2006-07-26

Artificial Suns

I was amused earlier. Not only do the Chinese seem to be claiming to be well ahead of the rest of the world insofar as achieving sustainable fusion power generation, but they also call fusion reactors "artificial suns".

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

I couldn't help but giggle.

Of course, I'm sure those opposed to Chinese fusion will simply try to claim that "sun" means the exact same thing as "star", and any light source is a star, so fusion isn't involved and this must really be just a big hot light bulb.

Good luck with that.

40 comments:

  1. I see 2 main things in the debate. The scholarly, informative part and the fun part, seeing the creative lying that's so preposterous. Many on that side just parrot the more creative and have limited imaginations. Eventually, Wong et all will be gone from the debate for whatever reason and if the lower downs don't get more creative, I can't see the debate being as much fun anymore. It'll be talking to a computer, one of those first ones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how Darkstar pretends that "Warsies" claimed the term "artificial sun" cannot possibly mean nuclear fusion instead of saying that it doesn't neccesarily mean nuclear fusion and that he needs more evidence before discounting official literature but hey why stop with pathetic strawman attacks after all this time.
    Take the text from this page for example:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/trinity/articles/part1.html

    The artificial sun that rose before dawn that morning gave birth to apocalyptic nightmares of "duck and cover" and the Cuban missile crisis. It also promised "peace through strength" and energy "too cheap to meter."
    The atomic bomb imposed a stern restraint on military escalation and yet spawned artistic outrage that gave us Dr. Strangelove, "The China Syndrome" and cartoon character Homer Simpson as a hopelessly inept nuclear-power-plant operator.


    Ups it seems that a nuclear fission device was just called an artificial sun even though fission is completley opposite of fusion. Obviously "artificial sun" in this case was used to describe the appearance of an object not the mechanism.


    I see 2 main things in the debate. The scholarly, informative part and the fun part, seeing the creative lying that's so preposterous. Many on that side just parrot the more creative and have limited imaginations. Eventually, Wong et all will be gone from the debate for whatever reason and if the lower downs don't get more creative, I can't see the debate being as much fun anymore. It'll be talking to a computer, one of those first ones.
    As I have shown above the only one lying are you and your little buddy Darkstar. It is amusing how your debating tactis boils down to all of dissenting people leaving the Internet before you move in declare a glorious victory. Why not come in now of your arguments are so strong? There are other boards besides SD.net like spacebattles. Oh but I forgot Darkstar was banned from that place too. In fact he was called an idiot by such Trekkies as Lord Edam wasn't he? And former Trekkies like Alyeska and Chris O'Farell have long ago conceeded that Star Wars would kick Federation's ass. Too bad so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like how Darkstar pretends that "Warsies" claimed the term "artificial sun" cannot possibly mean nuclear fusion instead of saying that it doesn't neccesarily mean nuclear fusion and that he needs more evidence before discounting official literature but hey why stop with pathetic strawman attacks after all this time.

    Every discussion on the subject I've seen between those that are rabid warsies and those that aren't has involved the idea that it can't be nuclear fusion because it must coinncide with the ICS saying that the reactors are hypermatter and even go on to say that it is "hypermatter fusion" when the phrase hypermatter fusion appears nowhere in any literature. It came from the debate to get the ICS nugget to be more important than what the novel says.

    Ups it seems that a nuclear fission device was just called an artificial sun even though fission is completley opposite of fusion. Obviously "artificial sun" in this case was used to describe the appearance of an object not the mechanism.

    And, at the same itme, we also have the ep 3 novel saying that fusion powers everything. The ep 3 and OT novels are on the same level of canonicity, so the idea of nuclear fusion fits for both to be right at that level. There is also no indication that a new power generation technology was developed for the DS.

    As I have shown above the only one lying are you and your little buddy Darkstar.

    And, as I demonstrated above, there is a piece of info that is not brought up in your analysis.

    It is amusing how your debating tactis boils down to all of dissenting people leaving the Internet before you move in declare a glorious victory.

    Actually, I have gone into detail before in the debate. There is no need for me to write every little thing every time. It isn't like I posted under the ID of anonymous. I posted under the name I have used in the debate. Many on both sides have known my position for a while.

    Why not come in now of your arguments are so strong?

    See above. If you have been involved in the debate before, tell me your screen name and I'll remind you of where I corrected your error. If not, it isn't necessary for me to retype every thing, since google probably has pages of the debate cached. Bring up my name and the debate keywords.

    Why don't you say There are other boards besides SD.net like spacebattles.

    SDN is more infamous for their tactics. Besides, Wong is more fun than most to laugh at. Besides, Darkstar linked to his specific debate with Wong and Wong runs SDN. I don't know if he's a part of spacebattles or any other board. I don't care, if he is. It is irrelevent. You are trying to distract from the issue with triviality.

    Oh but I forgot Darkstar was banned from that place too.

    Contrary to what you think is reality, I mentioned SDN not because of Darkstar. For why, see above.

    In fact he was called an idiot by such Trekkies as Lord Edam wasn't he?

    Who cares? Besides, Lord Edam? Even if we assume that he really is a trekkie, he's not good at the debate. Trying to nudge Wong et all to a pro-trek stance over time in secret has amounted to nothing.

    And former Trekkies like Alyeska and Chris O'Farell have long ago conceeded that Star Wars would kick Federation's ass. Too bad so sad.

    Big deal. Who cares, if they did? When did their word become law?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Every discussion on the subject I've seen between those that are rabid warsies and those that aren't has involved the idea that it can't be nuclear fusion because it must coinncide with the ICS saying that the reactors are hypermatter and even go on to say that it is "hypermatter fusion" when the phrase hypermatter fusion appears nowhere in any literature. It came from the debate to get the ICS nugget to be more important than what the novel says.
    I have never seen anyone claim that every reactor including R2D2 recharge unit must be a hypermatter reactor. They only say it cannot be a fusion reactor when power requirements exceed that of a normal fusion reactor such as BDZ or Death Star superlaser.

    And, at the same itme, we also have the ep 3 novel saying that fusion powers everything. The ep 3 and OT novels are on the same level of canonicity, so the idea of nuclear fusion fits for both to be right at that level.
    Except of course the line from ep3 actually described the state of mind of a Tatooine child and ANH quote provides only a vauge "artificial sun" statement which as I have already shown can mean fusion or fission even in 21st century context. It's a surest sign of desperation when someone tries to use vauge quotes and childrens musings to contradict official technical books.

    There is also no indication that a new power generation technology was developed for the DS.
    Except for Alderaan being blown up of course for which nuclear fusion couldn't possibly be responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have never seen anyone claim that every reactor including R2D2 recharge unit must be a hypermatter reactor.

    No one has.

    They only say it cannot be a fusion reactor when power requirements exceed that of a normal fusion reactor such as BDZ or Death Star superlaser.

    BDZ is not canon, so it isn't an issue and the SL is the issue, as I was talking about.

    Except of course the line from ep3 actually described the state of mind of a Tatooine child and ANH quote provides only a vauge "artificial sun" statement

    It isn't vague nor is the ep 3 quote as useless, as you say it is.

    which as I have already shown can mean fusion or fission even in 21st century context.

    The article you cited is not said to be on any canon level, so it's default level would be noncanon, but it isn't even SW, so it isn't on any tier. So, the article is irrelevent, when we have the ep3 quote.

    It's a surest sign of desperation when someone tries to use vauge quotes and childrens musings to contradict official technical books.

    It's more desperate when you stick to something that isn't even on 1 of the 4 wars tiers. It is also desperate when you try to override a higher tier with a lower one.

    Except for Alderaan being blown up of course for which nuclear fusion couldn't possibly be responsible.

    And you assume the end result must have come from direct energy transference, brute force, but you can not say that it is unequivically brute force and can not be something else. You do not say how it must be DET and nothing else. There is no evidence there was anything other than fusion generators on Alderaan and the visual effects of the planet blowing up disprove DET because how it is destroyed indicates evidence of the method used, which overrides anything in any tech book or anything else on a lower tier.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BDZ is not canon, so it isn't an issue and the SL is the issue, as I was talking about.
    So what if it isn't canon? It is a part of continuity and therefore a part of SW universe. I really don't care about your home made material inclusion policy and neither do any of the people involved into a debate except for handful of you desperate Trekkies. Here is a news flash: no one takes you seriously.

    It isn't vague nor is the ep 3 quote as useless, as you say it is.
    Yes it is vauge, haven't I just shown you that fission devices are also being described as artificial sun? Additionaly the episode 3 quote does not disprove the existence of other means of power generation even if we do decide to take a child's thoughts as objective evidence.

    The article you cited is not said to be on any canon level, so it's default level would be noncanon, but it isn't even SW, so it isn't on any tier. So, the article is irrelevent, when we have the ep3 quote.
    It isn't irrelevant it shows that the term "artificial sun" does not neccesarily mean nuclear fusion even in 21st century context let alone the context of a galaxy far far away as you are so desperate to claim and once again nowhere does episode 3 state that fusion generators are the only means of power generation in SW.

    And you assume the end result must have come from direct energy transference, brute force, but you can not say that it is unequivically brute force and can not be something else. You do not say how it must be DET and nothing else. There is no evidence there was anything other than fusion generators on Alderaan and the visual effects of the planet blowing up disprove DET because how it is destroyed indicates evidence of the method used, which overrides anything in any tech book or anything else on a lower tier.
    It was direct energy transfer of course since there is no conceivable way Death Star could have destroy Alderaan the way it did without supplying the neccesary energy. Regardless of wether it was a chain reaction or not however, nuclear fusion cannot explain the destruction of Alderaan therefore your claim that SW doesn't have more powerful energy sources is clearly wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Though there are points, like Chris and Alyeska switching sides, that are totally irrelevant, not to say amusing, I can see the problem that the ANH quote poses.
    If the author simply used adjectives to illustrate the yield of the explosion, and just threw in the term "sun" to define a big bright explosion, then we can understand the other interpretation.
    Small sun already means one of the smallest natural suns that have been reported since the first day suns were observed.
    Then, we add artificial, as a small artificial sun. In SF in general, artificial suns often end being power sources already and dramatically smaller than small natural suns.
    So when the author insists that this is a "small artificial sun", he could simply mean a bright, eventually blinding explosion. An explosion still totally dwarfed by the power output of even a small sun.
    The author may have simply meant that compared to a natural sun, even if the Death Star blew up in a spectacular way, it's still nothing compared to a sun, even a small one.

    Now, it's far obvious that in fact the author is talking about an amount of energy, the one which propelled "trillions of microscopic metal fragments [...] past the retreating ships".

    However, it is not said if the author is absolutely literal as to how that energy was produced. If the author is just trying to illustrate the yield instead of the system responsible of the power generation, then there's no point arguing that he's being over analytic on the nature of the production system, that is, insisting that it's fusion based.
    Basically, he could just have meant that the debris were propelled by a violent and blinding fashioned explosion.

    However, the quotes from the prequel novelisations are more specific. It shows that the power generation devices are so well spread across the galaxy that even Tatooine kids know the basics about them.
    Who were those kids again?
    Those little pesky nuts fiddling around podracers? These childs in TPM are largely going to meet lots of different people on Tatooine, from smugglers to space pilots to even podracer pilots (their idols). It critically makes their opinion much more reliable than the opinion of kids who just knows nit about that kind of stuff, who doesn't meet the right people to learn the right things from outer space, just because they live in tidy palaces and don't mix to astroports' scum.

    RotS:
    "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."

    That is just filled with details. The fact that the kids built some kind of lore around mythical creatures living in the fusion furnaces and suns, doesn't undermine the fact that the dragon mythology, here, is based on tangible and solid facts.

    Then, all is a question of knowing what fusion means. I can see where the other side is coming from, by fanoning that "hypermatter fusion" concept.
    After all, the quote doesn't say that the fusion furnaces run on the same elements found in suns. It just says that the fusion furnaces are just inhabited by "dragons" which are just smaller than the ones living in the suns, which is quite logical considering the maximum potential size of even the biggest starship's reactor(s).

    However, a fusion in physics is a nuclear reaction.

    So can hypermatter fusion be a nuclear reaction?

    AotC ICS page 3:
    "Low-power, domestic machines run or portable chemical, fission and fusion reactors, which consume a variety of fuels depending on local resources. Most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores."

    Answer: No.
    Annihilation has nothing to do with a fusion.

    Not to say that we could ponder the efficiency of that system if hypermatter was indeed mixed to other elements.

    In this case, the debate has one side arguing that the ICS is right, and that hypermatter is the magical thingy that provides such insane levels of power to Star Wars.
    That same side fanoned the concept of "hypermatter fusion" to tie both the novelisations with the ICS. But as you can see, they are mutually exclusive.

    Fusion furnaces are not described as side systems, auxiliary containment devices that play second roles, behind what supposedly really powers everything in Star Wars, according to the ICS.
    No, they are not systems that "confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores", like the ICS claims, but are what (simply and directly) powers EVERYTHING in Star Wars.

