The superlaser "trick"?

[Cpt_Frank]

Look, kid. I'll be nice and educate you further.

ROFLMAO! This one's a classic!

1) The mechanism of the superlaser you claim.

2) The reasons said mechanism does not induce planar rings in Mon Cal Cruisers.

3) The reasons said mechanism induces planar rings in the Death Stars upon explosion.

4) Why said mechanism will not react with the atmosphere.

DS, I hope in regard of your superior intellect you will forgive us ignorant individuals of sub-human intelligence, if we dare to ask you to please repeat your evidence for us since with our gnat-like attention span we were yet unable to properly recognize all the gems of wisdom you claim to have gifted to us.
These question still have to be answered.

[Ender]

DS, I hope in regard of your superior intellect you will forgive us ignorant individuals of sub-human intelligence, if we dare to ask you to please repeat your evidence for us since with our gnat-like attention span we were yet unable to properly recognize all the gems of wisdom you claim to have gifted to us.
These question still have to be answered.

5 bucks says he just links to his page again and tells us to read it.

[Cpt_Frank]

5 bucks says he just links to his page again and tells us to read it.

Hey if he would not, then the universe would collapse!

[Patrick Degan]

Even after you've been called repeatedly on your ignorance, you persist long past any point of rationality.

Anyway, talking to you is pointless, so consider this my last reply to you of our current conversation:

Yet more empty bluster.

Oh, and just what evidence have you presented?

The canon . . . that movie you think you can just zip through, ignoring the details, and make the simplest observation of, and call it fact. "Duh, green beam shoot, planet kaboom".

Sorry, but that's what the movie actually shows, no matter how much you like to say otherwise. Canon is not what you wish it was.

I am not obligated to educate you, but I'll give you a pointer, all the same. Get it through your head: you cannot take the simplest possible glance at an event and then armchair-theorize your way to a correct conclusion. By choosing to ignore relevant data, you will only reach a correct conclusion through the wildest stroke of luck.

No, it's much better to do things your way, where we just simply make up whatever we like because it "sounds cool".

That, BTW, is what we call "sarcasm".

"Cannot or will not"? I've already told you that I refuse to speculate on the nuts-and-bolts that we're not told about. Why do you continue to wonder why I haven't speculated?

Translated from DarkStar speak: I haven't a clue what I'm really talking about, so I'm just going to bullshit my way through this.

Your "creative" reinterpretation of other peoples' words and writings?

Oh please. The pot cannot call the gleaming silver kettle black.

Did you even bother to read any of the pages I left the links to?

Yes. Not a single one supports the erroneous conclusion which you have drawn, i.e. that fermionic atoms do not exist under Earth-normal conditions. The fact that they are a topic of study under supercool conditions does not mean that they only exist at that state.

Sigh... You persist in your error and your stubornness:

http://physics.about.com/library/dict/b ... ensate.htm
Bose-Einstein condensate

Definition: When a macroscopic system of bosons is cooled to a sufficiently low temperature, a large fraction of those particles can occupy the same quantum state of lowest energy (the ground state). This phenomenon occurs in a unique state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), named after Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein. BECs were first created in the laboratory in 1995 using laser cooling techniques, for which the inventors won a Nobel Prize in Physics. BEC is fundamental to the behaviour of superfluids.

There is no comparable state of matter for fermions as they obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which prohibits any two fermions form entering the same quantum state. However, recent experiments involving co-existing bosons and fermions have allowed low temperature fermion systems to be created by a technique known as sympathetic cooling. These low temperature fermionic states have been proposed as the basis of neutron stars.

The 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three physicists for their experimental creations of BECs in alkali gases.

Related Resources:

Bose-Einstein Condensation: Part 1
Most people are familiar with the "normal" states of matter: solids, liquids and gases. However, there are other more bizarre states in existence and one of them, the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), occurs purely because of quantum mechanics.

But, I guess it's my fault for not perceiving soon enough that you simply do not understand the difference between "fermion" and "fermionic atom" or "fermionic state" and have recklessly been using the terms interchangeably.

And you now have even less of an explanation for the reason why the superlaser beam would fail to cause atmospheric disruption while traversing through to the surface.

Look, kid. I'll be nice and educate you further.

No, I don't think so. Somebody who can't tell the difference between "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" has nothing whatsoever to teach me.

The reason I used fermionic atoms as an example for you way back when, in the effort to try to get you to read up on the fact that atoms aren't solid objects,

Which I did not say. Another lie on your part.

was because I foolishly hoped you might learn these facts on your own.

I did. The exercise resulting from your little red herring was interesting, to say the least. Your continuing confusion over the terms "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" has been amusing. In the end, however, we've come to the conclusion that you have no explanation for why the superlaser beam would not cause atmospheric disruption in its passage to the surface, which does not do well for the MUM case you desperately persist in defending.

Instead, you've made even more of an ass of yourself by claiming that fermionic atoms don't exist unless it's cold, and (by extension) that all atoms are solid at room temperature.

Even though the articles cited state that fermionic atoms, or atoms in fermionic states, only exist in conditions of absolute zero temperatures and extreme supercompression. Even though I did not say that atoms are "solid" objects.

Dipshit.

Yes, you certainly are.

And this goes along perfectly with what I have told you and tried to get you to understand. The Lithium-7 bosons (bosonic atoms) will collide with the Lithium-6 fermions (fermionic atoms), whereas Lithium-6 fermions (fermionic atoms) are hard as hell to get to collide with each other.

You must be huge laughs in the university physics faculty lounge. One more time: "fermion" and "fermionic atom" are not interchangeable terms.

Dipshit.

Yes, you certainly are.

Hulet and co-workers at Rice, as well researchers at the ENS, have carried out similar experiments to show the differences in size between a Fermi gas (lithium-6) and a Bose gas (lithium-7).

Exactly. Because Lithium-7 is easier to cool and get down to low-momentum states, there will be a difference in the volume of a similar-temp Li-7 and Li-6 gas.

Unfortunately for you, "fermion" and "fermionic atom" describe two different phenomena and are not interchangeable terms.

This quantum phenomenon, called Fermi pressure, is seen in astrophysics and is responsible for stabilizing white-dwarf and neutron stars against their gravitational potential.

This is what people refer to when they speak of neutron stars being exactly-so compact because they have reached their neutron degeneracy pressure point.

Which further fails to support your case about the superlaser not disrupting Alderaan's atmosphere given that the requisite conditions are not present.

No, your continuing utter failure to understand what they have said, even after corrections have been provided, prove that you're a stupid fucking idiot

Sigh... And yet more projection on your part.

Now down to nitpicking semantics, are we?

I am not "now down" to it . . . it should have been clear to you from the moment I objected to your phrase "spontaneous mass/energy conversion", and pointed out to you why it was not necessary just because something isn't releasing energy through fission, fusion, or antimatter processes.

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in nature by which this is feasible. You yourself opened the door to describing your process as mass/energy conversion (a phrase you carelessly tossed out in an earlier rebuttal), and since it is not taking place by any means which are permissable by the laws of physics, that leaves only one alternative —which is also flatly outlawed by Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass.

Is there no limit to your stupidity?

I swear you must be looking into a mirror when you type.

If a supernova, a violent explosion event of a stellar body, can indeed toss off a ring or rings of material in the shock-front, then this leaves a possible explanation for the planar rings at Alderaan which does not require a MUM and conforms to fundamental physical principles.

The previous ring was not a residual from a prior supernova of the star . . . your crack-head theorist is mistaken.

Just because you say so? I hate to have to tell you this, but science does not operate like a Usenet flame war, where an argument is dismissed by sheer ridicule. As with every other attempt you make at a rebuttal, you do not support your arguments with why a thing is or is not impossible.

I'm not even sure a star can have a second supernova

Strawman. John Boatwright said no such thing in his paper, and neither did I.

