The superlaser "trick"?

[TheDarkling]

Also did they drop out of hyperspace in system? Vader says "He dropped out of hyperspace too close to the system" not to the planet implying hat they dropped outside of the system and crawled in.

The reasoning I had was that maybe ships exiting Hyperspace light up sensors, I remember reading something to that affect but I cant remember where.

Just a thought I had while I was watching ESB last night but the book probably contradicts it.

[SirNitram]

Also did they drop out of hyperspace in system? Vader says "He dropped out of hyperspace too close to the system" not to the planet implying hat they dropped outside of the system and crawled in.

The reasoning I had was that maybe ships exiting Hyperspace light up sensors, I remember reading something to that affect but I cant remember where.

Just a thought I had while I was watching ESB last night but the book probably contradicts it.

We don't know why he wanted to emerge outside the system(Keeping in mind outside the system is probably in the 2LY range, assuming an Earth-type system). Some have proposed it was for long-range bombardment, and cited Rebel Dream/Rebel Stand for the extreme range required. I myself dunno. I'm just using the Judo method of debating: Turning DumbShit's supreme stupidity against him.

[Ender]

I'm just using the Judo method of debating: Turning DumbShit's supreme stupidity against him.

So you favor weapons of mass destruction too?

[SirNitram]

I'm just using the Judo method of debating: Turning DumbShit's supreme stupidity against him.

So you favor weapons of mass destruction too?

You really need to ask?

[DarkStar]

Degan,

I was almost finished with the rather long reply to your message when an error occurred, and all was lost. I'm simply going to hit the high points, now . . . especially considering how much of our discussion is simply unproductive bickering. You're barely worth my time to begin with . . . certainly not worth double time.

1. You're the one who suggested I had referred to atmospheres as solid mass. That was your idiocy, and your smokescreen.

2. I did not claim that only the lower atmosphere was subject to disruption.

3. 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.

4. "Spontaneous" mass-energy conversion is not a component of my theory, nor is it required by the mass not being converted by nuclear or antimatter means.

5. Any addition you make to my theory, such as the superlaser having to convert the mass of the atmosphere it touches, does not affect my theory when shown to be false. To suggest otherwise is a non sequitur, and to continue to insist that your addition constitutes disproof of the theory it was added to is a clever, but still fallacious, re-mix of a straw man argument.

6. The weapons may be louder than a phaser, but they are not as loud as the thunderclap shockwave caused by the heat, pressure, and ionization as occurs with a lightning strike.

7. Occam's Razor does not demand that we use the simplest observations of an event. Occam's Razor and the Law of Parsimony relate to the explanations, not the observations. The more thorough one's observations are, the better.

7a. Your simplest observations ("duh, beam make planet go kaboom") do not reflect the canon facts.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaldpics.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... tar-SE.avi

8. The DET theory cannot explain the two rings, the destructive band, the lack of cloud disturbance, and so on, without recourse to magic. DET as a theory, it gives us nuts and bolts . . . that's just fine, but the problem is that the results of the predictions of DET do not appear in the canon. You whine because I lack a nuts-and-bolts explanation for the superlaser mechanism of my theory, but the reason I lack it is because I am using what does appear in the canon, and what appears in the canon defies understanding with modern physics knowledge. I will not guess about the nuts-and-bolts of technology which is way, way beyond anyone's understanding.

8a. DET theory was just fine when all we had was the original edition. Now that the Special Edition is out, and takes precedence, DET theorists are the ones in a position of trying to make the facts fit the theory. I have made a theory which fits the facts. That is why my theory fits the facts, and your DET silliness does not.

9. Conservation of Energy is one of the underpinnings of my theory, and is not violated by it. Hence the assumption that the growing band of destruction must be converting mass to energy in order to explain how it grows and continues.

10. Conservation of Angular Momentum does not explain the rings, nor do your examples of stellar or planetary material that ends up being ordered in a ring. Your claim that I have suggested all rings everywhere require a "MUM" is also patently false. Given time, a mass of material around a spinning body will end up ordered into a ring . . . but that time is not measured in milliseconds, and that ring will not depart a planet at a significant portion of lightspeed.

I'm really quite sorry, but your arguments are specious, you ignore the evidence, and your conclusions are fatally flawed as a result.

[DarkStar]

Degan,

Okay, this is the third time I have tried to reply to this post. I keep getting a 404 when I hit submit.

Here's an overview of the replies that are now lost to the ether:

1. You ignore the canon facts, choosing the simplest observations. You claim this is as per Occam's Razor, but that's preposterous . . . Occam's Razor slices only at theories designed to fit the facts, not the observations. The more thorough your observations are, the better.