    So the ICS is wrong, and the fanon "hypermatter fusion" concept as well.


    Now, with a Death Star being a secret and experimental next gen device, even if everything since RotS was powered by fusion furnaces, it still doesn't mean that nothing new was found to power the Death Star's systems.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So what if it isn't canon? It is a part of continuity and therefore a part of SW universe.

    Except it isn't Lucas' vision. MO.

    I really don't care about your home made material inclusion policy

    It's obvious you aren't caring for Lucas' vision. His is the vision in question, not yours.

    and neither do any of the people involved into a debate except for handful of you desperate Trekkies.

    Well, let's be honest. Most Wars fans don't give a rat's ass about the EU anyway, so it isn't that much of an issue.

    Here is a news flash: no one takes you seriously.

    And here's a news flash: most people on this planet don't take the idea of the Trek/Wars debate seriously, let alone what a particular segment of it thinks. So, that goes for both sides. But, you still try to add fluff to your argument. What is your screen name for the debate?

    Yes it is vauge

    Only when you ignore the part where it talks about nuclear fusion.

    haven't I just shown you that fission devices are also being described as artificial sun?

    You were speaking of a reference outside of the canon, while ignoring 2 sections that actually are the canon that deal with the issue at hand. In short, you haven't shown squat to disprove what has been stated of nuclear fusion use in everything.

    Additionaly the episode 3 quote does not disprove the existence of other means of power generation even if we do decide to take a child's thoughts as objective evidence.

    That is true. In the wars'verse, there very well may be other forms of power generation in existence, but for this society, nuclear fusion is all that's used to power crap. You aren't dealing with that bit well.

    It isn't irrelevant it shows that the term "artificial sun" does not neccesarily mean nuclear fusion even in 21st century context let alone the context of a galaxy far far away as you are so desperate to claim and once again nowhere does episode 3 state that fusion generators are the only means of power generation in SW.

    One example in one instance does not disprove the common usage.

    Correction, it is the only one used.

    It was direct energy transfer of course since there is no conceivable way Death Star could have destroy Alderaan the way it did without supplying the neccesary energy.

    Unless it used a chain reaction, most likely exotic, which would require less initalizing energy from the DS itself. You assume the mechanism, a mechanism that is in direct opposition to to what is seen to happen. An exotic chain reaction still gives the same end result power potential of DET and you get the added bonus of it being more efficient that DET. You get the same result with less work. How is that a bad thing?

    Regardless of wether it was a chain reaction not however, nuclear fusion cannot explain the destruction of Alderaan

    Of course it does. ECRM explains its destruction and fusion based power generation fits with the idea for using an energy method that's more efficient that DET.

    therefore your claim that SW doesn't have more powerful energy sources is clearly wrong.

    [stiffled giggles]

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was direct energy transfer of course since there is no conceivable way Death Star could have destroy Alderaan the way it did without supplying the neccesary energy. Regardless of wether it was a chain reaction or not however, nuclear fusion cannot explain the destruction of Alderaan therefore your claim that SW doesn't have more powerful energy sources is clearly wrong.

    Let's break down the "Star Wars" debating tactic you just used:

    1) Alderaan was destroyed by the Deathstar.
    2) Because I cannot explain how the explosion was caused, it must have been done using the most power intensive method known to man. This ofcourse has nothing to do with me wanting to win the 'Star Wars vs Star Trek' debate.
    3) Since I believe 2, any explanation that needs less energy supplied is either wrong or still required just as much energy. Because I say so, Nyah!

    As a bonus I'll add what you'd do in a situation where Star Trek would seem to have a more powerfull weapon/energy source/whatever than the Star Wars equivalent:

    4) If a weapon in the Star Trek universe shows a larger-than-expected effect, it must follow the lowest power intensive possible explanation possible. This ofcourse has nothing to do with me wanting to win the 'Star Wars vs Star Trek' debate.
    5) Since I believe 4, any explanation that would require more energy supplied is either wrong or still didn't require the energy we'd calculate for it. Again, because I say so, Nyah!

    But don't worry, I'm not buying your sidestep here. Nor do I care about you taking us seriously - I for one certainly only look at responses by Anonymous Cowards as amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AotC ICS page 3:
    "Low-power, domestic machines run or portable chemical, fission and fusion reactors, which consume a variety of fuels depending on local resources. Most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores."

    Answer: No.
    Annihilation has nothing to do with a fusion.


    You know, I have totally glossed over the "annihilation" part all this time. Based on the "official literature", larger starships use fusion generators, which use annihilation at one point (most likely to get a more raw form of material/energy to work with for the fusion), which means that it's got a "hypermatter fission" process part to it.

    All EU wanking must bow down to the saxtonian written ICS because it is official literature based around the time of the movies. He wrote hypermatter fission, not fusion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. However, the quotes from the prequel novelisations are more specific. It shows that the power generation devices are so well spread across the galaxy that even Tatooine kids know the basics about them.
    Who were those kids again?
    Those little pesky nuts fiddling around podracers? These childs in TPM are largely going to meet lots of different people on Tatooine, from smugglers to space pilots to even podracer pilots (their idols). It critically makes their opinion much more reliable than the opinion of kids who just knows nit about that kind of stuff, who doesn't meet the right people to learn the right things from outer space, just because they live in tidy palaces and don't mix to astroports' scum.

    RotS:
    "Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers."

    That is just filled with details. The fact that the kids built some kind of lore around mythical creatures living in the fusion furnaces and suns, doesn't undermine the fact that the dragon mythology, here, is based on tangible and solid facts.

    Uuuh they hang around space pilots and that makes them experts on power technologies of the galaxy. Too bad that no one ever thought them that there are no dragons living inside.
    And that bit about how their belief that there are dragons living inside a sun doesn't hurt their credibilities is really priceless. Really if a nuclear physicist came up to you and told you that there are dragons living inside nuclear reactors that wouldn't hurt his credibility?

    Then, all is a question of knowing what fusion means. I can see where the other side is coming from, by fanoning that "hypermatter fusion" concept.
    After all, the quote doesn't say that the fusion furnaces run on the same elements found in suns. It just says that the fusion furnaces are just inhabited by "dragons" which are just smaller than the ones living in the suns, which is quite logical considering the maximum potential size of even the biggest starship's reactor(s).

    Sorry but Death Star blowing up Alderaan is not fanon. I realize that you are desperate to claim Death Star employed some kind of trick to destroy it but so far you provided no evidence. I hate to break it to you but fire rings and secondary explosions are no more an evidence for chain reaction than they are for direct energy transfer.

    AotC ICS page 3:
    "Low-power, domestic machines run or portable chemical, fission and fusion reactors, which consume a variety of fuels depending on local resources. Most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores."

    Answer: No.
    Annihilation has nothing to do with a fusion.

    Not to say that we could ponder the efficiency of that system if hypermatter was indeed mixed to other elements.

    In this case, the debate has one side arguing that the ICS is right, and that hypermatter is the magical thingy that provides such insane levels of power to Star Wars.
    That same side fanoned the concept of "hypermatter fusion" to tie both the novelisations with the ICS. But as you can see, they are mutually exclusive.

    Fusion furnaces are not described as side systems, auxiliary containment devices that play second roles, behind what supposedly really powers everything in Star Wars, according to the ICS.
    No, they are not systems that "confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores", like the ICS claims, but are what (simply and directly) powers EVERYTHING in Star Wars.

    So the ICS is wrong, and the fanon "hypermatter fusion" concept as well.

    ICS isn't wrong since is impossible to blow up Alderaan with nuclear fusion power and since that was shown in the films which are the highest oreder of canon they overrule the quote from episode 3 even if we do use your interpretation of the quote and disregard the fact it's a bunch of children talking.

    Now, with a Death Star being a secret and experimental next gen device, even if everything since RotS was powered by fusion furnaces, it still doesn't mean that nothing new was found to power the Death Star's systems.
    You will no doubt provide evidence that Death Star is new and experimental next gen device. And once again the Death Star must have more efficient power technologies than nuclear fusion at it's disposal otherwise it would not be able to destroy Alderaan.

    Except it isn't Lucas' vision. MO.
    It has a Star Wars label on it so until someone officially states that EU doesn't count it counts.

    It's obvious you aren't caring for Lucas' vision. His is the vision in question, not yours.
    It's called Star Wars therefore it's Star Wars. Though break.

    Well, let's be honest. Most Wars fans don't give a rat's ass about the EU anyway, so it isn't that much of an issue.
    So what? It's Star Wars.

    And here's a news flash: most people on this planet don't take the idea of the Trek/Wars debate seriously, let alone what a particular segment of it thinks. So, that goes for both sides. But, you still try to add fluff to your argument. What is your screen name for the debate?
    Most people don't care about the debate. The people that do care and have been involved in many discussions don't take you seriously. There is a difference.

    Only when you ignore the part where it talks about nuclear fusion.
    I was talking about the ANH "artificial sun" quote specifically. Don't try to confuse the issue. That particular quote is vauge and there is no talk about nuclear fusion.

    You were speaking of a reference outside of the canon, while ignoring 2 sections that actually are the canon that deal with the issue at hand. In short, you haven't shown squat to disprove what has been stated of nuclear fusion use in everything.
    Yes I have. Stop lying. I have shown the Death Star example and examles from official literature. Both of those quotes can be reconciled with the the rest of material. The fact that you insist on a certain interpretation of the quotes only proves your own fanaticism. We could say that diesel engines power everything from cars to ships. That wouldn't mean there aren't other power sources like nuclear fission reactors available.

    That is true. In the wars'verse, there very well may be other forms of power generation in existence, but for this society, nuclear fusion is all that's used to power crap. You aren't dealing with that bit well.
    I don't have to deal with it. Death Star examples and official literature already prove it. The fact that you decided EU doesn't count is not my problem.

    One example in one instance does not disprove the common usage.
    You need to do more than show "common usage". In order to prove contradiction with ICS you need to prove that that ANH quote specifically referred to nuclear fusion. And the best part is that even if it did it is still overridden by the fact that Death Star blew up Alderaan in ANH film.

    Unless it used a chain reaction, most likely exotic, which would require less initalizing energy from the DS itself. You assume the mechanism, a mechanism that is in direct opposition to to what is seen to happen. An exotic chain reaction still gives the same end result power potential of DET and you get the added bonus of it being more efficient that DET. You get the same result with less work. How is that a bad thing?
    Most likely exotic? Tell me what exactly is the difference between exotic and non exotic chain reactions? Explain how and why do fire rings and secondary explosions disprove the direct energy transfer? Have you ever heard of any chain reaction which creates fire rings and secondary explosions? If not then why do you think this is a chain reaction?

    Of course it does. ECRM explains its destruction and fusion based power generation fits with the idea for using an energy method that's more efficient that DET.
    Nowhere does Darkstar Death Star page describe how this chain reaction works. This may come as a shock to you but "superlaser energy field that prepares the matter and sets it off" is not an explanation but a string of meaningless words. And if the Empire had the ability to produce an energy field with wich it could convert any matter to energy why would it be using nuclear fusion which is dependant on deuterum?

    [stiffled giggles]
    Your desperation is almost palpable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1) Alderaan was destroyed by the Deathstar.
    Correct.
    2) Because I cannot explain how the explosion was caused, it must have been done using the most power intensive method known to man. This ofcourse has nothing to do with me wanting to win the 'Star Wars vs Star Trek' debate.
    No it is the simplest and most straightforward explanation. A beam strikes a closed system (Alderaan), the energy state of a closed system is raised, therefore the beam supplied the neccesary energy. Simple observation. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why those unexpected effects are any more evidence for chain reaction than evidence for a direct energy transfer.
    3) Since I believe 2, any explanation that needs less energy supplied is either wrong or still required just as much energy. Because I say so, Nyah!
    You will of course provide a chain reaction mechanism taht will explain how a planet can be blown up with a miniscule amount of neccesary energy. Oh wait you don't have one have you.

    4) If a weapon in the Star Trek universe shows a larger-than-expected effect, it must follow the lowest power intensive possible explanation possible. This ofcourse has nothing to do with me wanting to win the 'Star Wars vs Star Trek' debate.
    Not only could I apply the same reasoning to you but I also await for any Trek example that visibly raised the energy state of an object and we claimed it was a chain reaction.
    5) Since I believe 4, any explanation that would require more energy supplied is either wrong or still didn't require the energy we'd calculate for it. Again, because I say so, Nyah!
    Cry little baby, cry! Too bad you didn't show any Trek examples nor have you explained what sort of chain reaction could enable the Death Star to blow up Alderaan the way it did.

    ReplyDelete

  13. No it is the simplest and most straightforward explanation. A beam strikes a closed system (Alderaan), the energy state of a closed system is raised, therefore the beam supplied the neccesary energy. Simple observation. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why those unexpected effects are any more evidence for chain reaction than evidence for a direct energy transfer.

    No it isn't. There are plenty of problems with the DET theory.