The star was a blue supergiant before it blew, but used to be a red supergiant. This confused astronomers, because they thought at the time that only red supergiants could explode in supernova events. However, now we know that a red supergiant can throw off material, causing it to contract and the temperature to rise, in the few tens of thousands of years before it blows.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

During that period of time, the star that used to be there expelled the material now illuminated by SN1987A at velocities 100-2000 times slower than the material from the star's supernova which is now beginning to overtake the circumstellar ring material.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Well, I can't help what you think, nor do I intend to try. You are, to be perfectly honest, a total idiot, and this is demonstrated by your stupid arguments mixed with your utterly unexplainable presumption of superiority.

Empty bluster, and with that, we destroy any pretentions you tried offering up for your Moral Superiority in regards to insults and flaming. The fact that you can't offer any further rebuttal other than to directly attack the messenger in and of itself speaks volumes of the weakness of your own position.

No, seriously, you're an idiot. This isn't bluster, or an unjustified character attack. This is simply the fact of the matter. You think you can ignore evidence and reach a proper conclusion, and that in fact this is supported by rules of logic . . . that's ridiculous. You think you can make up crack-pot theories about fermionic atoms and that they are true . . . that's ridiculous (and, in fact, links back to your original problem with evidence). You think you can reference the first crack-head theory you come across as a disproof of all astronomy and astrophysics . . . that's ridiculous (and, in fact, links back to your original problem). All your ridiculous ideas spring from the same well.

My my, did you just piss yourself? Such a cranky little baby you are.

There comes a point where even the fairest person has to simply stop, consider the issue for a moment, and then finally declare that the other person is a moron. There's no point in you and I debating or discussing anything if we disagree on the fundamental concepts of how to achieve knowledge, and how to learn about the fruits of real knowledge and study.

Ah, the last shriek on the retreat.

It would be possible for you not to be a moron. First, you must acknowledge that all evidence must be accounted for properly before theories can begin. Second, you must not assume that everyone else is wrong simply because someone said so. You must look at the person's argument . . . not your addition to it, not your ideas of what it says, but the argument itself . . . and determine if the person's argument best fits all the facts available . . . not some of the facts, not the ones you like, but all the relevant facts of the case.

You should perhaps try taking your own advice?

Furthermore, hanging your hat on a mechanism which exists either only under laboratory conditions or at exceptional conditional states of supercompression or within the inner layers of a neutron star as a means to dismiss the lack of interaction between the superlaser beam and Alderaan's atmosphere (in which none of these conditions are present) was a definite mistake on your part.

Strawman. I made no such claim, as the record of this thread clearly indicates.

Degan: I hate to have to tell you this, but atmospheric gasses do have solidity even at microscopic levels. That's sort of why there is such a thing as "atmospheric pressure"

That's your "evidence" of my alledged stupidity? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Only somebody like you could conceivably pull "atoms are solid objects" out of that sentence. You don't even undestand the difference between "microscopic" and "atomic", do you? Or you just carelessly use the terms interchangeably.

DarkStar: I hope you are only claiming that there is solidity in reference to such things as ice crystals, dust particles, and so on, as opposed to actually claiming that the actual gases are solid.

Degan: I presume you are aware of how objects entering atmosphere encounter something called "friction"? Just what do you imagine is responsible for that?

And this translates into "atoms are solid objects" how?

DarkStar: Solidity is not a characteristic of individual atoms, contrary to your belief. You have misunderstood the concept of "collision" of atoms in a gas. I'm not going to go over the quantum physics with you . . . go educate yourself. I will point out as an example for you, though, that fermionic atoms of the same spin state, when cooled, do not collide unless it is head-on. Solid matter does not act this way, much to the chagrin of auto insurers.
and: Atoms are not solid objects. You have misunderstood the term "collision" used in reference to the atoms of a gas. Quantum physics will have your answer. Look up data on how fermionic atoms of the same spin-state will, when cooled, not collide unless they are moving head-on to one another. Auto insurers would rejoice if that occurred with solid objects.

And thus began your confusion over the terms "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state".

Degan: I did look up the data —unfortunately for you. When you wrote this, you were aware, I trust, that fermionic atoms are entities which only exist in Bose-Einstein degenerate matter condensates which are formed only under conditions of exceptional compression and at absolute zero.

Neither condition is in force in open space or within a planetary atmosphere.

While you may have a flimsy escape clause . . . you never expressly stated that atoms are solid objects . . . you did claim that gases have solidity at microscopic levels (which, evidently, is unrelated to ice crystals, dust particles, and so on), and did choose to argue against the example proving that atoms are not solid objects.

Since I never said any such thing as "atoms are solid objects", I do not need an escape clause of any sort whatsoever. Your continuing attempts to drag this stinking red herring around do not alter the facts of the matter. Even more empty bluster, since it's finally penetrating the ultradense mass between your ears that you've been called on yet another of your lies in this thread and now you're desperate to retreat while saving the remaining shreds of your dignity —something which was foredoomed the moment you decided to continue arguing an untenable position.

So just what the hell were you arguing, if not that atoms are solid? That a bunch of atoms together in a gas are solid? That's just as stupid.

Yes, your mischaracterisations are stupid and they persist after it's become obvious even to you that you haven't any ground to stand on.

No, you offered up the fermionic atom example in a vain attempt to impress the rest of us with your alledged Vast Knowledge of Physics.

I wasn't trying to impress you.

Oh, well congratulations then, because otherwise you did completely fail to impress me.

You gave every indication that you were arguing for the notion that atoms are solid objects

Lie.

and I was trying to give you something to base your research on to correct this foolish view. You then argued against the counterexample with more stupid foolish views.

Sadly the research didn't support you or your attempted mischaracterisations of my words, so now it's down to the empty bluster.

What, did you guess from the data you found that fermionic atoms only exist in supercooled states?

There is no need to "guess" about what a text actually says.

That's awful.

And again, I agree that your argument, its accompanying defences, your counterrebuttals, and all their accompanying red herrings and strawmen, are awful. And laughable to boot.

[DarkStar]

You have been given these data points previously, most notably in the first thread on the topic. However:

Dark Star, without going off topic or on a tangent as these threads are so prone to, please describe:

1) The mechanism of the superlaser you claim.

As stated, I do not wish to speculate further than the canon allows. However, based on what we know from the Canon, the Superlaser Effect involves some form of matter-energy conversion (approximately 0.0002% of the mass of the planet, assuming an Earth-like planet and 100% conversion). This is sufficient to produce the apparent firepower of 1e38J.

Further than that . . . i.e. the nature of the beam, how it achieves matter-energy conversion, the distribution of the converted matter, and so on . . . involves speculation. All we know is what we can see of the destruction, and the canon evidence of the novel. There may have even been some partial DET component, but given the recent revelation that the clouds were not visibly disturbed by the beam, I need to perform calculations to determine what the DET fraction could possibly have been. Therefore, for the moment, it is not a component of the theory.

(Note: I think I may have previously stated that a partial DET component was likely. If I did, then this constitutes a revision of the theory in the light of the cloud evidence.)

2) The reasons said mechanism does not induce planar rings in Mon Cal Cruisers.

As stated previously, even a low-power shot could produce total destruction of a comparatively-tiny starship without causing the more peculiar effects. It should be noted, however, that the second Rebel cruiser which was destroyed did exhibit a particularly violent expulsion of gaseous-looking material, possibly indicative of some sort of similar behavior.

(Also, the Liberty explosion has a peculiar "poofing out" effect, as if there were missing frames in the digitized version I recently saw. However, I have not yet confirmed if this is the case in the actual movie.)

3) The reasons said mechanism induces planar rings in the Death Stars upon explosion.

According to theory, it is all based around the superlaser. The fact that the superlaser was charged or being discharged on every ring occasion lends credence to this. There is also the interesting flash on DS2's superlaser just prior to the final explosion, with a surprising darkening of the interior. The flash begins at frame 402 of Phil Skayhan's "Rings.mpg" and does not fully dissipate before the final explosion begins at frame 422.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings402.jpg
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings411.jpg

Also, note the superimposed image of Rings 421 (one frame before final explosion) and Rings 424 (the start of DS2 ring formation):

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings421-4.jpg

What I believe to be occurring here is a brief primary blast, possibly signalling either reactor destruction or the catastrophic release of superlaser energies within the primary structure. You'll note that, in the superimposed final explosion shot, the ring and explosion are focused on the center of mass of the Death Star, not the reactor location. This is further evidence of some relation between the superlaser, mass conversion, and rings.

