Therefore, no it is not obvious. You either tell me why any of my suggestions can't work or conceed the point.
    No doubt this will spawn more rethoric from your side that ammounts to nothing but 'you are wrong because I say you are' and provides no reasons at all as to the why.

    You have stated shield generator and "other power sources". First the shield was breached therefore it couldn't be more powerful than the beam. If we assume it is equally powerful as the beam that still makes both shield and beam 10^38 order of magnitude.
    As for "other powersources" how can I deal with them when you haven't specified them? Specify the power sources that could contribute to the explosion and I will deal with them.

    As to TDIC, you muddle the issue. I am not using a double standard. I'm arguing for what I see in TDIC and for what I see in AHN. In AHN I see Alderaan get blown up, in TDIC I see dustclouds that have by necessity of their high velocity gigatons worth of energy in them. Wether or not they move outwards or not is not relevant, the energy is there. On screen. And your failure to acknowledge this is why your position is so weak to begin with.
    How is the energy there if the shockwaves are not glowing white-hot? How is the energy there if the shockwaves dissapear after a few seconds even though a multi gigaton fireball would last for 5-10 minutes or more? And their failure to move otwards is not irrelevant. If that is air moving what is making it to follow the circumference of the planet? Face it those clouds look nothing like aerial shockwaves. For you to derive yield from them would be like me trying to derive the energy for the Death Star based on fire rings.

    Oh and FYI, a dead world (as the founders world was claimed to be repeatedly and this duplicate most certainly had to be as well to not cause suspiscion of the Romulans and Cardassians present) won't show magma when it gets hit below the crust.
    So a sunless world which is also a dead world still can create Earth like temperature on it's surface? Right. In any case the superheated material would be there anyway if those weapons really had power to vaporize the crust in one hour. The weapons would create it. What we saw in the episode was the night side of the planet and still the shockwaves appeared as dull brown clouds.

    Now, ofcourse the Phaser in said episode had to be finetuned as to not cause TDIC scale devastation, but that won't stop the basic idea of it's operation.
    I assume you are reffering to the episode where they had to modify the phasers for two hours to punch through 1.6km of granite? It took them 20 seconds implying firepower of 18TW. After 2 hours of modification.

    Besides, the projections for killing that world where 'six hours', not '20 seconds of screen time'. But then, that surely can't count. (I'm betting that you'll state as much anyway)
    Yes the projections were 6 hours to destroy the mantle and the crust. Where destroy could mean anything. If they saturated the planet with say a form of thalaron radiation they would kill anyone on it and the planet could be considered destroyed in the military sense.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually, I gave you a number of reasons why it is not obvious at all. You haven't countered even one of them.
    Therefore, no it is not obvious. You either tell me why any of my suggestions can't work or conceed the point.
    No doubt this will spawn more rethoric from your side that ammounts to nothing but 'you are wrong because I say you are' and provides no reasons at all as to the why.

    You have stated shield generator and "other power sources". First the shield was breached therefore it couldn't be more powerful than the beam. If we assume it is equally powerful as the beam that still makes both shield and beam 10^38 order of magnitude.
    As for "other powersources" how can I deal with them when you haven't specified them? Specify the power sources that could contribute to the explosion and I will deal with them.


    First off, the power of the shieldgenerator can very well be magnitudes higher than the beam of the DS. That all depends on wether the beam has to punch through a section of the shield (i.e. only defeat a tiny percentage of the shield to break through) or all of the power available to the shield. We don't know that for certain.

    Secondly, your assumption of 10^38 joule rests squarely on your belief that we are seeing a rather simple DET based effect. Ofcourse, when a realworld object is hit by a beam of great energy the effects are completely different (i.e. you make a hole in the object and move on, you don't make it explode) than what we see when the DS beam hits the planet (it quite visibly does not contain the energy needed to punch through to the other side, nor does it simply make a hole. No, the whole planet explodes. Try doing that with a simple DET weapon like normal lead bullet and say, a concrete wall).

    Third, my whole point was you can only guess at the effect other power systems (including the shieldgenerator) have in case of planetary devastation. To blindly assume the effect is zero or small enough not to matter means you purposly evade any possible negative effect on your yield calculations. In other words, you create an upper limit and refuse to see anything that lowers is as even possible.

    Fourth, it is your statement (your meaning you and the rest of the 'pro Starwars' camp) that the beam is in fact DET and has an energy content of 10^38 joule. It therefore is your responisibility to deliver the required evidence. Start with explaining why the bolt doesn't just cut through the world like a real DET weapon would do.

    As to TDIC, you muddle the issue. I am not using a double standard. I'm arguing for what I see in TDIC and for what I see in AHN. In AHN I see Alderaan get blown up, in TDIC I see dustclouds that have by necessity of their high velocity gigatons worth of energy in them. Wether or not they move outwards or not is not relevant, the energy is there. On screen. And your failure to acknowledge this is why your position is so weak to begin with.
    How is the energy there if the shockwaves are not glowing white-hot? How is the energy there if the shockwaves dissapear after a few seconds even though a multi gigaton fireball would last for 5-10 minutes or more? And their failure to move otwards is not irrelevant. If that is air moving what is making it to follow the circumference of the planet? Face it those clouds look nothing like aerial shockwaves. For you to derive yield from them would be like me trying to derive the energy for the Death Star based on fire rings.
    Lets see, the energy content was calculated based on the speed at which they moved. That energy is there. Wether or not that energy is a nuclear style fireblast or not is still not relevant. You can twist and turn about that fact until you turn green, point is that one can calculate the energy present in these clouds by simply looking at how fast they move. That has been done. You have not been able to come up with better numbers. In fact, all you've done is say "they don't move like I expect them too cause I expect a nuclear style air-blast. So they can't contain energy. Never mind they cross half the planet in under a second, that isn't energy!".

    Oh and FYI, a dead world (as the founders world was claimed to be repeatedly and this duplicate most certainly had to be as well to not cause suspiscion of the Romulans and Cardassians present) won't show magma when it gets hit below the crust.
    So a sunless world which is also a dead world still can create Earth like temperature on it's surface? Right. In any case the superheated material would be there anyway if those weapons really had power to vaporize the crust in one hour. The weapons would create it. What we saw in the episode was the night side of the planet and still the shockwaves appeared as dull brown clouds.
    You won't see matter glow if it's no longer there. Like Phasers do to stuff they hit. It's gone afterwards. Or did you miss that particular feature?

    Now, ofcourse the Phaser in said episode had to be finetuned as to not cause TDIC scale devastation, but that won't stop the basic idea of it's operation.
    I assume you are reffering to the episode where they had to modify the phasers for two hours to punch through 1.6km of granite? It took them 20 seconds implying firepower of 18TW. After 2 hours of modification.
    Yes, they had to adjust the phasers. After all, they probably didn't want to cause the kind of trouble to that world that the Romulans & Cardassians did to that 'founder world'. Sounds like a reasonable thing actually, modifying your weapon before you use it to drill. Sometimes Phasers do cause explosions on a hit with rock after all and they didn't want that.

    As to the firepower, the firepower calculations of a weapon modified to act as a drill are about as usefull as a yield figure as using the fire rings of Alderaan to get Deathstart yields are. I.E. Not at all usefull. Prove without a doubt that these are maximum firepower figures for the normal phaser and that they had to have upgraded the power of the phaser during the modifications and you may have a point. Lucky me then that no one on the Starwars side has done anything of the sort.

    Besides, the projections for killing that world where 'six hours', not '20 seconds of screen time'. But then, that surely can't count. (I'm betting that you'll state as much anyway)
    Yes the projections were 6 hours to destroy the mantle and the crust. Where destroy could mean anything. If they saturated the planet with say a form of thalaron radiation they would kill anyone on it and the planet could be considered destroyed in the military sense.

    Not quite, it was made very clear that they wanted the world itself to be gone after they where done. And no, killing everything on a world is not the same as destroying it. That would be akin to saying "killing everyone on that bridge is the same as destroying the bridge". We have no reason to assume that they wanted anything but the removal of the planets existance and frankly, your attempt to change even that bit is quite funny. Wrong, but funny.

    ReplyDelete
  47. In a field where overall results are quite disputable on the whole, moderation is measured by the number of advantages granted the losing side. Live and learn.

    There's an enormous spread of analyses on the topic. The vast majority grant a number of advantages to the opposition - because both sides clearly have weaknesses and strengths peculiar to them. SDN does not acknowledge this; this is why they are not moderate. Even well known advantages of the UFP are completely ignored or claimed not to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I especially like how they act as if the Transporter either won't work or if it does work is actually akin to murder.

    When you then point out how much energy the murdering Transporter would take per person (33MT as stated by some NASA scientists), they quickly change tune and call it Treknobabble. But it still kills and is immoral. Or something...

    And more of such niceness :-)

    ReplyDelete
  49. First off, the power of the shieldgenerator can very well be magnitudes higher than the beam of the DS. That all depends on wether the beam has to punch through a section of the shield (i.e. only defeat a tiny percentage of the shield to break through) or all of the power available to the shield. We don't know that for certain.
    So you are saying that Empire or more specifically Alderaan can make 10^38J shield generators? So why couldn't they make 10^38J weapons?

    Secondly, your assumption of 10^38 joule rests squarely on your belief that we are seeing a rather simple DET based effect. Ofcourse, when a realworld object is hit by a beam of great energy the effects are completely different (i.e. you make a hole in the object and move on, you don't make it explode) than what we see when the DS beam hits the planet (it quite visibly does not contain the energy needed to punch through to the other side, nor does it simply make a hole. No, the whole planet explodes. Try doing that with a simple DET weapon like normal lead bullet and say, a concrete wall).
    You are comparing shooting a bullet into a wall and blowing up a planet. First of all if you actually shoot a 10^38W laser into a planet it won't drill a hole trough it. It will superheat a portion of the planets mass tu hundreds of billions Kelvins. The created plasma will start to expalnd in all directions and in doing so shatter the planet. Which is exactly what we saw in film. True there were some unexpected phenomenons like fire rings but the planet itself blew up.

    Third, my whole point was you can only guess at the effect other power systems (including the shieldgenerator) have in case of planetary devastation. To blindly assume the effect is zero or small enough not to matter means you purposly evade any possible negative effect on your yield calculations. In other words, you create an upper limit and refuse to see anything that lowers is as even possible.
    What other power sources? Name them. Yes there could be shield generators but they will not affect the calculations to more than an order of magnitude.

    Fourth, it is your statement (your meaning you and the rest of the 'pro Starwars' camp) that the beam is in fact DET and has an energy content of 10^38 joule. It therefore is your responisibility to deliver the required evidence. Start with explaining why the bolt doesn't just cut through the world like a real DET weapon would do.
    The beam superheated the portion of planets mass causing it to expand and shatter the planet. Or the shield spread the energy across the hemisphere and after it failed the released energy destroyed the planet. Most likely both of those mechanisms were in action.

    Lets see, the energy content was calculated based on the speed at which they moved. That energy is there. Wether or not that energy is a nuclear style fireblast or not is still not relevant. You can twist and turn about that fact until you turn green, point is that one can calculate the energy present in these clouds by simply looking at how fast they move. That has been done. You have not been able to come up with better numbers. In fact, all you've done is say "they don't move like I expect them too cause I expect a nuclear style air-blast. So they can't contain energy. Never mind they cross half the planet in under a second, that isn't energy!".
    Tell me, what is the energy of those shockwaves then? How did you calculate it?

    You won't see matter glow if it's no longer there. Like Phasers do to stuff they hit. It's gone afterwards. Or did you miss that particular feature?
    Ah, sou you admitt they are chain reaction weapon. And thus we cannot calculate their raw firepower.

    Yes, they had to adjust the phasers. After all, they probably didn't want to cause the kind of trouble to that world that the Romulans & Cardassians did to that 'founder world'. Sounds like a reasonable thing actually, modifying your weapon before you use it to drill. Sometimes Phasers do cause explosions on a hit with rock after all and they didn't want that.
    Phasers are not the same as Cardassian and Romulan weapons.

    As to the firepower, the firepower calculations of a weapon modified to act as a drill are about as usefull as a yield figure as using the fire rings of Alderaan to get Deathstart yields are. I.E. Not at all usefull. Prove without a doubt that these are maximum firepower figures for the normal phaser and that they had to have upgraded the power of the phaser during the modifications and you may have a point. Lucky me then that no one on the Starwars side has done anything of the sort.
    What does modify to drill mean? I would say it means the phasers were more focused to be more effective against the rock. But I never claimed that it was an absolute upper limit merley an example of firepower where we actually saw the damage. I cluld ask you the same thing about Death Star: prove that Alderaan destruction scene was an upper limit for it's weapon.

    Not quite, it was made very clear that they wanted the world itself to be gone after they where done. And no, killing everything on a world is not the same as destroying it. That would be akin to saying "killing everyone on that bridge is the same as destroying the bridge". We have no reason to assume that they wanted anything but the removal of the planets existance and frankly, your attempt to change even that bit is quite funny. Wrong, but funny.
    I never said that those were definatley radiation weapons. Merley that it would fit with the military definion of destroyed. You assume that destroyed mantle must mean it is vaporized or melted which is an unsupported assumption. Destroyed is making it useless to the enemy.

    There's an enormous spread of analyses on the topic. The vast majority grant a number of advantages to the opposition - because both sides clearly have weaknesses and strengths peculiar to them. SDN does not acknowledge this; this is why they are not moderate. Even well known advantages of the UFP are completely ignored or claimed not to exist.
    Ok, what advantages does UFP have over the Empire that SD.net did not acknowledge?

    I especially like how they act as if the Transporter either won't work or if it does work is actually akin to murder.
    When you then point out how much energy the murdering Transporter would take per person (33MT as stated by some NASA scientists), they quickly change tune and call it Treknobabble. But it still kills and is immoral. Or something...
    And more of such niceness :-)

    Prove that it takes 33Mt and prove that it doesn't cause death since it breaks you down at molecular level.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ok, what advantages does UFP have over the Empire that SD.net did not acknowledge?
    Yet again you show your ignorance for all to see...

    Ah, so you admit they are chain reaction weapon. And thus we cannot calculate their raw firepower.
    No, but we can calculate equivalent firepower, which is sufficient for our needs.

    Prove that it takes 33Mt and prove that it doesn't cause death since it breaks you down at molecular level.
    I can only assume that you haven't seen any of the Star Trek episodes where transporter is used. Otherwise, you'd know that it doesn't cause death.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You are comparing shooting a bullet into a wall and blowing up a planet. First of all if you actually shoot a 10^38W laser into a planet it won't drill a hole trough it. It will superheat a portion of the planets mass tu hundreds of billions Kelvins. The created plasma will start to expalnd in all directions and in doing so shatter the planet. Which is exactly what we saw in film. True there were some unexpected phenomenons like fire rings but the planet itself blew up.

    I'd like to see you prove that. Show me how superheated plasma can be generated and propageted so quickly. As no one actually has done anything of the sort that should be a nice start. Like I said, claiming something is one thing. Proving it a different thing all together. I for one find it highly unlikely that a beam of that intensity won't blast straight through the world without delay.

    In fact, thermal limits of stuff like rock and iron pretty much make the explosion happen way to fast to begin with. I'd expect to see something akin to the TESB asteroid blast for a DET weapon, not a giant explosion.

    Secondly, if your defense against 'unexpected phenomena' is "Well, the planet blew up, didn't it, so it must have been DET" then you have very little defense at all. Explain the rings and the second explosion. Explain the lack of a beam pushing through at the end. Explain why the propagation of the alledged plasma started in the center of the world, instead of the edge as it should.

    You haven't and whats more, I'm fairly certain you can't either and will tell me all that is irrelevant cause it's DET, dammit!

    Which won't make you win this one. Reason might, explanations might, handwaving wont.

    On the same subject:

    The beam superheated the portion of planets mass causing it to expand and shatter the planet. Or the shield spread the energy across the hemisphere and after it failed the released energy destroyed the planet. Most likely both of those mechanisms were in action.

    This does not make sense. Both these hypothesis fail to explain why the explosion started in the center of the world, which it shouldn't. They also fail to adress all the other points I made above.

    Tell me, what is the energy of those shockwaves then? How did you calculate it?
    I do believe this very site has some nice pages about the subject at hand. Motion is the key word here. However, you can't claim no energy exists since the motion is seen. Simple as that, I can't claim no energy was involved in the Alderaan scene either, we all see the results after all.

    Ah, sou you admitt they are chain reaction weapon. And thus we cannot calculate their raw firepower.
    Not at all. A weapon doesn't have to be chain reaction based to make matter dissapear. That is your assertion, not mine. Besides, even if they are chain reaction based and we couldn't determine their 'raw firepower', it still wouldn't be relevant. After all, if your weapon is based on chain reactions (and no I didn't say Phasers are chain reaction tech based) raw firepower would be meaningless to measure anyway.

    Phasers are not the same as Cardassian and Romulan weapons.
    Phasers are exactly the same as the Cardassian weapons. They even call them Phasers and talk about upgrading the Phaser array aboard a Cardassian ship. On screen no less.

    Romulan weapons are disruptors. These are described in the series as a more brutal form of phaser, lacking finesse but using raw power to back it up instead. Again, these things are discussed in the show.

    What does modify to drill mean? I would say it means the phasers were more focused to be more effective against the rock. But I never claimed that it was an absolute upper limit merley an example of firepower where we actually saw the damage. I cluld ask you the same thing about Death Star: prove that Alderaan destruction scene was an upper limit for it's weapon.
    Well, that is the question isn't it? My point was that we saw a Phaser do work vs a planetary surface and cause matter to vanish. Your point was that it happened awfully slow. Which is exactly what I'd expect for a precision operation like drilling a tunnel. And modify to drill has been explained allready: Phasers do on occasion blow up rock explosively. That is not what you want when you drill a tunnel. Hence you make sure (by modifying them) that they don't cause the explosions.

    I never said that those were definatley radiation weapons. Merley that it would fit with the military definion of destroyed. You assume that destroyed mantle must mean it is vaporized or melted which is an unsupported assumption. Destroyed is making it useless to the enemy.
    Except ofcourse that the involved officers talked about said projection as the removal of the planets existance and not about making it useless. Secondly, if the definition of 'destroy' is now 'making it useless to the enemy' it both changed from its dictionary definition (And just for kicks I'll include it below) and devalues some of your own claims as well. You can't have it both ways, so next time we read in a Starwars book a ship was destroyed we'll just have to take that to mean it's actually still there, just not functional.

    Destroy - From the dictionary:
    1. To tear down; Demolish
    2. To break up or spoil completely; ruin
    3. To bring to total defeat; crush
    4. To put an end to; do away with
    5. To kill
    6. To neutralize the effect of
    7. To make useless

    And it continues then:
    Destroy implies a tearing down or bringing to an end by wrecking, ruining, killing, eradicating, etc.

    That doesn't sound like 'killing everyone on it' to me when talked about in reference to a planet.

    Prove that it takes 33Mt and prove that it doesn't cause death since it breaks you down at molecular level.
    Actually, if you had payed attention to my post you'd realize that the 33Mt requirement only exists if it breaks down people on a molecular level. But not that it matters, proving that is too easy for words. Others have done that for me, so I'll link to the article and quote the relevant parts.

    Funny part one: I misrememberd, it was 330MT per person, not 33...

    http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=BEAMUP-09-25-05

    First, the credentials of the man who did my work for me:

    Davis, who has a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Arizona, has worked on NASA robotic missions. His 79-page Air Force study seriously explored a series of possibilities, ranging from "Star Trek"-style travel to transportation via so-called wormholes in the fabric of space to psychic travel through solid walls.

    Secondly, the interesting part regarding storage and energy requirments for one (not two or more, just one) human being:

    For example, the computing-encoding of the entire contents of a human body would require 10 to the 28th (the number one followed by 28 zeroes) kilobytes of computer storage capacity. It would take 100 quintillion of the world's best commercially available hard drives "to store the encoded information of just one human being."

    Also, "it will take more than 2,400 times the present age of the universe (about 13 billion years) to access this amount of data" from the computers, Davis writes. And "to heat up and dematerialize one human being would require . .. the energy equivalent of 330 one-megaton thermonuclear bombs."


    Now, that consitutes enough proof for me. You are welcome to try and disproof it.

    On to your second part, proving they are alive. This one is also quite easy.

    We have three events where it's quite obvious that people don't actually die inside the transport.

    The first is ST:TMP where a man is beamed over and something goes wrong. We can clearly see the man flail about before dying, even better: He flails about while half transported, which is not possible in your theory as a half transported man would've been too dead to still move and scream.

    The second is during ST:TNG where Lt. Reginald Barclay not only is seen alive during transport but also manages to fish out other people stuck in transport. In fact, this happens more than once in the very episode.

    The third is during Enterprise. Mayor Hayes if being transported away. After he has basically dematerialized, someone shot his transporter beam. Note that this happens after transport starts. End result is that he has a wound exaclty where it would've been if he had still been standing there. That doesn't make sense in your theory either as shooting the remnants of a transporter beam should in your theory either result in internal injury (after all, the outer layers are long gone) or injuries that are not limited to just the area of his body hit (after all, if you disrupt a datastream it's rather unlikely you'll only disrupt exactly that bit).

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yet again you show your ignorance for all to see...
    Maybe instead of insults you could provide some examples.

    No, but we can calculate equivalent firepower, which is sufficient for our needs.
    And how do you calculate it?

    I can only assume that you haven't seen any of the Star Trek episodes where transporter is used. Otherwise, you'd know that it doesn't cause death.
    They destroy the body and then reassemble it. Is it the exact same individual or a clone? See what happened to Riker. Which was the real one? And I'm still waiting at your 33Mt figure.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'd like to see you prove that. Show me how superheated plasma can be generated and propageted so quickly. As no one actually has done anything of the sort that should be a nice start. Like I said, claiming something is one thing. Proving it a different thing all together. I for one find it highly unlikely that a beam of that intensity won't blast straight through the world without delay.
    In fact, thermal limits of stuff like rock and iron pretty much make the explosion happen way to fast to begin with. I'd expect to see something akin to the TESB asteroid blast for a DET weapon, not a giant explosion.
    Secondly, if your defense against 'unexpected phenomena' is "Well, the planet blew up, didn't it, so it must have been DET" then you have very little defense at all. Explain the rings and the second explosion. Explain the lack of a beam pushing through at the end. Explain why the propagation of the alledged plasma started in the center of the world, instead of the edge as it should.
    You haven't and whats more, I'm fairly certain you can't either and will tell me all that is irrelevant cause it's DET, dammit!
    Which won't make you win this one. Reason might, explanations might, handwaving wont.

    I'm not going to teach you high-school physics. If you heat something you will turn it into plasma which is nothing more than superheated ionized gas. Plasma particles will have enormous speed and will push against the planetary matter thus shattering it.

    This does not make sense. Both these hypothesis fail to explain why the explosion started in the center of the world, which it shouldn't. They also fail to adress all the other points I made above.
    Why don't they make sense? It's exactly what we saw in the film. The shield spread the energy, failed and the planet blew up. And the explosion was not perfectly symetrical.

    I do believe this very site has some nice pages about the subject at hand. Motion is the key word here. However, you can't claim no energy exists since the motion is seen. Simple as that, I can't claim no energy was involved in the Alderaan scene either, we all see the results after all.
    I can easily calculate the Death Star energy:
    mass=6*10^24kg, velocity=10000km/s, E=(m*v^2)/2 which gives us 3*10^38J. How do you calculate the energy of shockwaves?

    Not at all. A weapon doesn't have to be chain reaction based to make matter dissapear. That is your assertion, not mine. Besides, even if they are chain reaction based and we couldn't determine their 'raw firepower', it still wouldn't be relevant. After all, if your weapon is based on chain reactions (and no I didn't say Phasers are chain reaction tech based) raw firepower would be meaningless to measure anyway.
    How do you calculate energy for matter disapearance?

    I never said that those were definatley radiation weapons. Merley that it would fit with the military definion of destroyed. You assume that destroyed mantle must mean it is vaporized or melted which is an unsupported assumption. Destroyed is making it useless to the enemy.
    Except ofcourse that the involved officers talked about said projection as the removal of the planets existance and not about making it useless. Secondly, if the definition of 'destroy' is now 'making it useless to the enemy' it both changed from its dictionary definition (And just for kicks I'll include it below) and devalues some of your own claims as well. You can't have it both ways, so next time we read in a Starwars book a ship was destroyed we'll just have to take that to mean it's actually still there, just not functional.

    Destroy - From the dictionary:
    1. To tear down; Demolish
    2. To break up or spoil completely; ruin
    3. To bring to total defeat; crush
    4. To put an end to; do away with
    5. To kill
    6. To neutralize the effect of
    7. To make useless

    And it continues then:
    Destroy implies a tearing down or bringing to an end by wrecking, ruining, killing, eradicating, etc.

    That doesn't sound like 'killing everyone on it' to me when talked about in reference to a planet.

    See that definiton I bolded.It is exactly what I said.

    Regarding transporter energy
    Here is a trancript from TNG Outcast:
    "SOREN
    We used ten megajoules with that
    attempt. We're down to thirty-four percent of reserves.
    "
    As you can see Star Trek transporters don't consume anything close to 33Mt.

    ReplyDelete
  54. By the way Roondar you keep mentioning that conventional theory doesn't have any explanation for the fire rings. What is your explanation for the fire rings. What is your explanation for the destruction of Alderaan?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm not going to teach you high-school physics. If you heat something you will turn it into plasma which is nothing more than superheated ionized gas. Plasma particles will have enormous speed and will push against the planetary matter thus shattering it.
    From the point of origin indeed. Which the DS blast did not do. It might not be perfectly symetrical, but for your theory to fit we would see the explosion centered on the point where the DS blast hits. Nice evasion on the other parts tho.

    Oh and FYI, high school physics will also tell you that this beam shouldn't have terminated but keep moving past the planets center, there shouldn't have been any rings and the shattering should have started and be most visible near the point of origin. Not too mention that the movement of plasma vs the rest of the world would most likely have been a hell of a lot slower.

    In other words, your explanation is still bogus, you haven't adressed any of my problems with it but think that a bit of an attack on my ability will make you win. Sorry, your story still doesn't add up, you are still incorrect, the DS beam still isn't DET.

    Try again when you want to actually prove stuff instead of attacking me.


    Why don't they make sense? It's exactly what we saw in the film. The shield spread the energy, failed and the planet blew up. And the explosion was not perfectly symetrical.

    No it isn't 'exactly what we saw in the film'. What we saw in the film was a centered (mostly) explosion and a lot of unexplained side effects.

    We sure as hell didn't see any shield spread the energy over the planet. And if it really did that, the Empire can get to sack it's shield designers. The last thing a failing shield should do is focus the energy inwards. That makes so little sense it is absurd to argue in favor of it.

    I can easily calculate the Death Star energy:
    mass=6*10^24kg, velocity=10000km/s, E=(m*v^2)/2 which gives us 3*10^38J. How do you calculate the energy of shockwaves?

    I reject your mass. Prove the remnant (i.e. the part that was moved) mass of the planet is that. I reject your velocity as it is most definitely not true for the inner parts of Alderaan, but only for the very fastest outer parts observed. Hence your calculation is incorrect.

    Moreover, due to the complexity of the problem (millions of fragments all moving at a different speed) I find your choise of formula rather suspect. If I want to find out the energy inherent in a million cars moving in different directions I can be sure that a simple 'take total mass of all cars, guess at top speed of fastest car' will not get me a proper result.

    As too the shockwaves, I'm not going to repeat it. You can watch this site just as well as I can.

    How do you calculate energy for matter disapearance?
    The energy required to remove matter from existance has to be equal to or greater than the energy contained in the matter you make go away. I'd say that E=MC^2 is emminently useable for that purpose.

    See that definiton I bolded.It is exactly what I said.
    Like I said, you might have had a point where it not that the rest of the dialog is crystal clear, they wanted the planet gone, not irradiated or useless. Never mind that the weapons used vs that world as we see on screen are used in all other cases to blow stuff up.

    But ok, from now on every time something in Starwars is destroyed or a claim about such a thing is made we will all remember that this means 'made useless' and not 'blown up in tiny bits'.