    Starting with the ammount of energy needed, ending with the little fact that a DET based beam hitting a planet like that would NOT ACT LIKE WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN. Not even a bit.

    Oh and the little fact that there's information in the canon novels which suggest that the DS beam uses a form of matter-energy conversion rather than just a big blast of energy.

    No one of the Starwars side has ever -to any reasonable standard- managed to get rid of these (and other) problems and thus the DET theory fails before it even begins.


    You will of course provide a chain reaction mechanism taht will explain how a planet can be blown up with a miniscule amount of neccesary energy. Oh wait you don't have one have you.

    Why would I? Showing you that your theory is incorrect -because it doesn't fit observed facts- is all I need to do to get rid of it. I don't have to propose a new theory for that.


    Not only could I apply the same reasoning to you but I also await for any Trek example that visibly raised the energy state of an object and we claimed it was a chain reaction.

    Any and all Phaser blasts on any non-human object qualify here.

    Cry little baby, cry! Too bad you didn't show any Trek examples nor have you explained what sort of chain reaction could enable the Death Star to blow up Alderaan the way it did.
    Ad Hominems never work, you should know that by now.

    I didn't need to show Star Trek examples to make my point. I made a prediction which -low and behold- turned out to be fully correct.

    And I still don't need to provide an alternate theory as to how the DS blows up Alderaan to be able to say "It's not DET". I simply need to tell you of the problems with your theory. You then have two options:

    1) Fix your theory to incorporate all problems and resolve them (which no Star Wars supporter has ever done, handwaving does not count here)
    2) Admit your theory doesn't fit the facts and therefore cannot be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It has a Star Wars label on it so until someone officially states that EU doesn't count it counts.

    George Lucas did just that a few months ago. You just all went "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when he did.

    Which was really funny.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's called Star Wars therefore it's Star Wars. Though break.

    Your continued ignoring of evidence that is contrary to your thoughts is not unexpected. MO.

    So what? It's Star Wars.

    It's still not that much of an issue. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

    Most people don't care about the debate. The people that do care and have been involved in many discussions don't take you seriously. There is a difference.

    Your oversimplification of things is evident throughout your posts.

    I was talking about the ANH "artificial sun" quote specifically. Don't try to confuse the issue. That particular quote is vauge and there is no talk about nuclear fusion.

    I know which quote you were talking about. That's why I continued the sentence with "nor is the ep 3 quote...". In english, that means I was talking of 2 things. 2. Count 'em. You're accusing me of something I didn't do. Your attempt at implanting ambiguity into the issue is not missed.

    Yes I have. Stop lying. I have shown the Death Star example and examles from official literature. Both of those quotes can be reconciled with the the rest of material.

    You're having trouble with my plain english and you're saying I'm lying. Examples which you have used inaccurately. As I said in my last post, as did oragahn, any hypermatter process is a fission process. Fusion is a fusing process, so there wouldn't be any hypermatter to fuse because it has been annihilated and made into another form. It wouldn't be in hypermatter form when the fusing part started working.

    The fact that you insist on a certain interpretation of the quotes only proves your own fanaticism. We could say that diesel engines power everything from cars to ships. That wouldn't mean there aren't other power sources like nuclear fission reactors available.

    I didn't deny that there are other sources available in existence, fusion is just the only one used, as the ep 3 quote says. I said that. Go reread it. And you even quoted me saying that in the next section you responded to. You said you didn't have to deal with it being the only one used. And, at the same time, you're insisting that your view is the right one, while saying what I've done is proof of fanaticism. This is pathetic. This is why I said that those that parrot the more creative of your side will make the debate less fun when the more creative stop debating.

    I don't have to deal with it. Death Star examples and official literature already prove it. The fact that you decided EU doesn't count is not my problem.

    Not me. I decided nothing when it came to Lucas' vision. That isn't my place. MO.

    You need to do more than show "common usage". In order to prove contradiction with ICS you need to prove that that ANH quote specifically referred to nuclear fusion. And the best part is that even if it did it is still overridden by the fact that Death Star blew up Alderaan in ANH film.

    1. And oragahn talked about this in his last post. So, it's covered. Just use your finger and expend the fraction of a calorie to bring it back to your eyes. Darkstar also has extensive writtings on it, so it's covered even more.
    2. And you assume it's one method over another, even when the visual of the planet contradicts what you are assuming. I'm accused of lying. HA!

    Most likely exotic? Tell me what exactly is the difference between exotic and non exotic chain reactions?

    Exotic is used as a place holder for a type unknown to modern physics. The nonexotic ones are those that are known to modern physics. Happy? I know you won't be, since I won't bow down to your position.

    Explain how and why do fire rings and secondary explosions disprove the direct energy transfer? Have you ever heard of any chain reaction which creates fire rings and secondary explosions? If not then why do you think this is a chain reaction?

    I think it is because a DET based explosion would have a visual, like the one Alderaan was seen having in the original version of ANH before its first revision. Have you ever seen a bomb explode in real life that gave off a second explosion with fire rings with the second faster and stronger than the first? All the ordenances we have today are DET based and we never see that. There is just one explosion.

    Because we know DET doesn't cause these types of effects, it has to be something else, some kind of chain reaction to get these multiple effects (which are well after the initial blast) and because of the nature of these multiple effects, it can't be a simple type of chain reaction, which would put it into the "exotic" column.

    I've seen why you think it's DET. The reasoning is pathetic.

    Nowhere does Darkstar Death Star page describe how this chain reaction works.

    Which is why it's called exotic. It's an unknown mechanism, aside from knowing that it can't be DET or a simple chain reaction. There are too many 'after initial explosion effects' to be anything known to modern physics, which makes it exotic.

    "superlaser energy field that prepares the matter and sets it off" is not an explanation but a string of meaningless words.

    Actually, it is an explanation. Let's do it with DET. "The superlaser energy field works against the particle/molecular bonds and sets the particles/molecules to do the result of that work". Now, let's get rid of you oversimplification and do it for ECRM. "The superlaser energy field works against the particle/molecular bonds and sets the particles/molecules to do the result of their work." DET uses brute force to do the end result and ECRM uses a chain reaction that is unknown to modern physics. And becauses the visuals disprove DET, we are left with just ECRM. We don't need a bloody PhD level physics paper on the subject.

    And if the Empire had the ability to produce an energy field with wich it could convert any matter to energy why would it be using nuclear fusion which is dependant on deuterum?

    Why not? The ep 3 novel says fusion powers everything and there is no evidence that there is anything new for the DS in the highest canon to contradict it. Also, as I said, which you want to ignore, this specific energy field is much more efficient than just brute force, which means it takes less energy from the DS to do the same amount of work. The recharge time of DS 1 shows that it takes a while to generate the energy for the SL, so it can't be powered by something that is insanely powerful or they could fire more shots than once a day. DS 2 might have fired less powerful shots, since we didn't see planet sized explosions when the rebel vessels exploded and the ships were closer to the DS.

    Your desperation is almost palpable.

    My continued mocking is not desperate, but fun

    ReplyDelete
  16. George Lucas did just that a few months ago. You just all went "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when he did.

    Which quote was this? I may have missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No it isn't. There are plenty of problems with the DET theory.

    Starting with the ammount of energy needed, ending with the little fact that a DET based beam hitting a planet like that would NOT ACT LIKE WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN. Not even a bit.

    I like how you make it sound as if DET is some sort of special weapon type. Being hit by a bullet won't look anyting like being hit by a high-energy laser yet they are both "DET" weapons. And explosion of a 1Mt nuclear bomb won't look anyting like an explosion of a firecracker yet they are both "DET" weapons. "DET" as you call it or Conservation of energy as it is best known does not postulate any specific appearance of the explosion.
    By the way the explosion of Alderaan looked nothing like any chain reaction we know so why do you asume it must be one.

    Oh and the little fact that there's information in the canon novels which suggest that the DS beam uses a form of matter-energy conversion rather than just a big blast of energy.
    Once again you refer to vauge quote which only states that Yavin will present another "mass energy conversion problem". Besides fission, fusion and antimatter annihilation are all matter-energy conversions. And in order to induce either fusion or matter annihilation you need to create large temperature and pressure or bombard the planet with enormous amounts of antimatter. Neither of these options will decrease Death Star energy requirements by much.

    No one of the Starwars side has ever -to any reasonable standard- managed to get rid of these (and other) problems and thus the DET theory fails before it even begins.
    Of course you still haven't explained how and why do fire rings and secondary explosions disprove the fact that the energy came from Death Star. You still haven't even tried to explain why the unusual effects point to a chain reaction any more than a direct energy transfer.

    Why would I? Showing you that your theory is incorrect -because it doesn't fit observed facts- is all I need to do to get rid of it. I don't have to propose a new theory for that.
    But you haven't shown direct energy transfer is incorrect have you? You claim that some unusual effects disprove it but don't explain how. You need to do more than say "well it wouldn't look like that if it was hit by a laser". No shit but "it's different than laser" is not the same as "it's not DET".

    Any and all Phaser blasts on any non-human object qualify here.
    What happened to those humans? They vanished. They werent vaporized and they didn't explode. If Aldderaan was simply eaten away as phasorized objects no one would be claiming 10^38J for Death Star since "vanishing" is impossible to calculate.

    1) Fix your theory to incorporate all problems and resolve them (which no Star Wars supporter has ever done, handwaving does not count here)
    What problems? Why do unusual effects constitute a problem for 10^38J figure? Once again there is no special "DET explosion appearance". Objects hit by bullets, lasers, plasma thorches and nuclear weapons won't behave the same yet all of these weapons are "DET" weapons.

    2) Admit your theory doesn't fit the facts and therefore cannot be correct.
    "My" theory is that you need 10^38J to raise the energy state of an object by 10^38J. Funky effects don't enter into it. When you calculate the energy of a nuclear bomb exploding what do you look for? The damage to the surroundings. You don't have to explain the reasons for the formation of the mushroom cloud nor do you have to explain why the people who haven't benn killed by the shockwave are still slowly dying as if inflicted by a disease. Those sideeffects have nothing to do with the fact that several blocks of buildings were leveled and that you need a certain amount of energy to do it.
    Fire rings and secondary explosions are sideeffects that happened in adittion to planetary mass being scattered at 10,000km/s. I don't need to explain the fire-rings to claim 10^38J energy requirement any more someone has to explain the mushroom cloud to claim several kilotons of energy for leveling a city block. You simply have to supply the neccesary energy.
    Now if you have some theory as to how we could blow up a planet by not supplying the energy to the planet by all means let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your continued ignoring of evidence that is contrary to your thoughts is not unexpected. MO.
    Too bad Lucas states in ROTS commentary that Anakin's scar will be explained in the EU novels. I guess his stance on validity of EU is quite clear. Though break.

    I didn't deny that there are other sources available in existence, fusion is just the only one used, as the ep 3 quote says. I said that. Go reread it. And you even quoted me saying that in the next section you responded to. You said you didn't have to deal with it being the only one used. And, at the same time, you're insisting that your view is the right one, while saying what I've done is proof of fanaticism. This is pathetic. This is why I said that those that parrot the more creative of your side will make the debate less fun when the more creative stop debating.
    Then you won't mind providing a quote that Empire or Republic don't use any power technology other than nuclear fusion. Ones with dragons living in it no less.

    Exotic is used as a place holder for a type unknown to modern physics. The nonexotic ones are those that are known to modern physics. Happy? I know you won't be, since I won't bow down to your position.
    A place holder huh? Thanks for finally admitting you have no theory or explanation of how and why fire-rings and other effects point to a chain reaction.

    I think it is because a DET based explosion would have a visual, like the one Alderaan was seen having in the original version of ANH before its first revision. Have you ever seen a bomb explode in real life that gave off a second explosion with fire rings with the second faster and stronger than the first? All the ordenances we have today are DET based and we never see that. There is just one explosion.

    Because we know DET doesn't cause these types of effects, it has to be something else, some kind of chain reaction to get these multiple effects (which are well after the initial blast) and because of the nature of these multiple effects, it can't be a simple type of chain reaction, which would put it into the "exotic" column.

    I've seen why you think it's DET. The reasoning is pathetic.

    Why must "DET" explosions have a certain type of "visual"? I am still not getting an answer. How do the special edittion effects disprove the fact you need to supply the neccesary energy?

    Which is why it's called exotic. It's an unknown mechanism, aside from knowing that it can't be DET or a simple chain reaction. There are too many 'after initial explosion effects' to be anything known to modern physics, which makes it exotic.
    There is nothing exotic with planetary mass being scattered which is all I need for energy calculations.

    Actually, it is an explanation. Let's do it with DET. "The superlaser energy field works against the particle/molecular bonds and sets the particles/molecules to do the result of that work". Now, let's get rid of you oversimplification and do it for ECRM. "The superlaser energy field works against the particle/molecular bonds and sets the particles/molecules to do the result of their work." DET uses brute force to do the end result and ECRM uses a chain reaction that is unknown to modern physics. And becauses the visuals disprove DET, we are left with just ECRM. We don't need a bloody PhD level physics paper on the subject.
    Thank you for conceeding. DET uses brute force which is KNOWN to modern physics while MCR uses a method which is UNKNOWN to modern physics in other words you made it up. And I'm still waiting for an explanation how and why do fire-rings and secondary explosion disprove DET.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay, I'm gonna assume that you once again missspelled "tough break" and that it isn't something deliberate, like "pwned".