However, there is not a similar primary blast on the superlaser dish of DS1. The DS1 explosion was quite rapid and violent. The only noticable peculiarity with the blast itself is that it seems to blow the bottom half of the battlestation apart first, and indeed the glowing giblets that move away from the station are similarly distributed more toward the lower half of the Death Star than the top.

I have superimposed frames 156 (one frame before the explosion) and 160 (start of ring). I can't tell exactly, due to the small size of the image, whether or not the ring is centered, but it appears to be a bit off-center, and is obviously on a peculiar axis.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings156-60.jpg

On the other hand, the upper left portion of the battlestation basically disappears between one frame and the next . . . probably an F/X screwup, but the most likely rationalization would be that the upper areas of the station were probably far less massive, perhaps for mass distribution.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings157.jpg

Of course, this would only serve as a proper explanation under my theory. If the reactor went and the upper portions of the station were largely hollow or composed of lighter, weaker materials under normal conditions, the blast would have been directed upward. One could argue that the blast was directed downward because of denser, more robust materials and equipment up top, but that would not explain the disappearing hull section.

4) Why said mechanism will not react with the atmosphere.

It fits that it probably wouldn't, simply based on the lack of continued reaction in regards to destroyed starship particles. The confirmation came with the observation. As to why it doesn't, this is not known. That would require knowledge of the type of energy or particles the beam is composed of, and I doubt that will ever become clear. To quote Saxton: "The true nature of the "superlaser" remains an undescribed piece of superphysics, and only its incidental effects have so far been named."

A simple request, so the Pro-Wars side can see what we're debating against.

All of this is available on my website, except for the cloud thing which has appeared in this thread.

[SirNitram]

I will leave the majority of this for those who have patience for your tendency to simply restate your presumptions as facts. However, I leave you with this point. No form of matter-energy conversion(Not burning, not fission or fusion(Neither of which can occour in the situation we are dealing with), nor matter/antimatter(Which is damned unlikely at best, impossible at worst)) can produce 100% efficiency. Also, without invoking technobabble to cause the beam to skip through the atmosphere and a good chunk of the crust, there is no way for the conversion to start deep within the planet, which is the only way capable of resolving the rings, which very clearly start from the center of mass on the equator. This, coupled with the inability to prescribe any more of the nature of the beam, causes this theory to crumble into dust under the Law Of Parisomy. It simply involves too many unknowns when the alternate theory does not.

[DarkStar]

. . . I don't think you . . . no, I know, because you keep proving it, that you don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about, or how stupid you are when saying it.

Good grief, man, I just explained a lovely bit of particle physics to you . . . particle physics that you could confirm anywhere you wish . . . and yet you continue to deny it!

Canon is not what you wish it was.

A band. Two rings. Secondary explosion. You claim there was only one ring, and one explosion. Do the math.

No, it's much better to do things your way, where we just simply make up whatever we like because it "sounds cool".

The Canon facts I have presented may be confirmed anywhere, in any way you wish. The facts of reason and particle physics are also easily verifiable.

Now we come to the meat of the issue . . . the true facts which you, in your stupidity, still continue to ignore. I cannot adequately express my astonishment.

Sigh... You persist in your error and your stubornness:

http://physics.about.com/library/dict/b ... ensate.htm
Bose-Einstein condensate

Definition: When a macroscopic system of bosons

i.e. a lot of particles with integer spin . . .

is cooled to a sufficiently low temperature, a large fraction of those particles can occupy the same quantum state of lowest energy (the ground state). This phenomenon occurs in a unique state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), named after Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein. BECs were first created in the laboratory in 1995 using laser cooling techniques, for which the inventors won a Nobel Prize in Physics. BEC is fundamental to the behaviour of superfluids.

In a manner of speaking, Bose-Einstein Condensates act like one big particle. The reason that the boson variety was made first was because they are easier to make.

There is no comparable state of matter for fermions as they obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which prohibits any two fermions form entering the same quantum state.

Fermions . . . in context, evidently referring to fermionic atoms with spin of 1/2, such as Lithium-6. But, as I said, the term "fermion" can be used for any particle of spin 1/2, as will be demonstrated below:

However, recent experiments involving co-existing bosons and fermions have allowed low temperature fermion systems to be created by a technique known as sympathetic cooling.

Basically, the extra 'collisions' work to cool the fermions, which would be harder to cool if they were alone because, as I already said, they don't collide well.

These low temperature fermionic states have been proposed as the basis of neutron stars.

. . . and, bingo. Neutrons are fermions. Fermionic hadrons to be exact, but fermions all the same, and understanding the behavior of fermionic atoms will assist in understanding the behavior of fermionic hadrons such as neutrons.

But, I guess it's my fault for not perceiving soon enough that you simply do not understand the difference between "fermion" and "fermionic atom" or "fermionic state" and have recklessly been using the terms interchangeably.

You are an insufferable idiot. I have explained fermions to you, in exquisite detail.

However, since you continue with your stupidity, I will grant you one more moment of educational opportunity:

http://fermions.com/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~xuegong/ccp1 ... ale%20.htm

http://www.pa.uky.edu/~fu/liu/compts.html

Now . . . this is your last chance. Read those. If you choose to continue in your ignorance, I cannot help you . . . I'll be laughing too damned hard.

And you now have even less of an explanation for the reason why the superlaser beam would fail to cause atmospheric disruption while traversing through to the surface.

Well, I've done as much as I can be expected to do in regards to educating you about fermions, but this, we'll still have to work on. As anyone with two eyes and a functioning brain can figure out, I have never postulated that fermions had anything to do with superlaser interaction with the atmosphere. The reason I brought up fermionic atoms is because of your claim that atoms are solid objects.

Look, kid. I'll be nice and educate you further.

No, I don't think so. Somebody who can't tell the difference between "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" has nothing whatsoever to teach me.

was because I foolishly hoped you might learn these facts on your own.

I did. The exercise resulting from your little red herring was interesting, to say the least. Your continuing confusion over the terms "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" has been amusing.

My continuing confusion? Bold words, from such a horribly inept little twit as yourself. Lithium-6 is both a fermion and a fermionic atom, and it is made of 3 little fermion/leptons and 6 fermionic hadrons, which themselves are composed of three fermion/quarks each. Idiot.

I think that one of the reasons you bring out such disgust in me is that you actually are what I am falsely accused of being, and actually do what I am falsely accused of doing.

In the end, however, we've come to the conclusion that you have no explanation for why the superlaser beam would not cause atmospheric disruption in its passage to the surface, which does not do well for the MUM case you desperately persist in defending.

The Superlaser Effect is far more capable of explaining the lack of disruption than DET, in case you hadn't noticed.

Even though the articles cited state that fermionic atoms, or atoms in fermionic states, only exist in conditions of absolute zero temperatures and extreme supercompression.

The articles make no such statement. You have drawn an erroneous conclusion about fermions from articles which went way, way, way over your head.

You must be huge laughs in the university physics faculty lounge. One more time: "fermion" and "fermionic atom" are not interchangeable terms.

Actually, you managed to get one right this time, but in a "stopped clock" sort of way. All fermionic atoms are fermions, but not all fermions are fermionic atoms. In the context of the article, however, my linking of the two was quite correct.

No, your continuing utter failure to understand what they have said, even after corrections have been provided, prove that you're a stupid fucking idiot

Sigh... And yet more projection on your part.

If a supernova, a violent explosion event of a stellar body, can indeed toss off a ring or rings of material in the shock-front, then this leaves a possible explanation for the planar rings at Alderaan which does not require a MUM and conforms to fundamental physical principles.

The previous ring was not a residual from a prior supernova of the star . . . your crack-head theorist is mistaken.

Just because you say so? I hate to have to tell you this, but science does not operate like a Usenet flame war, where an argument is dismissed by sheer ridicule. As with every other attempt you make at a rebuttal, you do not support your arguments with why a thing is or is not impossible.