    On transporters:

    First off, I have repeatedly stated that the energy usuage is only needed if and only if your assertion about how transporters work is true. Breaking down a human on a molecular level takes 330MT. Startrek transporters don't use that much energy.

    Option a): They actually are super-duper-duper-magically efficient and only require a couple of megajoules to do what in reality takes 330MT to do.
    Option b): Null space made the shuttle and it's instrumentation, including transporters and sensors unreliable and the figure claimed by Soren is wrong as a result.
    Option c): They actually don't work anything like you (and everybody else on the Starwars side) claim.

    Take your pick.

    ReplyDelete
  56. By the way Roondar you keep mentioning that conventional theory doesn't have any explanation for the fire rings. What is your explanation for the fire rings. What is your explanation for the destruction of Alderaan?
    Now, first off this is not relevant to the discussion. You claim DET, you get to prove DET.

    But for what it's worth, seeing the size of the Deathstar, the size of the beam and the general effect on the planet and later on it's effect on starships, I feel that the Deathstar beam is some form of 'matter conversion beam' that possibly causes a form of chain reaction in the core/center of whatever it hits.

    The fire rings occur then as a byproduct of this reaction, probably starting at the very beginning but not being visible until later.

    However, I'd feel this way even without the fire rings. They are the least of my problems with the explosion being called a simple DET attack.

    ReplyDelete
  57. From the point of origin indeed. Which the DS blast did not do. It might not be perfectly symetrical, but for your theory to fit we would see the explosion centered on the point where the DS blast hits. Nice evasion on the other parts tho.
    The shield spread the energy, or did you not see half of planet glowing white hot before it exploded.

    Oh and FYI, high school physics will also tell you that this beam shouldn't have terminated but keep moving past the planets center, there shouldn't have been any rings and the shattering should have started and be most visible near the point of origin. Not too mention that the movement of plasma vs the rest of the world would most likely have been a hell of a lot slower.
    Yes the beam would be terminated becuse it would spend all of it's energy to heating the planet. We are not talking about a low energy beam slowly vaporizing it's way through the planet but a 10^38J beam releasing it's energy in less than a second. The planets mass in contact with the beam will be superheated and will expand.
    I once again challenge you to demonstrated how your chain reaction explains the rings.

    In other words, your explanation is still bogus, you haven't adressed any of my problems with it but think that a bit of an attack on my ability will make you win. Sorry, your story still doesn't add up, you are still incorrect, the DS beam still isn't DET.
    Try again when you want to actually prove stuff instead of attacking me.

    Show how it is possible for a weapon to blow up the planet with 23.5 gigatons.

    We sure as hell didn't see any shield spread the energy over the planet. And if it really did that, the Empire can get to sack it's shield designers. The last thing a failing shield should do is focus the energy inwards. That makes so little sense it is absurd to argue in favor of it.
    Yes we did. We saw a glow spreading across it's surface without affecting the atmosphere. And a failing shield doesn't have a choice where to direct the energy. Besides deflecting 10^38J for a fraction of a second is a pretty good performance in my book.

    I reject your mass. Prove the remnant (i.e. the part that was moved) mass of the planet is that. I reject your velocity as it is most definitely not true for the inner parts of Alderaan, but only for the very fastest outer parts observed. Hence your calculation is incorrect.
    Since this is the mass of Earth and we saw in RotS that Alderaan is Earth-like waht basis do you have for rejecting the mass. The speed is average, some fragments were moving fater some slower. But there is no denying that they moved at thousands of km/s.

    Moreover, due to the complexity of the problem (millions of fragments all moving at a different speed) I find your choise of formula rather suspect. If I want to find out the energy inherent in a million cars moving in different directions I can be sure that a simple 'take total mass of all cars, guess at top speed of fastest car' will not get me a proper result.
    Actually yes you can. You take the total mass and average speed of the car and calucalte the kinetic energy. Why is this difficult to understand.

    The energy required to remove matter from existance has to be equal to or greater than the energy contained in the matter you make go away. I'd say that E=MC^2 is emminently useable for that purpose.
    So you are saying to make 10kg of matter go away you need 215 megatons? Riiiight.

    Like I said, you might have had a point where it not that the rest of the dialog is crystal clear, they wanted the planet gone, not irradiated or useless. Never mind that the weapons used vs that world as we see on screen are used in all other cases to blow stuff up.
    They never said anything about planet gone. They said they will destroy the mantle which as I have shown doesn't mean vaporizing or melting.

    But ok, from now on every time something in Starwars is destroyed or a claim about such a thing is made we will all remember that this means 'made useless' and not 'blown up in tiny bits'.
    There is a difference between something being shown and dialoge. If something is shown then we can make our own conclusions on wether it was fragmented or vaporized. If something is stated to be destroyed in dalouge we have no way to determine what that means.

    Regarding transporters
    Soren never explained how these transporters would actually work.

    Now, first off this is not relevant to the discussion. You claim DET, you get to prove DET.
    If an energy state of an object is increased by 10^38J than something had to supply that energy. This is the simplest explanation. If you want to claim that it was actually some strange chain reaction which somehow caused the planet to explode while supplying only 23.5 gigatons then you have to prove it.

    But for what it's worth, seeing the size of the Deathstar, the size of the beam and the general effect on the planet and later on it's effect on starships, I feel that the Deathstar beam is some form of 'matter conversion beam' that possibly causes a form of chain reaction in the core/center of whatever it hits.
    The fire rings occur then as a byproduct of this reaction, probably starting at the very beginning but not being visible until later.
    However, I'd feel this way even without the fire rings. They are the least of my problems with the explosion being called a simple DET attack.

    Marvelous. I have to supply calculations, mass and then you "reject" them. But then you waltz in and say that it's some kind of "matter conversion beam". Nice try. And hey, just for fun, could you explain how this matter conversion beam creates rings, why it causes the explosion to be centered on the planet's centre etc.

    ReplyDelete
  58. So you are saying to make 10kg of matter go away you need 215 megatons? Riiiight.
    That is actually what you'd need in this world and you know it. To use your own argument: "If an energy state of an object is increased by 215 megatons then something had to supply that energy".

    Marvelous. I have to supply calculations, mass and then you "reject" them. But then you waltz in and say that it's some kind of "matter conversion beam". Nice try. And hey, just for fun, could you explain how this matter conversion beam creates rings, why it causes the explosion to be centered on the planet's centre etc.

    Bzzzt.. Nice try. You can't win this one by telling me I have to explain how it did work. You want DET, you prove it.

    You didn't.

    Your shield mumbo jumbo still doesn't add up (failed shields don't redirect energy at all, failing shields that still work a bit don't spread out energy towards what they are supposed to protect). Your beam physics are highly suspect, simply because by virtue of the object in question and the speed of the beam there is not enough time for what you say happens to happen.

    In other words, the beam could not deliver that energy so fast because of thermal limits. Ergo it either causes a massive explosion at the exact place it hits (which it doesn't) or it drills straight through (which it doesn't either).

    Or it isn't DET. I'm becomming more certain that it isn't DET with every post you make. Your inability and downright unwill to even try and prove it in fact could be DET is most amusing.

    On the rejection, I can reject the mass very easilly because not all mass will be involved in your explosion and hence your figure is off. I can reject the speed just as easilly as it most certainly was nowhere near thousands of KP/S for all of the planet.

    And as to this little gem:
    They never said anything about planet gone. They said they will destroy the mantle which as I have shown doesn't mean vaporizing or melting.
    They said destroy, a word which has multiple meanings. You are playing the semantics game by using the least 'powerfull' version of destroy on purpose. Very well then, semantics it is.

    They didn't mean it in that sence. Your interpretation is wrong. You're playing a silly game, as you haven't shown it doesn't mean vapourizing or melting, you've shown that there is a chance that they might have meant something else. Which is a different thing alltogether.

    Now, having shown me that there is a chance they may have meant it that way, prove that they in fact did mean it in that sense. After all, you claim it is used in that sense so you get to back up the assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That is actually what you'd need in this world and you know it. To use your own argument: "If an energy state of an object is increased by 215 megatons then something had to supply that energy".
    Show me the calculations. Show me how you arrived at the E=mc2 figure for Star Trek material dissapearance.

    Bzzzt.. Nice try. You can't win this one by telling me I have to explain how it did work. You want DET, you prove it.
    You didn't.

    You are getting funnier all the time.
    Nothing can be absolutley proven. I cannot take you for a tour of Death Star reactors to absolutley prove that it is DET now can I? But what I can do is provide a theory. Which I have. Now you provide a better one. Explain how Death Star destroys the planet.

    Your shield mumbo jumbo still doesn't add up (failed shields don't redirect energy at all, failing shields that still work a bit don't spread out energy towards what they are supposed to protect). Your beam physics are highly suspect, simply because by virtue of the object in question and the speed of the beam there is not enough time for what you say happens to happen.
    What are you talking about? The shields absorbed the energy, redirected it to half of hemisphere and then failed. What is so difficult to understand here?

    In other words, the beam could not deliver that energy so fast because of thermal limits. Ergo it either causes a massive explosion at the exact place it hits (which it doesn't) or it drills straight through (which it doesn't either).
    I already explained that beam heated the planet to hundreds of billions of K. A kinetic energy of a particle is given through this formula: E=3/2*k*T. (k=1.38*10^-23). If T=10^11K energy of a particle will be 2*10^-9J. If we assume that the particle in question is a iron which has a mass of about 9.35*10^-26kg then it's average speed will be 6,654km/s. Which will shatter the planet.

    Or it isn't DET. I'm becomming more certain that it isn't DET with every post you make. Your inability and downright unwill to even try and prove it in fact could be DET is most amusing.
    And your predending like I have to absolutley prove any theory before it being accepted is hilarious. Provide your alternate theory.

    On the rejection, I can reject the mass very easilly because not all mass will be involved in your explosion and hence your figure is off. I can reject the speed just as easilly as it most certainly was nowhere near thousands of KP/S for all of the planet.
    Yes it was. The entire planet was blown up. A few moments later when Han Solo arrived the planet was gone. All that was left of it was a small meteor shower.

    They said destroy, a word which has multiple meanings. You are playing the semantics game by using the least 'powerfull' version of destroy on purpose. Very well then, semantics it is.
    They didn't mean it in that sence. Your interpretation is wrong. You're playing a silly game, as you haven't shown it doesn't mean vapourizing or melting, you've shown that there is a chance that they might have meant something else. Which is a different thing alltogether.
    Now, having shown me that there is a chance they may have meant it that way, prove that they in fact did mean it in that sense. After all, you claim it is used in that sense so you get to back up the assertion.

    There was no glowing material therefore nothing was melted or vaporized. Once again word destroyed can mean anything like your own ductionary quote showed.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Show me the calculations. Show me how you arrived at the E=mc2 figure for Star Trek material dissapearance.
    I based that off what happens when matter is annihilated in real life. I'll readilly admit that this is not proof in any way tho.

    You are getting funnier all the time.
    Nothing can be absolutley proven. I cannot take you for a tour of Death Star reactors to absolutley prove that it is DET now can I? But what I can do is provide a theory. Which I have. Now you provide a better one. Explain how Death Star destroys the planet.

    No no no, you don't need to do anything of the sort. You just have to provide evidence that explains everything we see. And you never did do that.

    Your theory fails because it does not accuratly portray what we see on screen and hence it is wrong by default. And that is why you need to provide evindence/proof. Like I said, handwaving stuff away because you don't like to think about it doesn't work, not does trying to make me create a theory.

    You have a theory. It has been shown that it cannot possibly be correct. Yet you keep saying that it in fact is correct and that we have shown nothing. And since you refuse to explain the things I and others see as problems, I keep demanding proof.

    What are you talking about? The shields absorbed the energy, redirected it to half of hemisphere and then failed. What is so difficult to understand here?
    How about the teensy fact that no Starwars shield (including all the other ones that fail on screen) except that one has ever done that? Or how about the teensy fact that you have yet to provide evidence there is in fact a shield? Or how about that even if there was a shield it surely can't have worked that way because that course of action (redirecting energy downwards to the planet in case of a hit) is totally suicidal and contrary to the purpose of a shield, which is to keep harm outside, not to invite it in?

    I already explained that beam heated the planet to hundreds of billions of K. A kinetic energy of a particle is given through this formula: E=3/2*k*T. (k=1.38*10^-23). If T=10^11K energy of a particle will be 2*10^-9J. If we assume that the particle in question is a iron which has a mass of about 9.35*10^-26kg then it's average speed will be 6,654km/s. Which will shatter the planet.
    Yes yes yes.. Fine maths.. It however won't shatter the planet like we see happen on screen. The shattering will be centered on the point of impact in your theory, which it obviously isn't on screen. Not too mention that you have allready claimed that the DS beam started to shatter the world before it actually was completly finished. Hence, we still should see parts of the beam appear on the other side. After all, if the planet is allready shattering, the beam's energy potential must have allready exceeded the required energy to make it shatter. In other words, your theory still not explaining what we see and thus is still false.

    And all this without even touching subjects like the secondary explosion or those nasty rings.

    And your predending like I have to absolutley prove any theory before it being accepted is hilarious. Provide your alternate theory.
    This one is super funny. Why don't you give a theory that actually fits what we see onscreen before you start acting smug. You haven't. I'm not asking for you to prove your theory absolutely. I'm telling you that your theory doesn't fit the facts observed and thus is false by default.

    Yes it was. The entire planet was blown up. A few moments later when Han Solo arrived the planet was gone. All that was left of it was a small meteor shower.
    The length of time between the explosion of Alderaan and the arrival of the Millenium Falcon is unknown, but more than a few seconds. Seeing that they thought they had the time to train luke in the ways of the force (which sure as hell won't be a 5 minute event) it's rather a stretch to assume they arrived directly afterwards. Not too mention that the Deathstar had also moved quite some distance in the meantime, at sublight speeds.

    There was no glowing material therefore nothing was melted or vaporized. Once again word destroyed can mean anything like your own ductionary quote showed.
    The clouds where visible in space even though they where at the night side of the planet. That qualifies as 'shedding light' or 'glowing'. And indeed, destroyed can mean anything. In this case it meant destroy as in meaning 1,2,3 or 4 of the dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I see there is great need for a working forum, to gauge by the level of discussion here.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous #2 here.

    >>give a theory that actually fits what we see onscreen<<

    Roondar, I'll give you that. The Death Star fired its weapon, which according to the highest canon, is powerful enough to destroy an entire planet. The beam hit the planet and the planet blew up (as the weapon is powerful enough to destroy a planet). That's the simplest explanation (ever heard of Occam?).

    ReplyDelete
  63. No no no, you don't need to do anything of the sort. You just have to provide evidence that explains everything we see. And you never did do that.
    Your theory fails because it does not accuratly portray what we see on screen and hence it is wrong by default. And that is why you need to provide evindence/proof. Like I said, handwaving stuff away because you don't like to think about it doesn't work, not does trying to make me create a theory.
    You have a theory. It has been shown that it cannot possibly be correct. Yet you keep saying that it in fact is correct and that we have shown nothing. And since you refuse to explain the things I and others see as problems, I keep demanding proof.

    I already admitted there are some acpects of the explosion the conventional theory doesn't explain. What I want to know is why do you think this somehow means that this was a chain reaction.

    How about the teensy fact that no Starwars shield (including all the other ones that fail on screen) except that one has ever done that? Or how about the teensy fact that you have yet to provide evidence there is in fact a shield? Or how about that even if there was a shield it surely can't have worked that way because that course of action (redirecting energy downwards to the planet in case of a hit) is totally suicidal and contrary to the purpose of a shield, which is to keep harm outside, not to invite it in?
    Maybe you should watch the RotS, specifically the opening battle. You'll see several Trade Federation battleships exibiting the same shield properties(redirecting hit across it's surfce). Secondly you completley misunderstood me regarding the Alderaan shield. The shield did not direct energy towards the planet. It distributed the energy across it's surface and tried to reradiate it back into space (hence the white glow). It failed to do so however and the energy hit the planet. You once again ask me to prove the shields. It is the only way to explain why the superlaser energy didn't burn off the atmosphere as it was spreading above the planet.

    Yes yes yes.. Fine maths.. It however won't shatter the planet like we see happen on screen. The shattering will be centered on the point of impact in your theory, which it obviously isn't on screen. Not too mention that you have allready claimed that the DS beam started to shatter the world before it actually was completly finished. Hence, we still should see parts of the beam appear on the other side. After all, if the planet is allready shattering, the beam's energy potential must have allready exceeded the required energy to make it shatter. In other words, your theory still not explaining what we see and thus is still false.
    How can we see the beam when it is obscured by the planets explosion hmm? Yes the beams energy exceeded the requirement neccesary to shatter it. So in addition to shattering the planet it violently scattered it's mass. Secondly once the plasma is heated it will spread in all directions equally therefore the explosion will be alligned with the planets center since the beam probably drilled several thousands of km into the planet before it started to expand.

    And all this without even touching subjects like the secondary explosion or those nasty rings.
    You're right the fire rings are unexpected phenomenon. But why does it mean that Death Star did not require 10^38J of energy? How does your matter conversion theory explain the rings. Try to understand, a good theory is defined by it's ablity to explain things. If you want to override the conventional theory provide a better one. It's as simple as that.

    This one is super funny. Why don't you give a theory that actually fits what we see onscreen before you start acting smug. You haven't. I'm not asking for you to prove your theory absolutely. I'm telling you that your theory doesn't fit the facts observed and thus is false by default.
    Explain why doesn't the 10^38J superlaser fit with fire rings. How do fire rings contradict it? Provide your theory that does explain those observed facts better than conventional theory.

    The length of time between the explosion of Alderaan and the arrival of the Millenium Falcon is unknown, but more than a few seconds. Seeing that they thought they had the time to train luke in the ways of the force (which sure as hell won't be a 5 minute event) it's rather a stretch to assume they arrived directly afterwards. Not too mention that the Deathstar had also moved quite some distance in the meantime, at sublight speeds.
    Once again, the planet was blown up and the debris doubled in diameter in a second. Why should we not use 10,000km/s as average speed. The planet was gone, justify your assumption that most of the planet was not moving anything close to thousands of km/s when most of the debris we've seen was.

    And indeed, destroyed can mean anything.
    Good that you realized even this simple matter.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Occam dictates otherwise. A theory which contradicts the evidence is out. See, AIMB, prior blog post on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Maybe instead of insults you could provide some examples.
    Read DSG2k page. Duh.

    And how do you calculate it?
    Read DSG2k page. Duh.

    They destroy the body
    No, they don't.

    And I'm still waiting at your 33Mt figure.
    Since it's not "mine" figure, isn't 33Mt actually, and was explained to you already, I find your statement very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anon, it seems to me you're not going to listen to anything. If you truly read Darkstar's page with an open mind(and odds are you didn't even read it, let alone with an open mind) then you would understand everything we've been saying. The same is true for the whole TDIC situation. Seeing as how you probably didn't and got the few facts you've got on them from Wong, I think you shouldn't be debating this. Come back when you've read Darkstar's pages, and THEN try to argue against them. I would not be surprised if you fail entirely to come up with a true response to what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This will be my last post on the Alderaan DET/No DET thing.

    Occam dictates otherwise. A theory which contradicts the evidence is out. See, AIMB, prior blog post on the topic.

    Read that. You have allready admitted that parts of what we see are not explained by your theory. Hence your theory cannot be correct.

    This has nothing to do with wether or not I have a better theory. It simply means your theory is not correct. And since your theory cannot be correct, the figures that you get from it are not at all relevant as they too will be incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh and as an addition to your highly entertaining weblog post itself, you could have added that the Romulan Star Empire, which is generally observed as being roughly on par with the Federation in technology and strength, creates and utilizes 'Artificial Quantum Singularities' as powersource.

    Or better put, they fabricate and contain black holes, and put these in their ships as a powersource.

    And yet, even though they can manufacture, move and store something so exotic and downright nasty to handle as that, no one in the Federation is really worried about their technology.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Occam dictates otherwise. A theory which contradicts the evidence is out. See, AIMB, prior blog post on the topic.
    Read that. You have allready admitted that parts of what we see are not explained by your theory. Hence your theory cannot be correct.
    This has nothing to do with wether or not I have a better theory. It simply means your theory is not correct. And since your theory cannot be correct, the figures that you get from it are not at all relevant as they too will be incorrect.

    It seems to me that you people don't realize that in order to overrule a theory you must provide a better one. Did you see Einstein bitching and whining about how Newtons kinetic energy formulas are not correct for high-velocity and demanding that we discard them? No he provided a better theory. And even then Newtons formulas are still considerd correct for small velocities. Same is the situation with Death Star. We can use conventional theory to calculate the energy needed to scatter Alderaans mass at 10,000km/s and we await for a more refined theory which will be able to explain fire rings and secondary explosion. But the same way Einstein's relativistc theory didn't disprove Newtons forumulas for low velocites this new theory is unlikely to disprove energy calculations for Alderaan based on it's mass scattering.
    Additionally second explosion and fire rings are going to require additional energy so I really don't see how you think that they disprove 10^38J estimate. Do as Einstein did and provide a better theory.

    Oh and as an addition to your highly entertaining weblog post itself, you could have added that the Romulan Star Empire, which is generally observed as being roughly on par with the Federation in technology and strength, creates and utilizes 'Artificial Quantum Singularities' as powersource.
    Or better put, they fabricate and contain black holes, and put these in their ships as a powersource.
    And yet, even though they can manufacture, move and store something so exotic and downright nasty to handle as that, no one in the Federation is really worried about their technology.

    What is the mass of those singularities? Are they real black holes or one of those funky phenomenons who have a "crack" which can be broken with "warp particles" or those yellowish thingies thorugh which Species 90210 flew into our galaxy?

    ReplyDelete
  70. You once again ask me to prove the shields. It is the only way to explain why the superlaser energy didn't burn off the atmosphere as it was spreading above the planet.

    Wow, talk about a circular argument. "In order for the DET theory to fit the available evidence, there has to be shields." But, "the only way to prove the shields is to assume that the DET effect is correct, and use that to determine that there are shields."

    It seems to me that you people don't realize that in order to overrule a theory you must provide a better one. Did you see Einstein bitching and whining about how Newtons kinetic energy formulas are not correct for high-velocity and demanding that we discard them? No he provided a better theory.

    Alas, that's not quite true. Newton's equations worked for the available evidence. Unlike the DET theory, which, by your own admission, only works if there's planetary shields involved.

    Since it doesn't fit the evidence, it bears more resemblance to Ether than Newtons Laws.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  71. Wow, talk about a circular argument. "In order for the DET theory to fit the available evidence, there has to be shields." But, "the only way to prove the shields is to assume that the DET effect is correct, and use that to determine that there are shields."
    Maybe you didn't see the films in which we learned abouth Hoth and Endor shields. The technology exists and explains the observed evidence. What's the problem?

    Alas, that's not quite true. Newton's equations worked for the available evidence. Unlike the DET theory, which, by your own admission, only works if there's planetary shields involved.
    Since it doesn't fit the evidence, it bears more resemblance to Ether than Newtons Laws.

    But it does fir the observed evidence. The energy state of the planet was raised ba 10^38J therefore superlaser had to impart 10^38J to the planet. How do fire rings contradict it? You can't just say "they contradict it", you have to explain how and why.

    ReplyDelete
  72. It seems to me that you people don't realize that in order to overrule a theory you must provide a better one.
    Lucky for me then that real science does not work like that at all.

    You have a theory. All I need in the real world (and on these weblogs as well) to overturn it is to show that it is false or inaccurate. I have done that. You have not been able to counter that.

    I do not have to present a better theory for your theory to be false.

    To give an example why you are wrong:

    Say I formulate a theory that says "An object pushed off this table here in my room (on earth naturally) will not fall too the ground".

    Naturally it can be demonstrated this theory is false quite easilly: just push an object of my table and watch if fall to the ground.

    My theory is hence false. And the good part is that the person who shows to me my theory is false does not have to explain how or why the different behaviour occured at all for that to change. He could do that without even speaking a single word and he'd still have disproven my theory.

    I don't get the fuss about this anyway, it is as if you'd only think the Deathstar is powerfull if and only if the way it makes a planet goes boom is by using DET (and we all know by now it most definitly doesn't). Never mind that from an effectiveness point of view it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Or that using chain reaction tech or other 'SF magic' is actually 10 times cooler and 10 times more advanced technologically than plain old 'dump the energy in it'.

    Oh btw:
    What is the mass of those singularities? Are they real black holes or one of those funky phenomenons who have a "crack" which can be broken with "warp particles" or those yellowish thingies thorugh which Species 90210 flew into our galaxy?
    We don't know the mass of the singularities, but they provide enough hawkin radiation to move big starships about at warp.

    And they are real enough to be mistaken for "gravity wells" (another way to describe a black hole) by creatures that live in real black holes.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Maybe you didn't see the films in which we learned abouth Hoth and Endor shields. The technology exists and explains the observed evidence. What's the problem?

    No dialog. Sure, we've seen Powerful theater shields on Hoth (the Empire lands around them) and (apparently impenetrable) projected shields from the Forest Moon of Endor around the Death Star II. But not actual Planetary Shields.

    But that's really neither here nor there, because unless there's Yet Another Special Edition to Take the Fans' Money from the DVD boxed set, they don't mention it in the Leia/Vader/Tarkin dialog. They talk about "peaceful Alderaan" and "no weapons". But, nothing about shields.

    so, in the absence of evidence of shields, most people assume there aren't any shields there.

    If there aren't shields there, the process can't be DET, because DET only works if there's shields to spread the damage out.

    It could be anything else, even including a targeting beam for 1000 flying space monkeys to teleport in, eat the center of Alderaan, and then all fart at the same time, blowing up the planet and creating rings of fire from their gas discharges.

    Less ludicrously, It could be some sort of chain reaction, where the beam transforms Alderaan into some sort of explosive radioactive element, which then blows up due to critical mass.

    We could technobabble (ick) up a hundred solutions (using uncommium particles and hyperspace resonances and particle fluxes and all those other things that made Voyager unwatchable)that fit the available evidence more than DET.

    ReplyDelete
  74. You have a theory. All I need in the real world (and on these weblogs as well) to overturn it is to show that it is false or inaccurate. I have done that. You have not been able to counter that.
    Again I ask: how do the fire rings decrease the energy requirement for the superlaser. How does the secondary explosion decrease the energy requirement for the superlaser?

    To give an example why you are wrong:
    Say I formulate a theory that says "An object pushed off this table here in my room (on earth naturally) will not fall too the ground".
    Naturally it can be demonstrated this theory is false quite easilly: just push an object of my table and watch if fall to the ground.

    Your analogy is false beacuse Alderaans mass was scattered at thousands of km/s which means it's energy state was changed by 10^38J. Therefore my use of kinetic energy of the fragments to calcualate the neccesary energy is justified. Now if Alderaan collapsed onto itself you would have a point.

    I don't get the fuss about this anyway, it is as if you'd only think the Deathstar is powerfull if and only if the way it makes a planet goes boom is by using DET (and we all know by now it most definitly doesn't). Never mind that from an effectiveness point of view it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Or that using chain reaction tech or other 'SF magic' is actually 10 times cooler and 10 times more advanced technologically than plain old 'dump the energy in it'.
    Why dou you want it to be a chain reaction then? The "dump energy in it" is the simplest and most straightforward explanation so why shouldn't we use it?

    No dialog. Sure, we've seen Powerful theater shields on Hoth (the Empire lands around them) and (apparently impenetrable) projected shields from the Forest Moon of Endor around the Death Star II. But not actual Planetary Shields.
    But that's really neither here nor there, because unless there's Yet Another Special Edition to Take the Fans' Money from the DVD boxed set, they don't mention it in the Leia/Vader/Tarkin dialog. They talk about "peaceful Alderaan" and "no weapons". But, nothing about shields.
    so, in the absence of evidence of shields, most people assume there aren't any shields there.

    Dialog which is not contradicted. Endor shield was projected hundreds of km into space and it surrounded the entire Death Star. And how does "no weapons" contradict a shield. Shield is not a weapon. Explain why should we use superlaser effect, a fan creation, instead of theatre shields connected to a planet covering network.