    Then you won't mind providing a quote that Empire or Republic don't use any power technology other than nuclear fusion. Ones with dragons living in it no less.

    You know it. Get over it.

    A place holder huh? Thanks for finally admitting you have no theory or explanation of how and why fire-rings and other effects point to a chain reaction.

    And the crap keeps spewing. It's a placeholder for an official name.

    Why must "DET" explosions have a certain type of "visual"?

    Because of how DET works against materials, son.

    I am still not getting an answer. How do the special edittion effects disprove the fact you need to supply the neccesary energy?

    Because how something explodes is indicative of the method used. What are you, 8? Think.

    There is nothing exotic with planetary mass being scattered which is all I need for energy calculations.

    No, it isn't. You need to include all evidence, including visuals. Visual effects are not arbitrary. If I shine a flashlight's light against someone, they won't burst into flames. You have to be 8 years old.

    Thank you for conceeding.

    [stiffled laugh]

    Sure, act like I've said something contrary to what I've said all along, something that has never been in dispute. The whole point all along is that there has never been anything like this explosion in reality. Try to find a real life example with these effects in reality. I double dog dare you, 3 times.

    Of course it has to be made up, the after effects of the process don't exist in nature. Grow up. It isn't like we must use only known physics processes. Explain how they go to hyperspace with known physics. Explain the Force, too.

    And I'm still waiting for an explanation how and why do fire-rings and secondary explosion disprove DET.

    And with the last time I'm going over this because you want to be a child, the effects are not known to exist in nature. I dare you to find where it happens. There's billions of years of evidence that it has never happened. I'll enjoy you actually trying to find it, if you actually have the guts to try.

    This'll be fun. You haven't even provided any evidence that a DET could cause this besides saying it could. I have given evidence for my position, you have yet to say why it couldn't besides saying 'that isn't evidence'. You can say that you don't have to show contrary evidence to my claim, but you have made a counterclaim and haven't given any evidence for that specific counterclaim.

    When you get some intelligence, we'll talk again.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lord Edam de FromageThu Jul 27, 02:26:00 PM 2006

    In fact he was called an idiot by such Trekkies as Lord Edam wasn't he? And former Trekkies like Alyeska and Chris O'Farell have long ago conceeded that Star Wars would kick Federation's ass. Too bad so sad.

    I like that I'm still dragged out as the model trekkie. Even after all these years. I must've done something right :D

    But why do people keep trotting stuff like this out, when it makes no difference to what's being said? yes, I called Darkstar an idiot. Five years ago. In one place or another I've called most people I've come across idiots. Because we all act like idiots at some time. In Darkstar's case it was his rather rapid decent from just another pro-trek debater among many into a seriously paranoid loon who would miss 90% of the debate to rave about the oppresive warsies (and don't take my word for it - review some of the longer alt.startrek.vs.starwars threads from 2001 in which he was involved)

    Should you ignore everything Darkstar says because I attacked him? Hell no. That would be too cultish for me, and one thing I've always insisted in these debates is that no one person's opinon matters more than others - even if it's backed up by (alleged) "hard" qualifications. Show your reasoning; attack the reasoning; attack the person for a bit of light relief if you want; and move on without taking any of it personally.

    as for the bit about most people admitting Star Wars would wipe the floor with Trek - hell yes. Anyone with any intelligence knows they would. A galactic-spanning military might with thousands of years space-faring experience, vs what in most cases are backwater civilisations who've barely been out of their solar system a few hundred years (and the few older/more powerful Trek civilisations we really don't know enough about to compare). Trek can't hope to live through an all out war. But there are enough individual areas where you can compare that people keep at it. Unforunately, the ones who long ago decided it was "all or nothing" happened to be the ones obsessed with the cultish behaviours all fangroups exhibit. nowadays they're more interested in reminding people they've done it all before and its settled than letting others find their own areas for discussion.

    oh, one last comment on the "alderaan closed system" thingy. alderaan may be a closed system, but you know nothing of what's going on with the superlaser. A missile hitting a big square building might set off a massive explosion. Someone with no knowledge of the missile or the building it struck might think the missile contained all the energy of the explosion. Someone who knew the missile was purely a kinetic impactor would wonder if there was unknown mechanisms at play, whilst someone who knew the bulding was really a nuclear reactor would have no problem putting the explosion down to a horrible chain reaction. "closed system" is only useful when you know the contents of the system, and the form of energy input

    ReplyDelete
  21. // Uuuh they hang around space pilots and that makes them experts on power technologies of the galaxy. Too bad that no one ever thought them that there are no dragons living inside.

    The point is that too bad for you then. You're simply going to do your best to cast doubts over these kids' knowledge and oppose high canon against ICS.

    // And that bit about how their belief that there are dragons living inside a sun doesn't hurt their credibilities is really priceless. Really if a nuclear physicist came up to you and told you that there are dragons living inside nuclear reactors that wouldn't hurt his credibility?

    You mean having a physicist come to me and claim that starships in Star Wars fire colloidal spinning lasers which explain why these light based projectiles produce flak and move so slow, or how the fireworks that exploded over Endor were actually Death Star debris being destroyed by rebel fighters.
    Sure, I would not laugh. A straight face. All the time. I swear.

    Not to say that there's a difference between a physicist and a kid. A level of tolerance affordable for the later does not exist for the former.

    By the way, did that RotS quote refer to Anakin-like kids living on Tatooine? I mean, you remember that Anakin repaired podracers, built a droid and was working in a starships' spare parts junk shop for Wattoo. Which of course makes him totally unlikely to ever know anything about starships.
    And, of course, this would mean that he'd keep his mouth shut and never pass his knowledge to other kids, like say, his friends.
    Never.

    // Sorry but Death Star blowing up Alderaan is not fanon.

    Beware the hasty association. I never denied the destruction. Stop distorting my words.

    // I realize that you are desperate to claim Death Star employed some kind of trick to destroy it but so far you provided no evidence.

    Secondary explosion long after the beam finished hitting the planet.

    // I hate to break it to you but fire rings and secondary explosions are no more an evidence for chain reaction than they are for direct energy transfer.

    Oh but they critically dig a damn deep hole for anyone who claims some raw energy transfer, like, uh, big beam hit planet, oobah!
    What I noticed over the years, is that certain Warsies, like the ones you belong to, are very quick to remind other universes' fans how their fave super weapon used a chain reaction since random planet's explosion and energy built up occured long after the beam of the concerned super weapon finished firing at its target, but how the Death Star uses the most brutal and simple beam of doom and DET, nevermind if the most powerful explosion actually occurs long after the last bit of the beam finished hitting Alderaan.

    Your words, in a post after the one I'm quoting:

    "No it is the simplest and most straightforward explanation. A beam strikes a closed system (Alderaan), the energy state of a closed system is raised, therefore the beam supplied the neccesary energy. Simple observation. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why those unexpected effects are any more evidence for chain reaction than evidence for a direct energy transfer."

    Let me help you understand the situation, and show you how the events folded out:

    It is the simplest and most straightforward explanation. A beam strikes a closed system (Alderaan), the energy state of a closed system is raised, therefore the beam supplied the neccesary energy to critically damage the planet without entirely blowing it up. Simple observation. The final secondary explosion occurs long after that, with no beam there to transfer any extra energy.

    :)

    // ICS isn't wrong since is impossible to blow up Alderaan with nuclear fusion power and since that was shown in the films which are the highest oreder of canon they overrule the quote from episode 3 even if we do use your interpretation of the quote and disregard the fact it's a bunch of children talking.

    Ah but the Death Star's case is quite different than the vast overwhelming generality of starships in Star Wars.
    I'm fairly open to accept the idea that the super exceptionnal and secret Death Star used some different form of power production. Especially on the terms of matter conversion.
    However, I'm strictly against the idea that the beam is nothing more than a affair of pure DET, especially since your side never came with any plausible explanation regarding the secondary explosion, the one that really blows the planet up.

    You can talk as much as you want, but the likes of you failed for years on that point, and you still do.
    So please, at least try to spend a bit of grey matter and find an explanation, no matter if it relies on some exotic system, as long as it actually FITS with the video FACTS.
    Otherwise, shut the hell up. Thank you.

    // You will no doubt provide evidence that Death Star is new and experimental next gen device.

    ... ah, sorry. I forgot. Anyone owns a Death Star by the time of TPM. Stupid me.

    // And once again the Death Star must have more efficient power technologies than nuclear fusion at it's disposal otherwise it would not be able to destroy Alderaan.

    If it uses fusion to induce the former stage of destruction, but relies on an exotic mechanism to find more power, why not?

    On the same hand, I've been believing for quite some time that the laser drilled through the planet, after finding some form of energy from some source I don't know, and the green pulses gathered somewhere near the core of the planet, and then all that concentration of whatever pulses would explode in one unique bang, the idea being that the former explosion is just the result from the beam drilling through the crust and cracking the facing part of the planet's surface. Then the beam went a bit beyond the core, and the pulses gathered on the other side. There, after whatever exotic build up, they all exploded, with most of the energy being directed towards the other side (explains the direction the ejecta takes after the secondary explosion).

    It's clearly more DET in spirit than Robert's theory, but it has nothing to do with a beam that just destroys targets by pure DET, since this idea is simply impossible simply because visuals contradict this.
    Sorry for you, no matter the many times ignorant ones like you will come hitting at the door with their load of BS, there will always be people to refute it.


    PS: I'd like to apologize for my bad conjugation in my previous post: "the opinion of kids who just knows"... "who doesn't meet"... :/ Didn't check the sentences. Sorry if it was untelligible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Then you won't mind providing a quote that Empire or Republic don't use any power technology other than nuclear fusion. Ones with dragons living in it no less.
    You know it. Get over it.

    Ah I was wondering when you will resort to pathetic evasions. You know damn well that ep3 quote does not disprove the existence of other power sources so you're just going to quietly pretend that it does.

    And the crap keeps spewing. It's a placeholder for an official name.
    Are you stupid or something? A name of a theory is supposed to denote it's mechanisam, it's not like a personal name.

    Because of how DET works against materials, son.
    And how exactly does it work against materials oh wise one? What is the appearance of a DET weapon effect? You'll might want to remember that both arrows and nuclear bombs are DET weapons and their effects "on material" is nothing alike.

    Because how something explodes is indicative of the method used. What are you, 8? Think.
    And how exactly does Alderaan explosion point to anything but DET? Please keep in mind that there is no universal DET weapon explosion as I have shown above. You have no basis for discarding DET other than your subjective opinion "it doesn't look like DET explosion". Never mind that "DET" explosion vary wildly.

    No, it isn't. You need to include all evidence, including visuals. Visual effects are not arbitrary. If I shine a flashlight's light against someone, they won't burst into flames. You have to be 8 years old.
    What was the point of this incoherent babble? Oh and funny thing about flashlights. If you build a sufficiently powerful flashlight a guy will burst into flames. And I am not dicounting visual evidence. I am intersted in claculating a specific part of the explosion: the mass scattering. There is absolutley no reason to believe that other events point to anything else than a simple energy transfer between the Death Star and Alderaan. Your only "evidence" is your subjective statement that "DET doesn't look like that" without bothering to provide a shred of evidence.

    Sure, act like I've said something contrary to what I've said all along, something that has never been in dispute. The whole point all along is that there has never been anything like this explosion in reality. Try to find a real life example with these effects in reality. I double dog dare you, 3 times.
    So what? How does this change the fact that Alderann was blow up? How does this change the fact that you need 10^38J of energy to blow up a planet like that?

    Of course it has to be made up, the after effects of the process don't exist in nature. Grow up. It isn't like we must use only known physics processes. Explain how they go to hyperspace with known physics. Explain the Force, too.
    Wow you really are getting desperate. So because we cannot explain certain things we should throw all of physics out the window? How can a vs debate be at all possible in that case?

    And with the last time I'm going over this because you want to be a child, the effects are not known to exist in nature. I dare you to find where it happens. There's billions of years of evidence that it has never happened. I'll enjoy you actually trying to find it, if you actually have the guts to try.
    You truly are an idiot. There never was a nuclear explosion in nature. There never was a laser in nature. Does that mean those devices are some kind of strange chain reaction weapons?

    This'll be fun. You haven't even provided any evidence that a DET could cause this besides saying it could. I have given evidence for my position, you have yet to say why it couldn't besides saying 'that isn't evidence'. You can say that you don't have to show contrary evidence to my claim, but you have made a counterclaim and haven't given any evidence for that specific counterclaim.
    There is no way to raise the energy state of a planet by 10^38J without supplying the neccesary energy from an external source. That is all the proof I need until you come up with an explanation on how you can get that energy from the planet itself.