I don't have to rebut your stupidity, or whatever crack-laden theories you find on some website. The fact that you are so ignorant as to rush to the first stupid thing you find and proclaim it the gospel, in spite of all the scientific knowledge to the contrary, is proof of your stupid claim . . . what's worse, if you'd research SN1987A for just a few minutes, you would find the same scientific data I have. I am not obligated to educate you.

I'm not even sure a star can have a second supernova

Strawman. John Boatwright said no such thing in his paper, and neither did I.

Degan: "The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event . . ."

Mysteriously, the ring has been there 30,000 years, from our perspective, which means it could not have come after the supernova, which from our perspective occurred in 1987. Before that, the star was a blue supergiant. So, when the hell was the prior supernova event you describe?

Well, let's see if Boatwright has any answers:

Boatwright: " The new supernova model assumes that a supernova star will continue to fuse elements beyond iron and such fusion is a
COOLING and ENERGY STORAGE process. That stored energy
can then later be released in a FISSION chain reaction
and/or explosion."

So, what, 1987 was a fission event? But that makes no sense . . . the star was a blue supergiant before 1987, not a supernova remnant.

and: "The assumption is that heavier than iron elements build
up in a supernova star at the equator and evenly disperse
due to said subsurface plasma flows. When the proper
density of heavier than iron elements able to incur
a FISSION chain reaction is reached, that FISSION chain
reaction will occur that effects only those fissionable
elements and the immediate area in which they reside.

In essence, a ring type explosion would occur and that
ring would eject from the supernova star. Such a ring
would expand in size (retaining the ring formation). "

So, SN1987A evidently went supernova more than 30,000 years ago, from our perspective, and then fission-exploded out the rings, and then mysteriously went supernova yet again in 1987, from our perspective.

Bullshit.

Idiot.

http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/super ... novae.html

The star was a blue supergiant before it blew, but used to be a red supergiant. This confused astronomers, because they thought at the time that only red supergiants could explode in supernova events. However, now we know that a red supergiant can throw off material, causing it to contract and the temperature to rise, in the few tens of thousands of years before it blows.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's where the rings came from, you moron.

During that period of time, the star that used to be there expelled the material now illuminated by SN1987A at velocities 100-2000 times slower than the material from the star's supernova which is now beginning to overtake the circumstellar ring material.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's where the rings came from, you moron.

There comes a point where even the fairest person has to simply stop, consider the issue for a moment, and then finally declare that the other person is a moron. There's no point in you and I debating or discussing anything if we disagree on the fundamental concepts of how to achieve knowledge, and how to learn about the fruits of real knowledge and study.

Ah, the last shriek on the retreat.

A withdrawal due to utter disinterest is not a retreat, nor is it a concession. It's me leaving you to your own devices because, despite my efforts, you are an idiot and intend to stay that way.

Strawman. I made no such claim, as the record of this thread clearly indicates.

Degan: "I hate to have to tell you this, but atmospheric gasses do have solidity even at microscopic levels. That's sort of why there is such a thing as "atmospheric pressure"

That's your "evidence" of my alledged stupidity? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Only somebody like you could conceivably pull "atoms are solid objects" out of that sentence. You don't even undestand the difference between "microscopic" and "atomic", do you?

You denied that your claim related to ice crystals, dust particles, et cetera in the air . . . so what the hell is your claim regarding, when you refer to microscopic solidity of gases, hmm?

(Degan's opportunity #1 to explain position (i.e. tell everyone what was really meant by his stupid comment, as opposed to "atoms are solid objects") has not been taken)

Since I never said any such thing as "atoms are solid objects", I do not need an escape clause of any sort whatsoever. Your continuing attempts to drag this stinking red herring around do not alter the facts of the matter. Even more empty bluster, since it's finally penetrating the ultradense mass between your ears that you've been called on yet another of your lies in this thread and now you're desperate to retreat while saving the remaining shreds of your dignity —something which was foredoomed the moment you decided to continue arguing an untenable position.

Okay, blah blah blah, but what the hell were you talking about, if not that?

(Degan's opportunity #2 to explain position has not been taken)

So just what the hell were you arguing, if not that atoms are solid? That a bunch of atoms together in a gas are solid? That's just as stupid.

Yes, your mischaracterisations are stupid and they persist after it's become obvious even to you that you haven't any ground to stand on.

Blah, blah . . .

(Degan's opportunity #3 to explain position has not been taken.)

You gave every indication that you were arguing for the notion that atoms are solid objects

Lie.

Sure.

(Degan's opportunity #4 to explain position has not been taken)

and I was trying to give you something to base your research on to correct this foolish view. You then argued against the counterexample with more stupid foolish views.

Sadly the research didn't support you or your attempted mischaracterisations of my words, so now it's down to the empty bluster.

Blah, blah

(Degan's opportunity #5 to explain position has not been taken)

Well, that about wraps it up. Come back tomorrow, kids, when Degan will explain that protons are not fermionic hadrons, leading to a revolution in particle physics. Also watch as he sidesteps several more opportunities to explain what he was saying besides "atoms are solid objects".

[DarkStar]

{No form of matter-energy conversion} can produce 100% efficiency.

Quite true. I assume 100% only for the sake of demonstrating that Alderaan's mass is more than sufficient to create the postulated 1e38J energy release. All the mass could be converted with .0002% efficiency, and the result would be the same. However, I do not assume that 100% of the mass was converted, since fairly hefty fragments of the planet still exist.

This, coupled with the inability to prescribe any more of the nature of the beam, causes this theory to crumble into dust under the Law Of Parisomy.

Irrational. The Superlaser Effect allows for the explanation of the events. DET does not. The simplicity of the theories or whether the nuts-and-bolts are known is irrelevant. Parsimony doesn't even get to look at DET, because Parsimony's doorman parses it first, on the grounds that it does not even try to explain what is seen.

[SirNitram]

At least you agree with the basics...

Please explain why DET does not explain it thoroughly, since you claim canon evidence disproves it at every turn. I point out that several theories to explain the rings have been put forth under DET, so simply saying 'The rings' is not going to fly.

[Patrick Degan]

Gee, and I thought you were "finished responding to me". Yet another DS lie.

Good grief, man, I just explained a lovely bit of particle physics to you . . . particle physics that you could confirm anywhere you wish . . . and yet you continue to deny it!

No, it is your subjective interpretation I continue to deny. Words mean things.

A band. Two rings. Secondary explosion. You claim there was only one ring, and one explosion. Do the math.

Doe, a deer, a female deer...

Sorry, couldn't resist that. And I have done the math. Once again, we differ as to interpretation between what's actually on the screen and what you believe is there.

The Canon facts I have presented may be confirmed anywhere, in any way you wish. The facts of reason and particle physics are also easily verifiable.

Unfortunately for you, yes they are. They all say you're wrong as hell.

Now we come to the meat of the issue . . . the true facts which you, in your stupidity, still continue to ignore. I cannot adequately express my astonishment.

Because we won't accept your fantasies? Too fucking bad.

[quote]Sigh... You persist in your error and your stubornness:

http://physics.about.com/library/dict/b ... ensate.htm
Bose-Einstein condensate

In a manner of speaking, Bose-Einstein Condensates act like one big particle. The reason that the boson variety was made first was because they are easier to make.

And this does not negate the fact that they form only under extraordinary conditions of absolute zero temperatures and supercompression. They are characteristic of degenerate material states. You can keep up your spew all you like, but that essential fact does not change and, once again, it robs you of any explanation for why the superlaser would not disrupt atmosphere in its pathway to the surface of Alderaan.

Fermions . . . in context, evidently referring to fermionic atoms with spin of 1/2, such as Lithium-6. But, as I said, the term "fermion" can be used for any particle of spin 1/2, as will be demonstrated below:

Which has nothing to do with either argument, nor provides an explanation to support your increasingly absurd notion that a very powerful energy beam can pass through atmosphere yet not disrupt it in any manner.

However, recent experiments involving co-existing bosons and fermions have allowed low temperature fermion systems to be created by a technique known as sympathetic cooling.