    If there aren't shields there, the process can't be DET, because DET only works if there's shields to spread the damage out.
    It could be anything else, even including a targeting beam for 1000 flying space monkeys to teleport in, eat the center of Alderaan, and then all fart at the same time, blowing up the planet and creating rings of fire from their gas discharges.
    Less ludicrously, It could be some sort of chain reaction, where the beam transforms Alderaan into some sort of explosive radioactive element, which then blows up due to critical mass.
    We could technobabble (ick) up a hundred solutions (using uncommium particles and hyperspace resonances and particle fluxes and all those other things that made Voyager unwatchable)that fit the available evidence more than DET.

    Please do. Provide a single theory that explains how the Death Star could raise the energy state of Alderaan by 10^38J without carrying the neccesary energy. Explain how 1000 flying monkeys could create fire rings or cause a secondary explosion. Once again the goal is to provide the simplest and most straightforward explanation not to concoct hundreds of complicated far fetched ones.

    In any analysis one always tries to isolate the variables. In this case we have partial planet vaporisation, planet fragmentation, planet mass scattering, fire rings and secondary explosion. Each of those events will require a certain amount of energy. Scattering of the planets mass will require 10^38J. Explain why those other events should decrease that energy insted of obviously increasing it further. To put it another way: Alderaan's fragments flying at 10,000km/s are a different phenomenon than fire rings and secondary explosion. I (actually many before me) have calculated the energy neccesary to simply scatter it's mass leaving to future scientists/episodes/theories to calculate the energy for fire rings and secondary explosion.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Jeez, anon. Listen to yourself. You're calling SLE a fan-creation, but the same is true of a linked theatre shield network, or DET for that matter. Further, your theory is proven WRONG. Regardless of it being the most simplistic explanation, it is WRONG. And you need to accept that. Sheesh. You're like the bloody liberals that keep claiming WMDs were the only reason we went to Iraq even in the face of all the evidence that it wasn't, like the Joint Resolution for the military action in the first place. Again, I urge you to read Darkstar's pages on the Death Star. He explains everything you want to know. And if you're not going to read them, then you have no business arguing against the SLE. You cannot argue that which you do not understand or are knowledgeable about. Hence why I stopped trying to argue, as my knowledge on the subject is limited.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dialog which is not contradicted.

    Sure it's not contradicted. So there could be a shield. But there's no proof of a shield.

    Explain why should we use superlaser effect, a fan creation, instead of theatre shields connected to a planet covering network.

    Ok. There's no evidence of theater shields on Alderaan. There's no evidence of a network of the same, or a planetary shield. Fans hypothesized that there are, mainly so they can use their favorite theory, DET.

    Which too is fan created, just like the shield hypothesis, because I don't remember hearing that bit of dialog either.

    So, we know, and someone named anyonymous accepted, that unless there are shields, DET doesn't explain much of anything.

    Since there's no proof of shields, DET can't be the reason for the boom.

    So, we're limited to other methods of fan creations.

    Sure, I, unlike others, accept the 10^38 energy number. Makes sense. Somehow, the Death Star had to impart something that created that much energy.

    The simplest method would be DET.
    But, as Occam tells us, "the simplest method that fits all the evidence is usually the best one."

    DET is a beautiful theory in it's simplicity. But it doesn't fit the evidence at hand. And that's why it doesn't work as an explanation.

    I could conjecture, which based on the rest of the dialog, you'd probably disdain, so I don't feel like bothering.

    Short of George coming in here and telling us what he meant for it to do, we're pretty much at an empass.

    You're not likely to give up on the shields/DET theory, and you're not convincing anyone that already doesn't believe that this theory works.

    But, it's been fun arguing with you, I've really enjoyed it. Hope you feel the same.

    Good luck, gotta go.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dialog which is not contradicted.

    Sure it's not contradicted. So there could be a shield. But there's no proof of a shield.

    Explain why should we use superlaser effect, a fan creation, instead of theatre shields connected to a planet covering network.

    Ok. There's no evidence of theater shields on Alderaan. There's no evidence of a network of the same, or a planetary shield. Fans hypothesized that there are, mainly so they can use their favorite theory, DET.

    Which too is fan created, just like the shield hypothesis, because I don't remember hearing that bit of dialog either.

    So, we know, and someone named anyonymous accepted, that unless there are shields, DET doesn't explain much of anything.

    Since there's no proof of shields, DET can't be the reason for the boom.

    So, we're limited to other methods of fan creations.

    Sure, I, unlike others, accept the 10^38 energy number. Makes sense. Somehow, the Death Star had to impart something that created that much energy.

    The simplest method would be DET.
    But, as Occam tells us, "the simplest method that fits all the evidence is usually the best one."

    DET is a beautiful theory in it's simplicity. But it doesn't fit the evidence at hand. And that's why it doesn't work as an explanation.

    I could conjecture, which based on the rest of the dialog, you'd probably disdain, so I don't feel like bothering.

    Short of George coming in here and telling us what he meant for it to do, we're pretty much at an empass.

    You're not likely to give up on the shields/DET theory, and you're not convincing anyone that already doesn't believe that this theory works.

    But, it's been fun arguing with you, I've really enjoyed it. Hope you feel the same.

    Good luck, gotta go.

    ReplyDelete
  78. You're calling SLE a fan-creation, but the same is true of a linked theatre shield network, or DET for that matter.
    How difficult can it be to build a few thousand shield generators? For a civilization that can build 160km starships in 3 years? As for DET, I'm realy tired of repeating this but if you want to raise the energy state of an object by 10^38J you must supply that energy.

    Further, your theory is proven WRONG. Regardless of it being the most simplistic explanation, it is WRONG.
    How is it proven wrong? "My" theory or conventinal theory states that in order to accelerate 6*10^24kg to 10,000km/s you need 10^38J. How is that proven wrong? Explain it.

    Again, I urge you to read Darkstar's pages on the Death Star. He explains everything you want to know. And if you're not going to read them, then you have no business arguing against the SLE.
    This is Darkstars explanation:
    "The superlaser particles produce an energy field in the target matter, setting off a mass-energy conversion effect related to the hyperspace domain."
    What are superlaser particles? How are they produced? What is this matter-energy conversion? How does it work? What is this hyperspace domain? How does it work? His theory explains NOTHING.

    Sure it's not contradicted. So there could be a shield. But there's no proof of a shield.
    Absoulte proof isn't neccesary. It is possible therefore is a better explanation than superlaser effect that as I shown above explains nothing.

    Ok. There's no evidence of theater shields on Alderaan. There's no evidence of a network of the same, or a planetary shield. Fans hypothesized that there are, mainly so they can use their favorite theory, DET.
    Which too is fan created, just like the shield hypothesis, because I don't remember hearing that bit of dialog either.
    So, we know, and someone named anyonymous accepted, that unless there are shields, DET doesn't explain much of anything.
    Since there's no proof of shields, DET can't be the reason for the boom.
    So, we're limited to other methods of fan creations.

    Except shield networking does not introduce any new mechanism or technology. The Alderaan goverment merley has to chose to do so. Superlaser effect on the other hand intorduces an entirely new mechanism.

    Sure, I, unlike others, accept the 10^38 energy number. Makes sense.
    Then what is the problem?

    DET is a beautiful theory in it's simplicity. But it doesn't fit the evidence at hand. And that's why it doesn't work as an explanation.
    What evidence doesn't it fit? Once again DET means that it took 10^38J to raise the energy state of Alderaan by 10^38J. What evidence contradicts that assertion?

    You're not likely to give up on the shields/DET theory, and you're not convincing anyone that already doesn't believe that this theory works.
    Actually the people on Spacebattles and Stardestroyer do accept the conventional (DET) theory. And the key word that you use is "believe". That's right some people don't want to believe that Death Star can create 10^38J beacuse it makes Star Trek look weak. Well, too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I should just bow out, like I said I would.

    What evidence doesn't it fit? Once again DET means that it took 10^38J to raise the energy state of Alderaan by 10^38J. What evidence contradicts that assertion?

    The calculation you're so fond of is that it took that much energy to blow up Alderaan. Sure, got that, agree with that.

    What I disagree on is that the DET explains how that energy got there.

    DET says that "the beam imparts that much energy, causing the planet to blow up." Direct Energy Transfer. That's what the name means.

    But, unless there's shields to prevent atmospheric burning, then DET doesn't work. DET doesn't explain Secondary explosions and Fire rings which we do.

    So, while I'll grant that the Death Star can do something that imparts that much energy to Alderaan, I disagree with the theory presented on how it succeeds in that.

    It hinges on too many assumptions that can't be proven.

    Actually the people on Spacebattles and Stardestroyer do accept the conventional (DET) theory. And the key word that you use is "believe". That's right some people don't want to believe that Death Star can create 10^38J beacuse it makes Star Trek look weak. Well, too bad.

    For thousands of years, most people believed the world was flat too. Doesn't make it true.

    To turn it around, some people want to believe that the Death Star's main gun can do that much damage because they want Star Wars to look more powerful.

    Well, too bad. The DET explanation doesn't fit the evidence. All you have is your belief that it does. The assumptions you've made that it works are just that assumptions.

    Belief's a great thing. But it's not logic or science.

    So, you, and whatever people on whatever websites can believe what they wish.

    And while they're wishing, I'd like a pony.

    ReplyDelete
  80. DET says that "the beam imparts that much energy, causing the planet to blow up." Direct Energy Transfer. That's what the name means.
    Yes and that's the conventional and most straigtforward explanation.

    But, unless there's shields to prevent atmospheric burning, then DET doesn't work.
    Shield network relies only on willinglness of Star Wars people to use existing technology. Therefore it is superior to any superlaser effect.

    DET doesn't explain Secondary explosions and Fire rings which we do.
    Please then, explain them or at least link me to the page containing the explanations.

    So, while I'll grant that the
    Death Star can do something that imparts that much energy to Alderaan, I disagree with the theory presented on how it succeeds in that.

    Then explain how is it possible to blow up a planet the way Alderaan was without delivering the neccesary energy.

    It hinges on too many assumptions that can't be proven.
    There are no assumptions here. We see the planet blown up. We measure the speed of fragments and calculate it's energy. There is no known meachanism through which a planet can suddenly blow up on it's own therefore the energy had to come from Death Star. Why do you insist on complicating things?

    For thousands of years, most people believed the world was flat too. Doesn't make it true.
    Yes but those people had no evidence that the world is flat. Alderaan did blew up, violently.

    To turn it around, some people want to believe that the Death Star's main gun can do that much damage because they want Star Wars to look more powerful.
    I saw the Death Star blow up a planet on my TV. This is not a belief but a fact.

    The DET explanation doesn't fit the evidence. All you have is your belief that it does. The assumptions you've made that it works are just that assumptions.
    What evidence doesn't DET fit? I asked this many times and no one answered? What in the Alderaan destruction scene doesn't fit with the fact that you need 10^38J to blow up a planet? Answer me.

    Belief's a great thing. But it's not logic or science.
    So, you, and whatever people on whatever websites can believe what they wish.
    And while they're wishing, I'd like a pony.

    No need for faith. I can just play my DVD and see Alderaan being blown up with my own eyes. Check back when you come up with a way a planet can be blown up like that without delivering 10^38J.

    ReplyDelete
  81. How?

    By using some of the planet itself. The simplest way of demonstrating an incidence of this is the creation of antimatter from energy and transporting (ala Trek) to the target.

    Amplfication moves, like that, allow you to use energy inherent to the target to destroy it. The most effective of these possibiblities is causing whatever mass/energy reaction you would use to get energy on the planet.

    (Every single method you might use for generating power, this applies to.)

    Nor is the 1e38J figure nearly as well fixed as you'd like to believe; the size of Alderaan, the distribution of the velocity of the debris, etc - all are not established to a fine degree of precision. The apparent disappearance of Alderaan leaves us wondering what fraction of Alderaan remained in the form of normal matter.

    ReplyDelete
  82. By using some of the planet itself. The simplest way of demonstrating an incidence of this is the creation of antimatter from energy and transporting (ala Trek) to the target.
    Amplfication moves, like that, allow you to use energy inherent to the target to destroy it. The most effective of these possibiblities is causing whatever mass/energy reaction you would use to get energy on the planet.

    This explains nothing. Succesfuly initiating matter-antimater reaction inside a reactor is not the same as doing it on a planet. You would need 10^21kg of antimatter shooting at the planet to blow it up like that. That much mass going at the speed of about 77,000km/s would have the the kinetic energy of 3*10^36J. In addition to that you would have the antimatter reacting with any material. This is all assuming the antimatter-planet reaction rate is 100% efficient. In reality it won't be which brings us back to around 10^38J.

    Nor is the 1e38J figure nearly as well fixed as you'd like to believe; the size of Alderaan, the distribution of the velocity of the debris, etc - all are not established to a fine degree of precision. The apparent disappearance of Alderaan leaves us wondering what fraction of Alderaan remained in the form of normal matter.
    We saw Alderaan at the end of RotS. It had a surface gravity and etmosphere identical to that of Earth. Why should we assume it is drastically different? I suggest you watch the film the vast majority of the fragments was moving at roughly 1 diameter per second. And what is this Alderaan dissapearance? It was blown up. By the time Millenium Falcon arrived the mass was scattered. It didn't dissapear.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Okay, time to end this.


    Anon, if you refuse to answer the following points then your argument is dead. Understand?

    Explain to me how DET created the fire rings.
    Explain to me how DET comes from the beam of the death star does not simply cut through alderaan like a knife through an apple
    Explain to me how the DET energy that is deflected does so in such a way that it 'circles' the planetary sheild. No seriouslly, if anything it should be flying away from the point of IMPACT, much like water hitting a wall, not encircling the planet as a whole (IE: it shouldn't be consuming the world) period).
    Explain to me secondary explosions after the beam
    Explain to me why the DET energy not only fails to cut through alderaan, but doesn't so much as effect the orbit in the SLIGHTEST
    Explain to me, a third, MINOR explosion shortly before the destruction of the planet in which a 'chunk' of alderaan is blasted away EARLIER than the rest.
    Explain to me why the DET energy imparted from the death star FAILS TO ACT LIKE A DIRECT ENERGY TRANSFER IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM

    I can understand why you like DET, but it simply doesn't fit... AT ALL. Here is also a news flash. DET is not at all required for us to have sheilds on alderaan. In fact, SLE can support sheilds just as much as DET can. *sigh* can't believe I have to point it out even, but a reason the sheilds could exist is the fact that the sheild wall prevents the superheated material that WAS alderaan from flying away breifly.

    Now please man, I'm not some 'rabid trekkie' or anything trying to hurt starwars, I'm trying to put a simple fact in front of your eyes. Those questions above are the very reasons that I stopped believing in DET as a theory. Just think about it all man, no one is going to attack you if you change what you think after all.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anon, if you refuse to answer the following points then your argument is dead. Understand?

    Explain to me how DET created the fire rings.
    Explain to me how DET comes from the beam of the death star does not simply cut through alderaan like a knife through an apple
    Explain to me how the DET energy that is deflected does so in such a way that it 'circles' the planetary sheild. No seriouslly, if anything it should be flying away from the point of IMPACT, much like water hitting a wall, not encircling the planet as a whole (IE: it shouldn't be consuming the world) period).
    Explain to me secondary explosions after the beam
    Explain to me why the DET energy not only fails to cut through alderaan, but doesn't so much as effect the orbit in the SLIGHTEST
    Explain to me, a third, MINOR explosion shortly before the destruction of the planet in which a 'chunk' of alderaan is blasted away EARLIER than the rest.
    Explain to me why the DET energy imparted from the death star FAILS TO ACT LIKE A DIRECT ENERGY TRANSFER IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM

    Are you serious? Why should I have to explain fire rings or secondary explosions in order to claim that you need 10^38J to blow up a planet? It doesn't matter what additional sideeffects were created after the explosion. The planet belw up. The fragments flew at the speed of 10,000km/s. That requires the energy of 10^38J. What's with you people and your belief that I have to explain everything from how Death Star works to any unusual phenomenon in the explosion in order to claim that you need to supply the neccesary energy in order to blow something up.
    You don't like my theory?
    Have you got a better one?
    How does superlaser effect explain all those phenomenons?

    I can understand why you like DET, but it simply doesn't fit... AT ALL.
    Do you even know what DET is? DET is simply saying you need a certain amount of energy to raise the energy state of an object by that anmount. Why doesn't that fit with the evidence? How do fire rings or secondary explosions disprove that you need 10^38J in order to blow up a planet.

    Now please man, I'm not some 'rabid trekkie' or anything trying to hurt starwars, I'm trying to put a simple fact in front of your eyes. Those questions above are the very reasons that I stopped believing in DET as a theory. Just think about it all man, no one is going to attack you if you change what you think after all.
    DET doesn't try to explain everything in the explosion merley the amount of energy needed to destroy a planet. Explain how can you destroy a planet without supplying the neccesary energy. And I have thought about it and conventional theory is the only one that provides at least some explanations and it is the most straightforward.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Trinoya is right. Further, you merely quoted the short version that I pointed to before, rather than reading the entire set of pages, which would have answered all of your questions.

    And dude, there truly is nothing wrong with changing your mind after being presented with new information. Of course, it IS possible some SDNers, including Wong and Ossus, might start hating you for being open-minded, but I think that says something about them, doesn't it?

    And here's a question that's been on my mind for quite some time: WHY the bloody HELL would ANYONE want to see the Empire--an evil organization bent on conquering all with its iron fist--defeat the peaceful, accepting, loving democratic society that is the United Federation of Planets? That would be evil winning over good, ya know. I dunno about you guys, but I wouldn't want to be on the Trek Earth if the Empire were to win a war.

    ...

    'Course knowing the Empire they'd blow the crap out of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and other planets if they got the chance...

    ReplyDelete
  86. "We saw Alderaan at the end of RotS. It had a surface gravity and etmosphere identical to that of Earth."

    I suggest you watch ROTS again. We don't see very much on Alderaan, and what we do doesn't indicate any surface conditions dramatically different from those encountered by Han ... on an asteroid too small to normally have such.

    Nor, for that matter, do we have evidence that would calibrate local atmospheric pressure or gravity to any degree of precision; nor do these surface conditions tightly define the nature of Alderaan; nor is the kinetic energy density of debris necessarily averaging one quarter that of the leading edge.

    ReplyDelete
  87. You're like the bloody liberals that keep claiming WMDs were the only reason we went to Iraq even in the face of all the evidence that it wasn't, like the Joint Resolution for the military action in the first place.

    Speaking of, how do you think they are going to react now that we've got audio tape of Saddam and ilk talking about hiding the WMD from the UN weapons inspectors and launching terror attacks against the U.S. using proxy terrorist organizations (al Qaida anyone?)?

    also - has anyone ever mentioned in this thread that the only example of a planetary sheild was seen in Star Trek:TOS? And mentioned in Star Trek:TMP (Earth apparently had one "Planetary defenses")

    ReplyDelete
  88. I think they'll flatly deny it because they've still got their heads in the sand. I was a liberal once, so I understand how they think. They're a wee bit idealistic when it comes to the world. They also refuse to think any further back than the current term of the current President, and whenever we point out something that backs up what we're doing now that happened before(Like Clinton not going to war with Iraq because he felt he couldn't lead the country at the time because he was under impeachment trial) they go "ZOH MY GOD QUIT BITCHING ABOUT CLINTON!" and don't listen. -_-

    But that's off topic.

    And yeah. From what I remember of TMP--it bored me, so I only watched it a couple times--Earth did indeed have a planetary shield. And seeing as how that was 2277, and we're debating 2379 Trek, you can bet they've made quite an improvement to that shield since then...though how we could measure it I have no bloody idea since we never got a measurement of the original shield...

    ReplyDelete
  89. And seeing as how that was 2277, and we're debating 2379 Trek, you can bet they've made quite an improvement to that shield since then...

    If Earth actually did have a shield at one point, it makes me think the writers forgot about it since we never hear about it again. Sure would've been nice if it had stopped the Breen attack on Starfleet Headquarters. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Trinoya is right. Further, you merely quoted the short version that I pointed to before, rather than reading the entire set of pages, which would have answered all of your questions.
    No he isn't. He demands that I explain every little detail regarding Alderaan explosion in order to claim that you need 10^38J to increase the energy of a planet by...10^38J. I asked this God knows how many times and no one answeres: How do fire rings contradict 10^38J? How does secondary explosion contradict 10^38J? Do you have an explanation of how could Death Star blow up a planet without delivering neccesary energy? Answer those questions.
    And Darkstar provides absolutley no explanation whatsoever. He just continues about "hyperspace domains"(what), "matter being prepared"(how),"matter being set-off"(how)...


    And dude, there truly is nothing wrong with changing your mind after being presented with new information. Of course, it IS possible some SDNers, including Wong and Ossus, might start hating you for being open-minded, but I think that says something about them, doesn't it?
    Open minded? To what? You haven't explained why 10^38J number is wrong and you haven't explained an alternative way to blow up a planet like that.

    And here's a question that's been on my mind for quite some time: WHY the bloody HELL would ANYONE want to see the Empire--an evil organization bent on conquering all with its iron fist--defeat the peaceful, accepting, loving democratic society that is the United Federation of Planets? That would be evil winning over good, ya know. I dunno about you guys, but I wouldn't want to be on the Trek Earth if the Empire were to win a war.
    This isn't about who I would want to win but who will win.

    I suggest you watch ROTS again. We don't see very much on Alderaan, and what we do doesn't indicate any surface conditions dramatically different from those encountered by Han ... on an asteroid too small to normally have such.
    And of course Falcon creating that gravity didn't hit you as a possible explanation? In any case Alderaan apparently looks like Earth, has Earth gravity and opening scroll states that Death Star has enough power to destroy a planet. Furthermore Tarkin fully expected to be able to destroy Yavin's moon asweel so why should we assume that Alderaan is some super-small planet when there is absolutley no indication that it is.

    Nor, for that matter, do we have evidence that would calibrate local atmospheric pressure or gravity to any degree of precision; nor do these surface conditions tightly define the nature of Alderaan; nor is the kinetic energy density of debris necessarily averaging one quarter that of the leading edge.
    Yes that's right Alderaan was some wierd extremley small planet. Provide evidence especially when high orbit shots and surface shots suggest nothing but a normal Earth like planet. Secondly even if Alderaan was the size of our Moon the energy would still be 3.3*10^35J. As for the speed some fragments were moving faster than 10,000km/s while some were slower. In the end there is no escaping the fact that planet doubled it's diameter in a second.

    also - has anyone ever mentioned in this thread that the only example of a planetary sheild was seen in Star Trek:TOS? And mentioned in Star Trek:TMP (Earth apparently had one "Planetary defenses")
    Planetary shields in TOS (the one with the prison facility) was blocking transporters. And how do "planetary defenses" translate into energy shield around the planet?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous:
    How do fire rings contradict 10^38J?
    They don't. They merely contradict DET theory.

    How does secondary explosion contradict 10^38J?
    It doesn't. It merely contradicts DET theory.

    Do you have an explanation of how could Death Star blow up a planet without delivering neccesary energy?
    Sure - by initating a chain reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  92. They don't. They merely contradict DET theory.
    DET theory states only that in order to increase the energy state of an object you need to provide that energy. In this case 10^38J.
    So when you say "it contradicts DET" what you really say "it contradicts the fact that Death Star needs 10^38J to blow up a planet".
    Now I ask again: how do fire rings and secondary explosion contradict that?

    Sure - by initating a chain reaction.
    Explain. What kind of chain reaction? What is reacting? Can this chain reaction explain fire rings and secondary explosion any better than conventional theory? Why would this chain reaction require significantly less energy than 10^38J from the superlaser?

    ReplyDelete
  93. So when you say "it contradicts DET" what you really say "it contradicts the fact that Death Star needs 10^38J to blow up a planet".
    No, not really. It contradicts DET because DET doesn't take secondary explosion and fire rings into consderation. If DET was true we wouldn't be seeing those phenomenas. Therefore, DET theory is false.

    Explain.
    Read DSG2k page. Duh.

    Can this chain reaction explain fire rings and secondary explosion any better than conventional theory?
    Well, considering that conventional theory simply ignores them, yes it can. :)

    ReplyDelete
  94. No, not really. It contradicts DET because DET doesn't take secondary explosion and fire rings into consderation. If DET was true we wouldn't be seeing those phenomenas. Therefore, DET theory is false.
    You keep repeating how fire rings and secondary explosion contradict 10^38J energy requirement without explaining why. One again DET merley states that in order to blow up a planet you need to supply the energy.

    Read DSG2k page. Duh.
    There is no explanation there.

    Well, considering that conventional theory simply ignores them, yes it can. :)
    So what if it ignores them?
    Superlaser caused: planet explosion AND fire rings AND secondary explosion. See, the key word is AND. Merley to blow up a planet you need 10^38J. Why should conventional theory have to explain all those other phenomenons in order to claim that simple fact?

    ReplyDelete
  95. And you still haven't explained your chain reaction I see.

    ReplyDelete
  96. You keep repeating how fire rings and secondary explosion contradict 10^38J energy requirement without explaining why.
    Incorrect. I keep repeating how secondary explosion and fire rings contradict DET. It should be pretty simple to understand: secondary explosion means that Death Star didn't supply all the energy, and fire rings mean that this isn't simple DET.

    There is no explanation there.
    No "nuts and bolts" explanation, that's true. But that kind of detailed explanation is simply unnecessary. As always.

    So what if it ignores them?
    (insert rolleyes emoticon here)

    See, the key word is AND.
    Wow... you just admitted that DET theory is false.

    I don't know, it should be obvious... Under DET theory, Alderaan would just blow up. With no secondary explosion, and with no fire rings (and with primary, and only explosion centered on superlaser impact point).

    This is not what we see in the movie. Therefore, DET theory is incorrect.

    And you still haven't explained your chain reaction I see.
    Since it isn't "my" chain reaction, and since you already know where to find the explanation, I find your statement weird.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Incorrect. I keep repeating how secondary explosion and fire rings contradict DET. It should be pretty simple to understand: secondary explosion means that Death Star didn't supply all the energy, and fire rings mean that this isn't simple DET.
    How does secondary explosion mean that superlaser didn't supply the energy neccesary to blow up the planet? How do fire rings mean that Death Star didn't have to supply the neccesary power? Explain.

    Wow... you just admitted that DET theory is false.
    No I admitted that it cannot explain fire rings and secondary explosion. What it can do is explain the planet being blown up which is more than "superlaser effect" theory can do.

    I don't know, it should be obvious... Under DET theory, Alderaan would just blow up. With no secondary explosion, and with no fire rings (and with primary, and only explosion centered on superlaser impact point).
    And it did blow up. Once again how do those additional events erase the neccesity to supply 10^38J of energy to the planet?

    This is not what we see in the movie. Therefore, DET theory is incorrect.
    Why isn't it correct?

    Since it isn't "my" chain reaction, and since you already know where to find the explanation, I find your statement weird.
    Then why are you even debating? How can you know that "superlaser effect" theory is superior to conventional explanation if you don't even know how it works?

    Let's surmise shall we.
    You have no explanation for fire rings or secondary explosion. You have no idea what they are or how they are formed yet you are convinced that "somehow" they point to a chain reaction and that this chain reaction can "somehow" blow up a planet without supplying neccesary energy.

    The conventional theory follows the basic law of physics: the energy of a closed system remains constant.
    Therefore if the planet (a closed system) suddenly gained 10^38J it had to recieve that energy from outside. In this case superlaser. Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion overrule this requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  98. How does secondary explosion mean that superlaser didn't supply the energy neccesary to blow up the planet?
    Isn't it obvious? To use simple analogy: you throw a grenade into wooden shack with explosives. Grenade blows up, and after that, whole shack goes off. Does it mean that grenade has firepower of all those explosives? Of course not.

    How do fire rings mean that Death Star didn't have to supply the neccesary power?
    You didn't understood what I've said. Read it again:
    "fire rings mean that this isn't simple DET." Meaning, there is something else happening besides "simple" DET.

    No I admitted that it cannot explain fire rings and secondary explosion.
    Which means that it's false.

    Once again how do those additional events erase the neccesity to supply 10^38J of energy to the planet?
    Read what I wrote about grenade/explosives analogy. You don't have to provide all necessary energy to make something blow up with this certain energy.

    Why isn't it correct?
    Because, under DET theory, Alderaan would just blow up. With no additional side effects. None whatsoever. Nada. Zilch. Nic.