    When you get some intelligence, we'll talk again.
    For a guy who can't even understand basic physics this is a bold statement.


    The point is that too bad for you then. You're simply going to do your best to cast doubts over these kids' knowledge and oppose high canon against ICS.
    There is no reason for me to try and cast doubt on their ignorance. They showed ignorance themselves by believing in dragons living inside fusion reactors.

    You mean having a physicist come to me and claim that starships in Star Wars fire colloidal spinning lasers which explain why these light based projectiles produce flak and move so slow, or how the fireworks that exploded over Endor were actually Death Star debris being destroyed by rebel fighters.
    Sure, I would not laugh. A straight face. All the time. I swear.

    Ahahahaha. Ah man you are so funny. No really, you are. It is really sweet when bunch of ignorant kiddies attack the credibility of a Ph.D without actually bothering to disprove his claims. He is simply trying to make sense out of SW universe and you attack him as if he is some liar or something.

    Not to say that there's a difference between a physicist and a kid. A level of tolerance affordable for the later does not exist for the former.
    Yes beacuse no one takes a kid seriously in the first place.

    By the way, did that RotS quote refer to Anakin-like kids living on Tatooine? I mean, you remember that Anakin repaired podracers, built a droid and was working in a starships' spare parts junk shop for Wattoo. Which of course makes him totally unlikely to ever know anything about starships.
    And, of course, this would mean that he'd keep his mouth shut and never pass his knowledge to other kids, like say, his friends.
    Never.

    Of course because making stock droid units out of spare parts automatically translates into intimate knowledge of all of starship reactors. Right. And he did believe in dragons didn't he?

    Secondary explosion long after the beam finished hitting the planet.
    Yes I know about the secondary explosion. Now if only you could explain how and why does it disprove the fact that Death Star needed to supply the neccesary energy. I ask again: do you have any alternative means of blowing up a planet?

    Oh but they critically dig a damn deep hole for anyone who claims some raw energy transfer, like, uh, big beam hit planet, oobah!
    HOW? WHY? Explain why those events disprove raw energy transfer?

    What I noticed over the years, is that certain Warsies, like the ones you belong to, are very quick to remind other universes' fans how their fave super weapon used a chain reaction since random planet's explosion and energy built up occured long after the beam of the concerned super weapon finished firing at its target, but how the Death Star uses the most brutal and simple beam of doom and DET, nevermind if the most powerful explosion actually occurs long after the last bit of the beam finished hitting Alderaan.
    Nice generalizations there. Name those Trek examples and we'll discuss them. And as for the secondary explosion it only lags behind the first one by what, half a second. This can be easily explained by beam still hitting the planet after it vanishes from the camera's view or an invisible beam component especially since we are talking about a planet which is 12,800km in diameter so there will be lags even in explosion as violent as Alderaan's destruction. Of course you still didn't provide any theorethical mechanism by which Death Star could have destroyed the Alderaan without supplying the energy.

    Let me help you understand the situation, and show you how the events folded out:
    It is the simplest and most straightforward explanation. A beam strikes a closed system (Alderaan), the energy state of a closed system is raised, therefore the beam supplied the neccesary energy to critically damage the planet without entirely blowing it up. Simple observation. The final secondary explosion occurs long after that, with no beam there to transfer any extra energy.
    :)

    Long after that? Try half a second which in an explosion which was tens of thousands of km wide by that point really isn't that much. Of course the first explosion is of the same magnitude as the second even if the second is somewhat larger.

    Ah but the Death Star's case is quite different than the vast overwhelming generality of starships in Star Wars.
    I'm fairly open to accept the idea that the super exceptionnal and secret Death Star used some different form of power production. Especially on the terms of matter conversion.
    However, I'm strictly against the idea that the beam is nothing more than a affair of pure DET, especially since your side never came with any plausible explanation regarding the secondary explosion, the one that really blows the planet up.

    You see I would actually be willing to discuss the SW vs ST without the inclusion of the EU but when you start lying like this I just loose the will. You state that the second explosion "really blows the planet up" even though by the time the second explosion breaks through the first one the planet has already doubled in diameter at a rate of several thousands km/s.

    You can talk as much as you want, but the likes of you failed for years on that point, and you still do.
    So please, at least try to spend a bit of grey matter and find an explanation, no matter if it relies on some exotic system, as long as it actually FITS with the video FACTS.
    Otherwise, shut the hell up. Thank you.

    And your broken record syndrome continues. Why doesn't raw energy transfer fit the facts? I already provided examples of "DET" weapons which cause wildly different effects. The only thing that matters is can we calculate the change of energy state.
    I ask you again describe that "exotic" system. Describe how in the hell it's possible to blow up a planet like that without supplying the neccesary energy.

    ... ah, sorry. I forgot. Anyone owns a Death Star by the time of TPM. Stupid me.
    So unless a device is widespread that must mean it is experimental and uses next gen technology?

    If it uses fusion to induce the former stage of destruction, but relies on an exotic mechanism to find more power, why not?
    How convenient. Poor ol' Empire relies on fusion but actually has this super-duper mechanism to blow up a planet with providing a miniscule amount of neccesary energy.

    On the same hand, I've been believing for quite some time that the laser drilled through the planet, after finding some form of energy from some source I don't know, and the green pulses gathered somewhere near the core of the planet, and then all that concentration of whatever pulses would explode in one unique bang, the idea being that the former explosion is just the result from the beam drilling through the crust and cracking the facing part of the planet's surface. Then the beam went a bit beyond the core, and the pulses gathered on the other side. There, after whatever exotic build up, they all exploded, with most of the energy being directed towards the other side (explains the direction the ejecta takes after the secondary explosion).
    You are complicating matters with no results. If you see a nuclear bomb going off do you need to understand how it works before you can claim the thing had to have several kilotons worth of energy to destroy the Hiroshima? If warp drive can take you from one side of the galaxy to another in roughly 100 years do you need to understand how it works and explain the blue glow effect before you can claim it is roughly 1000 times faster than light? None of us can know how superlaser works but we know what it can do and that is all wee need to calculate it's power.


    It's clearly more DET in spirit than Robert's theory, but it has nothing to do with a beam that just destroys targets by pure DET, since this idea is simply impossible simply because visuals contradict this.
    For the umpteenth time how do visuals contradict it? Why would those effects be any more possible or probable without "pure DET" and with some chain reaction trown into the mix. Why do you think a chain reaction is more likely to produce such effects?

    Sorry for you, no matter the many times ignorant ones like you will come hitting at the door with their load of BS, there will always be people to refute it.
    I came here because I wanted to have discussion not because I was desperate to convince the world of Death Star mechanisms. The "debating world" already agrees with me and only a handful of people on these blogs and formerly on strek-vs-swars forum bought the "magical trick which conveniently enables Death Star to destroy Alderaan without supplying the neccesary energy".

    ReplyDelete
  23. On the subject of the DS superlaser hit on Alderaan producing DET effects, in the Dark Horse ANH manga, the SL striking Alderaan is actually much closer in effect to what would expect to see if the beam were truely DET, not some exotic chain-reaction as appears to be the case with the movies. In the manga version, the SL beam quite literally punches right through Alderaan before the vast energy makes the unfortunate body fly apart as it exits. Contrast that with the movie SE and DVD versions with a strange planar ring, a secondary explosion after the beam has ceased and can no longer add an additional energy to the explosion.

    If the movie version had looked like the manga version, I'd have no problem at all with accepting a DET explanation for the DS SL destruction of Alderaan.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  24. On the subject of the DS superlaser hit on Alderaan producing DET effects, in the Dark Horse ANH manga, the SL striking Alderaan is actually much closer in effect to what would expect to see if the beam were truely DET, not some exotic chain-reaction as appears to be the case with the movies. In the manga version, the SL beam quite literally punches right through Alderaan before the vast energy makes the unfortunate body fly apart as it exits. Contrast that with the movie SE and DVD versions with a strange planar ring, a secondary explosion after the beam has ceased and can no longer add an additional energy to the explosion.
    Actually there is no way in hell a DET beam could punch through a planet before the thing visibly expands. Such an amount of energy would turn planetary matter into plasma which is highly opaque to light. Therefore the plasma would keep absorbing the incoming energy and expanding in every direction and we would see the planet blowing up. Only when the planet has expanded suffciently (we are talking several planetary diameters at least) the beam would be able to pass through the planet. Since the superlaser beam didn't last that long then obviously it couldn't exit on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I missed this part of Lord Edam's post:

    oh, one last comment on the "alderaan closed system" thingy. alderaan may be a closed system, but you know nothing of what's going on with the superlaser. A missile hitting a big square building might set off a massive explosion. Someone with no knowledge of the missile or the building it struck might think the missile contained all the energy of the explosion. Someone who knew the missile was purely a kinetic impactor would wonder if there was unknown mechanisms at play, whilst someone who knew the bulding was really a nuclear reactor would have no problem putting the explosion down to a horrible chain reaction. "closed system" is only useful when you know the contents of the system, and the form of energy input
    No we don't know anything about the superlaser but we do know a lot about planets. And there is no way you can get 10^38J from a planet without supplying a comparable amount of energy. Planet is not a nuclear reactor but an inert object.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Keep in mind a few things. Even in the original theatrical version of ANH (finally due to be released in a few months on DVD), the DS SL did not turn the planet entirely into plasma (remember that asteroidal debris field the Falcon flies through? I doubt very highly that's what you'd get once the plasma cooled down) That field according to the ANH novelization stretches at least one planetary diameter out from where Alderaan was, which implies something very odd about the SL's interaction with the planet. In a true DET strike, the planet's debris should have all been sent flying at a thousands of km a second, and should have been nowhere near that close to where Alderaan had been. It is possible that the SL energies were not distributed evenly into the planet, which can explain at least a little bit of the funkiness of the explosion. So some parts of the planet are sent flying off out of the Alderaanian solar system due to rapid thermal explansion, while other debris is left floating nearby, not having recieved nearly as much energy.

    As far as the manga depiction is concerned, there is nothing in it that argues against it being DET, it is a powerful energy beam ripping through the planet (there's no way to get a sense of timescales involved here because it represents only a few panels, that may in turn be milliseconds for all we know). That it would take the plasma and debris expanding out to several times the original planet's volume before the beam passes through I think is unnecessary to a beam of that magnitude passing through the planet, especially since it does show the planet as the beam passes through one side to the other already breaking apart under the effects of rapid thermal expansion anyway.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  27. Obviously the entire planet won't be turned into plasma. A portion of the planet around the superlaser strike will be turned into superheated plasma (trillions of K) and will start expanding in all directions taking the planet with it. Because of the energies involved most of the planet will also be turned into plasma by the rapid expansion however there is still a possibility that a small percentage of it's mass will not be completley vaporized but merley melted. An explosion is always somewhat chaotic and this is especially true for large explosion such as Alderaan blast. The asteroid field through which Falcon flew is not even as massive as the Falcon itself and can easily be explained.
    The main thing is that the space in front of Falcon was completley clear which means that most of the planet was gone except for few stragglers like the one through which Falcon flew.

    ReplyDelete
  28. // There is no reason for me to try and cast doubt on their ignorance. They showed ignorance themselves by believing in dragons living inside fusion reactors.

    That's the only mistake.
    Please show that they're wrong on the fusion point.
    This is going to be funny.

    // Ahahahaha. Ah man you are so funny. No really, you are. It is really sweet when bunch of ignorant kiddies attack the credibility of a Ph.D without actually bothering to disprove his claims.

    I wouldn't laugh out loud like that if I were you, but some of his stuff is clearly wrong. It's a pity that some kids around swallow ANY of his claims anytime he waves his Ph.D trump card.

    // He is simply trying to make sense out of SW universe...

    Like maaaany other persons before him.

    //... and you attack him as if he is some liar or something.

    I'm not saying he's a liar. Just that he's wrong, and yet tries to enfore wanky claims that he and his Wongy friends crafted for years. It's just that he buys too much into his own stuff.

    // Yes beacuse no one takes a kid seriously in the first place.

    Yes, they're just all lying or completely ignorant. It's not like these kids are near ten years old, living in astroports and surrounded by all means of technology and space faring people.
    Sure, they just make all their stuff up.
    Again, prove that they don't know what they're talking about on the fusion point.

    // Of course because making stock droid units out of spare parts automatically translates into intimate knowledge of all of starship reactors. Right.

    Read the whole sentence please. It's useless to debate with a guy who distords words.

    // Yes I know about the secondary explosion. Now if only you could explain how and why does it disprove the fact that Death Star needed to supply the neccesary energy. I ask again: do you have any alternative means of blowing up a planet?

    Please make it clear in your mind. You've been defending the DET superlaser? YOU provide a sensible defense for the DET superlaser argument before even asking other people to find alternatives.

    // HOW? WHY? Explain why those events disprove raw energy transfer?

    Hello! In the context of the superlaser. Again.