Basically, the extra 'collisions' work to cool the fermions, which would be harder to cool if they were alone because, as I already said, they don't collide well.

Which has nothing to do with the behaviour of fermions in ordinary conditions when they are not being supercooled to absolute zero or subjected to extreme compression.

These low temperature fermionic states have been proposed as the basis of neutron stars.

. . . and, bingo. Neutrons are fermions. Fermionic hadrons to be exact, but fermions all the same, and understanding the behavior of fermionic atoms will assist in understanding the behavior of fermionic hadrons such as neutrons.

And bingo, once more, you try to make the sense of a text mean something other than what it actually means to provide obsfucation to cover an increasingly rickety argument.

But, I guess it's my fault for not perceiving soon enough that you simply do not understand the difference between "fermion" and "fermionic atom" or "fermionic state" and have recklessly been using the terms interchangeably.

You are an insufferable idiot. I have explained fermions to you, in exquisite detail.

Creatively reinterpreting theory and texts explains nothing.

However, since you continue with your stupidity, I will grant you one more moment of educational opportunity:

Um, let's see... Nope, nothing to support your contention that fermions behave in the manner you insist they do outisde of a quantum degenerate state. In fact:

http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~xuegong/ccp1 ... ale%20.htm

Degenerate Fermi systems are ubiquitous in nature--for example, in neutron stars, nuclear matter, and the electron gas in both normal and superconducting metal--but these systems are often complicated and do not always lend themselves to comparison with theoretical predictions. Now that sources of dilute, degenerate Fermi gases have become available, precise studies can be undertaken, which will further deepen our understanding of these fundamental systems.

That page also says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Now . . . this is your last chance. Read those. If you choose to continue in your ignorance, I cannot help you

You can't even help yourself at this point, since you continue to insist that words say things other than what they actually say.

I'll be laughing too damned hard.

Actually, that will be more my problem than yours.

Well, I've done as much as I can be expected to do in regards to educating you about fermions,

Once more, I am not responsible for your delusional fantasies.

As anyone with two eyes and a functioning brain can figure out, I have never postulated that fermions had anything to do with superlaser interaction with the atmosphere.

Lie.

The reason I brought up fermionic atoms is because of your claim that atoms are solid objects.

Another lie.

My continuing confusion? Bold words, from such a horribly inept little twit as yourself.

You really must stop typing while looking in a mirror.

Lithium-6 is both a fermion and a fermionic atom, and it is made of 3 little fermion/leptons and 6 fermionic hadrons, which themselves are composed of three fermion/quarks each.

Li-6 only attains a fermionic state in a supercooled, supercompressed condition. Did you flunk reading comprehension in school?

Idiot.

Yes, you are.

I think that one of the reasons you bring out such disgust in me is that you actually are what I am falsely accused of being, and actually do what I am falsely accused of doing.

Turn that around, and you describe yourself perfectly. In my case however, you do not bring out disgust. Laughter perhaps; pity, contempt. But not disgust.

The Superlaser Effect is far more capable of explaining the lack of disruption than DET, in case you hadn't noticed.

Ah, a name now for your physics-defying Mysterious Unknown Mechanism —which you still insist that you can't or don't have to explain.

Even though the articles cited state that fermionic atoms, or atoms in fermionic states, only exist in conditions of absolute zero temperatures and extreme supercompression.

The articles make no such statement. You have drawn an erroneous conclusion about fermions from articles which went way, way, way over your head.

"Way over my head"? No, I don't think so. I don't have the problems with reading comprehension that you quite evidently do.

You must be huge laughs in the university physics faculty lounge. One more time: "fermion" and "fermionic atom" are not interchangeable terms.

Actually, you managed to get one right this time, but in a "stopped clock" sort of way. All fermionic atoms are fermions, but not all fermions are fermionic atoms. In the context of the article, however, my linking of the two was quite correct.

Nice attempt to twist the meaning yet again. And in any context you care to name, your linking of the two terms is bullshit.

[quote]No, your continuing utter failure to understand what they have said, even after corrections have been provided, prove that you're a stupid fucking idiot

I don't have to rebut your stupidity, or whatever crack-laden theories you find on some website.

Because you actually can't do so.

The fact that you are so ignorant as to rush to the first stupid thing you find and proclaim it the gospel, in spite of all the scientific knowledge to the contrary, is proof of your stupid claim blahblahblahblahblah...

And I don't see you offeirng a conclusive rebuttal other than an ad-hominem attack. Once again, science is not a Usenet flamewar.

I am not obligated to educate you.

You can't even educate yourself.

I'm not even sure a star can have a second supernova

Strawman. John Boatwright said no such thing in his paper, and neither did I

Degan: "The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event . . ."

Mysteriously, the ring has been there 30,000 years, from our perspective, which means it could not have come afte the supernova, which from our perspective occurred in 1987. Before that, the star was a blue supergiant. So, when the hell was the prior supernova event you describe?

From: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/viole ... rings.html

The source of the radiation might be a previously unknown stellar remnant that is a binary companion to the star that exploded in 1987.

Let me guess... You're now going to devote a whole string of posts to trying to make that mean something wholly different than what it actually says.

Boatwright: " The new supernova model assumes that a supernova star will continue to fuse elements beyond iron and such fusion is a
COOLING and ENERGY STORAGE process. That stored energy
can then later be released in a FISSION chain reaction
and/or explosion."

So, what, 1987 was a fission event? But that makes no sense . . . the star was a blue supergiant before 1987, not a supernova remnant.

And this has what bearing on the nonsensical claim you were making?

So, SN1987A evidently went supernova more than 30,000 years ago, from our perspective, and then fission-exploded out the rings, and then mysteriously went supernova yet again in 1987, from our perspective.

Again, Boatwright is not saying that.

Bullshit.

Your own, I believe.

Idiot.

Yes, you certainly are.

http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/super ... novae.html

Yes, we all know what supernovae are, thank you.

The star was a blue supergiant before it blew, but used to be a red supergiant. This confused astronomers, because they thought at the time that only red supergiants could explode in supernova events. However, now we know that a red supergiant can throw off material, causing it to contract and the temperature to rise, in the few tens of thousands of years before it blows.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's where the rings came from, you moron.

The outer rings. This has no bearing on the mechanism suggested by John Boatwright.

During that period of time, the star that used to be there expelled the material now illuminated by SN1987A at velocities 100-2000 times slower than the material from the star's supernova which is now beginning to overtake the circumstellar ring material.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's where the rings came from, you moron.

The outer rings. Again, this has no bearing on the mechanism suggested by John Boatwright.

There comes a point where even the fairest person has to simply stop, consider the issue for a moment, and then finally declare that the other person is a moron. There's no point in you and I debating or discussing anything if we disagree on the fundamental concepts of how to achieve knowledge, and how to learn about the fruits of real knowledge and study.

Ah, the last shriek on the retreat.

A withdrawal due to utter disinterest is not a retreat, nor is it a concession. It's me leaving you to your own devices because, despite my efforts, you are an idiot and intend to stay that way.[/i]

More empty bluster. More self-justification. More whining and crying because we don't all fall down in awe of your bullshit or your pretentions to intellectual competence.

Well, that about wraps it up. Come back tomorrow, kids, when Degan will explain that protons are not fermionic hadrons, leading to a revolution in particle physics. Also watch as he sidesteps several more opportunities to explain what he was saying besides "atoms are solid objects".

No, come back tomorrow kids, when DarkStar persists in his bullshit manging of scientific texts, theory, the meaning of words, and canon evidence from movies in an attempt to support an argument on a planet being exploded not by observable direct energy transfer but a Mysterious Unknown Mechanism which he neither wishes nor is capable of explaining in clear and concise terms. Watch him play "Dr. Science" on TV. Watch him persist in his lies about other peoples' words. Watch him throw yet another temper-tantrum when he doesn't get his way, the poor baby. And watch him lie yet again about terminating the debate then offering up more bullshit to try to rescue the shreds of a dignity he sacrificed on the altar of his own stupidity long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Oh, and by the way kids, for your edification:

Also watch as he sidesteps several more opportunities to explain what he was saying besides "atoms are solid objects".