    How can you know that "superlaser effect" theory is superior to conventional explanation if you don't even know how it works?
    Because, even rough theory that fits all the facts is superior to any theory that requires us to ignore certain facts and would produce results contrary to what we've seen.

    You have no explanation for fire rings or secondary explosion.
    No technical explanation, yes. Which is still better that complete dismisall of those effects.

    yet you are convinced that "somehow" they point to a chain reaction
    That's because they do exist and had to be triggered. Hence, chain reaction: one componenent triggers another.

    You have no idea what they are or how they are formed
    Which, again, is still better that complete dismisall of those effects.

    Under any circumstances, "fire rings are byproducts of chain reaction" is infinitely better than "those fire rings shouldn't be there. Let's ignore them".

    Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion overrule this requirement.
    It's not a requirement. It's an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Isn't it obvious? To use simple analogy: you throw a grenade into wooden shack with explosives. Grenade blows up, and after that, whole shack goes off. Does it mean that grenade has firepower of all those explosives? Of course not.
    Except for one small thing. Planets are inert objects not explosives. Try again.

    You didn't understood what I've said. Read it again:
    "fire rings mean that this isn't simple DET." Meaning, there is something else happening besides "simple" DET.

    Besides as in addition. Yes there are fire rings in addition to planets explosion. Therefore 10^38J requirement remains.

    Which means that it's false.
    No it doesn't. The conventional theory only deals with the planet's explosion. Fire rings and secondary explosion are additional events that do not remove the fact that the energy had to be supplied.

    Because, even rough theory that fits all the facts is superior to any theory that requires us to ignore certain facts and would produce results contrary to what we've seen.
    But it doesn't explain a single thing. It doesn't explain how the planet was blown up, it doesn't explain how fire rings were formed nor what caused the secondary explosion.

    No technical explanation, yes. Which is still better that complete dismisall of those effects.
    If it doesn't explain things then it is not a theory.

    That's because they do exist and had to be triggered. Hence, chain reaction: one componenent triggers another.
    What is the trigger? What is triggered? You have no explanation but you insist that Death Star didn't need the 10^38J do destroy the planet.

    Which, again, is still better that complete dismisall of those effects.
    Under any circumstances, "fire rings are byproducts of chain reaction" is infinitely better than "those fire rings shouldn't be there. Let's ignore them".

    Is this supposed to be a joke? I didn't say we should ignore them. The fire rings are there, I never claimed thy don't exist. What I wan't to know is why does their existance mean that the Death Star didn't need the energy. How do those fire rings enable the Death Star to violate the conservation of energy? And explain why the existence of fire rings point to a chain reaction.

    It's not a requirement. It's an assumption.
    It is not an assumption. It is basic law of physics: conservation of energy. You cannot change the energy state of an object by 10^38J without delivering that amount of energy. Therefore the Death Star needed to deliver 10^38J to the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Yay! 100th post! :D

    Planets are inert objects not explosives.
    Explain to me how "inert object" is capable of producing secondary explosion. Is it capable of storing superlaser energy?

    The conventional theory only deals with the planet's explosion.
    Which means that conventional theory, when applied, would provide us only with simple big explosion. Which is not what happened there. Which means that DET theory is false.

    But it doesn't explain a single thing.
    Yes it does. You really should read DSG2k page...

    If it doesn't explain things then it is not a theory.
    Which, once again, means that DET is not a theory :)

    Is this supposed to be a joke?
    You tell me - in case you haven't noticed, DET ignores the existence of fire rings, secondary explosion, etc, etc.

    What I wan't to know is why does their existance mean that the Death Star didn't need the energy.
    As already explained, fire rings, secondary explosions, etc, etc mean that there's something other going on there. Something which DET theory completely ignores.

    It is not an assumption.
    Yes it is. It's the basic assumption of DET. Which gives us 10^38J at the end, true... but once we change the assumption, we could easily arrive at different conclusion, using exact same basic laws of physics.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anon I do not claim that you need to explain every little detail to deliver 10^38J.

    I say you need to explain the details that DO NOT fit into DET. IE: All of those. You need to tell me WHY DET acted so unusual.

    But since your hell bent in not doing so because you, "shouldn't have to explain it," then it's clear that you don't really understand a thing about debating in general.

    You presented a theory. Your theory says the death star, DIRECTLY TRANSFERS ENERGY to destroy the planet.

    People have proven that a DET attack on the planet would NOT create the effects scene.

    You then counter by saying that it was because of a PS.

    THEY then counter by pointing out that long after the PS is down the planet STILL shows unusual signs, such as the fire rings.

    That leaves YOU with the burden of showing SLE people WHY the firerings are going to be caused by DET. And since there is no reason for them to exist because of DET... well... You could always try to go against another point in star trek (one it hardly follows but meh)... but there I think scotty will argue with you.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Explain to me how "inert object" is capable of producing secondary explosion. Is it capable of storing superlaser energy?
    It was just hit by a 10^38J beam. How do you figure this secondary explosion comes from the planet and not from the beam. Secondly the time interval between first and second explosion is not that big.

    Which means that conventional theory, when applied, would provide us only with simple big explosion. Which is not what happened there. Which means that DET theory is false.
    Simple big explosion was what happened. It was accompanied with a fire rings but that doesn't change the fact that there was an explosion.

    Yes it does. You really should read DSG2k page...
    I have. There are no explanations. Now are you finally going to stop to evade the point and provide me with the quotes that explan it. It can't be that difficult to simply copy-paste it here.

    Which, once again, means that DET is not a theory :)
    How? It explains that the planet was heated and rapidly expanded. What does superlaser effect explain? Oh, that's right nothing.

    You tell me - in case you haven't noticed, DET ignores the existence of fire rings, secondary explosion, etc, etc.
    You just don't get it do you? The conventional theory only deals with the fact that 6*10^24kg of matter suddenly gained the speed of 10,000km/s. Conservation of energy requires that outside system had to supply the required energy: 10^38J. How do fire rings disprove that?

    As already explained, fire rings, secondary explosions, etc, etc mean that there's something other going on there. Something which DET theory completely ignores.
    Yes something other in addition to DET.

    Yes it is. It's the basic assumption of DET.
    Do you have high school education? Conservation of energy is not an assumption.

    Which gives us 10^38J at the end, true... but once we change the assumption, we could easily arrive at different conclusion, using exact same basic laws of physics.
    How? Explain how can we blow up a planet without giving it 10^38J?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I say you need to explain the details that DO NOT fit into DET. IE: All of those. You need to tell me WHY DET acted so unusual.
    But since your hell bent in not doing so because you, "shouldn't have to explain it," then it's clear that you don't really understand a thing about debating in general.
    You presented a theory. Your theory says the death star, DIRECTLY TRANSFERS ENERGY to destroy the planet.
    People have proven that a DET attack on the planet would NOT create the effects scene.
    You then counter by saying that it was because of a PS.
    THEY then counter by pointing out that long after the PS is down the planet STILL shows unusual signs, such as the fire rings.
    That leaves YOU with the burden of showing SLE people WHY the firerings are going to be caused by DET. And since there is no reason for them to exist because of DET... well... You could always try to go against another point in star trek (one it hardly follows but meh)... but there I think scotty will argue with you.

    This is not my theory. This is basic law of physics. You cannot discard it simply because there are some unusual things in the explosion.
    This is the summary of the last 100 posts:
    Me: Death Star required 10^38J to destroy the planet as dictated by conservation of energy.
    You: No it is contradicetd by fire rings and secondary explosion.
    Me:How is it contradiced by those events?
    You: It is contradicted, you have to prove that it isn't!
    Do you see the problem here? You are asking me to prove that there is no contradiction. To prove a negative.
    Yes the fire rings are strange, but THEY DO NOT REMOVE THE ENERGY REQUIREMENT.

    I aked this 100 times but here it goes:
    Explain how can Death Star raise the energy state of the Alderaan by 10^38J without delivering the neccesary energy.
    Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion contradict the conservation of energy.

    ReplyDelete
  104. How do you figure this secondary explosion comes from the planet and not from the beam.
    Simple: I watched the movie and this secondary explosion originated from planet center, not from superlaser point of impact, and after beam has been terminated. Which means that it doesn't come from the beam at all. Which, once again, makes DET a false god... I mean theory :)

    (Indeed, Daniel Jackson :P)

    Secondly the time interval between first and second explosion is not that big.
    But it does exist. Which means that there's something else happening there besides superlaser generously transferring all the required energy.

    Simple big explosion was what happened.
    No. There were also two fire rings, and secondary explosion, etc, etc...

    I have. There are no explanations.
    Yes they are. You simply reject them, because they don't hold up to your cute little level of double standards. Well, guess what? None of the Star Wars (or Star Trek, for that matter) tech explanation can hold up to that level of scrutiny!

    How? It explains that the planet was heated and rapidly expanded.
    And nothing else. By your own admission, if DET doesn't explain things then it is not a theory. Guess what? It doesn't. End of discussion.

    Yes something other in addition to DET.
    Well well, I see you are starting to backpedal slowly :)

    You just don't get it do you?
    I get it just fine...
    DET deals only with fact that 6*10^24kg of matter suddenly gained the speed of 10,000km/s. It doesn't deal with the creation of fire rings, secondary explosion, etc. Which, by your own admission, invalidates it.

    Conservation of energy is not an assumption.
    I've never said it was. Pay more attention next time. You see, you assume that entire energy has to come from DS. Which is contradicted by the movie. Also, you assume that Alderaan is "inert object". Which is also contradicted by the movie. Conservation of Energy has nothing do to with it.

    How? Explain how can we blow up a planet without giving it 10^38J?
    You really should try to read DSG2k page. No, I mean it. Really. Go. Go read it and stop asking the same answered questions over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Why am I not surprised by your post kazeite? You start another round of accusing conventional theory of being contradicted by the evidence without providing any explanation why.

    Well well, I see you are starting to backpedal slowly :)
    How old are you? Seriously you don't seem to be able to grasp such simple concepts as variable isolations and energy requirements. Ever since my first post I never claimed that conventional theory can explain the formation of the rings however at the same time it can explain the planet blowing up. Secondly why are you assuming that this must be a chain reaction? Why shouldn't this be a "strange DET" reaction? You are obviously a Trek fan who cannot accept the fact that Death Star can put out 10^38J so you'll accept any far fetched vauge explanation as long as it decreases that energy.
    So tell you what, check back when you have an explanation of how Death Star can blow up a planet without possesing the neccesary energy.
    What's that?
    You can't?
    Well then I guess the conventional theory remains the only explanation.

    You really should try to read DSG2k page. No, I mean it. Really. Go. Go read it and stop asking the same answered questions over and over again.
    TRANSLATION: I cannot offer any kind of explanation so I'll just pretend like there is one on Darkstars page. I'm perfectly aware that there is, in fact, no such explanation so I naturally won't even link to any articles since that would make my evasion all too easy to spot.
    Of course I can't imagine that anyone will see through my oh-so original tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Why am I not surprised by your post kazeite?
    I see that you've started to realize that your position is weaker than you thought. However, since you are too proud to admit when you are mistaken, you choose to employ "summary" diversional tactic.

    You start another round of accusing conventional theory of being contradicted by the evidence without providing any explanation why.
    I have provided multiple explanations. You've responded to those explanations, which makes this accusation ridiculous.

    How old are you?
    28. You? :)

    Secondly why are you assuming that this must be a chain reaction? Why shouldn't this be a "strange DET" reaction?
    Are you so desperate for victory that you redesign DET on the fly?
    I suppose I could ask you to explain what exactly is that "strange DET", but then again, I don't use such double standards.

    Ever since my first post I never claimed that conventional theory can explain the formation of the rings however at the same time it can explain the planet blowing up.
    (sigh) No, you haven't. Not for the first post, anyway, which technically is enough to make you a liar.

    You are obviously a Trek fan who cannot accept the fact that Death Star can put out 10^38J
    That's because it cannot put that kind of energy, according to ANH and ROTS novelisations. Sorry.

    Simultaneously, Death Star is a mobile fortress capable of destroying entire worlds with frickin' laser beam... It is a frighteningly powerful weapon, there's no question about it.

    So tell you what, check back when you have an explanation of how Death Star can blow up a planet without possesing the neccesary energy.
    Huh? But Death Star does have necessary power to blow up a planet.

    TRANSLATION:
    Oh, hilarious :)

    I'm perfectly aware that there is, in fact, no such explanation so I naturally won't even link to any articles since that would make my evasion all too easy to spot.

    You cute little liar :)

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperlasereffect.html

    Of course I can't imagine that anyone will see through your oh-so original diversionary tactic. (rolleyes)

    ReplyDelete
  107. Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion disprove the energy requirement for Death Star kazeite. No evasions and "go read Darkstar's page" bullshit. You are here and debating. You are claiming that Death Star didn't need to put out 10^38J to destroy Alderaan. Explain how and why.

    ReplyDelete
  108. It is conservation of energy that provides the 1e38 joule argument with the most difficulty. Read my website and you'll see COE based estimations extensively for power generation.

    Between the known inefficiencies of going from a giant laser-like beam to the requirement that the Death Star fires multiple shots, the Death Star needs mass on the order of Earth's moon to provide your claim with backing.

    And the Death Star simply isn't that massive, nor are fuels available in the Star Wars universe anywhere near that dense, as we saw in ROTS. The energy simply has to come from the target, just like in any logical fitting of TDIC in with other Trek firepower figures.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Between the known inefficiencies of going from a giant laser-like beam to the requirement that the Death Star fires multiple shots, the Death Star needs mass on the order of Earth's moon to provide your claim with backing.
    At neutronium density one lunar mass could be stroed inside a 50m wide spherical tank. What is the alternative?

    And the Death Star simply isn't that massive, nor are fuels available in the Star Wars universe anywhere near that dense, as we saw in ROTS.
    How do you know that Death Star isn't that massive? I don't remember seeing Death Star fuel in RotS.

    The energy simply has to come from the target, just like in any logical fitting of TDIC in with other Trek firepower figures.
    Why must it come from target? You are saying, and correctly so, that creating that much energy inside Death Star reactor will be difficult. But creating that kind of energy outside of an artificially created and designed reactor will be impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Hey, anon, you obviously DIDN'T read his page. Quit acting like you did when you're obviously not going to.
    Gang: I suggest copying and pasting the important parts. Obviously he's not going to bother reading them here.

    Also, I must point out something that is hilarious, yet no one noticed it:

    Planetary shields in TOS (the one with the prison facility) was blocking transporters. And how do "planetary defenses" translate into energy shield around the planet?

    Anon said that. The same dude who assumes that very thing for Alderaan. XDDD

    ReplyDelete
  111. Err, there, I mean, not here. If they're here he'll read them.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anon said that. The same dude who assumes that very thing for Alderaan. XDDD
    Yes beacuse "there is an energy field surrounding the sixth planet of the Hoth system, the field is strong enough to deflect any bombardment" is a tad different than a statement about "planetary defenses".

    ReplyDelete
  113. ...

    Err...what'd I say about Hoth? I mentioned Alderaan. Looks like you can't read, bub. And as I recall, you're basing your idea of Alderaan's shields on a statement of planetary defenses. Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  114. Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion disprove the energy requirement for Death Star kazeite.
    If energy requirements for Death Star were correct, then we would've seen only one, single explosion, starting before beam is terminated. Because we don't see that, therefore, there's something wrong with those energy requirements. And the fact that both explosions are accompanied by fire rings merely reinforces that fact.

    No evasions and "go read Darkstar's page" bullshit. You are here and debating.
    You were the one that challenged his claims. Here. So don't give me that flimsy excuses.

    At neutronium density one lunar mass could be stroed inside a 50m wide spherical tank.
    Prove that Empire is capable of achieving such technical feat.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Err...what'd I say about Hoth? I mentioned Alderaan. Looks like you can't read, bub. And as I recall, you're basing your idea of Alderaan's shields on a statement of planetary defenses. Hmm...
    The fact that a small group of rebels managed to build such a shield generator in a month obviously means that a planetary goverment will have no problems doing that.

    If energy requirements for Death Star were correct, then we would've seen only one, single explosion, starting before beam is terminated. Because we don't see that, therefore, there's something wrong with those energy requirements. And the fact that both explosions are accompanied by fire rings merely reinforces that fact.
    Yes there are additional events besides the explosion. Tell me, are they going to require more or less energy? You have again failed to explain why fire rings and secondary explosion give Death Star the ability to destroy a planet without supplying the neccesary energy.

    You were the one that challenged his claims. Here. So don't give me that flimsy excuses.
    I already said that there is no such explanation on his page. Here is your chance, quote the part of the page where he explains it and prove me wrong.

    Prove that Empire is capable of achieving such technical feat.
    I merley explained that it is possible to create that amount of energy inside the Death Star at least in theory.

    ReplyDelete
  116. The fact that a small group of rebels managed to build such a shield generator in a month obviously means that a planetary goverment will have no problems doing that.

    No it doesn't. Thats merely what you want the answer to be.

    For an Analogy, if the rebels in Colombia can get guns (and they do) that doesn't mean that Colombia can build 500MT nukes.

    And that is understating the difference in power between an area shield and a planetary one.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Yes there are additional events besides the explosion. Tell me, are they going to require more or less energy?
    Now that's funny: You are going to claim that DET have supplied additional energy to create secondary explosion and fire rings, huh? Well then, by all means: explain to me how "inert object" is capable of storing superlaser energy and creating fire rings.

    I already said that there is no such explanation on his page.
    Yes there is. You even quoted it. So, what's the deal?

    I merley explained that it is possible to create that amount of energy inside the Death Star at least in theory.
    Well then, Death Star is capable of inducing chain reaction... "at least in theory" :D

    ReplyDelete
  118. Either Anon 1 is a bright lad, has a point, thinks of DET in a way different than the one we're fed with from Wongies, and thinks about an exotic delayed DET mechanism, with its own load of psychadelic side effects (rings, etc.), but doesn't manage to word his point right... which I doubt considering how obtuse and absurd his arguments are tens of posts later.

    Or he's just not worth the discussion: Ignoring and denying, ad nauseum, symptoms directly observed from the film, which disprove the typical Wong-style DET which is kinda big laser hits the planet which IMMEDIATELY goes boom.
    Between a wall of denial and a complete, massive, waste of kilobytes.

    EVEN the existence of a shield doesn't explain half the phenomenoms that nail Wong-DET's coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  119. No it doesn't. Thats merely what you want the answer to be.
    For an Analogy, if the rebels in Colombia can get guns (and they do) that doesn't mean that Colombia can build 500MT nukes.
    And that is understating the difference in power between an area shield and a planetary one.

    Hoth shields, and Endor shield demontsrate that the Empire posesses the technology therefore it is a better explanation than Darkstar made up superlaser effect.

    Either Anon 1 is a bright lad, has a point, thinks of DET in a way different than the one we're fed with from Wongies, and thinks about an exotic delayed DET mechanism, with its own load of psychadelic side effects (rings, etc.), but doesn't manage to word his point right... which I doubt considering how obtuse and absurd his arguments are tens of posts later.
    Or he's just not worth the discussion: Ignoring and denying, ad nauseum, symptoms directly observed from the film, which disprove the typical Wong-style DET which is kinda big laser hits the planet which IMMEDIATELY goes boom.
    Between a wall of denial and a complete, massive, waste of kilobytes.
    EVEN the existence of a shield doesn't explain half the phenomenoms that nail Wong-DET's coffin.

    I like how you pretend that conservation of energy also known as first law of thermodynamics is some kind of peculiar theory made up by Michael Wong and you refer to it as "Wong-DET".
    You want to blow up a planet? You must supply the energy. You want to pick up a bag? You must supply the energy? You want to boil an egg? You must supply the energy. There are no shortcuts in real universe. Of course this is sci-fi and in sci-fi all kind of funky shit can happen. But even so we always assume weapons observe laws of physics before proven otherwise. I see a planet being blown up so violently that it doubles in diameter in a second. That requires 10^38J. You are saying that fire rings and secondary explosion eliminate the need for Death Star to supply the neccesary energy. Ok, I'm willing to listen but you must explain how and why those events eliminate that need.
    You accuse me of deniyng the facts but even after 100 posts none of you provided a single explanation as to why those facts point to chain reaction, why those facts decrease the energy requirement for the Death Star, how can Death Star blow up a planet without supplying the neccesary energy.

    So come on mr.Oragahn, explain how the fire rings and secondary explosion reduce the energy requirement for the Death Star.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Here is something more about chain reactions.
    Do you know why chain reactions occur? It's beacuse matter always tries to have lesser energy potential. So if you set wood on fire it will start a chain reaction of burning because the ashes will have a lesser energy state in it's chemichal bonds than the wood. You can nudge a small snowball down the slope an cause an avalanche because snow will try to obtain a lesser gravtiational energy potential by sliding down the hill. The same way you can nudge an asteroid to Earth and it will naturally come crashing down beacuse it will have lesser energy potential that way.
    But,
    you cannot create a chain reaction in which avalanche will come rushing up the hill nor can you nudge an asteroid back into orbit. Why? Because it would increase their energy state.
    Death Star blew up Alderaan thus increasing it's energy state and it cannot be a chain reaction any more you can nudge avalance up the hill or an asteroid back into orbit.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I like how you pretend that conservation of energy also known as first law of thermodynamics is some kind of peculiar theory
    I like how you pretend that Alderaan is "inert object", which in turn allows you to pretend that all energy came from the Death Star :)

    You accuse me of deniyng the facts but even after 100 posts none of you provided a single explanation as to why those facts point to chain reaction,
    I guess that irony of this statement is lost on you...

    It's quite simple, really: Death Star was unable to provide necessary energy because of we know about its reactor. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anon's not listening. He demands huge amounts of proof from us but then suggests a stupid theory about the Death Star reactor that is not only ridiculous, but has no support in the canon whatsoever, just like the entire DET theory. Fact is--and he's probably not realizing it himself--he doesn't care what's proven and what's not. He only cares about making Star Wars stronger and better than Star Trek, no matter what kind of wanking it takes. Let's just quit it, gang. As amusing as it has been reading through this, we're not getting through to him, and nor will we.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I like how you pretend that Alderaan is "inert object", which in turn allows you to pretend that all energy came from the Death Star :)
    Yeah planets go around blowing up every day.

    It's quite simple, really: Death Star was unable to provide necessary energy because of we know about its reactor. End of story.
    And what do we know about it's reactor?

    Anon's not listening. He demands huge amounts of proof from us but then suggests a stupid theory about the Death Star reactor that is not only ridiculous, but has no support in the canon whatsoever, just like the entire DET theory.
    DET theory is conservation of energy which just happens to be a fundamental law in physics.

    Fact is--and he's probably not realizing it himself--he doesn't care what's proven and what's not.
    What is proven? How do fire rings mean that Death Star could raise the energy state of the planet without providing the neccesary energy?

    He only cares about making Star Wars stronger and better than Star Trek, no matter what kind of wanking it takes.
    Death Star blew up a planet. It is hardly wanking to claim that it actually had to provide the energy to do so.

    Let's just quit it, gang. As amusing as it has been reading through this, we're not getting through to him, and nor will we.
    Still waiting for those explanations. How do fire rings point to a chain reaction? Why does this chain reaction need so little energy?

    ReplyDelete
  124. And the weapon Soran had could blow up whole star systems, yet was not much larger than a typical human. You missed the point.

    We've shown you time and again. We've shown how DET is wrong and cannot work. We don't have to explain everything to prove that. And you've agreed with that reasoning in a couple of your own arguments even while you argue that we can't do that. You're being hypocritical all over the place, not listening to common sense, and acting like your little high school knowledge is better than ours. Here's another law of physics for you: no one can go faster than light.

    ...

    Oh wait...

    Now, my point isn't that we should discard all laws of physics. Obviously we can't do that. But we've shown, and Darkstar shows through his series of pages, how the SLE fits the evidence far better than DET does and doesn't require ad hoc theories or ignoring evidence. Now, look. SLE makes the Death Star a more impressive weapon than pure brute DET force. Surely that appeals to the wanking Rabid Warsie in you. IT MAKES WARS MORE POWERFUL TO HAVE SLE THAN DET. Any of that getting through your mind?

    ReplyDelete
  125. And the weapon Soran had could blow up whole star systems, yet was not much larger than a typical human. You missed the point.
    Actually the star collapsed after the weapon was detonated which means it's energy state was decreased which means that Trilithium torpedo did not deliver the energy to the star. The star released the energy while it was collapsing and blew up the star system.

    We've shown you time and again. We've shown how DET is wrong and cannot work.
    No you haven't. You just said: "look there are fire rings...the Death Star didn't need to supply the neccesary energy to bow up a planet". I ask you to explain this claim.

    And you've agreed with that reasoning in a couple of your own arguments even while you argue that we can't do that. You're being hypocritical all over the place, not listening to common sense, and acting like your little high school knowledge is better than ours.
    My little high school knowledge? I graduated from high school 4 years ago and I'm currently attending fourth year of Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing.
    Where am I not listening to common sense? How is it common sense to claim that just because there are unusual effects in the explosion the Death Star suddenly gets the ability to violate the conservation of energy?

    Here's another law of physics for you: no one can go faster than light.
    So? Beacuse one law was broken we now can dismiss all of them?

    Now, my point isn't that we should discard all laws of physics. Obviously we can't do that. But we've shown, and Darkstar shows through his series of pages, how the SLE fits the evidence far better than DET does and doesn't require ad hoc theories or ignoring evidence. Now, look. SLE makes the Death Star a more impressive weapon than pure brute DET force.
    Nowhere did Darkstar shown how the fire rings point to a chain reaction.

    Surely that appeals to the wanking Rabid Warsie in you. IT MAKES WARS MORE POWERFUL TO HAVE SLE THAN DET. Any of that getting through your mind?
    I don't give a shit what makes Death Star more powerful. I'm interested in what happened. Death Star blew up a planet and for that it needed to deliver 10^38J.

    ReplyDelete
  126. It's not violating the laws of conservation of energy. And we're not claiming the fire rings disprove the need for the energy. I agree, the energy does need to come from somewhere. But if it did all come from the Death Star, we'd just have one big explosion centered on the point of impact. The other stuff wouldn't happen. THAT'S what we meant. Not that it disproves what's necessary. See, when Darkstar's talking about the whole 23.5 thing, he's just talking about initial energy that starts a chain-reaction, which is where the rest of the energy comes from. Hence why the atmosphere didn't burn off. Hence why the secondary explosion and other crap happens. Hence why the beam didn't go straight through the planet and all sorts of other stuff. If it was DET, that stuff wouldn't happen. But they did happen, so it's not DET. The energy must have come from something other than the Death Star. Therefore, it must have come from a chain reaction initiated by the Death Star with the initial energy, and the rest came from the reaction. See, the energy is there. We're merely pointing out that it could not have all come from the Death Star, not that it doesn't exist. It can't have come from the Death Star for many reasons:

    1. The Death Star is powered by fusion reactors, as noted in the novelization of RotJ. The entry is very exact in saying it exploded with the energy of a small, liberated sun. Too exact for similie or metaphor, which says it's talking about fusion. If it was fusion, and had the power of--being generous--our own sun, it would have taken at least 8,000 years to power up to the necessary 10^38J before it could be used for DET.

    2. The shields do not exist. DET requires Alderaan to have shields. It does not have shields, as has been proven.

    3. The beam would have gone through the planet if it had that much energy. We did not see that happen.

    4. The explosion would have been centered on the point of impact and would have started the INSTANT the beam struck the planet. That did not happen.

    5. A secondary explosion would not happen, and yet it did.

    6. Fire rings would not be present, and yet there were, not only in the destruction of Alderaan, but in the destruction of both Death Stars and the two ships the second Death Star fried at Endor.

    7. Therefore, as shown by all the evidence, it cannot be DET. Another effect must be in play. The only one thus far that fits the evidence is the SLE.

    Now, if you'd like, I might as well go and quote every last peice of information from Darkstar's pages on the SLE. But I'd rather not have to do that. The number of blog posts has made this incredibly long as it is, and the content would increase the length tenfold. More convinient for you to just read it there.