    // Nice generalizations there. Name those Trek examples and we'll discuss them.

    No need for. I'm not claiming they're DET. I'm just showing you that the reasonings is only one sided when it comes to certain Warsies.

    // And as for the secondary explosion it only lags behind the first one by what, half a second. This can be easily explained by beam still hitting the planet after it vanishes from the camera's view...

    There I caught you. So you're defitively arguing that it's the beam that still creates the secondary explosion.

    Anyway, what you say can't happen. Just watch the video. The lag lasts nearly one second. Consider this:
    Why would a beam, which when spending like the vast majority of its potential by heating up a portion of the planet's surface, would suddenly PAUSE and transfer no energy anymore, yet continue to drill through the crust by some unknown mechanism, yet without releasing any extra energy (that's the PAUSE, otherwise hot matter would constantly fly out of the hole, which is not the case), and later on, release even MORE energy for a final and largely more destructive blast, with the few bits of energy left?
    It clearly doesn't add up.

    The hole in your theory is that you can't have a pause. You say that the secondary explosion occurs because the beam releases all the energy it had left.
    Yet, how can a beam suddenly drill through a planet, and yet release no energy, so that externally, it's noticed as a PAUSE between the two explosions, as no ejecta is propelled in space?

    You realize that hot matter would be spewed into space as the laser would drill through the planet in less than a second, right? Do we see that? Clearly not.

    There's just one explosion that ravages a portion of the planet's surface, and after that, nothing happens. That's where there's a problem in the drilling beam part.

    // Long after that? Try half a second which in an explosion which was tens of thousands of km wide by that point really isn't that much. Of course the first explosion is of the same magnitude as the second even if the second is somewhat larger.

    Same magnitude? Come on. The first explosion didn't even scratch the other side of the planet, and it's the final explosion that propelled massivechunks of planetary material in space.

    In fact, the simple fact that you're talking about a secondary explosion shows that you're missing the whole point. Lasers don't do secondary, delayed, explosions against solid inert objects.

    // or an invisible beam component especially since we are talking about a planet which is 12,800km in diameter so there will be lags even in explosion as violent as Alderaan's destruction.

    There would be no lag with a laser. And what's that invisible part now? What is it? When does it intervene really? How powerful is it?

    // Of course you still didn't provide any theorethical mechanism by which Death Star could have destroyed the Alderaan without supplying the energy.

    I don't have to. You can't refute attacks on a theory because the attacked doesn't actually provide another theory.
    I'd better have no theory yet than a wrong theory, no matter if it's the only one. That's called common sense and objectivity.

    // You see I would actually be willing to discuss the SW vs ST without the inclusion of the EU but when you start lying like this I just loose the will. You state that the second explosion "really blows the planet up" even though by the time the second explosion breaks through the first one the planet has already doubled in diameter at a rate of several thousands km/s.

    Doubled in diameter?
    Absolutely not. Please, look at the video in details.
    You are confusing the size of the explosion with the real size of the total mass of the planet.
    It's not because an explosion, which happens to mask an object, has a max size of X times the size of the original object, that you can claim that it's the whole object's mass that has been turned into hot matter.

    It does not double in diameter, as a matter of fact, you can still see the whitened south pole through the cloud of hot matter during the first "ring frames", just as much as you can see a darkened mass that strangely looks like the north pole during the last frames of the first explosion, as matter disperses.

    By the way, if the planet had doubled in size, there'd be no point in claiming that the beam is still drilling through whatever to explain a pause and a secondary explosion that can't be explained.

    I've been having some photoposh fun lately.
    I looked at the way the second explosion expanded. I looked at each gas cloud that composed it. it was quite asmuing to see that their respective point of origin was barely touching the far west of Alderaan. Not to say that none of them ever remotely approached the path of the Death Star's beam.
    As a whole, the secondary explosion is completely off-axis, and clearly not originating from any point close to the original beam's trajectory, so this totally refutes the idea of the beam being directly responsible of this larger explosion. This of course also refutes any idea about an invisible beam as well.

    // And your broken record syndrome continues. Why doesn't raw energy transfer fit the facts?

    Talking about broken record, the problem is that you don't get where the problem lies. It's not necessarily in how the energy is found, but the way the planet is destroyed.

    // I already provided examples of "DET" weapons which cause wildly different effects.

    Not only you only made vague references without offering pertinent details, but none of your examples would fit the Alderaaan case anyway.

    // The only thing that matters is can we calculate the change of energy state.

    No. As long as you think this way, you'll keep missing the point and feeling quite lonely here.

    // I ask you again describe that "exotic" system. Describe how in the hell it's possible to blow up a planet like that without supplying the neccesary energy.

    You are not in position to ask me anything. We are pointing at holes in the theory you defend. You won't weasel your way out by asking us to tell you faery tales instead.

    // So unless a device is widespread that must mean it is experimental and uses next gen technology?

    Ah, but you're claiming that the DS is already some kind of old tech. This is an amusing claim. Probably to claim that the DS' superlaser is just a normal SW weapon on steroids.

    // How convenient. Poor ol' Empire relies on fusion but actually has this super-duper mechanism to blow up a planet with providing a miniscule amount of neccesary energy.

    As I told you, it's not a problem to me if the Death Star is able to create massive amounts of energy. The problem is on the nature of the superbeam and the destruction of Alderaan.

    // You are complicating matters with no results. If you see a nuclear bomb going off do you need to understand how it works before you can claim the thing had to have several kilotons worth of energy to destroy the Hiroshima? If warp drive can take you from one side of the galaxy to another in roughly 100 years do you need to understand how it works and explain the blue glow effect before you can claim it is roughly 1000 times faster than light? None of us can know how superlaser works but we know what it can do and that is all wee need to calculate it's power.

    You're oversimplfying Alderaan's fate by missing whole big glaring pieces of evidence. Did you understand the lines of mine I assume you just read, above?
    You know, for example, the ones where I talk about the secondary cluster of explosions not being the result of the beam?
    You read that part, right? You're not going to claim that I didn't write it, or simply skip it, right?

    // I came here because I wanted to have discussion not because I was desperate to convince the world of Death Star mechanisms. The "debating world" already agrees with me and only a handful of people on these blogs and formerly on strek-vs-swars forum bought the "magical trick which conveniently enables Death Star to destroy Alderaan without supplying the neccesary energy".

    The "debating world" already agrees with you? Ah, making things up now. Wait. I don't even care. :D

    ReplyDelete
  29. That's the only mistake.
    Please show that they're wrong on the fusion point.
    This is going to be funny.

    They were wrong because they thought that a biological organism can live inside a fusion generator. Obviously they have no clue about what a fusion generator is.

    I wouldn't laugh out loud like that if I were you, but some of his stuff is clearly wrong. It's a pity that some kids around swallow ANY of his claims anytime he waves his Ph.D trump card.
    What things? Show me what things are wrong.

    I'm not saying he's a liar. Just that he's wrong, and yet tries to enfore wanky claims that he and his Wongy friends crafted for years. It's just that he buys too much into his own stuff.
    By all means demonstrate where he is wrong.

    Yes, they're just all lying or completely ignorant. It's not like these kids are near ten years old, living in astroports and surrounded by all means of technology and space faring people.
    Sure, they just make all their stuff up.
    Again, prove that they don't know what they're talking about on the fusion point.

    They are completley ignorant about fusion reactors and ep3 quote shows it. And what is that shit about them "living in astroports"? If a 8 year old kid lives near an airport that must mean he knows a lot about plane engines does it? Really you are beyond stupid know.

    Please make it clear in your mind. You've been defending the DET superlaser? YOU provide a sensible defense for the DET superlaser argument before even asking other people to find alternatives.
    Are you an idiot or somehing? If no alternative for a given mechanism exists than that mechanism is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for an event unless you can disprove it.
    I repeat: Either provide a better explanation or explain why fire-rings and secondary explosion are evidence against the direct energy transfer.

    HOW? WHY? Explain why those events disprove raw energy transfer?
    Hello! In the context of the superlaser. Again.

    What is this supposed to mean? Stop evsding the point and explain why raw power transfer doesn't work. Explain why fire rings and secondary explosion contradict it.

    There I caught you. So you're defitively arguing that it's the beam that still creates the secondary explosion.

    Anyway, what you say can't happen. Just watch the video. The lag lasts nearly one second. Consider this:
    Why would a beam, which when spending like the vast majority of its potential by heating up a portion of the planet's surface, would suddenly PAUSE and transfer no energy anymore, yet continue to drill through the crust by some unknown mechanism, yet without releasing any extra energy (that's the PAUSE, otherwise hot matter would constantly fly out of the hole, which is not the case), and later on, release even MORE energy for a final and largely more destructive blast, with the few bits of energy left?
    It clearly doesn't add up.

    The hole in your theory is that you can't have a pause. You say that the secondary explosion occurs because the beam releases all the energy it had left.
    Yet, how can a beam suddenly drill through a planet, and yet release no energy, so that externally, it's noticed as a PAUSE between the two explosions, as no ejecta is propelled in space?

    So? The secondary explosion can be easily explained by some of the beam persistng even when it dissapers from cameras view into the distance and the beam itself not having uniform energy density. If you inspect the superlaser beam closely you'll notice several "pulses" within it's strucutre. If those pulses carry a larger amount of energy they can explain the abrupt appearance of the secondary explosion.

    Same magnitude? Come on. The first explosion didn't even scratch the other side of the planet, and it's the final explosion that propelled massivechunks of planetary material in space.
    You are lying. The first explosion created the fire rings that expanded from all sides of the planet uniformly thereby proving that the first explosion did in fact blew up the entire planet.
    Look at this screenshot:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg
    The entire planet is gone. The fire ring is spreading from the center of the planet and it is obvious that the entire planet is expanding.

    In fact, the simple fact that you're talking about a secondary explosion shows that you're missing the whole point. Lasers don't do secondary, delayed, explosions against solid inert objects.
    Yes we know it isn't a laser. But, as I have already pointed out, "not being a laser" is not the same as "not being a DET weapon". An arrow doesn't heat vaporize objects like laser does tha mean arrow is not a "DET weapon"?

    There would be no lag with a laser. And what's that invisible part now? What is it? When does it intervene really? How powerful is it?
    Who cares about what a laser would do? And you ignored my first explanation that superlaser might have simply vanished from cameras view into the distance while still striking the planet.

    I don't have to. You can't refute attacks on a theory because the attacked doesn't actually provide another theory.
    I'd better have no theory yet than a wrong theory, no matter if it's the only one. That's called common sense and objectivity.

    Do you realise what you are saying?
    I state that Death Star had to impart 10^38J to destroy Alderaan as dictated by laws of thermodynamics.
    You say that that isn't possible beacuse of the "appearance of the explosion".
    I ask you to explain WHY the apperance of the explosion disproves the direct energy transfer.
    You reply that you don't have to explain it.

    Doubled in diameter?
    Absolutely not. Please, look at the video in details.
    You are confusing the size of the explosion with the real size of the total mass of the planet.
    It's not because an explosion, which happens to mask an object, has a max size of X times the size of the original object, that you can claim that it's the whole object's mass that has been turned into hot matter.

    It does not double in diameter, as a matter of fact, you can still see the whitened south pole through the cloud of hot matter during the first "ring frames", just as much as you can see a darkened mass that strangely looks like the north pole during the last frames of the first explosion, as matter disperses.

    It does double in diameter as proven by the fire rings which expand on all sides unifromly.
    Oh and here is a screenshot showing Alderaan before the impact and just one frame before the secondary explosion kicks in: http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/primary2.jpg
    Whare are those "intact" polar regions hmmm?

    I looked at the way the second explosion expanded. I looked at each gas cloud that composed it. it was quite asmuing to see that their respective point of origin was barely touching the far west of Alderaan. Not to say that none of them ever remotely approached the path of the Death Star's beam.
    As a whole, the secondary explosion is completely off-axis, and clearly not originating from any point close to the original beam's trajectory, so this totally refutes the idea of the beam being directly responsible of this larger explosion. This of course also refutes any idea about an invisible beam as well.

    Actually the secondary explosion's point of origin was in the same place as the first explosion as proven by overlapping fire rings. The "far west" is merley the region where secondary explosion first breaks through the primary explosion and is the result of assymetry in explosion not it's center.

    Talking about broken record, the problem is that you don't get where the problem lies. It's not necessarily in how the energy is found, but the way the planet is destroyed.
    There is nothing in the way the planet is destroyed that suggests anything else than raw energy transferr. The trouble with you is that you equate "laser beam" with raw energy transfer.

    Not only you only made vague references without offering pertinent details, but none of your examples would fit the Alderaaan case anyway.
    Show how and why direct energy transfer doesn't fit with Alderaans explosion. Provide an alternative mechanism.

    You are not in position to ask me anything. We are pointing at holes in the theory you defend. You won't weasel your way out by asking us to tell you faery tales instead.
    Well then point those holes already. You named the evidence you think disprove the direct energy transfer now explain how and why. How can I defend the "DET" theory if you won't explain how and why fire rings and secondary explosion disprove it?