2. 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.

3. No effort on your part to add something to my theory and then claim that it is not so, and thus the theory is disproved, will ever work. That is a clever re-mix of the straw man argument.

4. Rings around planets, stars, and so on does not constitute evidence that the rings of Alderaan are natural, expected phenomena. Given time, material from a star or around a planet can coalesce into a ring, but time is a luxury you don't have. This does not correspond to the DET requirement that a ring should suddenly appear within milliseconds of impact, and depart the planet at significant fractions of lightspeed.

I'm really quite sorry, but your use of evidence requires that much of it be ignored, your arguments are specious, and your conclusions are fatally flawed as a result.

[DarkStar]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you trying to say now that a different color means the difference between a shield and no shield at all?

No. The lack of an encompassing green glow, and the presence of a direct impact, is evidence of no shielding.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWalderaan.html

[HemlockGrey]

You know, if you do a frame-by-frame on the Special Edition, I'm fairly sure that there's a blue flare right where the Death Star's laser strikes.

[DarkStar]

Yes but as he says here

Unfortunately, the premise that the Expanded Universe can suggest anything about the Star Wars universe is unfounded and no longer supportable, as per Lucas. Therefore, all we know is that Alderaan is as well-defended as any world, but we don't really know what that means. It could be orbital defense outposts, fleets, ground-to-surface weapons, or a naked guy with sharp sticks.

that will be his response, you will then respond with "well Hoth had a shield", then he will say "Hoth didnt have a planetary shield and it also was after ANH" you will say " they couldnt have come up with that tech in 3 years" he will say "prove it" then flames will result.

Actually, I do need to change that paragraph you quote above to make reference to theatre shields, in addition to the guy with sharp sticks, and so on.

Thanks!

[DarkStar]

You know, if you do a frame-by-frame on the Special Edition, I'm fairly sure that there's a blue flare right where the Death Star's laser strikes.

I don't see it.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaldpics.html

[HemlockGrey]

Bring back edit!

This is what I should have said:

It appears that the blue sphere which encompasses Alderaan is indeed a planetary shield; in ROTJ, the DS blew up ships without any delay; however, there is a (relatively) significant delay before Alderaan blows up, when the explosion should probably start at the same time the laser strikes.

Or not?

[Master of Ossus]

I think this sets the record for the most times anyone has ever references his/her own site in a single thread.

[TheDarkling]

Yes but as he says here

Unfortunately, the premise that the Expanded Universe can suggest anything about the Star Wars universe is unfounded and no longer supportable, as per Lucas. Therefore, all we know is that Alderaan is as well-defended as any world, but we don't really know what that means. It could be orbital defense outposts, fleets, ground-to-surface weapons, or a naked guy with sharp sticks.

that will be his response, you will then respond with "well Hoth had a shield", then he will say "Hoth didnt have a planetary shield and it also was after ANH" you will say " they couldnt have come up with that tech in 3 years" he will say "prove it" then flames will result.

Actually, I do need to change that paragraph you quote above to make reference to theatre shields, in addition to the guy with sharp sticks, and so on.

Thanks!

Always glad to be of help .

[SirNitram]

I think this sets the record for the most times anyone has ever references his/her own site in a single thread.

Given that he thinks his site is immutable fact, are we surprised?

[DarkStar]

I think this sets the record for the most times anyone has ever references his/her own site in a single thread.

Aren't you the one who bitches every time I end up having to repeat myself? Now you're bitching because I'm not repeating myself. Dammit, man, make up your mind.

[Master of Ossus]

I think this sets the record for the most times anyone has ever references his/her own site in a single thread.

Aren't you the one who bitches every time I end up having to repeat myself? Now you're bitching because I'm not repeating myself. Dammit, man, make up your mind.

On the contrary on both counts. I am LAUGHING because you repeated yourself so much on this thread, by referencing your own site so many times.

[Cpt_Frank]

Aren't you the one who bitches every time I end up having to repeat myself? Now you're bitching because I'm not repeating myself. Dammit, man, make up your mind.

And this guy seriously asks why he gets flamed.

[DarkStar]

On the contrary on both counts.

Actually, you are the one who kept bitching when I would repeat myself. I wasn't asking. It's called a rhetorical question.

I am LAUGHING because you repeated yourself so much on this thread, by referencing your own site so many times.

I see no need to type out the same basic information a hundred times over.

[Patrick Degan]

My my, but you will stick your neck waaaaay out, won't you. How careless.