    Essentially, we've proven the DET theory wrong with a number of different points. Please stop misinterpreting what we're saying. We're not saying that the Fire rings and other stuff invalidates the amount of energy required. 10^38J is correct. We're merely saying it could not have all come from the Death Star, as that is, as shown, impossible. It came from elsewhere. It came from a matter to energy conversion initiated by the Death Star, which ate up all the matter in Alderaan. That's it, that's all. DET is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Anonymous User (please try to use at least some nickname, it's easy to do so), I think you completely miss the point.

    You speak about thermodynamics, but don't even understand that a system which is directly imparted a sudden massive quantity of energy in just one swipe is not supposed to explode in two phases, the second one being significantly more destructive, delayed and occuring several frames after the energy-imparting system has already finished its work. You don't get what the principles of Direct Energy Transfer implies.
    What we obtain in ANH is the trademark of a chain reaction, no matter what the chain reaction is, depending on the level of exotism you're open to allow.

    It's not really a question of how much energy is imparted first. It's first and foremost a question of how the energy is imparted.

    We're going to assume you're not naïve and you know that it's essential for Wongies to consider the Death Star's weapon to be a giant turbolaser on steroids, so they can directly use their ridiculous caliber scaling method to determinate the yield of cannons on capships (which as pointed out in the blog's original post, is a fallacious and ludicrous logic considering that this method results in stupid and insane firepower numbers for hand held weapons - oh but these weapons aren't turbolasers, they just "blasters" and "laser cannons", stupid me... wait, when the Death Star's main weapon ever described as a massive turbolaser?).

    Therefore, they'll try their best to maintain the idea that the Death Star's main weapon IS a big TL.

    Again, the amount of energy necessary to destroy Alderaan isn't the problem, as the energy is there and has to come from somewhere. The problem is how it gets there.

    If the whole "DS beam = Giant TL" gets shot down, then a significant evidence they've been (wrongly) overrelying on suddenly fades out from their blackboard of made up evidence.
    That and the idea that their most impressive toy of mass destruction would suddenly be entirely dependant of an assault system which incorparates as much technobable as would the most far fetched Trek device.
    Of course, a Death Star which destroys targets with raw power and no treknobabble is the epitome of SW for these rabid fans. No matter the visual and written evidence that discounts it.

    SIDENOTE:

    One day, someone should make a page to list and debunk all the arguments used by rabid warsies to support their inflated figures regarding firepower, and therefore the shields.

    ReplyDelete
  128. 1. The Death Star is powered by fusion reactors, as noted in the novelization of RotJ. The entry is very exact in saying it exploded with the energy of a small, liberated sun. Too exact for similie or metaphor, which says it's talking about fusion. If it was fusion, and had the power of--being generous--our own sun, it would have taken at least 8,000 years to power up to the necessary 10^38J before it could be used for DET.
    The quote states that it exploded with the energy of a small artiticial sun not that the energy was created in the same way.

    2. The shields do not exist. DET requires Alderaan to have shields. It does not have shields, as has been proven.
    You have proven nothing. We know that they have partial planetary shields and that shields from a single generator can cover 100,000km2 like the one on Endor. There is no reason to assume that thay couldn't build several thousands of these generators on Alderaan which can perfectly explain the atmosphere not being affetced.

    3. The beam would have gone through the planet if it had that much energy. We did not see that happen.
    No it wouldn't. It would rapidly heated a portion of planets mass causing it to expand. Which is what happened.

    4. The explosion would have been centered on the point of impact and would have started the INSTANT the beam struck the planet. That did not happen.
    There was a delay because of a shield. Furthermore the fragments were spreading at the speed of 10,000km. It would still take about half a second for superheated core matter to reach the surface.

    5. A secondary explosion would not happen, and yet it did.
    And how does secondary explosion mean that it is a chain reaction? How does it mean Death Star didn't need to supply the energy to Alderaan.

    6. Fire rings would not be present, and yet there were, not only in the destruction of Alderaan, but in the destruction of both Death Stars and the two ships the second Death Star fried at Endor.
    There were no fire rings during the destruction of ships. Secondly the fact that there were fire rings in Death Star explosion disproves that it is a chain reaction since chain reactions depend on nature of the matter that is reacting.

    7. Therefore, as shown by all the evidence, it cannot be DET. Another effect must be in play. The only one thus far that fits the evidence is the SLE.
    SLE is not a theory since it doesn't explain anything. I can also cook up a "theory" like that:
    a 10^38J superlaser hits the planet causing it to explode and then superlaser particles create fire rings because of "hyperspace domain". And there is also a secondary explosion because of the hyperspace domain.

    Now, if you'd like, I might as well go and quote every last peice of information from Darkstar's pages on the SLE. But I'd rather not have to do that. The number of blog posts has made this incredibly long as it is, and the content would increase the length tenfold. More convinient for you to just read it there.
    There is no explanation on Darkstars page and you know it.

    We're merely saying it could not have all come from the Death Star, as that is, as shown, impossible. It came from elsewhere. It came from a matter to energy conversion initiated by the Death Star, which ate up all the matter in Alderaan. That's it, that's all. DET is impossible.
    It is impossible for them to make a controlled reaction inside a carefully prepared reactor but they can do it on an inert object like a planet? How. Why is DET impossible? How do fire rings and secondary explosion disprove it. The fact that there are unexpected events doesn't mean we can throw out laws of physics out the window.

    You speak about thermodynamics, but don't even understand that a system which is directly imparted a sudden massive quantity of energy in just one swipe is not supposed to explode in two phases, the second one being significantly more destructive, delayed and occuring several frames after the energy-imparting system has already finished its work. You don't get what the principles of Direct Energy Transfer implies.
    How do you know that the second explosion is more energetic? We don't know what percentage of planet's mass was involved in it. Secondly we know that the speed of superlaser is variable. How do you know it didn't slow down after it vanished from sight and was still firing in the Alderaan as it was exploding.

    What we obtain in ANH is the trademark of a chain reaction, no matter what the chain reaction is, depending on the level of exotism you're open to allow.
    How do those events point to a chain reaction? First of all the planet was gaining energy which alone disproves a chain reaction which only occur when system is losing energy. Secondly the secondary explosion occured when planet already expanded thus it's matter lost density which should kill any chain reaction and not make it stronger. Whatever the exact mechanism of superlaser is it is definatley not a chain reaction.

    We're going to assume you're not naïve and you know that it's essential for Wongies to consider the Death Star's weapon to be a giant turbolaser on steroids, so they can directly use their ridiculous caliber scaling method to determinate the yield of cannons on capships (which as pointed out in the blog's original post, is a fallacious and ludicrous logic considering that this method results in stupid and insane firepower numbers for hand held weapons - oh but these weapons aren't turbolasers, they just "blasters" and "laser cannons", stupid me... wait, when the Death Star's main weapon ever described as a massive turbolaser?).
    The Death Star blew up a planet and Dodonna stated that it is more powerful than half of imperial starfleet. You write 10 page articles on how that group of pixels in the third frame mean that it was a chain reaction without explaining why, write up articles in which you insist that Dodonna was actually talking about turbolasers even though superlaser was the reason Dodonna wanted his men to go on a suicide mission and then call me rabid.
    Oh and superlaser was described as compound turbolaser in Behind the magic CD:
    "No other weapon produced during the Galactic Civil War proved as devastating as the awesome Imperial superlaser. The superlaser was created by several turbolaser pulses, produced by amplifications crystals around the cannon's circular well. These pulses were fused over the central focus lens, resulting in a devastating energy beam with more firepower than half the Imperial starfleet"
    Oh but wait I forgot. That is NON-CANON isn't it. Never mind that it's official, doesn't contradict the films and therefore above anything you, I or Darkstar say but hey you are all moderate people so you'll just plug your ears and scream NON-CANON.

    Again, the amount of energy necessary to destroy Alderaan isn't the problem, as the energy is there and has to come from somewhere. The problem is how it gets there.
    Yes a problem for which you have no alternate explanation yet you are convinced that superlaser didn't need the energy. You are convinced that it is a chain reaction even though Alderaans energy state was raised thereby making a chain reaction a highly unlikely solution at best.

    If the whole "DS beam = Giant TL" gets shot down, then a significant evidence they've been (wrongly) overrelying on suddenly fades out from their blackboard of made up evidence.
    That and the idea that their most impressive toy of mass destruction would suddenly be entirely dependant of an assault system which incorparates as much technobable as would the most far fetched Trek device.
    Of course, a Death Star which destroys targets with raw power and no treknobabble is the epitome of SW for these rabid fans. No matter the visual and written evidence that discounts it.

    Ah so that's what is all about. All Federation toys like Genesis and Trilithium torpedo are treknobabble devices sou you'd like that Death Star is one as well. Too bad that Death Star, unlike the above mentioned technobabble devices, actually raised the energy state of an object thus enabling us to easily calculate the neccesary energy.

    ReplyDelete
  129. That's it. I'm sick of this. This is like banging cymbals into my head twenty times, only less fulfilling. And by looking in here, I broke my train of thought on my writing, so thank you very much for that. >_O;

    So, I'm giving up. I'll just watch from now on. If anyone else who can actually think would care to keep arguing, go right ahead. I just don't think it's worth it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  130. How do you know that the second explosion is more energetic? We don't know what percentage of planet's mass was involved in it.

    Just make your brain work. The first explosion isn't the one which destroys the planet. The second one is. The second one is more energetic because IT IS seen as such on the screen for fucking sake! It is the one which scatters the planet omnidirectionally. Just open your damn eyes! You're literally denying the film and arguing for the sake of being a nuisance.

    Secondly we know that the speed of superlaser is variable. How do you know it didn't slow down after it vanished from sight and was still firing in the Alderaan as it was exploding.

    If you wanna make such claims, you gotta prove them first. Of course, you won't be able to, as there's zero evidence for such a thing. Fact: The beam is long finished before the main explosion. What don't you understand in that?

    How do those events point to a chain reaction?

    We told you why. It's very simple.

    First of all the planet was gaining energy which alone disproves a chain reaction which only occur when system is losing energy.

    The planet stopped gaining energy long before the secondary explosion occured. DET with more or less inert objects do not induce delayed events.

    Secondly the secondary explosion occured when planet already expanded thus it's matter lost density which should kill any chain reaction and not make it stronger. Whatever the exact mechanism of superlaser is it is definatley not a chain reaction.

    Most of the planet's mass was still intact when the first explosion occured.

    The Death Star blew up a planet and Dodonna stated that it is more powerful than half of imperial starfleet. You write 10 page articles on how that group of pixels in the third frame mean that it was a chain reaction without explaining why, write up articles in which you insist that Dodonna was actually talking about turbolasers even though superlaser was the reason Dodonna wanted his men to go on a suicide mission and then call me rabid.

    Yes I call you rabid because only peolpe with a nut of common sense painfully know that the superlaser has zero relevance at all regarding the pilots' mission. Only the turbolasers were a concern to them. Bothering pilots with totally irrelevant points is completely absurd.
    Think hard.

    Oh and superlaser was described as compound turbolaser in Behind the magic CD:
    "No other weapon produced during the Galactic Civil War proved as devastating as the awesome Imperial superlaser. The superlaser was created by several turbolaser pulses, produced by amplifications crystals around the cannon's circular well. These pulses were fused over the central focus lens, resulting in a devastating energy beam with more firepower than half the Imperial starfleet"
    Oh but wait I forgot. That is NON-CANON isn't it. Never mind that it's official, doesn't contradict the films and therefore above anything you, I or Darkstar say but hey you are all moderate people so you'll just plug your ears and scream NON-CANON.


    Uh-huh. That same source which took most of its information from the infamous WEG guides, which are far from deeply researched informative sources.
    Not to say that the details given in the novelisation described phenomenoms which have nothing to do with turbolasers, which therefore completely contradict the CD, contrary to what you say. They talk about abstract mass-energy conversion and energy capabilities equalling the fusion output of small artificial suns. You get that stuck somewhere in your head.

    Yes a problem for which you have no alternate explanation yet you are convinced that superlaser didn't need the energy. You are convinced that it is a chain reaction even though Alderaans energy state was raised thereby making a chain reaction a highly unlikely solution at best.

    Check a couple of posts above to see how I see the system working. Nevermind, it doesn't change a fact that the theory you abide by is completely dead.

    Ah so that's what is all about. All Federation toys like Genesis and Trilithium torpedo are treknobabble devices sou you'd like that Death Star is one as well.

    No, you don't get my point. I do not wish SW to turn more technobabblish than it needs to.
    Key words being "than it needs to". If it DOES need it, then so be it.
    I simply notice that rabid warsies hate with a passion the idea that SW would bear weapons based on exotic mechanisms, and not crude systems which work against any type of target or whatever.
    Simple DET is quite universal against most scifi defenses.
    But a technobabble-dependant system is often a question of necessary factors which must be matched, which is already narrowing the window of possibilities and makes the system heavily dependant on complex and exotic mechanisms.
    Typically, there are rabid warsies who hate ST and its treknobabble. So of course, they're immediately at unease with the idea that their beloved universe would rely on such overconvulated mechanisms.
    Anything that makes SW look like Trek must be burnt.

    Too bad that Death Star, unlike the above mentioned technobabble devices, actually raised the energy state of an object thus enabling us to easily calculate the neccesary energy.

    Of course in the end the DS elevated the energy state of the object. Do not try to alter the debate. The question is how, and your answer is totally flawed from the get go. As simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Just make your brain work. The first explosion isn't the one which destroys the planet. The second one is.
    Are we talkng about the same film? By the time second explosion kicks in the planet has already doubled in diameter.

    The second one is more energetic because IT IS seen as such on the screen for fucking sake! It is the one which scatters the planet omnidirectionally. Just open your damn eyes! You're literally denying the film and arguing for the sake of being a nuisance.
    I'm still waiting for proof that a same amount of planet's mass was involved in the secondary explosion. But even if it was how does that eliminate Death Stars neccesity to supply 10^38J to Alderaan?

    If you wanna make such claims, you gotta prove them first. Of course, you won't be able to, as there's zero evidence for such a thing. Fact: The beam is long finished before the main explosion. What don't you understand in that?
    Whatch the sequence in which Death Star fires the beam. It takes the beam 2-3 frames to get from sight meaning it crossed no more than 100km meaning it's initial speed is 800-1200km/s.

    We told you why. It's very simple.
    No you didn't.

    The planet stopped gaining energy long before the secondary explosion occured. DET with more or less inert objects do not induce delayed events.
    Unless the beam was still firing. Or there was an invisible component to the beam. Since there are some scenes in the films where turbolaser begins affecting the target even before it hits it it too is a better explanation than chain reaction.

    Most of the planet's mass was still intact when the first explosion occured.
    No it wasn't. The planet doubled in diameter meaning it's density was decreased 8 times. How can a chain reaction intensify when density of it's fuel dropped to 12% of initial value and is lesser than water?

    Yes I call you rabid because only peolpe with a nut of common sense painfully know that the superlaser has zero relevance at all regarding the pilots' mission. Only the turbolasers were a concern to them. Bothering pilots with totally irrelevant points is completely absurd.
    Think hard.

    Zero relevance? You are obviously deep in denial. The superlaser was the point of the entire operation. He was asking his men to go on a suicide mission and you are saying he wouldn't even let them know what was at stake?
    But ultimatley that is irelevant.
    Dodonna said "the Death Star" not "only turbolasers" therefore Death Star (including the superlaser) has more firepower than half of starfleet.

    Uh-huh. That same source which took most of its information from the infamous WEG guides, which are far from deeply researched informative sources.
    They are official therefore carry more weight than you or Darkstar. Besides the part I'm talking about comes straight from the film.

    Not to say that the details given in the novelisation described phenomenoms which have nothing to do with turbolasers, which therefore completely contradict the CD, contrary to what you say. They talk about abstract mass-energy conversion and energy capabilities equalling the fusion output of small artificial suns. You get that stuck somewhere in your head.
    Where is Behind the magic contradicted? The exact quote from the novel goes like this:
    "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"
    Does it state here where this mass-energy conversion takes place? Logical choice is the reactor of the Death Star.

    Check a couple of posts above to see how I see the system working. Nevermind, it doesn't change a fact that the theory you abide by is completely dead.
    You explained nothing and know nothing. The theory I abide by is conservation of energy.

    No, you don't get my point. I do not wish SW to turn more technobabblish than it needs to.
    Key words being "than it needs to". If it DOES need it, then so be it.

    This is not about technobabble. This is about you desperatly trying to prove that Death Star didn't need to deliver the energy to Alderaan. It did. The planet exploded. There were fire rings and a secondary explosion. You have no explanation for them but you insist that they point to a chain reaction.

    Of course in the end the DS elevated the energy state of the object. Do not try to alter the debate. The question is how, and your answer is totally flawed from the get go. As simple as that.
    My answer is the only way. You wan't to argue that it isn't? Explain how your chain reaction works. Explain how we can have a chain reaction that increases the energy state of an object. This is the same as causing an avalanche to come rushing up the hill.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I see what you're trying to do.
    Instead of adressing the points you've been askedto deal with, you focus on extras which are not relevant.
    Instead of explaining why Wong's DET theory, the one you defend, fits with visual observation, you walk around these issues, use red herrings and and hope to have people get lost in the flood of quote segmentation.


    Are we talkng about the same film? By the time second explosion kicks in the planet has already doubled in diameter.


    How are you expecting to prove that when the planet's silhouette is completely obstructed by a large cloud of flames and debris? Of course, a significant portion of the planet did explode, but certainly not the planet's mass, as a whole, as you claim it.
    You cannot claim that the planet has doubled in size if only a portion of the planet was blown up. You can only claim such a thing IF the WHOLE PLANET did explode at the time of the first explosion, which of course is totally false and rather impossible to prove.

    I'm still waiting for proof that a same amount of planet's mass was involved in the secondary explosion. But even if it was how does that eliminate Death Stars neccesity to supply 10^38J to Alderaan?


    If you think that most of the planet was already gone during explosion 1, therefore negating any possible trace of remaining shield generator or whatever, then you're shooting your own foot, and denying Wong's DET theory one of the most important (false) arguments it relies on, that is, the existence of a shield which somehow manages to resist long enough to keep most of the energy for the second explosion (the delayed one), while you claim at the same time that the whole planet is already largely destroyed at more than 90%.

    Not to say that claiming a planetary shield wouldn't change a damn thing, since if we consider your side's evidence regarding the existence of this shield, it just shows that it was already long overwhelmed and gone before the first explosion, therefore negating any theory about the same shield retaining a large part of the energy for a secondary explosion, later on.


    Whatch the sequence in which Death Star fires the beam. It takes the beam 2-3 frames to get from sight meaning it crossed no more than 100km meaning it's initial speed is 800-1200km/s.

    Plain irrelevant, as the fact is the same. The secondary explosion, much more important, occured when the beam was already long gone.
    Stick with facts, stop making stuff up.

    Unless the beam was still firing. Or there was an invisible component to the beam. Since there are some scenes in the films where turbolaser begins affecting the target even before it hits it it too is a better explanation than chain reaction.

    Besides the absurd claim that there's an invisible part of the beam that does the real damage (good luck directly proving it for the DS' beam sweetie), you still don't get the point.
    Even IF an invisible beam was still hitting the planet, the fact that the destruction of the planet is a combination of two explosions distinctively separated in time instead of one continuous ever expanding explosion just proves your baseless assertion completely moot.
    There was a pause.
    Read it? A pause. What's hard to understand?

    Zero relevance? You are obviously deep in denial. The superlaser was the point of the entire operation. He was asking his men to go on a suicide mission and you are saying he wouldn't even let them know what was at stake?

    Oh yes, playing the dramatic guy instead of being efficient, acting like a responsible general and forwarding his men the only relevant information necessary to their mission's success.

    No matter if the DS could destroy a castle, a town, an entire state, a continent, a planet, a star system or a galaxy, the result is the same.
    What is relevant to the pilots is what is going to endanger them and represent an obstacle to their mission's fulfillment.
    They alreayd knew what the DS could do. That just shows that it was plain redundant and completely useless to adress this point instead of talking about the turbolaser menace.

    Of course when I pronounce the words logic and common sense, it must sound alienese to you.

    They are official therefore carry more weight than you or Darkstar. Besides the part I'm talking about comes straight from the film.

    They only carry more weight if they're valid. They're not.

    Where is Behind the magic contradicted? The exact quote from the novel goes like this:
    "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"
    Does it state here where this mass-energy conversion takes place? Logical choice is the reactor of the Death Star.


    Only for someone who doesn't read properly. The text says that it's the entire moon that presents "another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion", not the Death Star's power generators, which have been described in the novel as well and in such a way they're nowhere about abstract phenomenoms, but just about small aritificial sun-like fusion generators (I'm talking about the part of my former post you didn't consider worth the quote, how amusing) and simply show that the beam, if it was a DET, couldn't forward enough energy to do what it did, because of the energy output of the reactors themselves.

    You explained nothing and know nothing. The theory I abide by is conservation of energy.

    No, the theory you follow like a sheep is conservation of happy denial.


    This is not about technobabble. This is about you desperatly trying to prove that Death Star didn't need to deliver the energy to Alderaan. It did. The planet exploded. There were fire rings and a secondary explosion. You have no explanation for them but you insist that they point to a chain reaction.


    Stop twisting my words. I'm not denying the magnitude of the explosion and present energy. I'm rebutting the theory you don't even bother to honestly defend.

    My answer is the only way. You wan't to argue that it isn't? Explain how your chain reaction works. Explain how we can have a chain reaction that increases the energy state of an object. This is the same as causing an avalanche to come rushing up the hill.

    Your answer is completely wrong, and among many counterpoints, for example, you completely refuse to adress the secondary explosion from a standpoint which would serve as a defense to your theory. You didn't even try to defend your theory by explaining the secondary explosion. How could you after all?
    You can't pull Occam Razor when your theory doesn't even fit with the evidence to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "How do you know that Death Star isn't that massive?"

    Any astronomer can tell you the answer to that by watching how everything around the Death Stars act.

    It's very simple.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I see what you're trying to do.
    Instead of adressing the points you've been askedto deal with, you focus on extras which are not relevant.
    Instead of explaining why Wong's DET theory, the one you defend, fits with visual observation, you walk around these issues, use red herrings and and hope to have people get lost in the flood of quote segmentation.

    Of course you won't point to when did I use red herrings specificaly or when did I focus on non relevant issues. I see you insist on using Wong DET term even though I'm talking about conservation of energy.

    How are you expecting to prove that when the planet's silhouette is completely obstructed by a large cloud of flames and debris? Of course, a significant portion of the planet did explode, but certainly not the planet's mass, as a whole, as you claim it.
    You cannot claim that the planet has doubled in size if only a portion of the planet was blown up. You can only claim such a thing IF the WHOLE PLANET did explode at the time of the first explosion, which of course is totally false and rather impossible to prove.

    Ah I see. Upper layer of the planet expanded roughly 1 diamater per second while the core remained untouched. Riiight. We see the fragments flying at 10,000km/s in all direction. You must prove that for some reason a part of the planet remained peacefully untouched.

    If you think that most of the planet was already gone during explosion 1, therefore negating any possible trace of remaining shield generator or whatever, then you're shooting your own foot, and denying Wong's DET theory one of the most important (false) arguments it relies on, that is, the existence of a shield which somehow manages to resist long enough to keep most of the energy for the second explosion (the delayed one), while you claim at the same time that the whole planet is already largely destroyed at more than 90%.
    Not to say that claiming a planetary shield wouldn't change a damn thing, since if we consider your side's evidence regarding the existence of this shield, it just shows that it was already long overwhelmed and gone before the first explosion, therefore negating any theory about the same shield retaining a large part of the energy for a secondary explosion, later on.

    I said that at the moment secondary explosion kicks in the planet has doubled in diameter. The shields held for a few frames collapsed and the planet immediatley started expanding. When it doubled it's diamater secondary explosion kicked in.

    Plain irrelevant, as the fact is the same. The secondary explosion, much more important, occured when the beam was already long gone.
    Stick with facts, stop making stuff up.

    How can it be irrelevant. If the beam slowed down to 1200km/s it would take it 10 seconds to cross 12000km. Just because the beam vanished from view doesn't mean it already reached the planet.

    Besides the absurd claim that there's an invisible part of the beam that does the real damage (good luck directly proving it for the DS' beam sweetie), you still don't get the point.
    Gotta love, how I must prove any little thing while you just say "chain reaction" and leave it at that. Once again this is about which theory is better. And invisible components are known to exist in Star Wars universe and are certainly better explanation than your "it was a chain reaction..somehow".

    Even IF an invisible beam was still hitting the planet, the fact that the destruction of the planet is a combination of two explosions distinctively separated in time instead of one continuous ever expanding explosion just proves your baseless assertion completely moot.
    There was a pause.
    Read it? A pause. What's hard to understand?

    Did it occur to you that entire beam doesn't neccesarily have the same energy density? Every process requires time and so does the superlaser. It cannot jump from 0 to 10^38J instantly. Therefore the beam could variate in intensity by many orders of magnidude. When the first part of them beam hits the planet it starts to expand as it expands the beam continues to hit the planet but it carries more energy so the remaining mass starts to expand even more rapidly. Since the first wave of fragments had a head start it will take some time for the second wave to overtake them which we will interpret as a pause.

    Oh yes, playing the dramatic guy instead of being efficient, acting like a responsible general and forwarding his men the only relevant information necessary to their mission's success.
    No matter if the DS could destroy a castle, a town, an entire state, a continent, a planet, a star system or a galaxy, the result is the same.
    What is relevant to the pilots is what is going to endanger them and represent an obstacle to their mission's fulfillment.
    They alreayd knew what the DS could do. That just shows that it was plain redundant and completely useless to adress this point instead of talking about the turbolaser menace.
    Of course when I pronounce the words logic and common sense, it must sound alienese to you.

    Blah blah blah.
    He said "the Death Star" and an official source agrees with my interpretation. And by the way, Death Stars turbolasers were also designed to fight against capital ships. So I guess he shouldn't have been talking about them either.

    They only carry more weight if they're valid. They're not.
    Prove that they are not valid.

    Only for someone who doesn't read properly. The text says that it's the entire moon that presents "another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion", not the Death Star's power generators, which have been described in the novel as well and in such a way they're nowhere about abstract phenomenoms, but just about small aritificial sun-like fusion generators (I'm talking about the part of my former post you didn't consider worth the quote, how amusing) and simply show that the beam, if it was a DET, couldn't forward enough energy to do what it did, because of the energy output of the reactors themselves.
    Read it properly? You mean when I read "it exploded with the liberated energy of a small artificial sun" I should read "it exploded with the energy which was created the same way as the energy of a small artificial sun" and when I read "the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion" I should read it as "the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion which will take place in the moon and not inside Death Star's reactor".
    Tell me, how do all those extra words pop into your head?

    No, the theory you follow like a sheep is conservation of happy denial.
    Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion pont to a chain reaction. I see you ignored my post about Alderaans density decreasing to 12% of the original and how it kills your precious chain reaction theory fro which you don't have any explanation anyway.

    Stop twisting my words. I'm not denying the magnitude of the explosion and present energy. I'm rebutting the theory you don't even bother to honestly defend.
    Too bad you haven't rebutted anything. This is your arguement: "Look fire rings...and secondary explosion, well that must mean the Death Star didn't need to deliver all the energy to the planet. It was probably a chain reaction, I can't explain why or how but if you don't agree with me then you are rabid!"

    Your answer is completely wrong, and among many counterpoints, for example, you completely refuse to adress the secondary explosion from a standpoint which would serve as a defense to your theory. You didn't even try to defend your theory by explaining the secondary explosion. How could you after all?
    I gave two explanation, an invisible component and the beam slowing down. But you won't listen to that will you?

    You can't pull Occam Razor when your theory doesn't even fit with the evidence to begin with.
    And your chain reaction does? As soon as there is a flaw in the conventional theory that immediatley means that chain reaction is the right answer? Nice try.

    Ultimatley your arguement (and arguements of all rabid Trekkies) boils down to this:

    1.You have no explanation for fire rings or the secondary explosion but you are sure that they point to a chain reaction which requires a miniscule amount of energy for the Death Star.

    2.Any alternative explanation must be proven if they are to be considered at all, never mind that they are simpler and do not introduce additional mechanisms into Star Wars universe.

    3.You use quotes from novelization which are open to interpretation and insist that we must interpret them in a way that supports your theory.