    You're oversimplfying Alderaan's fate by missing whole big glaring pieces of evidence. Did you understand the lines of mine I assume you just read, above?
    You know, for example, the ones where I talk about the secondary cluster of explosions not being the result of the beam?
    You read that part, right? You're not going to claim that I didn't write it, or simply skip it, right?

    Prove that they are not a direct result of the beam. Prove that beam didn't still persist after vanishing from camera's view. Prove that the superlaser beam had uniform density.
    This is what you must do in order to prove that secondary explosion disproves the direct energy transfer. Until you do that direct energy transfer reamins the ONLY available theory.

    The "debating world" already agrees with you? Ah, making things up now. Wait. I don't even care. :D
    You can pretend that SD.net and Spacebattles didn't make fun of "superlaser effect" theory all you want. You can also delude yourself into thinking that they don't represent the vast majority of the people involved into the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Alderaan debris the Falcon pops into when it exits hyperspace is an interesting problem in and of itself. The ANH novelization states that the asteroid debris was "gigantic", implying sizes for single pieces of debris greater than that of the Falcon. However, the movie shows debris that seems to be only a few meters wide at most. It is difficult to say what the total overall mass of the debris field was the Falcon appears to have come out in the middle of the storm. The shaking of the Falcon continues on for about 20-30 seconds more. Given the apparent velocity of the Falcon on it's approach to the Death Star (hundreds of km a second), that field could easily have been hundreds, if not thousands of km wide. Therefore the total mass of the asteroid debris making up the field probably easily exceeds the Falcon's own mass by some considerable amount. Furthermore, the assumption being made here is that there is are no other similar debris fields scattered about the vicinity of the former Alderann planet.
    -Mike

    ReplyDelete
  31. I still don't see how this presents a problem. A small percentage of debirs stil lingered within one planetary diameter of Alderaan due to chaothic events inside the explosion.
    There may or may not be additinal asteroid fields out there but you missed my point about the space being completley clear. You could see the stars in the distance thus proving that planetary matter was already scattered to the point it was on average no more dense than space around it.
    In any case if you wish to claim there is a "problem" it is up to you to prove that the asteroid field is massive enough to present a seroius issue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The novelization actually explicitly states that Alderaan's mass has disappeared. It's in the paragraph commonly discussed for its mention of the million worlds of the Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mass cannot dissapear, it can only be converted into energy. If that happened the entire planet would be turned into electromagnetic radiation (light) and disperse at a speed of 300,000km/s. This is obviously not what happens.

    By the way can you provide the exact quote? It is easily possible that "dissapearance of planetary mass" actually meant it's dispersal. After a few hours at 10,000km/s expansion rate the density of the planetary matter would be hundreds of million times lesser than air.

    ReplyDelete
  34. An Innocent BystanderSat Jul 29, 05:55:00 PM 2006

    The real reason for the "planar ring" explosion is actually the "Praxis explosion" in Star Trek VI. As far as creator's intent, the change was more influenced by stylistic aims than wanting to show that the DS worked by a chain reaction :) But, of course, that leads us to the whole "Literary" versus "Suspension of Disbelief" sci-fi analysis debate, which I don't really know much about. Just thought I'd put that in. :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. // They were wrong because they thought that a biological organism can live inside a fusion generator. Obviously they have no clue about what a fusion generator is.

    No. It's just that they have no clue that magical creatures do not exist. This does not dispute their knowledge on the basis of a fusion reactor, though that's already high details, but above all, that is totally irrelevant to what really matters: proving that they're wrong about what powers everything in Star Wars.

    For that, you haven't done anything. You hope that it will be enough to point out the mythological part of the quote about the dragons being pure folklore, and then dismiss the whole information as wrong.
    That's a fallacy, and unacceptable.

    // What things? Show me what things are wrong.

    The things I cited, for one. Nor does it really matter here anyway, since we're not there to dispute other parts of Saxton's work, but just a single claim he made through the ICS regarding power sources.
    I won't engage into more topic derailing.

    // By all means demonstrate where he is wrong.

    It has already been done countless times here and there. The yet short lived Strek vs Swars forums were yet filled with detailed threads on this. It's not the point of the debate anyway.

    // They are completley ignorant about fusion reactors and ep3 quote shows it.

    Generalization. See above.

    // And what is that shit about them "living in astroports"? If a 8 year old kid lives near an airport that must mean he knows a lot about plane engines does it? Really you are beyond stupid know.

    No, he's just likely to know the very general basics regarding what powers airplanes for example, and yet airports are hardly the kind of focused melting pots that Tatooine's cities are anyway.

    By the way, drop the insults. It doesn't make you smarter.

    // Are you an idiot or somehing? If no alternative for a given mechanism exists than that mechanism is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for an event unless you can disprove it.

    Wrong on two points. First, it's not a mechanism, it's a theorized system. Secondly, we did disprove it. At least make the effort to understand that from our point of view, we found holes in the DET superlaser theory, and thus we consider the theory invalid.
    A pity if you can't even understand that.

    // I repeat: Either provide a better explanation or explain why fire-rings and secondary explosion are evidence against the direct energy transfer.

    I do not need to comply for number 1, and we already presented evidence regarding the secondary explosion(s).
    Not my problem if you can't grasp that.

    // What is this supposed to mean? Stop evsding the point and explain why raw power transfer doesn't work. Explain why fire rings and secondary explosion contradict it.

    Are you making it on purpose?
    The point is that we're disagreeing with the idea that there's a superlaser that destroys its target through some of the most simple and purest direct transfers of energy, that is, beam hits planet, planets heats up and explodes.
    That's glassing over large important details that fly in the face of this theory. But I see you're not above hasty conclusions and generalisations anyway, as shown above. Meh.

    // So? The secondary explosion can be easily explained by some of the beam persistng even when it dissapers from cameras view into the distance and the beam itself not having uniform energy density. If you inspect the superlaser beam closely you'll notice several "pulses" within it's strucutre. If those pulses carry a larger amount of energy they can explain the abrupt appearance of the secondary explosion.

    No they can't. The pulses are periodically spaced along the beam, which screws any exit for you by claiming that this is what explains the delay, and all the pulses are of reasonnable similarity in intensity and size. Just like the beam, as a matter of fact, which is just continuous and of the same aspect, dimension and intensity from beginning to end.

    By the way, this does not adress at all the problem of how the pause can correspond to a phase when the beam is drilling through the planet, and yet ejecting no hot matter at all.

    See, it's fairly simple. We do see that the first explosion is not continuously fed with energy, as it actually fades and turns darker. This is the proof that there's a pause in energy transfer. How funny that this pause actually happens after the beam has disappeared from camera.

    It can't be simpler. There can't be a pause. You can't have a beam drill through a planet in less than a second, release insane amounts of energy to do so through pure rawish DET, and yet add no extra energy to the former explosion, until almost one second later, when a secondary explosion occurs out of nowhere.

    When you'll get that, maybe there will be hope for everyone.

    // You are lying. The first explosion created the fire rings that expanded from all sides of the planet uniformly thereby proving that the first explosion did in fact blew up the entire planet.

    Stop smoking crack.
    You're just so damn wrong on soooo many points.
    First, I'm not lying. I clearly know more about the sequence than you obviously do.
    Secondly, the first explosion created only one ring. The second explosion created another ring, which was much more powerful and faster, absorbed the first one without loosing any significant momentum. That simply disproves your claim that the first explosion destroyed Alderaan, since according to you, a ring = total planetary destruction.
    Thirdly, we don't even know what these rings are, so they're hardly going to prove that they're the symptom of a total planetary destruction.
    Fourth, you simply ignored my points about parts of the planet still being visible after the first explosion.

    // Look at this screenshot:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg
    The entire planet is gone. The fire ring is spreading from the center of the planet and it is obvious that the entire planet is expanding.

    Not when you actually look at the video, instead of one single screenshot.
    Of course, we already know that you just don't know what you're talking about.

    // Yes we know it isn't a laser. But, as I have already pointed out, "not being a laser" is not the same as "not being a DET weapon". An arrow doesn't heat vaporize objects like laser does tha mean arrow is not a "DET weapon"?

    Just to make it clear, no one here, well I hope, believes that it's a laser.
    It's just a convenient term. But it doesn't preclude the fact that you and the camp you belong to on that point claim that the beam is a system that continuously delivers its energy.

    It doesn't.

    // Who cares about what a laser would do? And you ignored my first explanation that superlaser might have simply vanished from cameras view into the distance while still striking the planet.

    No, I didn't ignore it. I simply refuted this totally absurd claim that change nothing as to why there was a pause. No matter if the remaining beam is actually masked by the explosion, it's still ought to transfer energy just as long as it exists and hits something.

    But it clearly does not. That's for the PAUSE. Read it?

    // Do you realise what you are saying?

    Yes, I realize it. And it's the simple result of common sense and objectivity. You can't expect people to accept a theory just because it would be the only one in existence, when the theory is faulty.

    // I state that Death Star had to impart 10^38J to destroy Alderaan as dictated by laws of thermodynamics.

    Laws of thermodynamics?
    Let me laugh. These laws would not explain a pause. They would not explain rings (but do we even care about those damn donuts?). They would clearly not explain why you actually see a significant amount of plantery mass actually moving towards the centre of the planet, if the planet was already and almost totally destroyed after the first explosion.

    // You say that that isn't possible beacuse of the "appearance of the explosion".
    I ask you to explain WHY the apperance of the explosion disproves the direct energy transfer.

    Which I did.

    // You reply that you don't have to explain it.

    I didn't do that. That answer of mine that you misrelated was in reply to your request on an alternate theory proposal. Which of course is completely unnecessary. But you'd need to compute that first.
    Sure, would be better if I could actually come with something else, but that's not necessary. Until you understand that, I hardly see the debate improving from there.

    // It does double in diameter as proven by the fire rings which expand on all sides unifromly.

    Back in SE, when the brightness wasn't saturated (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWalderaan.html), the fire ring (without an S) already appeared above the west side of Alderaan, while that part of the planet was not damaged at all during the first frames, proving that the rings had little to do with the amount or repartition of the destruction.
    Now, it all depends if you consider that this is still true, but the simple blinding explosion is just over saturating the video medium, or if the whole planet turned white.

    // Oh and here is a screenshot showing Alderaan before the impact and just one frame before the secondary explosion kicks in: http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/primary2.jpg
    Whare are those "intact" polar regions hmmm?

    Quote me saying "intact". I mean, if you don't read people's words properly, no wonder you understand nit to what we're trying to tell you. I merely talked about "the whitened south pole" and "a darkened mass" (for the north pole).
    Well, it's not that dark, but Robert finely evidenced this: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWsuperl-4.html

    // Actually the secondary explosion's point of origin was in the same place as the first explosion as proven by overlapping fire rings. The "far west" is merley the region where secondary explosion first breaks through the primary explosion and is the result of assymetry in explosion not it's center.

    The fire rings are obviously totally unrelated to the origin of the secondary explosion, as a simple observation of the secondary cluster of explosions shows it. Absolutely none of the respective origins of the expanding clouds that compose the secondary explosion can be pointed back at being located anywhere near the beam's trajectory.

    That's particularily funky for someone who claims that the planet was already entirely destroyed after the first explosion. One has to wonder why that formidable planet smashing beam suddenly decided to execute such an impressive manoeuver.

    // There is nothing in the way the planet is destroyed that suggests anything else than raw energy transferr. The trouble with you is that you equate "laser beam" with raw energy transfer.

    No, the trouble is that you don't get we're disputing the way the planet is said to be destroyed.
    Again, I'm not totally closed to the idea that the Death Star housed an exotic system which let it produce more energy than a DS sized regular star warsian fusion reactor would. I do not take the "small artificial sun" quote too literally as fas as I am concerned, if you remember.

    However, with canon quotes revealing points about abstract mass conversion and planet disappearence, only a fool would believe that the system is so crude.
    Wong does so.
    You seem to as well.
    Time to wake up and stop ignoring canon information.

    // Well then point those holes already.

    Done. Pay attention.

    // You named the evidence you think disprove the direct energy transfer now explain how and why.

    Done. Pay attention.

    // How can I defend the "DET" theory if you won't explain how and why fire rings and secondary explosion disprove it?

    Done. Pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Since our posts are getting a bit to long and consist of same points repeated multiple times I will condense this discussion into several points:

    Ep3 fusion quote
    You claim that episode 3 quote is enough to overrite the ICS statement about the existance of hypermatter reactors even though it doesn't specifically state that alternative power sources are not available to the Empire and it's starships.
    You feel that the musings of a bunch of 8 year old kids must be taken literaly even though the very same quote shows that they believe in dragons.
    You feel that the fact those kids living near astroports somehow means that their knowledge will somehow become greater as if knowledge is ossmotically tranferred to individuals by mear nearness to the source.

    Dr. Saxton's credibilty
    I agree we should leave this out of the debate but it is quite dishonest from you to claim that I am tyring to derail the topic even thoug it was you who brought up the point.