That is what is usually known in common parlance as a "lie". Learn from this example.

Good night.

[Ender]

*raises blindfold and sets down stick*

If we keep beating this dead horse, candy will come out, right?

[DarkStar]

At least you agree with the basics...

Please explain why DET does not explain it thoroughly, since you claim canon evidence disproves it at every turn. I point out that several theories to explain the rings have been put forth under DET, so simply saying 'The rings' is not going to fly.

The Rings.




(Just kidding)

Several theories . . . indeed, several main theories and perhaps two dozen variations . . . have been put forward to explain the rings.

The frontrunners (from what I have been able to tell . . . feel free to add more) are:

1. Alderaan shield failure.
1a. Alderaan shield generator failure.
2. Alderaan hypermatter reactors overloading.
3. A blast wave of vaporized material, ordered into a planar ring by magnetic fields or the planet's rotational energies.

Now, two approaches to counterarguments, regarding each particular theory about the rings:

A. Alderaan-specific counterarguments:
1. No shield has been observed.
1a. See above.
2. This may explain the origin of Ring One, but not the position . . . the ring's center is the center of the planet. Further, it does not explain Ring Two. Hypermatter is not canon.
3. Does not explain the position of Ring One, nor its origin, since this would require vaporized material to magically encircle the globe, and then depart the surface at significant fractions of lightspeed, carrying (as argued in the thread) no less than 11% of the rotational KE from the planet, instantaneous acceleration to .3c notwithstanding.


B. All-Ring-specific counterarguments:
1. The DS2 had no shield upon its destruction, and yet still produced a ring.
1a. see above
2. Hypermatter is not canon, but even if we allow for it the DS2 explosion and ring-formation would seem to disprove it, given that the explosion was not centered at the center of the Death Star (where the reactor was).
3. It is unlikely the DS1 was engaging in rotation . . . they were prepared to fire. DS2 may or may not have been rotating, depending on your opinion of the Jerjerrod story from the novel fitting into the movie.

[DarkStar]

Gee, and I thought you were "finished responding to me". Yet another DS lie.

No, not a lie . . . I discovered the entertainment value of watching your continuing descent into madness.

Once again, we differ as to interpretation between what's actually on the screen and what you believe is there.

That's because, as you have pointed out repeatedly, you don't think we actually have to pay attention to what is on screen. You think we should just say "duh, green beam make planet kaboom", and guess DET from there . . . on the pitiful grounds that any observation of the canon besides the simplest violates parsimony. Insane.

In a manner of speaking, Bose-Einstein Condensates act like one big particle. The reason that the boson variety was made first was because they are easier to make.

And this does not negate the fact that they form only under extraordinary conditions of absolute zero temperatures and supercompression.

If by "they" refers to Bose-Einstein condensates, you are correct. If, on the other hand, you mean bosons (which wouldn't surprise me, given that you choose not to believe in fermions), I shall be forced to continue to laugh at you.

Fermions . . . in context, evidently referring to fermionic atoms with spin of 1/2, such as Lithium-6. But, as I said, the term "fermion" can be used for any particle of spin 1/2, as will be demonstrated below:

Which has nothing to do with either argument, nor provides an explanation to support your increasingly absurd notion that a very powerful energy beam can pass through atmosphere yet not disrupt it in any manner.

The fermion discussion has nothing to do with an explanation of how a beam can pass through atmosphere, and you know that . . . I have never claimed that it has anything to do with it, nor is it implicit in any aspect of my theory. You're simply trying to throw up a smokescreen around the issue, in the hopes of making it look like your stupidity might have some redeeming value. Sorry, kid, but this is all about atoms and the solidity you think they have.

However, recent experiments involving co-existing bosons and fermions have allowed low temperature fermion systems to be created by a technique known as sympathetic cooling.

Basically, the extra 'collisions' work to cool the fermions, which would be harder to cool if they were alone because, as I already said, they don't collide well.

Which has nothing to do with the behaviour of fermions in ordinary conditions when they are not being supercooled to absolute zero or subjected to extreme compression.

"Fermions in ordinary conditions"?!?!?! Hooray, you accept that fermions exist outside conditions of near-absolute-zero temperatures! Good boy!

These low temperature fermionic states have been proposed as the basis of neutron stars.

. . . and, bingo. Neutrons are fermions. Fermionic hadrons to be exact, but fermions all the same, and understanding the behavior of fermionic atoms will assist in understanding the behavior of fermionic hadrons such as neutrons.

And bingo, once more, you try to make the sense of a text mean something other than what it actually means to provide obsfucation to cover an increasingly rickety argument.

. . . or not. Why did you argue with me on that basic fact? Dammit, man, I thought you'd figured something out . . . now I'm not so sure.

However, since you continue with your stupidity, I will grant you one more moment of educational opportunity:

Um, let's see... Nope, nothing to support your contention that fermions behave in the manner you insist they do outisde of a quantum degenerate state.

Wait, wait . . . okay, so you do seem to accept that fermionic atoms can exist outside cold temperatures, I think. But, what the hell is my "contention" that you speak of? I already told you that it's only when fermions are supercooled that they only collide head-on. I was not saying that they always only collide head-on . . . the point was to get you to understand that atoms are not solid, and that a 'collision' between atoms isn't the same as billiard ball collisions.

Now that you appear to have realized that fermionic atoms do not exist only in cold temperatures (which was your counterargument to the use of fermionic atoms to show you that atoms are not solid), are you still arguing that atoms bang around like billiard balls???

Well, I've done as much as I can be expected to do in regards to educating you about fermions,

Once more, I am not responsible for your delusional fantasies.

As anyone with two eyes and a functioning brain can figure out, I have never postulated that fermions had anything to do with superlaser interaction with the atmosphere.

Lie.

The reason I brought up fermionic atoms is because of your claim that atoms are solid objects.

Another lie.

Lithium-6 is both a fermion and a fermionic atom, and it is made of 3 little fermion/leptons and 6 fermionic hadrons, which themselves are composed of three fermion/quarks each.

Li-6 only attains a fermionic state in a supercooled, supercompressed condition. Did you flunk reading comprehension in school?

Aww, man . . .

Lithium-6 is always in a "fermionic state", because it is always a fermionic atom. This means that, when supercooled, it will only collide head-on with other fermionic atoms . . . atoms are not solid objects.

Now, if, by "fermionic state", you meant "state of affairs of fermions wherein they will only collide head-on with one another", I'll let you slide. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that only cold Lithium-6 atoms have three protons, three neutrons, and three electrons, you are absolutely pitiful.

Even though the articles cited state that fermionic atoms, or atoms in fermionic states, only exist in conditions of absolute zero temperatures and extreme supercompression.

The articles make no such statement. You have drawn an erroneous conclusion about fermions from articles which went way, way, way over your head.

"Way over my head"? No, I don't think so. I don't have the problems with reading comprehension that you quite evidently do.

This is the first post where you have written anything which even allows for the existence of fermionic atoms outside supercooled states . . . just a few posts ago, you said "When you wrote this, you were aware, I trust, that fermionic atoms are entities which only exist in Bose-Einstein degenerate matter condensates which are formed only under conditions of exceptional compression and at absolute zero."

It went way over your head, in other words . . . but improvement may be occurring, albeit slowly.

You must be huge laughs in the university physics faculty lounge. One more time: "fermion" and "fermionic atom" are not interchangeable terms.

Actually, you managed to get one right this time, but in a "stopped clock" sort of way. All fermionic atoms are fermions, but not all fermions are fermionic atoms. In the context of the article, however, my linking of the two was quite correct.

Nice attempt to twist the meaning yet again. And in any context you care to name, your linking of the two terms is bullshit.

What?

And I don't see you offeirng a conclusive rebuttal other than an ad-hominem attack. Once again, science is not a Usenet flamewar.

No shit. It's knowledge, gained by the minds of intelligent human beings, at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears, and then promptly ignored by select New Orleans Star Wars geeks.

Degan: "The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event . . ."