    4.When an non canon but official source contradicts your theory you declare them invalid without providing any evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Of course you won't point to when did I use red herrings specificaly
    Here's a hint: everywhere :)

    I see you insist on using Wong DET term even though I'm talking about conservation of energy.
    Now here's a curious dichotomy... isn't DET based on false assumption regarding convervation of energy? Why, yes it is. So?

    We see the fragments flying at 10,000km/s in all direction.
    After second explosion only (at least on DVD). Which, again, invalidates your claim.

    I said that at the moment secondary explosion kicks in the planet has doubled in diameter.
    Now that's interesting: you make a claim, you are told that your claim is false and you respond by repeating the same claim. Hello?

    How can it be irrelevant.
    Maybe because we can see precisely when beam strikes and when it stops striking the planet?

    Gotta love, how I must prove any little thing while you just say "chain reaction" and leave it at that.
    Then there's a little love here, since this claim is false.

    Once again this is about which theory is better.
    False. It's about whether both theories can explain what's going on there. Since DET cannot do that, therefore, it's false. It doesn't mean that SLE is correct, mind you. It merely means that DET is false. Period.

    Did it occur to you that entire beam doesn't neccesarily have the same energy density?
    Actually, based that we've actually seen a beam build-up, I'd say that main beam does have uniform energy density.

    Prove that they are not valid.
    We already did. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't change it.

    Read it properly?
    Yup.

    Explain how fire rings and secondary explosion pont to a chain reaction.
    Once again... Secondary explosion wouldn't happen if superlaser beam was the sole distributor of energy.

    This is your arguement:
    No it's not.

    Our argument is: "Look, there's a pause and secondary explosion not connected to the superlaser beam. This means that beam couldn't deliver 10^38J of energy to the planet."

    I gave two explanation, an invisible component and the beam slowing down.
    And both were shown to be false.

    And your chain reaction does?
    Yes, it does fit the evidence.

    As soon as there is a flaw in the conventional theory that immediatley means that chain reaction is the right answer?
    Wrong. Again, it's not "DET vs SLE Celebrity Deathmatch". If DET is shown to be false, then that's it: DET is false. It doesn't necessarily and automatically mean that SLE is correct. Try to remember that.

    You have no explanation for fire rings or the secondary explosion
    Yes we do, and yes they do.

    never mind that they are simpler and do not introduce additional mechanisms into Star Wars universe.
    Hello? Fire rings? DET still has to provide explanation for them. And the only way to do that is to introduce additional mechanisms.

    You use quotes from novelization which are open to interpretation
    Nice try, but since ROTS novelisation we've learned that "DS reactor is based on fusion" intepretation is correct.

    When an non canon but official source contradicts your theory you declare them invalid
    That's because that source is non-canon. Duh. There's no "evidence" required to prove that.

    And, btw, did it occured to you that not all matter that is capable of exploding can explode on it's own? This is why your "Yeah planets go around blowing up every day" contr-argument is both false and laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  136. After second explosion only (at least on DVD). Which, again, invalidates your claim.
    Don't lie. There are 24 frames between beams initial contact with the planet and the appearance of the second explosion. In that time planets diameter is doubled.

    Now that's interesting: you make a claim, you are told that your claim is false and you respond by repeating the same claim. Hello?
    No it isn't liar. The planet doubles it's diameter in 24 frames before the second explosion starts.

    Maybe because we can see precisely when beam strikes and when it stops striking the planet?
    The beam drops out of view. That doesn't mean the end of the beam has reached planetary surface. Remember what I said about superlasers speed being varieble?

    Then there's a little love here, since this claim is false.
    The explain the chain reaction. Oh wait you can't can you?

    False. It's about whether both theories can explain what's going on there. Since DET cannot do that, therefore, it's false. It doesn't mean that SLE is correct, mind you. It merely means that DET is false. Period.
    Conservation of energy doesn't need to explain how the energy state of an object was raised in order to be valid. It is a fundamental law that merley states that it is impossible to raise the energy state of an object without providing the neccesary energy.

    Actually, based that we've actually seen a beam build-up, I'd say that main beam does have uniform energy density.
    So what if there is a buildup? The tributary beams were still supplying energy after the beam was released.

    We already did. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't change it.
    Man you sure can lie. You offered no explanation whatsoever. Behind the magic is official and doesn't contradict the films regarding the nature of the superlaser. How is it invalid?

    Once again... Secondary explosion wouldn't happen if superlaser beam was the sole distributor of energy.
    I already provided three different mechanisms: invisible beam component, variable superlaser speed and energy density increase.
    What is yor explanation? Ups that's right, you don't have one.

    Our argument is: "Look, there's a pause and secondary explosion not connected to the superlaser beam. This means that beam couldn't deliver 10^38J of energy to the planet."
    Why? Explain why does a secondary explosion mean that beam couldn't deliver 10^38J to the planet.

    And both were shown to be false.
    Actually both are shown in the films. Stop lying.

    Yes, it does fit the evidence.
    Explain how does it fit the evidence. Explain how a chain reaction can increase the energy stat of an object. Explain how a chain reaction can increase when it's fuel matter is dispersing.

    Wrong. Again, it's not "DET vs SLE Celebrity Deathmatch". If DET is shown to be false, then that's it: DET is false. It doesn't necessarily and automatically mean that SLE is correct. Try to remember that.
    You haven't show the conservation of energy to be false. You just keep repeating that you have without providing a single explanation.

    Yes we do, and yes they do.
    Then give it.

    Hello? Fire rings? DET still has to provide explanation for them. And the only way to do that is to introduce additional mechanisms.
    Yes additional mechanisms. We have Death Star adding 10^38J to the planet plus some additional mechanisms.

    Nice try, but since ROTS novelisation we've learned that "DS reactor is based on fusion" intepretation is correct.
    The quote states that Death Star reactior runs on nuclear fusion?

    That's because that source is non-canon. Duh. There's no "evidence" required to prove that.
    Yes it's non canon and thus beneath the films. But it's still far above rabid Trekkie like you. Therefore it's interpretation carries more weight than yours. You lose.

    And, btw, did it occured to you that not all matter that is capable of exploding can explode on it's own? This is why your "Yeah planets go around blowing up every day" contr-argument is both false and laughable.
    Then explain how a planet can be made to explode without delivering the neccesary energy. You can't? Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Don't lie.
    Is there an echo in here?

    There are 24 frames between beams initial contact with the planet and the appearance of the second explosion.
    During which we can't see the planet. And you've been told that before. Try to remember that this time.

    The beam drops out of view.
    "The beam is long finished before the main explosion. What don't you understand in that?"

    The explain the chain reaction.
    Already did. Try to remember it this time. "Oh wait you can't can you?"

    Explain why does a secondary explosion mean that beam couldn't deliver 10^38J to the planet.
    Once again... Secondary explosion wouldn't happen if superlaser beam was the sole distributor of energy. There's no invisible beam component, variable superlaser speed or energy density increase.

    Actually both are shown in the films.
    What? You are saying that you've seen... invisible beam? :D

    And you've been already told that variable speed doesn't matter. Try to remember that this time.

    Explain how does it fit the evidence.
    By taking those things into consideration. Duh.

    Explain how a chain reaction can increase the energy stat of an object.
    Remember grenade and explosives analogy?

    Explain how a chain reaction can increase when it's fuel matter is dispersing.
    I don't have to explain false claims.

    You haven't show the conservation of energy to be false.
    Huh? Of course I haven't. I, with the others, have only pointed out that DET theory is incorrect. I've already told you that it is based on false assumption, haven't I?

    Then give it.
    We already did. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't change that fact.

    Yes additional mechanisms.
    So, you agree that your explanation is not simpler?

    The quote states that Death Star reactior runs on nuclear fusion?
    The quote states that Star Wars reactor are based on fusion. Which in turn means, that Death Star reactor, described as small artificial sun, is also based on fusion.

    Yes it's non canon and thus beneath the films.
    Therefore any explanation that is better carries more weight. "You lose."

    Then explain how a planet can be made to explode without delivering the neccesary energy.
    You've been already told how. Try to remember it this time. "You can't? Didn't think so."

    ReplyDelete
  138. During which we can't see the planet. And you've been told that before. Try to remember that this time.
    Ah but what is obscuring the planet? Could those be the fragments of that same planet which is being blown up?

    "The beam is long finished before the main explosion. What don't you understand in that?"
    Are yiou familiar with perspective? A few km wide beam will not be visible from the distance of tens of thousands of km.

    Already did. Try to remember it this time. "Oh wait you can't can you?"
    Do you think that anyone will be fooled by your stupid games? Explain why fire rings and secondary explosion point to chain reaction and what is the nature of that chain reaction.

    Once again... Secondary explosion wouldn't happen if superlaser beam was the sole distributor of energy. There's no invisible beam component, variable superlaser speed or energy density increase.
    Yes there is a invisible beam component. Watch the ESB destruction scene. Asetroids start glowing before the visible component hits them. Since superlaser is compound turbolaser it is not unreasonable to assume that superlaser could also behave in that matter. And the speed is variable. The superlaser moves much slower in the scene where Death Star first fires the beam.

    By taking those things into consideration. Duh.
    Wow. Talk about evasions. Go back to elementary school boy.

    Remember grenade and explosives analogy?
    Remember me explaining that planets are inert objects?

    I don't have to explain false claims.
    When the planet expands it's density will drop. A reaction is dependant on the density of reactants. Is this beyond your comprehension skills?

    Huh? Of course I haven't. I, with the others, have only pointed out that DET theory is incorrect. I've already told you that it is based on false assumption, haven't I?
    What assumption? Stop this idiotic evasions and debate honestly.

    We already did. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't change that fact.
    More childish evasions. Gee what a shock.

    So, you agree that your explanation is not simpler?
    Simpler than what? You provided no alternative explanation of how Death Star could blow up a planet.

    The quote states that Star Wars reactor are based on fusion. Which in turn means, that Death Star reactor, described as small artificial sun, is also based on fusion.
    Only if you take the musings of children growing up on backwater planet like Tatooine at face value. And why should fusion mean nuclear fusion when superlaser and turbolaser are not lasers?

    Therefore any explanation that is better carries more weight. "You lose."
    Explanation? There are no explanations here, only interpretations. And interpretation made by official source ooutweighs yours. Like I said: you lose.

    You've been already told how. Try to remember it this time. "You can't? Didn't think so."
    Holy evasions Batman! Here is a hint: nobody is fooled by them.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Ah but what is obscuring the planet? Could those be the fragments of that same planet which is being blown up?
    "Of course, a significant portion of the planet did explode, but certainly not the planet's mass, as a whole, as you claim it."

    Are yiou familiar with perspective?
    Are "yiou" familiar with this sequence? We can clearly see the beginning of the beam, and it ends while first explosion is under way, rendering this point moot.

    Do you think that anyone will be fooled by your stupid games?
    Dunno. Haven't tried any so far.

    Yes there is a invisible beam component. Watch the ESB destruction scene.
    It's a blooper, not "invisible component". Otherwise, any Jedi foolish enough to attempt beam deflection would be dead.

    Remember me explaining that planets are inert objects?
    Remember me explaining why this explanation is "false and laughable"? Guess not.

    When the planet expands it's density will drop.
    Since we cannot tell whether planet expands or not before main explosion, this claim remains false.

    What assumption?
    What, you mean you don't remember? *sigh* Once again, the assumption is that entire energy came from superlaser. Which, given what we know about DS power capabilities cannot be true.

    Only if you take the musings of children growing up on backwater planet like Tatooine at face value.
    Um... no. I don't try to convince you that there are dragons inside fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers.

    Explanation? There are no explanations here, only interpretations.
    Well then, any interpretation that is better carries more weight. "Like I said: you lose."

    Holy evasions Batman! Here is a hint: nobody is fooled by them.
    *shrug* Stop evading and start accepting, then.

    ReplyDelete
  140. After reading G2K's theory about the Super Laser Effect, I was wondering; the fire rings produced in the SLE theory - are they created by the destruction/conversion of planetary matter in the chain reaction?

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Of course, a significant portion of the planet did explode, but certainly not the planet's mass, as a whole, as you claim it."
    And what is your proof for that? How is it possible to make a significant portion of the planet's mass to expand at a rate of 10,000km/s while simultaneously leaving a part of the planet intact.

    Are "yiou" familiar with this sequence? We can clearly see the beginning of the beam, and it ends while first explosion is under way, rendering this point moot.
    Wow you can nitpick spelling. Is that the best you can do? The beam appears as if it can be seen off in the distance beacuse of the perspective. Or are you suggesting that beam is hundreds of km wide?

    It's a blooper, not "invisible component".
    Funny how they didn't correct it then when special editions came out. Hey you know what maybe the secondary explosion is also a blooper. Yeah that's it that's the ticket.

    Otherwise, any Jedi foolish enough to attempt beam deflection would be dead.
    Too bad we never see Jedi being fired upon by turbolasers.

    Remember me explaining why this explanation is "false and laughable"? Guess not.
    The planets being inert is "false and laughable"? You must be more ignorant than I thought. But please explain what volatile compounds does planet have which could result in 10^38J of energy.

    Since we cannot tell whether planet expands or not before main explosion, this claim remains false.
    Try to pay attention. I was explaining that secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction since by that time planet doubles in diameter thereby decreasing it's density which should decrease any chain reaction not increase it.

    What, you mean you don't remember? *sigh* Once again, the assumption is that entire energy came from superlaser. Which, given what we know about DS power capabilities cannot be true.
    No it isn't. It is a fundamental law in physics. How could the energy come from the planet? There is no way you can get 10^38J from the planet without a comparable energy imput.

    Um... no. I don't try to convince you that there are dragons inside fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers.
    Then why did you brought up this insignificant quote at all?

    Well then, any interpretation that is better carries more weight. "Like I said: you lose."
    Ehehehe. Wrong. Interpretations of dialouge are always subjective, there is no objective way to determine which is better. Therefore interpretation coming from an official source carries more weight than yours.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Anonymous #2 here.

    It's a blooper, not "invisible component".

    The same thing could be seen during the Kashyyyk battle in ROTS. Damage was done before the visible portion of the beam hit (when Yoda almost got hit).

    ReplyDelete
  143. And what is your proof for that?
    That movie, maybe you've seen it? It's called "Star Wars: A New Hope".

    How is it possible to make a significant portion of the planet's mass to expand
    It's not. That's your problem: we tell you that part of planet blows up, but you still insist that it "expands".

    Funny how they didn't correct it then when special editions came out.
    Funny how they didn't correct other bloopers.

    Wow you can nitpick spelling. Is that the best you can do?
    As already demonstrated, it's the least I can do. And it seems to be that you kinda lost the track of your argument here.

    Too bad we never see Jedi being fired upon by turbolasers.
    Oh, so your side argues that all energy weapons in SW are essentially the same weapons, only differently scaled ... except when it's inconvienient for you. Funny, that.

    The planets being inert is "false and laughable"?
    No, the idea that planet doesn't posess any internal energy is false and laughable.

    Try to pay attention.
    Yup, there's definitely an echo here.

    I was explaining that secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction since by that time planet doubles in diameter
    Except that we cannot tell whether it actually does, which makes it yet another assumption.

    No it isn't. It is a fundamental law in physics.
    No, there's no law of physics that says "all energy cames from the Death Star" :D

    How could the energy come from the planet?
    It had to come from somewhere. Otherwise it would be a violation of law of Conservation of Energy. And since we know that it couldn't come entirely from the beam, it had to came from the planet as well.

    Then why did you brought up this insignificant quote at all?
    To prove that in Star Wars universe, "fusion furnaces power everything from starships to Podracers."

    Interpretations of dialouge are always subjective, there is no objective way to determine which is better.
    Except when it can be shown that such interpretation is flawed or inconsistant with other materials.

    The same thing could be seen during the Kashyyyk battle in ROTS.
    And, again, if there's an invisible beam component, then all Jedi would be long dead.

    After reading G2K's theory about the Super Laser Effect, I was wondering; the fire rings produced in the SLE theory - are they created by the destruction/conversion of planetary matter in the chain reaction?
    Presumably.

    ReplyDelete
  144. That movie, maybe you've seen it? It's called "Star Wars: A New Hope".
    You know everyone who has seen the film will know that you are lying so really what is your angle here?

    It's not. That's your problem: we tell you that part of planet blows up, but you still insist that it "expands".
    You are lying kazeite. By the time the second explosion starts the entire planet has started to expand. Seriously, we've all seen the films. Who are you trying to fool here?

    Oh, so your side argues that all energy weapons in SW are essentially the same weapons, only differently scaled ... except when it's inconvienient for you. Funny, that.
    No we don't. We claim that superlaser is a compound turbolaser.

    No, the idea that planet doesn't posess any internal energy is false and laughable.
    Then explain how is that energy stored and how can it be released without providing roughly 10^38J.

    Except that we cannot tell whether it actually does, which makes it yet another assumption.
    Look at this screencap:
    http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg
    If you cannot see the planet expanding in that image then I suggest you see an optometrist.

    No, there's no law of physics that says "all energy cames from the Death Star" :D
    Actually the law states that "energy state of a closed system remains constant". Therefore the energy had to come from outside, therefore it had to come from Death Star.

    It had to come from somewhere. Otherwise it would be a violation of law of Conservation of Energy. And since we know that it couldn't come entirely from the beam, it had to came from the planet as well.
    Actually it could come from the beam and it did come from the beam. Unless you can provide a theory on how could the energy come from planet. No? Didn't think so.

    To prove that in Star Wars universe, "fusion furnaces power everything from starships to Podracers."
    Sorry but thoughts of little children are not quite enough to overrule the films showing the planet being blown up. Besides oil runs everything from cars to ships. Does that mean there are no nuclear powered ships today?

    Except when it can be shown that such interpretation is flawed or inconsistant with other materials.
    Too bad you haven't shown that it is inconsistent. Dodonna says "the Death Star has more firepower than half of starfleet" and Behind the magic interpreted the quote to mean "superlaser has more firepower than half the starfleet". No contradictions here. Better luck next time.

    And, again, if there's an invisible beam component, then all Jedi would be long dead.
    And why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Sorry to cut in again. With the fire rings being produced by the SLE reaction with a planet... doesn't that kind of disprove the current SLE theory? Because fire rings are created when the station explodes as its reactor is destroyed (the same happens to the second Death Star). If the reactor is mere nuclear fusion as SLE theory claims... how are these rings formed upon the reactors destruction?

    Personally, I think that the Death Star uses a Hypermatter reactor (as described by the EU; I realise that G2K doesn't consider the EU, but that's a different issue), and that the fire rings are created as a side effect of combustion/release of that sized yield of hypermatter; it could even be theorised that it is a hypermatter component that is used in the superlaser in a similar function that a plasma component would be used in a turbolaser bolt. This would in effect simplify the SLE into DET + hypermatter + planetary shield.

    ReplyDelete
  146. You know everyone who has seen the film will know that you are lying
    Suuuure :)

    That's why everyone is telling me that I'm wrong... no wait, they don't.

    You are lying kazeite.
    Suuuure.

    That's why everyone is telling me that I'm wrong... no wait, they don't.

    No we don't. We claim that superlaser is a compound turbolaser.
    Which is relevant to Jedi being hit by a turbolaser... how? Oh wait, it's not.

    If you cannot see the planet expanding in that image
    Indeed I can't: there's a giant explosion obscuring the planet. But you've been told that already.

    Actually the law states that "energy state of a closed system remains constant".
    Therefore, if energy couldn't come from the Death Star, it had to come from somewhere else. You've been told that how many times now?

    Sorry but thoughts of little children are not quite enough to overrule the films showing the planet being blown up.
    Which is why I'm not claiming that there are actual dragons inside every fusion furnance.

    I suppose now you are going to ask me "why did I brought up this insignificant quote at all?" again, starting this all over again, huh?

    You see, what we have here are children trying to explain how certain objects work - which is why we know that fusion furnances are small artificial suns.

    Consider this analogy: "Say, mom, what makes this lightbulb glow?"

    "That's becasue there's a light spirit inside, hun."

    "Oh, does it mean that there's a spirits smaller cousing inside my flashlight?"


    Now, we do know that there's no light spirit inside the lightbulb. Does it mean that flashlight bulb isn't smaller version of oridinary lightbulb? Of course it doesn't.

    Too bad you haven't shown that it is inconsistent.
    Personally, no. It have been shown here as false, however. "Better luck next time."

    And why is that?
    Because, in case you haven't realized, Jedi deflect only visible part of the bolt. If there's an invisible component before or after, it would hit them.

    If the reactor is mere nuclear fusion as SLE theory claims... how are these rings formed upon the reactors destruction?
    Reactor, yes, superlaser beam, no.

    Take second Death Star, for example. When we see destruction of the reactor it doesn't produce fire ring, does it? Only after Millennium Falcon leaves the station it explodes "properly" (starting with momentary burst from superlaser dish), with fire ring formed.

    Personally, I think that the Death Star uses a Hypermatter reactor (as described by the EU;
    Well, if you consider EU a real extension of the Star Wars universe, then I suppose that's the only logical explanation.

    I'm not sure about the shield neccessity, though - if you recall, DS2 was unshielded when it blew up...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Thanks for the reply, Kazeite!

    A quick second question: I just wondered in SLE theory why the fire rings were made when the superlaser exploded - don't they need planetary material for the chain reaction to work? Also, would the superlaser exploding actually be sufficient to create SLE and thus fire rings? Doesn't the superlaser actually have to do something special to iniate the funky chain reaction, rather than just blowing up? Also, doesn't the DSII's reactor look a little... odd for a nuclear reactor, with all that strange energy zipping between it?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Which is relevant to Jedi being hit by a turbolaser... how? Oh wait, it's not.
    We never saw a Jedi being hit by a turbolaser.

    Indeed I can't: there's a giant explosion obscuring the planet. But you've been told that already.
    Uhuh sure.
    Take a look at this screencap:
    +http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg
    Notice the surface on the left side of the planet.
    Now look at this screencap:
    +http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg
    Noticed how the surface on the left now appears diffuse? That's because it is superheated and is being flung into space at speeds of thousands of km/s. So the surface 6000km from the point of impact is being superheated and flung at enormous speeds 5 frames after impact but we are supposed to believe that a part of the planet remained intact over 20 frames later when secondary blast begins. Try again.

    Therefore, if energy couldn't come from the Death Star, it had to come from somewhere else. You've been told that how many times now?
    No it had to come from Death Star as the laws of physics dictate.

    I suppose now you are going to ask me "why did I brought up this insignificant quote at all?" again, starting this all over again, huh?
    You see, what we have here are children trying to explain how certain objects work - which is why we know that fusion furnances are small artificial suns.
    Consider this analogy: "Say, mom, what makes this lightbulb glow?"
    "That's becasue there's a light spirit inside, hun."
    "Oh, does it mean that there's a spirits smaller cousing inside my flashlight?"
    Now, we do know that there's no light spirit inside the lightbulb. Does it mean that flashlight bulb isn't smaller version of oridinary lightbulb? Of course it doesn't.

    Actually it could very well mean that. Is it a neon light produced by excitation of noble gases or by heating up wolfram string? How do you know fusion means nuclear fusion?
    And you haven't responded to my analogy with oil. Oil also powers everything from a small car to big ships yet there are also ships powerd by nuclear energy. Same way there could be starships powered by nuclear fusion (such as civilian ships) and yet that does not mean there are no antimatter or hypermatter powered ships.

    Personally, no. It have been shown here as false, however. "Better luck next time."
    Nobody has shown how is it false. But if you think that it was then paste the post here. Until then concession accepted.

    Because, in case you haven't realized, Jedi deflect only visible part of the bolt. If there's an invisible component before or after, it would hit them.
    And in case you haven't realized a Jedi was never fired upon by a turbolaser. Secondly any Jedi that was fired upon already had his lightsaber in front of the blaster long before it hit him. In case you missed it Jedi have precognition, they can see things before they happen.

    ReplyDelete
  149. We never saw a Jedi being hit by a turbolaser.
    Oh, so, again, your side argues that all energy weapons in SW are essentially the same weapons, only differently scaled ... except when it's inconvienient for you. Funny, that.

    Noticed how the surface on the left now appears diffuse?
    Noticed how the surface on the right is not visible? Notice how this is SE screencap?

    How do you know fusion means nuclear fusion?
    Because of those smaller cousins of imaginary dragons that live inside the suns? Gee...

    And you haven't responded to my analogy with oil.
    That's because it wasn't relevant. I give you one more chance to think about it and realize why.

    No it had to come from Death Star as the laws of physics dictate.
    It couldn't have come from Death Star, as the laws of physics dictate. Therefore, in order to uphold Convervation of Energy, we have to look for alternate energy sources.

    Nobody has shown how is it false.
    It's either a lie, or ignorance. Take your pick.

    But if you think that it was then paste the post here.
    "Yes I call you rabid because only people with a nut of common sense painfully know that the superlaser has zero relevance at all regarding the pilots' mission. Only the turbolasers were a concern to them. Bothering pilots with totally irrelevant points is completely absurd.
    Think hard."

    "Uh-huh. That same source which took most of its information from the infamous WEG guides, which are far from deeply researched informative sources.
    Not to say that the details given in the novelisation described phenomenoms which have nothing to do with turbolasers, which therefore completely contradict the CD, contrary to what you say. They talk about abstract mass-energy conversion and energy capabilities equalling the fusion output of small artificial suns. You get that stuck somewhere in your head."

    Until then concession accepted.
    Accepting imaginary concessions makes you look silly.

    Secondly any Jedi that was fired upon already had his lightsaber in front of the blaster long before it hit him.
    Except when, you know, he doesn't.

    And in case you haven't realized a Jedi was never fired upon by a turbolaser.
    Which shouldn't matter for you, since your side claims that turbolasers are just scaled up blasters (or vice-versa).

    A quick second question: I just wondered in SLE theory why the fire rings were made when the superlaser exploded - don't they need planetary material for the chain reaction to work?
    Wait, wait... just because it is most likely planetary matter in case of planets, it doesn't mean it always has to be planetary matter.

    Doesn't the superlaser actually have to do something special to iniate the funky chain reaction, rather than just blowing up?
    Well, we simply don't know how such superlaser operates, or how Star Wars reactors work. There are no blueprints for that things, so there's no way to tell whether they look odd or not.

    Also, the exact same argument applies for Trek side: We have no idea how exactly transporters... no, no transporters. How photon torpedoes work exactly. That's a good example, I think, because photon torpedoes are based on matter/antimatter reactor reactions. But we simply don't know exactly how they work, besides vague "it has matter/antimatter warhead".

    ReplyDelete
  150. Not only reactors are seen to be fusion. The ROTJ novel explicitly states that thermonuclear devices were in use in the battle of Endor.

    And what other kind of thermonuclear warhead is there, but thermonuclear fusion warheads?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Oh, so, again, your side argues that all energy weapons in SW are essentially the same weapons, only differently scaled ... except when it's inconvienient for you. Funny, that.
    Are you an idiot or something? I said that superlaser is a compound turbolaser as stated in behind the magic. Nothing more. I never claimed that hand blasters are the same thing as turbolasers.

    Noticed how the surface on the right is not visible? Notice how this is SE screencap?
    So what? Material 6000km distant was blown off. You wan't to claim that magically some of the planet was intact you prove it. And SE version is the same as DVD.

    Because of those smaller cousins of imaginary dragons that live inside the suns? Gee...
    Yeah except there are no dragins inside the suns. Your entire argument depends on musings on little children.Pitiful.

    That's because it wasn't relevant. I give you one more chance to think about it and realize why.
    More pathetic evasions.

    "Yes I call you rabid because only people with a nut of common sense painfully know that the superlaser has zero relevance at all regarding the pilots' mission. Only the turbolasers were a concern to them. Bothering pilots with totally irrelevant points is completely absurd.
    Think hard."

    This was an interpretation of another poster therefore it cannot be used to disprove an interpretation of an official source.

    "Uh-huh. That same source which took most of its information from the infamous WEG guides, which are far from deeply researched informative sources.
    Not to say that the details given in the novelisation described phenomenoms which have nothing to do with turbolasers, which therefore completely contradict the CD, contrary to what you say. They talk about abstract mass-energy conversion and energy capabilities equalling the fusion output of small artificial suns. You get that stuck somewhere in your head."