    Fire rings
    The fire rings are a complete unknown therefore there are no more evidence of a chain reaction then they are evidence of direct energy transfer. You continually claim that direct energy transfer must mean pure heating even though I already pointed out several "DET" weapons that do not heat the target.
    In conclusion your only "evidence" that fire rings disprove direct energy transfer is that "DET doesn't look that way" which is a useless subjective statement. Show me physical reasons as to why fire rings disagree with "DET".

    Laws of thermodynamics
    You have stated the following:
    "Laws of thermodynamics? Let me laugh. These laws would not explain a pause."
    thereby showing that you have no idea what Laws of thermodynamics are. They do not explain things merley establish certain requirements. The second law of thermodynamics does not explain the way arrow punctures an object, it does not explain how a shuttle lifts of from Earth nor does it explain how laser works yet all of aforementioned events must obey that law.
    10^38J cannot come from nowhere. Eiter it came from the Death Star or the planet. Since there is no way it could've come from planet then it must have come from the Death Star pause or no pause, fire rings or no fire rings.

    Primary explosion
    You claim that primary explosion merley "masked" the planet without actually destroying it. PROVE this claim especially in the light of fire ring that expanded from the center of the planet and perfectly alligned with the fire ring of the second explosion.
    You claim that when the first fire ring appears the left side of the planet is intact but that is not true as the follwoing screenshot demonstrates:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg
    As you can see the matter on the left side of the planet is already trown hundreds of kilometers from the surface, hardly intact.

    Secondary explosion
    Secondary explosion, as I have already stated, can be explained by the beam not having uniform density. With the first part of the beam having high energy then a part with low energy then again high energy. Obviously I cannot prove this since we don't know anything about the superlaser's nature however for the same reason you cannot disprove it. You can only hope to provide a better explanation, something you haven't done.

    Secondly you have misinterpreted my statement that superlaser vanishes from camera into a statement that superlaser is obscured by the explosion. That is not what I said. The superlaser vanishes from sight because of the distance to the planet. It is merley a kilometer in diameter which means that from the distance of several thousand km it will simply become to small to be visible.

    Furthermore you claim that secondary explosion was not alligned with the secondary fire ring without any evidence.
    Do you realise that it's origin is obscured by the primary fragments which were about 25,000km wide by that point? The part of the secondary explosion we first notice is the part that first broke through the primary and, as I already explained, it will be determined by the assymetry in the expansion not it's point of origin.

    Since it is you who is trying to disprove the validity of direct energy transfer it is up to you to prove all of the claims you have made.

    Mass energy conversion quote
    While you merley took the ep3 quote too seriously the ANH quote you completley distort in order to further your own agenda. The quote does not say that superlaser is an "abstract mass energy conversion" merley that the temple on Yavin will present and "abstract problem for mass energy conversion". Nowhere does it state where will this mass energy conversion take place. It could likely be inside the reactor. But as before you insist on a certain interpretation of the quote so you can claim that it disproves direct energy transfer. Sorry but your interpretations of quotes do not have canon value.

    ReplyDelete
  37. // Since our posts are getting a bit to long and consist of same points repeated multiple times I will condense this discussion into several points:

    Iam really sorry to tell you that, but this would have not happened if you would have not asked me to provide things I already provided.

    //1. You claim that episode 3 quote is enough to overrite the ICS statement about the existance of hypermatter reactors even though it doesn't specifically state that alternative power sources are not available to the Empire and it's starships.
    2. You feel that the musings of a bunch of 8 year old kids must be taken literaly even though the very same quote shows that they believe in dragons.
    3. You feel that the fact those kids living near astroports somehow means that their knowledge will somehow become greater as if knowledge is ossmotically tranferred to individuals by mear nearness to the source.


    1. The quote specifically says that fusion furnaces power everything in Star Wars, from starships to podracers.
    That's totally different from the ICS which claims that hypermatter annihilation cores power most starships.
    2. I do not consider that the musings are to be taken literally. However, our interpretations of what the musings are are different. Your repeated attempts have been to pass the whole quote as pure beliefs, while the only uncorrect part is about the mythology they believe in, that is, the part about the sun dragons and their smaller cousins, while the rest is largely grounded into solid facts.
    3. Wrong. It is not my exact claim. You altered it.


    Dr. Saxton's credibilty
    I agree we should leave this out of the debate but it is quite dishonest from you to claim that I am tyring to derail the topic even thoug it was you who brought up the point.


    Mh, yes, I made the specific reference to Dr. Saxton while you talked about a physicist in general. However, you tried to bring an example, and I brought one I thought to be particularily fitting and concrete.
    But, well... as you said, I may have not gone into that after all.

    // Fire rings
    The fire rings are a complete unknown therefore there are no more evidence of a chain reaction then they are evidence of direct energy transfer. You continually claim that direct energy transfer must mean pure heating even though I already pointed out several "DET" weapons that do not heat the target.
    In conclusion your only "evidence" that fire rings disprove direct energy transfer is that "DET doesn't look that way" which is a useless subjective statement. Show me physical reasons as to why fire rings disagree with "DET".


    Well, there is a problem with that. Because we do have a weapon that clearly heats a significant portion of the planet.
    Then suddenly, what? The weapon stops acting like a energy radiating source, but as a solid drilled which do not release heat despite going through kilometers of solid crust in less than a second?
    That does not add up at all.
    It is still wrong.
    Then, I think you get confused about my thoughts regarding DET.
    It's actually good to notice that everytime there's an explosion during that two stage event, it also produces a ring.

    The real problem is not what really produces that ring, because no one here has any real idea about does it, safe special theories which are more or less disputable.

    The real problem is why there are two damn rings, instead of just one, be it very finite, or continuously created as long as there's energy transfer.

    And again, and that's the last time I'll say it, if a fire ring was the evidence that the planet is near totally destroyed, then there could not be a secondary more powerful ring. Period.

    // Laws of thermodynamics
    You have stated the following:
    "Laws of thermodynamics? Let me laugh. These laws would not explain a pause."
    thereby showing that you have no idea what Laws of thermodynamics are. They do not explain things merley establish certain requirements. The second law of thermodynamics does not explain the way arrow punctures an object, it does not explain how a shuttle lifts of from Earth nor does it explain how laser works yet all of aforementioned events must obey that law.
    10^38J cannot come from nowhere. Eiter it came from the Death Star or the planet. Since there is no way it could've come from planet then it must have come from the Death Star pause or no pause, fire rings or no fire rings.


    You don't get my point. My point is that shouting Laws of thermodynamics isn't going to solve the problem posed by the DET beam theory.
    Of course these laws mean that you need X amount of energy to crack, pulverize, melt or vaporize Y amounts of whatever matter, and that's trying to be simple.
    But it's certainly not going to explain why the second explosion problem is solved in the light of the raw mechanism of destruction claimed by your side (well, on this debate at least, since I don't know your real position regarding the rest of SW's stuff anyway).

    What the idea is? Simple. The Death Star uses a Turbolaser on steroids to destroy planet. Like you take a capital ship cannon, inflate it in size, plug a super reactor to its butt and send the juice in baby!
    That's the claim.
    What's an energy bolt in SW? What's the globally accepted definition?
    It's a continuous, coherent focused and self contained flux of energy which directly transmits its energy to the matter it touches.
    That's pretty much the way bolts act in SW.

    That's the problem with the Death Star, because that is clearly not how Alderaan was destroyed.

    I've already explained why the pause and above all the second set of explosions can't originate from a DET simple phenomenom involving the beam.
    See the point, for example, about the origin of explosions.

    // Primary explosion
    You claim that primary explosion merley "masked" the planet without actually destroying it. PROVE this claim especially in the light of fire ring that expanded from the center of the planet and perfectly alligned with the fire ring of the second explosion.
    You claim that when the first fire ring appears the left side of the planet is intact but that is not true as the follwoing screenshot demonstrates:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg
    As you can see the matter on the left side of the planet is already trown hundreds of kilometers from the surface, hardly intact.


    That's a very bizarre request you have here, since the fire ring you base most your argument upon was actually relatively well centered on the planet, while the initial blast wasn't. From that moment, it's quite easy to say that they're sufficiently unrelated to stop using one as a defense for the other.

    As for the term intact, once more, please realize that I never used it.

    Real words were:

    -- It does not double in diameter, as a matter of fact, you can still see the whitened south pole through the cloud of hot matter during the first "ring frames", just as much as you can see a darkened mass that strangely looks like the north pole during the last frames of the first explosion, as matter disperses. --

    Period.

    // Secondary explosion
    &. Secondary explosion, as I have already stated, can be explained by the beam not having uniform density. With the first part of the beam having high energy then a part with low energy then again high energy.
    Obviously I cannot prove this since we don't know anything about the superlaser's nature however for the same reason you cannot disprove it. You can only hope to provide a better explanation, something you haven't done.

    2. Secondly you have misinterpreted my statement that superlaser vanishes from camera into a statement that superlaser is obscured by the explosion. That is not what I said. The superlaser vanishes from sight because of the distance to the planet. It is merley a kilometer in diameter which means that from the distance of several thousand km it will simply become to small to be visible.

    3. Furthermore you claim that secondary explosion was not alligned with the secondary fire ring without any evidence.
    Do you realise that it's origin is obscured by the primary fragments which were about 25,000km wide by that point? The part of the secondary explosion we first notice is the part that first broke through the primary and, as I already explained, it will be determined by the assymetry in the expansion not it's point of origin.

    Since it is you who is trying to disprove the validity of direct energy transfer it is up to you to prove all of the claims you have made.


    1. And the low energy part would be the one corresponding to the pause. What would the beam do during that pause, instead of transmitting its energy like it did for the first explosion?
    It would suddenly switch modes?
    It would then turn into some focused beam that now really drills through the planet?
    Let's pretent that is what happens.
    Tell me, then (and that's several times I've been stressing this), where is the ejecta resulting from that interphase?

    The answer is simple. It's not there. And your claim is almost self contradictory. I'd like to know how a beam would be slowed down and drilling through a planet... supposedly destroyed during the first explosion.
    At best, the middle of the beam, even if low powered in comparison, would still be bleeding energy through what was once a solid planet. That is, still feeding the primary explosion with even more energy.
    Of course, the fact that the primary explosion is just fading out, simply nixes that idea.

    Again, there's a pause on all points, especially on direct energy transfer. Nothing happens for nearly one second. Absolutely nothing. Your beam just teleported itself.

    2. Okay, that's different, indeed. The beam is more like almost 3 km in diameter. But that's not the problem, and changes little to nothing about the pause and secondary explosion. By the speed at which it moves, it would be largely masked by the explosion anyway.

    3. It's a question of looking at the borders of the expanding clouds and see where they're going, and what distance they have covered. This is easy, and plenty enough to know where the explosion come from.
    This finely shows that the cluster of explosions had its origin far from the beam's trajectory. That's a tough call for a weapon which supposedly relies its energy via DIRECT TRANSFER (bold tags are not really convincing in terms of lisibility).

    // Mass energy conversion quote
    While you merley took the ep3 quote too seriously the ANH quote you completley distort in order to further your own agenda. The quote does not say that superlaser is an "abstract mass energy conversion" merley that the temple on Yavin will present and "abstract problem for mass energy conversion". Nowhere does it state where will this mass energy conversion take place. It could likely be inside the reactor. But as before you insist on a certain interpretation of the quote so you can claim that it disproves direct energy transfer. Sorry but your interpretations of quotes do not have canon value.


    You're confused. I have certainly not been "insisting" on the mass energy conversion element. Others have. But I can understand that you were lost between me, the others and Robert's detailed essays.
    I merely noted it as a side point that is, in fact, not essential to the debate I'm engaged in.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Actually the 10^38 J figure is low. That is only enough to cause the planet to break up and leave with sufficient velocity not to be pulled back together by gravity. As is witnessed, the actual velocity is substantially greater.

    Additionally, if DS1's reactor operates with a 100% efficient matter to energy conversion, then it would require around 10^13 metric tons of reactant per second to destroy one Earth like planet per day assuming the low 10^38 J figure.

    And as to what lord edam de fromage said about the massive empire wiping out the UFP, by similar rational Genghis Kahn's (spelling?) Mongols would defeat a small modern country like say... Israel, because he controlled more territory, existed for a longer time, and had more soldiers.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'll go take down the exact quote for next time I come here. It's in the context of looking at a map, of course. In that particular context, as you will see, the mass having been dispersed is not a logical interpretation.

    For reference, incidentally, modern day Israel does not have fewer people to throw around than ancient Mongolia did, and the Mongolian Empire's glory days weren't all that long.

    The Mongols were a classic case of what we're talking about - a small nimble force with superior firepower, organization, strategic expertise, and training taking on vast amounts of territory and people.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, getting back to the main blog, we all know that the chinese can't have an artificial sun based generator first because the swiss have had it for over a century. Neutrality has it advantages. :-P

    ReplyDelete