Mysteriously, the ring has been there 30,000 years, from our perspective, which means it could not have come afte the supernova, which from our perspective occurred in 1987. Before that, the star was a blue supergiant. So, when the hell was the prior supernova event you describe?[/i]

From: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/viole ... rings.html

The source of the radiation might be a previously unknown stellar remnant that is a binary companion to the star that exploded in 1987.

Let me guess... You're now going to devote a whole string of posts to trying to make that mean something wholly different than what it actually says.

So now you want to talk about the outer rings, I see, after previously wanting to talk about the inner, circumstellar ring. No problem. The "radiation" which the article speaks of, and which paints the outer rings, may indeed come from a stellar remnant . . . you'll note that I already gave you a link to material on the painting idea . . . but the circumstellar ring is stated to be thrown-off material from the parent star, a recent former blue supergiant.

The stellar companion, if any, was not the source of the circumstellar ring, though it might have aided in forming the shape of it. One hypothesis (made on the basis that we would've expected to see the companion if it still existed) is this one:

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/199 ... quence.pdf

Boatwright: " The new supernova model assumes that a supernova star will continue to fuse elements beyond iron and such fusion is a
COOLING and ENERGY STORAGE process. That stored energy
can then later be released in a FISSION chain reaction
and/or explosion."

So, what, 1987 was a fission event? But that makes no sense . . . the star was a blue supergiant before 1987, not a supernova remnant.

And this has what bearing on the nonsensical claim you were making?

The point is that your Boatwright's theory has nothing to do with SN1987A. We know it was a blue supergiant prior to 1987 (our perspective), therefore unless 1987 was a fission explosion event, or unless a second nova had occurred to that star previously, there's nothing in that theory to explain the rings.

So, SN1987A evidently went supernova more than 30,000 years ago, from our perspective, and then fission-exploded out the rings, and then mysteriously went supernova yet again in 1987, from our perspective.

Again, Boatwright is not saying that.

Well, kid, you've gotta pick one. Take a stand somewhere.

http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/super ... novae.html

Yes, we all know what supernovae are, thank you.

Given your history with science data and knowledge, it was a "better safe than sorry" decision to post the link.

The star was a blue supergiant before it blew, but used to be a red supergiant. This confused astronomers, because they thought at the time that only red supergiants could explode in supernova events. However, now we know that a red supergiant can throw off material, causing it to contract and the temperature to rise, in the few tens of thousands of years before it blows.

Nice, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.

That's where the rings came from, you moron.

The outer rings. This has no bearing on the mechanism suggested by John Boatwright.

No, all the rings (the circumstellar ring and the outer painted material) came from the material throw-off ~30,000 years ago.

A withdrawal due to utter disinterest is not a retreat, nor is it a concession. It's me leaving you to your own devices because, despite my efforts, you are an idiot and intend to stay that way.

More empty bluster. More self-justification. More whining and crying because we don't all fall down in awe of your bullshit or your pretentions to intellectual competence.

No, simple fact. But, you're showing some minor improvement, albeit at a slow pace. Keep it up.

Also watch as he sidesteps several more opportunities to explain what he was saying besides "atoms are solid objects".

That is what is usually known in common parlance as a "lie". Learn from this example.

Well, what the hell did you mean? You've had yet another entire post to explain what you meant when you said that gases had solidity at microscopic levels, and that this did not refer to ice crystals, dust particles, and so on, so come on . . . what the hell were you saying, if not arguing for atomic solidity?

[SirNitram]

Alright, Dark Star. I accept that within what you say, you are right. However, you are making a fatal error, and here it is.

You assume that we see no shield. Why? Because under your theory, the glow is the matter/energy conversion, or a side effect of the beam. However, and this is important, if DET is the theory, the glow can only be the glow of a planetary shield, as there is no other logical result.

Rotation also solves Alderaans, and it isn't hard to apply it to the Death Star's. Remember, unlike a planet, a Death Star is not an object that must move in total unisen.(When I originally wrote this, I skipped to Hypermatter may be rotating. I get so disjoined.) Since both of those explosions ARE the Hypermatter Cores(Sure, non-canon name, but it's a good enough name to call them) going KABLOOIE, we can postulate one of two things: 1) Either Hypermatter spins enough to produce rings like angular-momentum suggests, or 2) Hypermatter always creates a planar ring for X reason, and the presense of a similar ring at Alderaan suggests similar reactors in place.(Note, the above does not use any of the non-canon data on Hypermatter except the name, since it's what's in my mind. It's like calling it NDF theory.)

When applying DET, rotation or a shield will solve the problems(The DS-II may have had a small, underfunctional shield of it's own, not powerful enough to resist the fleet. Speculation, but as is most of how the beam works.) of the rings.

Any other problems with DET theory for the superlaser, Dark Star?

[adam warlock]

sorry patrick..but..

not really siding with darkstar here but..

fermion is the general term given to elementary particles with half intergral spin, that conforms to an aspect of quantum statistics where only one particle can occupy one quantum state (Fermi-Dirac Statistics)

boson on the other hand is the term given to particles with integral spin, that conforms to that aspect where any number of particles can occupy a given quantum state (Bose-Einstein statistics)

as for the rest of the debate.......... ... .. .

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yes, not only that but if you look really closely at the destruction sequence and the evacuation of young Ka-El from the post crisis Superman issues we know that the deathstar also blew up Krypton. As yellow sun powered Kryptonians would be an even greater threat then Jedi.

[Patrick Degan]

Gee, and I thought you were "finished responding to me". Yet another DS lie.

No, not a lie . . . I discovered the entertainment value of watching your continuing descent into madness.

Yes, a lie... More empty bluster. Let's go through your latest rantings, shall we:

Once again, we differ as to interpretation between what's actually on the screen and what you believe is there.

That's because, as you have pointed out repeatedly, you don't think we actually have to pay attention to what is on screen.

Lie.

You think we should just say "duh, green beam make planet kaboom",

Which is what is actually on the screen, no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise.

and guess DET from there . . . on the pitiful grounds that any observation of the canon besides the simplest violates parsimony.

No, it's based on what is actually on the screen. Your delusions are not my problem.

Insane.

Yes, you certainly are.

If by "they" refers to Bose-Einstein condensates, you are correct. If, on the other hand, you mean bosons (which wouldn't surprise me, given that you choose not to believe in fermions), I shall be forced to continue to laugh at you.

Sigh... yet more lies about what I say, but I see this is your usual pattern. You're the one who keeps confusing two conditional states of matter and insists that terms describing different phenomena can be used interchangeably to support a physics-defying Mysterios Unknown Mechanism

The fermion discussion has nothing to do with an explanation of how a beam can pass through atmosphere, and you know that . . . I have never claimed that it has anything to do with it, nor is it implicit in any aspect of my theory.

Yet another lie. You invoked this exactly to try to evade the nagging question about how a colossal energy beam can pass through a planetary atmosphere yet not cause any degree of pressure displacement, ionisation, or exothermic effects to support your contention that there is no planetary shield. You keep up with the lies and evasions long after it's been made pretty clear that you simply tossed out jargonese to try to bullshit everybody and avoid confronting a major defect with your so-called "theory".

You're simply trying to throw up a smokescreen around the issue, in the hopes of making it look like your stupidity might have some redeeming value

Projection.

Sorry, kid, but this is all about atoms and the solidity you think they have.

Will you never tire of trotting out this pathetic strawman of yours?

"Fermions in ordinary conditions"?!?!?! Hooray, you accept that fermions exist outside conditions of near-absolute-zero temperatures! Good boy!

Yet another strawman. It is you who keeps confusing "fermion" with "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" and insists that the terms are interchangeable.

[quote]These low temperature fermionic states have been proposed as the basis of neutron stars.

And bingo, once more, you try to make the sense of a text mean something other than what it actually means to provide obsfucation to cover an increasingly rickety argument.

. . . or not. Why did you argue with me on that basic fact? Dammit, man, I thought you'd figured something out . . . now I'm not so sure.

Funny coming from the man who keeps confusing "fermion" with "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" and insists that the terms are interchangeable.

Wait, wait . . . okay, so you do seem to accept that fermionic atoms can exist outside cold temperatures, I think.