    This quote simply states that behind the magic is contradicted without explaining why. You'll have to do better than this kazeite.

    Except when, you know, he doesn't.
    You know if oine wishes to argue a certain point one should give an example if one does not wish to sound like an idiot or a liar.

    Which shouldn't matter for you, since your side claims that turbolasers are just scaled up blasters (or vice-versa).
    So why did you brought up the entire "Jedi being fired by turbolasers" shit? Jesus, can't you follow your own arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  152. In SB.com there was a ICS debate. It ultimately went down to the fact that conservation of energy resoundingly disproving at least one aspect of the ICS; the seismic charge being anywhere near what was stated in that book. However, the SW fanboys there are simple too stupid or too close minded to accept that obvious fact.

    ReplyDelete
  153. ^
    Unfortunately...


    I said that superlaser is a compound turbolaser as stated in behind the magic.
    In reply to the point that turbolasers are supposedly merely more powerful version of the blasters. I trust you see your evasion attempt was a failure.

    I never claimed that hand blasters are the same thing as turbolasers.
    Which is precisely why I said "your side" and not "you".

    You wan't to claim that magically some of the planet was intact you prove it.
    It seems that you are confused. I'll help you: it is you who has to prove that entire planet was expanding.

    And SE version is the same as DVD.
    And thus you bare your ignorance for all to see...

    Yeah except there are no dragins inside the suns.
    No kiddin'. Your entire arguments on disregarding quote entirely because it mentions their beliefs regarding everyday technology. "Pitiful."

    Does it also somehow invalidates mention about suns? Well then, you seem to imply that suns don't exists in Star Wars universe.

    More pathetic evasion.
    OK, if you insist, I will make you look like a fool. Again.

    You see, that quote directly compares suns and fusion reactors. And ANH quote also mentions artificial sun. Therefore, your suggestion that maybe they meant some other form of power generations is stupid.

    Now, are you happy now? Guess not. But remember, I gave you a chance and you blew it.

    This quote simply states that behind the magic is contradicted without explaining why.
    I guess you didn't pay attention when that quote was pointing out specific instances in novelisation that contradict BTM. "You'll have to do better than this."

    You know if oine wishes to argue a certain point one should give an example if one does not wish to sound like an idiot or a liar.
    Are you calling yourself a an idiot or liar? Why, yes you do. WTH?

    (In case you missed it: you were the one that was arguing that "any Jedi that was fired upon already had his lightsaber in front of the blaster long before it hit him". Therefore, as per your own rule, you have to give an example of such behaviour, before I can go around pointing my own examples.)

    So why did you brought up the entire "Jedi being fired by turbolasers" shit?
    To point out that according to your side, technologically, there's not much difference between hand blaster and turbolaser. I'm sorry for leaving you so utterly baffled.

    And now, just for fun: explain why only one single turbolaser in TESB displays such behaviour.

    Now, you see... thousands of blaster bolts, hundrends of turbolaser bolts, and one two or three display "invisible component". That's not a weapon characteristic - that's an anomaly.

    ReplyDelete
  154. In reply to the point that turbolasers are supposedly merely more powerful version of the blasters. I trust you see your evasion attempt was a failure.
    The blasters are not the same as turbolasers nor have I ever claimed they were. What is your point here?

    It seems that you are confused. I'll help you: it is you who has to prove that entire planet was expanding.
    Wrong. We see that planet expanding and when Millenium Falcon arrives it is gone. You are the one who must prove that part of the planet was somehow intact.

    And thus you bare your ignorance for all to see...
    Please then, point to where the SE version of Alderaan blast differs from DVD version.

    No kiddin'. Your entire arguments on disregarding quote entirely because it mentions their beliefs regarding everyday technology. "Pitiful."
    Does it also somehow invalidates mention about suns? Well then, you seem to imply that suns don't exists in Star Wars universe.

    Yes it invalidates their mention of the suns because they are kids. And beliefs of little kids cannot be compared to observed events from the films where Death Star blew up the planet.

    OK, if you insist, I will make you look like a fool. Again.
    You see, that quote directly compares suns and fusion reactors. And ANH quote also mentions artificial sun. Therefore, your suggestion that maybe they meant some other form of power generations is stupid.
    Now, are you happy now? Guess not. But remember, I gave you a chance and you blew it.

    Once agin how does the RotS quote mean that there are no non-fusion powered starships? And ANH quote doesn't state anything about the method of creating energy, merley that the amount of energy released by exploding Death Star was equal to that of a small artificial sun. Stop lying.

    I guess you didn't pay attention when that quote was pointing out specific instances in novelisation that contradict BTM. "You'll have to do better than this."
    Wrong the novels state that there is mass energy conversion involved but it doesn't state that it happens on the target. And the liberated energy of a small artificial sun was generated by an uncontrolled explosion inside the generator so it cannot be used to gauge the energy of the superlaser.

    Are you calling yourself a an idiot or liar? Why, yes you do. WTH?
    (In case you missed it: you were the one that was arguing that "any Jedi that was fired upon already had his lightsaber in front of the blaster long before it hit him". Therefore, as per your own rule, you have to give an example of such behaviour, before I can go around pointing my own examples.)

    That fact comes from Qui-Gon's statement that Jedi can see things before they happen. Therefore a Jedi will have his lightsaber ready before enemy squeezes the trigger. Have you even watched the films?

    To point out that according to your side, technologically, there's not much difference between hand blaster and turbolaser. I'm sorry for leaving you so utterly baffled.
    Another lie. What a surprise. I never claimed that blasters are similar to turbolasers.

    And now, just for fun: explain why only one single turbolaser in TESB displays such behaviour.
    Now, you see... thousands of blaster bolts, hundrends of turbolaser bolts, and one two or three display "invisible component". That's not a weapon characteristic - that's an anomaly.

    But it is there. And it is a viable explanation for the secondary explosion. Though luck kid.

    ReplyDelete
  155. The blasters are not the same as turbolasers nor have I ever claimed they were. What is your point here?
    My point is: claim that superlaser is a compound turbolaser has nothing do to with the "no Jedi being fired by turbolasers" claim.

    We see that planet expanding and when Millenium Falcon arrives it is gone.
    ... Well of course it's gone! It blew up! But you still need to prove your "expansion" claim, you know.

    Please then, point to where the SE version of Alderaan blast differs from DVD version.
    Well, for example, in DVD version superlaser beam illuminates right hemisphere of the planet, which some mistakenly take as a evidence of planetary shield.

    Once agin how does the RotS quote mean that there are no non-fusion powered starships?
    If the quote states that starships are being powered by fusion furnances, then... I'd call it quite obvious that starships are being powered by fusion furnances. Again, it's up to you to provide the evidence for non-fusion starships.

    And ANH quote doesn't state anything about the method of creating energy, merley that the amount of energy released by exploding Death Star was equal to that of a small artificial sun.
    Wrong. We are told that metal fragments of Death Star were propelled "by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." Not "liberated energy equal to that of a small artificial sun."

    And, even if we assume that you are correct... Energy equal to that of a small artificial sun is not 10^38J. Reactor with sun output would simply be unable to produce that kind of energy in realistic amount of time. It seems that either way you're screwed.

    the novels state that there is mass energy conversion involved but it doesn't state that it happens on the target.
    You, my good man, are mistaken. Novel states quite clearly that it is the Yavin 4 that would present "simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion".

    That fact comes from Qui-Gon's statement that Jedi can see things before they happen. Therefore a Jedi will have his lightsaber ready before enemy squeezes the trigger. Have you even watched the films?
    Why yes I have. And if you refuse to name examples, I can point you straight to the examples that disprove your claim: namely, Anakin and Obi-wan attacking Grevious' ships. We can clearly see them swinging their lightsabres and deflecting laser blasts mid-swing.

    I never claimed that blasters are similar to turbolasers.
    Of course you didn't. But apparently you're all too happy to misunderstand "your side" as "you specifically".

    But it is there. And it is a viable explanation for the secondary explosion.
    This is rich... you simply ignore what you've been told and restate your original, flawed assertion. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way. Tough luck, kiddo.

    You see, all you have is that turbolasers (and blaster bolts too) could have invisible component in front of visible beam, not behind it. And since we know that there's no invisible component preceding superlaser beam, your little theory falls apart. Again.

    ReplyDelete
  156. ... Well of course it's gone! It blew up! But you still need to prove your "expansion" claim, you know.
    You do realize that explosion is simply another word for rapid expansion don't you?
    As I already said we see that beam affected the area at least 6000km away from impact so we are talking about a third of planet's mass that was doubtlesly affected by the fifth frame. That matter rapidly expanded (exploded) at a rate of at least 6700km/s. A third of planet is 2*10^24kg which means that by fifth frame it contained the energy of 4.49*10^37J. At this time it is irrelevant wether the planet received the energy from the beam or if there was a chain reaction, the third of the planet now contains 4.49*10^37J. This matter now expands in all directions which meansa that the remaining part of the planet, even if we assume it was completley unaffected by the fifth frame, will be hit by 2.24*10^37J. Gravitational binding energy of the planet is roughly 10^32J which means the received energy would exceed the gravitational binding by a factor of 220,000.
    Now let's consider a 1cm drop of water on the surface of our sun. A 1cm diameter spherical drop of water would require the input of 1466J to vaporize. At the surface of the sun which has the power intensity of 67MW/m2 a drop would receive 5262J in a second. This energy exceeds the vaporization requirement by a factor 3.59.
    This means, kazeite, that your claim of planetary matter survivng intact for 20 frames until the secondary explosion is about 60,000 times more idiotic than if someone would claim that a drop of water could survive on the surface of the sun without being vaporized.

    Well, for example, in DVD version superlaser beam illuminates right hemisphere of the planet, which some mistakenly take as a evidence of planetary shield.
    which of course has absolutley no bearing on the state of left side of the planet.

    If the quote states that starships are being powered by fusion furnances, then... I'd call it quite obvious that starships are being powered by fusion furnances. Again, it's up to you to provide the evidence for non-fusion starships.
    Since the children knew nothing about Death Star obviously their musings didn't include the Death Star which demonstarted that it can far exceed anything fusion could produce.

    Wrong. We are told that metal fragments of Death Star were propelled "by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." Not "liberated energy equal to that of a small artificial sun."
    And also not "liberated energy that is created the same way as in a small artifical sun". So this is obviously open to interpretation.

    And, even if we assume that you are correct... Energy equal to that of a small artificial sun is not 10^38J. Reactor with sun output would simply be unable to produce that kind of energy in realistic amount of time. It seems that either way you're screwed.
    Really? Say what is the "liberated energy"? How much energy does our sun contain? Our sun has a power output of 4*10^26W however the energy created in the core has to cross 500,000km before reaching to the surface. Due to inefficient transfer it takes about a million years for energy that is created in the core to reach the surface. Therefore our sun contains roughly million year worth of it's own power output. One million years is 3.15*10^13s; using the simple E=P*t formula we find that our sun contains 1.26*10^40J. Assuming that "small artificial" sun is 100 times smaller than our sun we get 1.26*10^38J. Uuuups.

    You, my good man, are mistaken. Novel states quite clearly that it is the Yavin 4 that would present "simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion".
    So? Yavin is the problem which will be solved by powering up the superlaser using mass-energy conversion. Why would this mean that mass-energy conversion has to take place on sun? Also you claim that Imperial starships rely on nuclear fusion yet all of a sudden they can convert matter to energy from 100,000km distance.

    Why yes I have. And if you refuse to name examples, I can point you straight to the examples that disprove your claim: namely, Anakin and Obi-wan attacking Grevious' ships. We can clearly see them swinging their lightsabres and deflecting laser blasts mid-swing.
    These were blasters not turbolasers.

    Of course you didn't. But apparently you're all too happy to misunderstand "your side" as "you specifically".
    "My side"? If someone claimed blasters are the same as turbolasers the bring it up with that person. Don't bother me with it.

    Tough luck, kiddo.
    Must you repeat everything I say? How sad.

    You see, all you have is that turbolasers (and blaster bolts too) could have invisible component in front of visible beam, not behind it. And since we know that there's no invisible component preceding superlaser beam, your little theory falls apart. Again.
    I like how you pretend that conservation of energy hinges on the beam having invisible portion. I already demonstarted that secondary explosion after the planet has expanded disproves chain reaction thus leaving only the superlaser carrying the neccesary energy as an explanation. And it is hardly a giant leap to assume that if invisible portion exstends in front of the visible beam that it also extends behind. It is certainly better than your explanation for secondary explosion which...oh wait I forgot, you don't have any explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  157. You do realize that explosion is simply another word for rapid expansion don't you?
    No, not really.

    This means, kazeite, that your claim of planetary matter survivng intact for 20 frames
    That wasn't my claim, thank you very much. Tell me, how do you expect to debate if you can't even understand what we are writting here?

    which of course has absolutley no bearing on the state of left side of the planet.
    Well, this statement is technically true. Well then, tell me: how planet can apparently expand rapidly over the duration of one frame, and then basically freeze until obscured by explosion? Because this is what happens on DVD.

    Since the children knew nothing about Death Star obviously their musings didn't include the Death Star which demonstarted that it can far exceed anything fusion could produce.
    It didn't demonstrate anything that battle station powered by small artificial sun couldn't do.

    Well, at least you stopped arguing about those poor uneducated children from Tattooine...

    Really? Say what is the "liberated energy"? How much energy does our sun contain?
    Well then, tell me how Yavin 4 survived such explosion?

    Yavin is the problem which will be solved by powering up the superlaser using mass-energy conversion.
    No. Yavin 4 is one part of matter-energy equation.

    Why would this mean that mass-energy conversion has to take place on sun?
    No.

    Also you claim that Imperial starships rely on nuclear fusion yet all of a sudden they can convert matter to energy from 100,000km distance.
    Aaand: No.

    These were blasters not turbolasers.
    You realize that there's also one example of blaster shot supposedly having invisible component as well, do you?

    "My side"? If someone claimed blasters are the same as turbolasers the bring it up with that person.
    OK, I'll bite: so, according to you, superlaser is beefed up turbolaser, but, at the same time, blaster technology is radically different from turbolaser technology?

    Must you repeat everything I say?
    No. But it seems to be that you tried to use this habit of mine to ignore point it was attached to. "How sad."

    I like how you pretend that conservation of energy hinges on the beam having invisible portion.
    I dislike how you mangle your opponents position, creating imaginary strawmen which bear no resemblance to my actual arguments.

    I already demonstarted that secondary explosion after the planet has expanded disproves chain reaction
    Except that you kinda haven't done that. :)

    And it is hardly a giant leap to assume that if invisible portion exstends in front of the visible beam that it also extends behind.
    All ghosts of the Jedi laugh at you now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  158. Anonymous #2 here.

    You do realize that explosion is simply another word for rapid expansion don't you?
    No, not really.

    Aaaand that settles it. The fact that Kazeite doesn't even grasp that is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Since, of course, there's no difference between planet uniformly expanding and part of it blowing up... no wait, there is!

    You see, I deny it precisely because I grasp that, hun.

    I'm curious... if planet was already "rapidly expanding" by the time main explosion kicked in, how come that planetary debris appear only after that, not before?

    ReplyDelete
  160. That wasn't my claim, thank you very much. Tell me, how do you expect to debate if you can't even understand what we are writting here?
    Yes it was. You say that there is no way to tell wether the entire planetary matter expanded by the time second explosion starts. I just demonstrated that there is no way it could remain intact and that it expanded and decreased it's density therefore secondary explosion couldn't be the result of a chain reaction intensifying.

    Well, this statement is technically true. Well then, tell me: how planet can apparently expand rapidly over the duration of one frame, and then basically freeze until obscured by explosion? Because this is what happens on DVD.
    No it doesn't. From the moments the shield fail in frame 4 the planet is constantly expanding. There are no pauses.

    It didn't demonstrate anything that battle station powered by small artificial sun couldn't do.
    So you are saying that fusion powered Death Star could blow up a planet like that? How?

    Well, at least you stopped arguing about those poor uneducated children from Tattooine...
    No I didn't. They are uneducated, young, and don't know anything about Death Star.

    Well then, tell me how Yavin 4 survived such explosion?
    I didn't say the Death Star released exactly 10^38J when it was destroyed merley that the phrase "liberated energy" can go as high as that. However the released energy was used to vaporize the Death Star and propell it's fragments at tens of km/s, Yavin4 was 100,000km away from Death Star which means that by the time it reached it power intensity from the explosion dropped by a factor of 10^16 and of course we know that the rebels are capable of building shields.

    No. Yavin 4 is one part of matter-energy equation.
    Once agin this is your subjective interpretation of the quote not a fact.

    You realize that there's also one example of blaster shot supposedly having invisible component as well, do you?
    Well if you are aware of this then why do you constantly deny it?

    OK, I'll bite: so, according to you, superlaser is beefed up turbolaser, but, at the same time, blaster technology is radically different from turbolaser technology?
    Not according to me, according to Behind the magic, an official source.

    I dislike how you mangle your opponents position, creating imaginary strawmen which bear no resemblance to my actual arguments.
    Your argument is that because of two quotes in the novels which you choose to interpret a certain way the Death Star couldn't have delivered the required energy to Alderaan. I replied that according to conservation of energy it had to come from outside system. Do you have an alternative? Do you know of a way superlaser could release 10^38J from the planet itself?

    Except that you kinda haven't done that. :)
    Hmmm let's see, I proved that the supposedly intact part of the planet will be hit by at least 2.2*10^37J by the fifth frame therefore the entire planet will double it's diameter by the 20 frame. Therefore it's density will drop 8 time. Therefore any chain reaction will drop by 8 times. Therefore secondary explosion cannot be the result of a chain reaction. Is this beyond your comprehension skills?

    All ghosts of the Jedi laugh at you now. :)
    Precognition kid.

    ReplyDelete
  161. You say that there is no way to tell wether the entire planetary matter expanded by the time second explosion starts.
    I don't know about you, but I see certain difference between "there's no way to tell if entire matter expanded by the time of second explosion" and "the planetary matter survived intact for 20 frames".

    Do you know the meaning of the word "entire"? It doesn't seem that way right now.

    From the moments the shield fail in frame 4 the planet is constantly expanding.
    Since there are no shields there, your claim fails flat on the face even before I have the chance to point out that no, the left side of the planet expands for one, single frame, and then stops for several frames until first explosion covers it.

    So you are saying that fusion powered Death Star could blow up a planet like that? How?
    Hello? Superlaser Effect? Chain reaction?

    No I didn't. They are uneducated, young,
    And therefore assume that since fusion furnances work the same way as suns, therefore, according to their young, uneducated and naive point of view it must mean that there are younger cousins of sun dragons inside them. And, 20 years later we are told that Empire's most powerful battlestation is still powered by small artificial sun.

    and of course we know that the rebels are capable of building shields.
    Now this is rich... You are saying that Yavin 4 has planetary, or even theater shields? Can you prove that?

    Once agin this is your subjective interpretation of the quote not a fact.
    Um, sorry, no. It is a fact that Yavin 4 would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion.

    Well if you are aware of this then why do you constantly deny it?
    And, again, you attempt to twist my words to your liking. Sorry, you blew it again.

    See, I said "supposedly". Do you know what does it mean? It doesn't seem that way right now.

    Not according to me, according to Behind the magic,
    Do you agree with it or not?

    Your argument is that because of two quotes in the novels which you choose to interpret a certain way the Death Star couldn't have delivered the required energy to Alderaan.
    Well, do you see me "pretending that conservation of energy hinges on the beam having invisible portion" there? You've wasted a perfectly good strawman on your failed effort...

    Hmmm let's see, I proved that the supposedly intact part of the planet will be hit by at least 2.2*10^37J by the fifth frame therefore the entire planet will double it's diameter by the 20 frame.
    Except that I pointed out that the left side of the planet that isn't initally obscured fails to expand, which renders your predictions false. "Is this beyond your comprehension skills?"

    Precognition kid.
    Precognition what? Is precognition capable of bouncing off invisible parts of the beam? I think not.

    You see, what we see are Jedi deflecting visible portions of the beam only by sometimes simply swinging their lightsabres to bounce the beam mid-swing. Such technique would not be sufficient to deflect entire beam, which would result in Jedi's death. This is not what happens in the movies.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I don't know about you, but I see certain difference between "there's no way to tell if entire matter expanded by the time of second explosion" and "the planetary matter survived intact for 20 frames".
    Do you know the meaning of the word "entire"? It doesn't seem that way right now.

    Wathever you meant there is no was any of the matter remained in place since it was hit by over 10^37J.

    Since there are no shields there, your claim fails flat on the face even before I have the chance to point out that no, the left side of the planet expands for one, single frame, and then stops for several frames until first explosion covers it.
    Yes there is a shield since the atmopshere is unaffected. There is a delay in explosion since it takes a few frames for superheated matter to travel from lower layers of the planet to the surface even at 10,000km/s. And your claim that the planet is "covered" by this explosion is a pure invention of yours. The entire planet blows up as is proven by the fact that fire rings form around the entire planet rather than just around the part that is "affected" as you claim.

    Hello? Superlaser Effect? Chain reaction?
    Those are meaningless words. Explain the mechanism of the superlaser effect and chain reaction insted of going "Duh it's the chain reaction durrrrr!"

    And therefore assume that since fusion furnances work the same way as suns, therefore, according to their young, uneducated and naive point of view it must mean that there are younger cousins of sun dragons inside them. And, 20 years later we are told that Empire's most powerful battlestation is still powered by small artificial sun.
    Nowhere are we told that Death Star works on nuclear fusion. Sorry.

    Now this is rich... You are saying that Yavin 4 has planetary, or even theater shields? Can you prove that?
    I don't need to prove it. It is a valid and workable explanation.

    Um, sorry, no. It is a fact that Yavin 4 would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion.
    So? It is a problem in mass energy conversion? How does that mean the mass energy conversion takes place on the moon?

    And, again, you attempt to twist my words to your liking. Sorry, you blew it again.
    See, I said "supposedly". Do you know what does it mean? It doesn't seem that way right now.

    Make up your mind. Did you see any invisble components in blasters or not? If not then shut up about it.

    Do you agree with it or not?
    Of course I do, it's an official source.

    Except that I pointed out that the left side of the planet that isn't initally obscured fails to expand, which renders your predictions false. "Is this beyond your comprehension skills?"
    Stop lying. The planet is not "obscured", it is exploding as we can se a few moments later when Falcon arrives and as is demonstrated by fire rings forming around entire planet simultaneously.

    Precognition what? Is precognition capable of bouncing off invisible parts of the beam? I think not.
    Why not? A Jedi predicts that a person will fire and moves his lightsaber to block even before he squezes the trigger.

    You see, what we see are Jedi deflecting visible portions of the beam only by sometimes simply swinging their lightsabres to bounce the beam mid-swing. Such technique would not be sufficient to deflect entire beam, which would result in Jedi's death. This is not what happens in the movies.
    Man but you are slow. For the last time: hand blasters are not the same as turbolasers. When has a hand blaster ever exibited invisble beam?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Wathever you meant
    Thank you for admitting your mistake.

    there is no was any of the matter remained in place since it was hit by over 10^37J.
    No, it wasn't. And, as demonstrated on DVD, no, it didn't.

    Yes there is a shield since the atmopshere is unaffected.
    Explanations like that are the reason why your claim fails. "Shields were there because I need them for my theory to make sense to me"? Oh, come one!

    And your claim that the planet is "covered" by this explosion is a pure invention of yours.
    I take that you haven't seen the movie, then...

    The entire planet blows up as is proven by the fact that fire rings form around the entire planet rather than just around the part that is "affected" as you claim.
    I wasn't claiming that fire rings form only around affected parts. Again, please pay more attention more time.

    Explain the mechanism of the superlaser effect and chain reaction
    I don't have to, just like you don't have to explain the mechanism of the DET effect and direct energy transfer.

    Nowhere are we told that Death Star works on nuclear fusion.
    Except ANH novelisation, that is.

    I don't need to prove it.
    And again you bare your ignorance for all to see.

    Yes. You do need to prove it. Explanations like "there was shield present because I need it for my theory to make sense to me" aren't going to cut it, bub.

    How does that mean the mass energy conversion takes place on the moon?
    Because the quote tells us that.

    Did you see any invisble components in blasters or not?
    I haven't seen it, but that's not going to stop me, since, of course, it is impossible to "see" something invisible :)

    What I saw was invisible part of the beam supposedly interacting with Luke's hand (which is supposedly evident by his artificial skin showing damaged before visible part of the bolt impacted it).

    I say "supposedly", because everyone who owns DVD now can clearly see that beam actually have struck his sleeve, producing shower of the sparks upon the impact of visible bolt.

    Again... what you have is one, single, lone turbolaser bolt displaying "invisible part" behaviour. Perhaps you'd care to explain why other bolts in the same scene show no signs of such behaviour?

    Of course I do, it's an official source.
    Then what's the deal with the semantics game?

    Stop lying.
    Buy DVD.

    it is exploding as we can se a few moments later when Falcon arrives
    So... you have ANH edition that shows Alderaan still blowing up when Falcon shows up? I've read about those Super Special Editions you Warsies posess :D

    Why not?
    "Why not?"? *smacks his forehead*
    Are you seriously suggesting that Jedi is capable to deflect blaster bolt not because that he deflects them with his lightsabre, but because his precognition allows him to disperse invisible portion of the beam?

    Man but you are slow.
    On the contrary. I see that you've managed to mangle my another argument, commited logical fallacy in your own mind, and promptly blamed me for it.

    You see, it's quite simple: Turbolasers supposedly have invisible components.
    Blasters supposedly have invisible components.
    Superlaser is supoosedly simply scaled up turbolaser.
    Turbolaser is supposedly simply scaled up blaster.

    Any Jedi attempting to block only part of the beam (visible part) would die. Plain and simple.

    (and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :))

    ReplyDelete
  164. (and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :))

    I think I remember reading in one of the recent novels how Jacen was able to deflect Turbolaser orbital attacks with his new powers or whatever. I can't remember which book it is, and I'm not even sure it was Jacen. I've contributed nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idiotic "the planet didn't expand but it was merley obscured by the fragments theory" I think it's time I finally rip it apart.
    First I notice that you haven't even realized what fire rings mean to your entire fantasy. If you look at the Death Stars exploding you will see the fire rings are alligned with the center of the explosion which is only natural since they are a byproduct of it. If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet. This means that the first explosion's point of origin was the center of planet which is how all heated objects will expand. Therefore the explosion that we see is not any kind of "obscuring debris" or wathever but the planet itself expanding from it's center of mass as is proven by the location of the fire rings. Which naturally means that there is no "intact" parts of the planet.
    But wait it gets better.
    If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that it's fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. Try to figure out what that means before reading further.
    In case you couldn't figure it out yourself this means that the secondary explosion originates in the same place as the first explosion. So it doesn't even matter wether there were intact parts of the planet, the part of the planet the explosion took place was destroyed and it expanded at speeds of 6700km/s. By the time second explosion formed the matter had significantly lost density which would suffocate any chain reaction and not increase it. Therefore the secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction.
    Could you follow all this kazeite? Or should I draw you a picture with crayons?

    I don't have to, just like you don't have to explain the mechanism of the DET effect and direct energy transfer.
    Yes you do. You see in addition to Death Star's reactor, the nature of superlaser and fire rings you are introducing another unknown: the superlaser effect. You claim that this superlaser effect is superior to conventional theory but refuse to explain it. That doesn't fly.

    Except ANH novelisation, that is.
    Provide the quote that states "Death Star runs on nuclear fusion" and then we'll talk.

    Yes. You do need to prove it. Explanations like "there was shield present because I need it for my theory to make sense to me" aren't going to cut it, bub.
    No, we are trying to find an explanation that works best. I use shield technology (a known mechanism in Star Wars universe) and conventional energy transfer theory. You on the other hand use two words "chain reaction" for which you refuse to define a mechanism. Sorry but shields+conventional explanation is far superior to two undefiend words.

    Because the quote tells us that.
    Uhuh sure. Provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion will take place on the moon" and then we'll talk.

    I haven't seen it, but that's not going to stop me, since, of course, it is impossible to "see" something invisible :)
    What I saw was invisible part of the beam supposedly interacting with Luke's hand (which is supposedly evident by his artificial skin showing damaged before visible part of the bolt impacted it).
    I say "supposedly", because everyone who owns DVD now can clearly see that beam actually have struck his sleeve, producing shower of the sparks upon the impact of visible bolt.

    So you cnotinue with the blaster bolt angle even though you yourself admitt you have no proof of?

    Again... what you have is one, single, lone turbolaser bolt displaying "invisible part" behaviour. Perhaps you'd care to explain why other bolts in the same scene show no signs of such behaviour?
    Actually there are two as other anon already showed. In RotS when it almost hits Yoda. And you do know that there are only 24 frames in a second of film right? Some of the turbolasers simply won't be shown at the point where they are heating up the target before the visible beam reaches it.

    Then what's the deal with the semantics game?
    It is not semantics game to point out that the superlaser=compound turbolaser comes from an official source rather than me. Behind the magic makes it official and not just a fan theory.

    So... you have ANH edition that shows Alderaan still blowing up when Falcon shows up? I've read about those Super Special Editions you Warsies posess :D
    No the planet is gone by the time Falcon Shows up.

    "Why not?"? *smacks his forehead*
    Are you seriously suggesting that Jedi is capable to deflect blaster bolt not because that he deflects them with his lightsabre, but because his precognition allows him to disperse invisible portion of the beam?

    No he will see that the beam will be fired and move his lightsaber into place before the enemy even fires, before the invisible beasm even comes rushing out of the gun. Jebus, but you just insist that everything is spelled out for you like a retarded 5 year old.

    On the contrary. I see that you've managed to mangle my another argument, commited logical fallacy in your own mind, and promptly blamed me for it.
    You see, it's quite simple: Turbolasers supposedly have invisible components.
    Blasters supposedly have invisible components.
    Superlaser is supoosedly simply scaled up turbolaser.
    Turbolaser is supposedly simply scaled up blaster.
    Any Jedi attempting to block only part of the beam (visible part) would die. Plain and simple.

    No kazeite. Turbolsers do have invisible components as is shown by the films. Superlaser is a compound turbolaser as written on Behind the magic.
    Hand blasters on the other hand never exibited invisible beam and no official sources ever described them as being the same as turbolasers.
    And provide evidence that Jedi would die if trying to deflect the invisible beam since we know they can see things before they happen.

    (and besides, we've seen Jedi (namely Luke) deflecting turbolaser sized bolts in comics :))
    Same size doesn't imply the same mechanism. Though luck.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Anon #2 here.

    I was just wondering: since you guys have debated in this rather unsuitable form, have anyone heard anything from Omega about when and where the forum will be reestablished?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Ok kazeite since you won't stop floating your idiotic "the planet didn't expand but it was merley obscured by the fragments" theory
    Stop? I haven't even begun to float it. It's not my theory. So, again, you screwed up.

    First I notice that you haven't even realized what fire rings mean to your entire fantasy.
    Have you? You've just admitted that DET doesn't work here. You've said it yourself: "If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet", which is something that shouldn't have happened if DET theory is true.

    But wait, it gets better.
    If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that its fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. If DET were true, they would've been centered around impact point, but they're not. Try to figure out what that means before reading further.


    Which naturally means that there is no "intact" parts of the planet.
    What's the deal with you and "intact planet" fallacy?

    Actually there are two as other anon already showed.
    "Same size doesn't imply the same mechanism." Sorry.

    Or, alternately, the other one is a turbolaser, which means that you've just admitted that blasters and turbolasers are the same thing. Again, either way you're screwed.

    Yes you do. You see in addition to Death Star's reactor, the nature of superlaser and fire rings you are introducing another unknown: the superlaser effect.
    nature of superlaser=superlaser effect (fire rings included).

    You, on the other hand, you have to explain Death Stars reactor, the nature of superlaser, nature of the shield, nature of the secondary explosion, and nature of the fire rings.

    So, again, DET is simpler because?...

    And you do know that there are only 24 frames in a second of film right?
    And you do know that one of the burbolaser bolts in TESB supposedly displays invisible component? I'll reiterate: if 24fps is sufficient to see such behaviuour, why is that there's only one, single bolt that shows such behaviour?

    It is not semantics game to point out that the superlaser=compound turbolaser comes from an official source rather than me.
    It is when you use it to pretend that it changes the fact that you agree with it.

    Provide the quote that states "Death Star runs on nuclear fusion" and then we'll talk.
    Provide the quote that states "Death Star doesn't run on nuclear fusion" first.

    And, while you're at it, provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion won't take place on the moon", and then we'll talk.

    It is your claim that those two quote don't mean what they mean, so it's up to you to prove that claim.

    No he will see that the beam will be fired and move his lightsaber into place before the enemy even fires, before the invisible beasm even comes rushing out of the gun.
    No, he won't. As we could see in the ROTS, Anakin and Obi-wan were deflecting beams by swinging their lightsabres, so they connect with visible parts only.

    Really, try to understand the difference... (Entering five-year old mode) Imagine invisible part of the bolt as green ball, and visible part as red ball. Someone throws those two balls at you, one after another. And then you turn around, led by your trusty precognition and swing your bat so it will intersect the path of the red ball, deflecting it away from you. The trouble is, green ball remains unaffected - you've deflected only the red ball that came after it.

    And thus, you're hit by the green ball. Do you understand now?

    No the planet is gone by the time Falcon Shows up.
    So? Was I denying that Alderaan blew up? No, I wasn't.

    So you cnotinue with the blaster bolt angle even though you yourself admitt you have no proof of?
    Yes, I continue with the blaster bolt angle, just as I continue with the turbolaser bolt angle. Both are bloopers. Sorry.

    Hand blasters on the other hand never exibited invisible beam and no official sources ever described them as being the same as turbolasers.
    "The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.

    So sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Have you? You've just admitted that DET doesn't work here. You've said it yourself: "If you look at the first explosion on Alderaan you will see that the fire rings are alligned with the center of the planet", which is something that shouldn't have happened if DET theory is true.
    But wait, it gets better.
    If you look at the secondary explosion you will see that its fire rings are perfectly alligned with the first fire rings. If DET were true, they would've been centered around impact point, but they're not.Try to figure out what that means before reading further.

    Wrong kid, a rapidly heated object will start to spread from it's center of mass. The beam hit the planet and drilled into it's interior. Since the core is denser than crust and mantle it absorbed more of energy thus the planet started to expand from the center. In any case the chain reaction theory is disproven.

    What's the deal with you and "intact planet" fallacy?
    You claimed that parts of the planet were intact by the time of secondary explosion which I disproved. Don't play stupid.

    Provide the quote that states "Death Star doesn't run on nuclear fusion" first.
    And, while you're at it, provide the quote that states "mass-energy conversion won't take place on the moon", and then we'll talk.
    It is your claim that those two quote don't mean what they mean, so it's up to you to prove that claim.

    Wrong kid. You are claiming that Death Star runs un fusion, provide a quote that states it.

    No, he won't. As we could see in the ROTS, Anakin and Obi-wan were deflecting beams by swinging their lightsabres, so they connect with visible parts only.
    Really, try to understand the difference... (Entering five-year old mode) Imagine invisible part of the bolt as green ball, and visible part as red ball. Someone throws those two balls at you, one after another. And then you turn around, led by your trusty precognition and swing your bat so it will intersect the path of the red ball, deflecting it away from you. The trouble is, green ball remains unaffected - you've deflected only the red ball that came after it.
    And thus, you're hit by the green ball. Do you understand now?

    And since the invisible bolt is invisible how pray tell can you see how far in front of the visible bolt it extends?

    Yes, I continue with the blaster bolt angle, just as I continue with the turbolaser bolt angle. Both are bloopers. Sorry.
    Yeah the fire rings are also bloopers, and the secondary explosion too.

    "The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.
    So sorry.

    The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics. Now a superlaser is not only based on the same principle as turbolaser it is a turbolaser. You loose kid.

    ReplyDelete
  169. You claimed that parts of the planet were intact by the time of secondary explosion
    Indeed I did. And I disproved your claim that the entire planet was expanding. Indeed, it seems that most of the planet starts to expand, then "changes its mind", which makes DET theory false.

    The beam hit the planet and drilled into it's interior.
    And we haven't seen the beam on the other side of the planet because?...

    Wrong kid.
    Oh, so go call you older brother or something :)
    You are claiming that Death Star runs un fusion, provide a quote that states it.
    Already did. Now's your turn.

    And since the invisible bolt is invisible how pray tell can you see how far in front of the visible bolt it extends?
    It consistently extends far enough to supposedly affect its target one frame before visible part of the beam.

    Yeah the fire rings are also bloopers, and the secondary explosion too.
    Oh, I see you're getting desperate...

    The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics.
    "Denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial"."

    ReplyDelete
  170. Indeed I did. And I disproved your claim that the entire planet was expanding. Indeed, it seems that most of the planet starts to expand, then "changes its mind", which makes DET theory false.
    Yes the entire planet stats to expand and continues to expand. There is only assimetry in expansion.

    And we haven't seen the beam on the other side of the planet because?...
    Beacues there is additional 6000km of rock behind the core. Beacuse the plasma created when the planet is heated is highly opaque.

    Already did. Now's your turn.
    Uhuh sure you did. Show the quote where it states that Death Star runs on nuclear fusion.

    It consistently extends far enough to supposedly affect its target one frame before visible part of the beam.
    Hehe. One post you claim it's a blooper and the next you claim that there is some kind of consistency to the lenght of invisible part. Make up your mind.

    Oh, I see you're getting desperate...
    No you are since you were the one who first wanted to use bloopers as an explanation.

    "Denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial"."
    Don't know what's the point of this but you still haven't answered my point that weapons operating on same principles will not neccesarily exibit the same properties.

    ReplyDelete
  171. And how did you disprove that entire planet is expanding when fire rings that were centered on the planet expanded equally in all directions thus proving the entire planet was expanding long before the secondary explosion.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Yes the entire planet starts to expand
    True.

    and continues to expand.
    False.

    Beacues there is additional 6000km of rock behind the core.
    The beam pierced first 6000km in a matter of frames, so why wouldn't it pierce another 6000km? It got tired or something?

    Uhuh sure you did.
    Uhuh. Now's your turn.

    Hehe. One post you claim it's a blooper and the next you claim that there is some kind of consistency to the lenght of invisible part.
    I see that you've missed word "supposedly" again. Please, please, please pay more attention next time.

    No you are since you were the one who first wanted to use bloopers as an explanation.
    The difference is, I'm not the one that claims that effects specifically added in SE and refined in DVD are bloopers.

    Don't know what's the point of this
    The point is, you are so deep in denial that when faced with facts that invalidate your claims you simply shrug them beside.

    Guess what: if weapons operating on same principles don't exibit the same properties, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that superlaser has invisible component. Again... no matter the outcome, you're screwed.

    And how did you disprove that entire planet is expanding when fire rings that were centered on the planet expanded equally in all directions
    Which means that entire planet is expanding... how? It seems to me that you've made an assumption here: "since we see fire ring, it must mean that entire planet is expanding."

    In case you forgot - DET theory doesn't concern itself with fire rings. Therefore, existence and behaviour of the fire fings doesn't prove DET theory at all.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that explain a certain assimetry in explosion will always occur which will cause certain parts of a planet to apparently stop expanding. You ignored my explanation that expanding core will require a few frames to reach the surface which easily explains that apparent delay on the left side of the planet. You also assume that the left side wansn't expanding at all even though a single pixel in that scene is hundreds of km wide and we wouldn't be able to register any expansion even if the left side expanded at 100km/s during those few frames of "pause".
    Now, kazeite, show me two consecutive frames in which planet pauses expansion. I mean entire planet, not a part of the planet which can be easily explained as explosion assimetry.

    The beam pierced first 6000km in a matter of frames, so why wouldn't it pierce another 6000km? It got tired or something?
    Aaahahahahaha! Ah man you crack me up. It pierced for 6000km so why not 12000km right? But if it could pierce 12,000km why not 24,000km, why not 48,000km? Think before you open your mouth.
    Of course you once again ignored my points that plasma is highly opaque medium and that it will absorb most of the beams energy thereby preventing it to reach the other side of the planet.

    I see that you've missed word "supposedly" again. Please, please, please pay more attention next time.
    Cut the bullshit kazeite. You said that there is consistency in how far blasters invisible component extends in front of the invisible beam. Demonstrate that consistency by pointing out a few examples of blaster invisible components.

    The difference is, I'm not the one that claims that effects specifically added in SE and refined in DVD are bloopers.
    And since we saw an invisible beam in Yoda scene it is obvious that invisible beam is not a blooper.

    Guess what: if weapons operating on same principles don't exibit the same properties, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that superlaser has invisible component. Again... no matter the outcome, you're screwed.
    You do realize that there is a difference between two weapons operating on the same principle and being the same weapon don't you? Superlaser is nothing more than few turbolaser pulses combined.

    Which means that entire planet is expanding... how? It seems to me that you've made an assumption here: "since we see fire ring, it must mean that entire planet is expanding."
    It is not an assumption kazeite. The fire rings are an byproduct of explosion involving superlaser technology, it is alligned with the center of the explosion. We can see that when Death Star explode therefore it is a direct observation.

    In case you forgot - DET theory doesn't concern itself with fire rings. Therefore, existence and behaviour of the fire fings doesn't prove DET theory at all.
    No it doesn't. But it can be used to prove that entire planet was expanding ever since the primary explosion and that second explosion is alligned with the first thereby disproving chain reaction theory.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Anonymous, did you just claim that the superlaser is just a few turbolaser pulses combined? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read claimed about the Death Star. If the Superlaser is just a bunch of turbolasers, Why even build a Death Star? Just use a bunch of individual ships, instead of a ridiculously huge station that shows an astonishing weakness to very small ships.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Kazeite you once again ingonred my points that explain a certain assimetry in explosion
    Assymetry? Like, explosion centered on the center of the planet? That's assymetry for you?
    (but there's a bit of good news: you've finally found the Shift key :))

    You ignored my explanation that expanding core will require a few frames to reach the surface which easily explains that apparent delay on the left side of the planet.
    No, I didn't. I've told you, three times, that planets starts expanding immediately for one frame, then stops. Under your model this shouldn't have happen.

    You also assume that the left side wansn't expanding at all
    AIMB before, it does expand visibly. For one frame. Can you explain that?

    Of course you once again ignored my points that plasma is highly opaque medium
    No, you were the one that ignored your own point by saying that it didn't penetrate the other side because there's 6000km of rock. I was merely following your lead.

    Now, kazeite, show me two consecutive frames in which planet pauses expansion.
    That, I will do. (as soon as you find Shift again, kane)

    And since we saw an invisible beam in Yoda scene it is obvious that invisible beam is not a blooper.
    Another failed evasion. We were talking how supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) fire rings and stuff are bloopers.

    Demonstrate that consistency by pointing out a few examples of blaster invisible components.
    I already DID! Hello! Earth to Kane! Lukes example!

    You do realize that there is a difference between two weapons operating on the same principle and being the same weapon don't you?
    Kane Starkiller: lord of the dance.

    You deny the correlation between two weapons that seem to have similiar characteristics (blasters and turbolasers), and yet at the same time you insist that weapons looking unlike any other (superlaser) is merely "few turbolaser pulses combined."

    Amazing.

    It is not an assumption kazeite.
    Yes it is, as your next sentences prove. Tell me: was either of the Death Stars expanding?

    But it can be used to prove that entire planet was expanding
    No, it can't.

    If the Superlaser is just a bunch of turbolasers, Why even build a Death Star?
    BILC: Because It L Cool! :D

    ReplyDelete
  176. *wanders in*

    ...

    You guys are STILL at it? Sheesh. Well, looking over it, it seems that kazeite is the only one who's actually thinking--apart from the random dudes who popped in--so ra-ra and all that stuff.

    *wanders out*

    ReplyDelete
  177. Assymetry? Like, explosion centered on the center of the planet? That's assymetry for you?
    You really are slow arent you? Every explosion is obviously going to be centered somewhere wether is symmetric or not. What makes explosion assymetric is expanding at different speeds in different directions.

    No, I didn't. I've told you, three times, that planets starts expanding immediately for one frame, then stops. Under your model this shouldn't have happen.
    Show me two consectuive frames where the planet as a whole stops expanding. Otherwise it is simply assimetry in explosion.

    AIMB before, it does expand visibly. For one frame. Can you explain that?
    Sure. The energy that was spread with the shield hit the surface upon it's failure and superheated the surface material to such an extent that it shot up in the air. A few frames later expanding innards of the planet pushed through the surface layers.

    No, you were the one that ignored your own point by saying that it didn't penetrate the other side because there's 6000km of rock. I was merely following your lead.
    Stop lying kazeite. I said that superlaser drilled through the planet and then reached the core where it deposited most of it's energy since the core is densest. You then asked why didn't it shot through another 6000km if it could shoot through first 6000km. Obviously anyone with an intact brain stem can see that the ability to shoot through x meters doesn't automatically mean it can shoot through 2x meters.

    That, I will do. (as soon as you find Shift again, kane)
    I didn't think your evasions could get any more pathetic but you just keep outdoing yourself.

    Another failed evasion. We were talking how supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) fire rings and stuff are bloopers.
    I already knew that you are so ignorant you cannot even understand simple physics concepts but now it seems that even sarcasm is beyond you grasp.
    My reply about fire rings and secondary explosion was a sarcastic reply to your desperate wish to declare invisible beams as bloopers so you can conveniently sweep the under the rug. No such luck kid.

    I already DID! Hello! Earth to Kane! Lukes example!
    At this point I must wonder wether you are a liar or merley an idiot. I asked you to show a consistency in invisible beam length and you reply with one example. News flash: you cannot determine any kind of consistency based on a single example nor can we determine how far in front of the visible beam does invisible component extend. And of course you yourself admitted that this is not a certain example using the word "supposedly" several times.

    You deny the correlation between two weapons that seem to have similiar characteristics (blasters and turbolasers), and yet at the same time you insist that weapons looking unlike any other (superlaser) is merely "few turbolaser pulses combined."
    Amazing.

    Stop lying kazeite. The sources are official, Behind the magic states that superlaser is created by several turbolaser pulses therefore it is a turbolaser. Blasters and turbolaser are said to operate on the same principles not that they are the same weapons.

    Yes it is, as your next sentences prove. Tell me: was either of the Death Stars expanding?
    Yes both of them.

    No, it can't.
    For reason which you naturally won't share with us. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  178. You really are slow arent you?
    Compared to you, I seem to be the equal of Wally West.

    Every explosion is obviously going to be centered somewhere wether is symmetric or not.
    And since this explosion is not centered around superlaser impact point...

    The energy that was spread with the shield hit the surface upon it's failure and superheated the surface material to such an extent that it shot up in the air.
    And then it stopped. Your explanation doesn't conform to the facts.

    Stop lying kazeite.
    Can't stop doing something I wasn't doing.

    Obviously anyone with an intact brain stem can see that the ability to shoot through x meters doesn't automatically mean it can shoot through 2x meters.
    Well, my point is sure lucky - you missed it completely. You see, the point is that beam has shot through 6000km in a matter of, what, one, two frames? And then... it stopped. Why? "Superdense core", you say? That's fine and dandy, but compared to weapons that can pierce supposedly (see? "supposedly" again) neutronium laced hulls this makes superlaser beam absolutely pitful.

    I didn't think your evasions could get any more pathetic
    Since you have no material to base your claim on, you're just guessing now. :)

    but now it seems that even sarcasm is beyond you grasp.
    I'll grant you that, in your case it's extremely difficult to conclude whether you're serious, joking, evading, misrepresenting, or merely being sarcastic.

    Either way, you have really no way to prove the invisible componenent and such sarcastic reply is your attempt to save face. Well, too late.

    I asked you to show a consistency in invisible beam length and you reply with one example.
    Wrong. You already know about three examples.

    And of course you yourself admitted that this is not a certain example using the word "supposedly" several times.
    No, I pointed out that such thing doesn't or shouldn't have happened, this the word "supposedly".

    Stop lying kazeite.
    Can't stop doing something I wasn't doing.

    The sources are official, Behind the magic states that superlaser is created by several turbolaser pulses therefore it is a turbolaser.
    If it was turbolaser, then we would see only one single gun, instead of superlaser dish.

    Face it: superlaser is precisely refined blaster technology, operating on the same principles, but not necessarily having the same properties.

    Yes both of them.
    Must be that Super Special Edition of yours again...

    For reason which you naturally won't share with us. Try again.
    Sure. It can't expand, because... wait for it... wait for it...

    it doesn't expand.

    What we see instead is beam producing first explosion, and simultaneously we see that part of the planet not obscured starts to expand, for one frame, then it stops expanding.

    I wonder, though, how can you claim that loss of density due to the expansion "disproves" chain reaction, while simultaneously having no effect whatsoever on DETT. So, somehow, despite blowing up once, the planet has decided to blow up again, despite having no source of external energy to feed on.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Anon #2 here.

    Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist Munificent-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.

    ReplyDelete
  180. In SB.com there was a ICS debate. It ultimately went down to the fact that conservation of energy resoundingly disproving at least one aspect of the ICS; the seismic charge being anywhere near what was stated in that book. However, the SW fanboys there are simple too stupid or too close minded to accept that obvious fact.

    You mean like here:

    http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?p=2531895#post2531895

    There's obviously a lot of work to accomplish to correct all that BS. I've been mentionning the geonosian fighter firepower for ages. It was coveniently ignored, or misadressed, as you can see with Enderwastaken's very good example:

    "Yes, because its a good idea to release nuclear level yields in atmosphere when you are flying around. Totally not going to make you crash. Further, the yields of fighters must be comparable. When an X-wing attacks an Imperial bridge tower in ROTJ the explosion works out to TJ level. So does Jango's laser cannons. The Geonosian fighter cannons must be on the same level for similar ships to fight each other."

    Of course, the idea that shielded fighters and bombers, in SW, should easily withstand kiloton or megaton level blasts is just flabbergasting when you consider that the republican dropship was shot down by pea shooters in AOTC.

    Check for example those small puffs of sands, when cannon bolts hit the tip of Geonosis' dunes. See how, despite the angle, the bolts do not "drill" through - at best - two meters of freshly and naturally blown sand, to pop out on the other side... you know, since they're supposedly "focused" (big magic word here).
    See how, later on, these same bolts barely scorch the rocky cliff of Dooku's secret landing bay (eventually releasing sparks or, if you're lucky, small clouds of smoke), while they completely perforate the dropship.
    Even with the unprovable and too often used excuse that the shields were already severely drained, according to the EU's shield systems, they should have easily recharged, or more precisely, bled off the exceding energy a long time ago before the geonosian fighters started to shoot at the dropship.
    In fact, the shields, supposedly able to withstand at the very least, kiloton levels of energy, should have never been bothered by such pityful pee-wee shots, even if they were down to 0.0001% (which, again, would be sooo convenient).

    Ah, funny as well as how dialing down weapons suddenly either means full overkill power, or stupid fire cracker level. No in-between, of course. Too complicated to design, I guess.

    Of course, there's that whole absurd caliber scaling method, which is only used between the Death Star and capship cannons, but never used down to blasters then. Or how they may come with the excuse that it wouldn't work because they're "blasters" you see, and not turbolasers (aahh...), no matter if the blasters are thousand times closer to turbolasers in behaviour and effects than the Death Star's funky beam might be.
    Was the OS databank describing the DS' beam as a beefed up TL?

    To quote Kazeite:

    "The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles." - Star Wars databank.

    Cherry picking anyone?

    Then the guy with no identity says "The fact that they are based on the same principles does not mean that they will exibit all of the same charachteristics."

    You got to wonder what's so complicated in the meaning of same theories and principles. Of course, admitting this is right, then it means that the "invisible beam" effect directly witnessed for TLs and blasters doesn't automatically apply to the DS' superlaser, or that it has different properties, which makes their typical scaling method completely worthless since the DS' beam is not your regular TL, and thus not usable as a basis for caliber estimations. Thus we see Anonymous Guy building over complex theories upon theories upon assumptions and confusions.

    There's also that point about shields, even when dumping all the exceding energy into neutrinos, would still radiate significant levels of energy (despite the low interaction particles) that would be easily noticeable in atmosphere, considering the insane yields the ICS is speaking of.


    Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist Munificent-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.



    Did we see rings either? Did we see matter disappearance?
    Oh, btw, I just love how EU sources claim that it is a SPHA-T that fired despite the fact that these vessels are literally unable to fire on a horizontal plane, even less downard. Their legs aren't even long nor flexible enough to let the vehicle bend over to gain a couple of necessary degrees down.

    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog54s526.jpg
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/doc_aotc/sphat_egress06.jpg
    http://scifi3d.theforce.net/downloads/Star_Wars/SWRepublic/1423_lge_republic_SPHA-T.jpg

    So either something lifted the vessel's bum, or it's not a SPHA-T.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Anon #2 here.

    Kazeite argues that we didn't see the beam coming out on the other side (forgetting things like perspective etc.), but he's also forgetting another thing: in ROTS, we saw a Seperatist Munificent-class star frigate being destroyed by a compound beam (a shot fired by SPHA-T inside the hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer). Did we see the beam coming out on the other side (i.e., the bottom of the ship)? No.

    Did we see rings either? Did we see matter disappearance?
    Oh, btw, I just love how EU sources claim that it is a SPHA-T that fired despite the fact that these vessels are literally unable to fire on a horizontal plane, even less downard. Their legs aren't even long nor flexible enough to let the vehicle bend over to gain a couple of necessary degrees down.

    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/aotc/bog54s526.jpg
    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/doc_aotc/sphat_egress06.jpg
    http://scifi3d.theforce.net/downloads/Star_Wars/SWRepublic/1423_lge_republic_SPHA-T.jpg

    So either something lifted the vessel's bum, or it's not a SPHA-T.


    Did we see any rings when the capital ships were destroyed by the DS II in ROTJ? And what about the "matter disapperance"? It's only the figment of your imagination. As for not being an SPHA-T that fired that shot because of what you mentioned,did you thought of it being modified and fitted inside the hangar so it could fire?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Matter disappearance IS there. Flat distribution IS there.

    There is indeed an effect on places not yet reached by the beam. However it is not immediate after shot, but rather 1-2 frames before impact , while once in ANH it afffects Tie NOT on beam course. The most likely explanation is NOT invible beam, but rather simply that SW beams can affect things at short distance. The reason is that SW beams are most likely electrical in nature, simular to ball lighning.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Did we see any rings when the capital ships were destroyed by the DS II in ROTJ?

    No. However I mentionned two effects.

    And what about the "matter disapperance"? It's only the figment of your imagination.

    Ah no. That is extremely well shown on Robert's site. You may not agree with his theories, but at least please try to acknowledge basic facts:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperl-4.html

    Oh no, this beam is definitely weird!

    As for not being an SPHA-T that fired that shot because of what you mentioned, did you thought of it being modified and fitted inside the hangar so it could fire?

    Modified? Okay, so who talked about it being a SPHA-T? Why do half the job? Why not mention that it is a modified one? I think the reference comes from a guide which is quite abundant with such trivial details.
    Secondly, why bother with supposedly modified honky SPHA-Ts specifically meant to fire from inside the ship instead of simply installing a real turbolaser?
    Oh, I see, because it's still a SPHA-T, which can be moved around.
    Needless to say that the SPHA-T is one of the most useless vessels ever designed, but that's another story.

    ReplyDelete
  184. You know, the Rabid Warsies just don't like the fact that in a fair comparison, Star Trek technology is on the whole far superior to the Star Wars analogues. As obvious as that may be, I feel it needs saying still, as it can explain much about how they act the way they do. It's a childish way of reacting, but some people never grow up in some respects, and it seems that Mike Wong and his gang are some of those. Pity. They might actually be friends of yours otherwise.
    How would you define technological superiority? Wood is a technologically better electrical insulator than steel, but is technologically inferior as a material for a support beam.

    Repulsorlifts are superior to tank treads when going over water, but inferior when it comes to steep grades and high winds.

    Superiority always depends on the context.


    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  185. Well, for example, Trek side has weapons than have bigger equivalent firepower than Wars side. Whether it's the result of DET, or chain reactions (Trek weapons not possessing necessary firepower to produce observed effects using DET method) or not, to me, this certainly makes them technologically superior to Wars weapons.

    ReplyDelete