There you go again, confusing terminology. Are you even able to distinguish between different conditional states?

But, what the hell is my "contention" that you speak of? I already told you that it's only when fermions are supercooled that they only collide head-on.

Heh, heh... you made a big play of "telling" me after you'd been called on your error in relation to the whole superlaser beam/planetary atmosphere issue, and now you continue to try to wriggle out of the mess you've made.

I was not saying that they always only collide head-on

At this point, I don't think you even know what you're saying anymore.

the point was to get you to understand that atoms are not solid

Something which I never said, but you will hang onto your favourite strawman like a security blanket, won't you?

and that a 'collision' between atoms isn't the same as billiard ball collisions.

Another thing I never said, but we've become accustomed to your lies by now.

Now that you appear to have realized that fermionic atoms do not exist only in cold temperatures

Um, "fermion" and "fermionic atom" are not interchangeable terms. How many different times must this be told to you and in how many different ways?

(which was your counterargument to the use of fermionic atoms to show you that atoms are not solid)

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

are you still arguing that atoms bang around like billiard balls???

Ah, I see the new lie you're going to pollute this thread with.

Lithium-6 is always in a "fermionic state", because it is always a fermionic atom.

I see your basic confusion of terms continues unabated. Guess that goes right to that reading comprehension problem of yours we identified yesterday.

atoms are not solid objects.

Something I never said, liar.

Now, if, by "fermionic state", you meant "state of affairs of fermions wherein they will only collide head-on with one another", I'll let you slide.

Ha Ha —now you try to weasel your way out of the error you've defended to the death! Sure took a lot to finally convince you to gnaw your own rhetorical leg off.

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that only cold Lithium-6 atoms have three protons, three neutrons, and three electrons, you are absolutely pitiful.

The only pitiful thing on exhibit here is your latest lie about what I've said. But I realise that you can't help yourself.

[quote]Even though the articles cited state that fermionic atoms, or atoms in fermionic states, only exist in conditions of absolute zero temperatures and extreme supercompression.

This is the first post where you have written anything which even allows for the existence of fermionic atoms outside supercooled states . . . just a few posts ago, you said "When you wrote this, you were aware, I trust, that fermionic atoms are entities which only exist in Bose-Einstein degenerate matter condensates which are formed only under conditions of exceptional compression and at absolute zero."

One. More. Time. The terms "fermion" and "fermionic atom"/"fermionic state" are not interchangeable. The term "fermionic atom" was coined when particle physicists began their experiments creating Bose-Einstein Condensates in the lab.

It went way over your head, in other words

Once more, I am not responsible for your delusional fantasies.

And I don't see you offeirng a conclusive rebuttal other than an ad-hominem attack. Once again, science is not a Usenet flamewar.

No shit. It's knowledge, gained by the minds of intelligent human beings, at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears, and then promptly ignored by select New Orleans Star Wars geeks.

My, what an "interesting" Usenet-geek style reply.

So now you want to talk about the outer rings, I see, after previously wanting to talk about the inner, circumstellar ring.

Sigh...one more lie on top of a whole stinking pile of lies. Yet another attempt to divert attention from the fact that you had no credible rebuttal for John Boatwright's theory other than "he's a crack-head" or some such nonsense.

The point is that your Boatwright's theory has nothing to do with SN1987A.

Even though that is the very supernova he is referring to in the article itself, along with accompanying diagrammes and photos.

We know it was a blue supergiant prior to 1987 (our perspective), therefore unless 1987 was a fission explosion event, or unless a second nova had occurred to that star previously, there's nothing in that theory to explain the rings.

Which is not at all what Boatwright's paper is saying, I'm afraid.

Well, kid, you've gotta pick one. Take a stand somewhere.

Um, let's see, there's "what's actually in the Boatwright text" vs. "DarkStar's bullshit delusional interpretation of what Boatwright's paper says". I think I'll take my stand on the former, thank you.

Yes, we all know what supernovae are, thank you.

Given your history with science data and knowledge, it was a "better safe than sorry" decision to post the link.

A "history" entirely of your delusional invention, but we'll simply chalk that up along with all your other strawmen.

More empty bluster. More self-justification. More whining and crying because we don't all fall down in awe of your bullshit or your pretentions to intellectual competence.

No, simple fact. But, you're showing some minor improvement, albeit at a slow pace. Keep it up.

Non sequitor.

Also watch as he sidesteps several more opportunities to explain what he was saying besides "atoms are solid objects".

That is what is usually known in common parlance as a "lie". Learn from this example.

Well, what the hell did you mean? You've had yet another entire post to explain what you meant when you said that gases had solidity at microscopic levels

Another thing I did not say, but do go on...

and that this did not refer to ice crystals, dust particles, and so on, so come on . . . what the hell were you saying, if not arguing for atomic solidity?

No, you never will tire of beating this strawman, will you? Because you think you can lose the essential issue by burying it under megatonnes of bullshit.

OK, class, let's review the case at hand, shall we:

Against an economical theory based upon observing the events of the actual movie ANH that the Death Star supplied, by means of Direct Energy Transfer, the requisite energy to destroy the planet Alderaan, a feat accomplished in less than a tenth of a second with only momentary resistance from a planetary shield (this technology being perfectly feasible and implicit within Star Wars canon thanks to ANH, TESB and ROTJ), we have Mr. DarkStar putting himself further and further out on a limb advancing the proposition that the Death Star did not supply the energy but that a physics-defying Mysterious Unknown Mechanism touched off a matter/energy conversion effect not unlike the Solarmonite Theory from the movie Plan Nine From Outer Space and also has the even more physics-defying property of gaining energy as it propagates across the surface. Said MUM is also supposed to explain how Alderaan's atmosphere was not disrupted as the superlaser beam propagated to the surface, as the visuals of completely unaffected cloud-patterns at Alderaan the moment the superlaser beam strikes contradicts DS' notion that there is no planetary shield at Alderaan. When pressed upon this matter, Mr. DarkStar at first insisted that this was a "mystery" which needed no explanation, then fell back upon raising a red-herring about the conditional states of matter existing only in quantum degenerate gasses to dismiss the contradictory observation from the movie. Mr. DarkStar then tries attributing the planar ring phenomena to the same physics-defying MUM. When presented with a theory of planar ring formation in supernova events which for all the controversy it may have attatched to it does provide an alternate mechanism for the Alderaan planar ring phenomena which falls within known fundamental principles, Mr. DarkStar then attempted to obsfucate the issue with pages and pages regarding the traditional theory of supernova rings and calling the theorist he doesn't agree with a "crack-head". In the course of the silliness that followed, he attempted to creatively reinterpret canon visuals and Occam's Razor, merrily confused terminologies, erected strawmen, and fell back upon outright lies and bluster as his last line of defence.

However, none of this obscures three essential objections to a theory he either cannot or will not defend properly and those are:

1. DS' Solarmonite Theory (as good a name as any) fails to explain the mechanism by which Alderaan's own matter is being induced to fuel the reaction resulting in the planet's explosion.

2. His MUM fails to adequately address the issue of how a large energy beam can conceivably pass through atmosphere without generating a massive pressure-wave disruption, ionisiation, or exothermic effects of any kind, and simply leave cloud patterns undisturbed while also failing to trigger off any similar effect in the atmosphere he alledges is subsequently triggered on the surface.

3. The MUM has no explanation for the planar ring phenomena —other than to say that MUM explains it —and MUM itself has no explanation.

But according to Mr. DarkStar, Occam's Razor favours the Solarmonite Theory, with all its hidden variables and unexplained mechanisms, over Direct Energy Transfer, a planetary shield collapse, and planar ring phenomena arising from mechanisms explicable by fundamental principles (or at least far more so than from any MUM-based tautology).

And now, we look forward to the next round in this little situation-comedy in which DS shovels out the BS by the megatonne.

Good night, folks

[adam warlock]

..fermionic atom.

to expand from what i said earlier:

though protons, neutrons, and electrons are fermions, composite particles, i.e. atoms in this case, can be bosons, if the total number of protons, neutrons, and electrons are even, or fermions, if the number is odd.