1. You ignore the canon facts, choosing the simplest observations. You claim this is as per Occam's Razor, but that's preposterous . . . Occam's Razor slices only at theories designed to fit the facts, not the observations. The more thorough your observations are, the better.

Um, wrong. Occam's Razor states that it is a cardinal error to multiply variables beyond any reasonable level. You do not get around this, as you keep trying to do, by invoking your MUM as the sole explanation, then refusing to define your MUM, then saying that your theory has fewer variables while claiming that it "fits the facts".

2. 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.

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.

3. No effort on your part to add something to my theory and then claim that it is not so, and thus the theory is disproved, will ever work. That is a clever re-mix of the straw man argument.

The only strawman here is your own. You misprepresent my words, you take quotes out of context, and you refuse to clarify your positions other than invoking your MUM or falling back on the lame excuse that you've "already explained it". You claim a process which uses the planetary mass to feed an energy reaction but will not define it. During the course of this thread, you yourself raised the spectre of mass/energy conversion, then try to claim that this is not what you are saying when pinned down on the question. Either you cannot or will not define what the process is. It cannot be fission, fusion, or antimatter annihilation.

4. Rings around planets, stars, and so on does not constitute evidence that the rings of Alderaan are natural, expected phenomena. Given time, material from a star or around a planet can coalesce into a ring, but time is a luxury you don't have. This does not correspond to the DET requirement that a ring should suddenly appear within milliseconds of impact, and depart the planet at significant fractions of lightspeed.

More misrepresentation in an attempt to cloud the issue. You also decided to totally ignore the theory I cited in the link to the SNPRO page which is inconvenient to your argument. 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.

I'm really quite sorry, but your use of evidence requires that much of it be ignored, your arguments are specious, and your conclusions are fatally flawed as a result.

Because you say so? No, I don't think so at all. Indeed, you've just provided the most perfect example of projection seen so far in this thread. 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.

Some instructive reading for you:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/upda ... tm#Physics

exercpt:
Using laser cooling and magnetic confinement, they cooled about a million potassium atoms to temperatures less than one-third of a millionth of a degree above absolute zero.

When gas is cooled to near absolute zero, each atom stops behaving as a point-like particle and instead behaves like a wave, with the wavelength of each atom overlapping those of neighboring atoms. When bosonic atoms reach this regime, they all fall in step with each other, resulting in a B-E condensate or “super-atom.” As the JILA group cooled fermionic atoms to quantum degeneracy, they found instead—as predicted—that the atoms began to avoid each other, resulting in an “excess” energy in the gas.

http://www.phys.ksu.edu/area/jrm/Data/a ... atoms.html

exercpt:
A degenerate Fermi gas (DFG) is expected to exhibit interesting behavior in its thermodynamics [8], collision dynamics [9], and the scattering of light. The most intriguing prospect for a DFG is the potential to observe "Cooper" pairing, analogous to the Cooper pairing of electrons in a semiconductor. One of the limiting factors to such pairing is the loss of atoms by two-body or three-body inelastic collisions. To the best of our knowledge, ultracold three-body recombination of fermions has never been studied, in contrast to numerous theoretical investigations of boson recombination. So, we will present the first study on three-body recombination of ultracold fermions. In particular, a system of three identical spin-polarized fermions interacting via a sum of pairwise interactions will be considered.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/4/7

exercpt:
But to observe this fundamental difference, gases of bosons or fermions have to be chilled to ultra-low temperatures, where individual quantum states have a high chance of being occupied. At these low temperatures, bosons will eagerly fall into a single quantum state to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, whereas fermions tend to fill energy states from the lowest up, with one particle per quantum state (figure 1). At high temperatures, in contrast, bosons and fermions spread out over many states with, on average, much less than one atom per state.

The odd quantum behaviour of fermions permeates all of physics, and is responsible for phenomena ranging from atomic structure to the stability of neutron stars. But unlike other Fermi systems found in nature, a Fermi gas of atoms occurs in a new, ultracold, low-density regime where interparticle interactions are weak. Dilute gases of atoms also provide an exquisite environment in which to investigate, probe and control quantum phenomena - as has been amply demonstrated by the wealth of beautiful experiments carried out on Bose-Einstein condensates in recent years

http://theory.gsi.de/~trap/introduction.html

exercpt:
In 1995 scientists at the JILA managed to cool a cloud of several million bosonic Rubidium-87 atoms trapped in an external magnetic field to temperatures in the order of micro-Kelvin. In this temperature regime quantum effects dominate the properties of the system.

http://www4.nas.edu/pga/rap.nsf/ByTitle ... enDocument

exercpt:
Laser-cooling and magnetic-trapping techniques are used to produce ultracold, trapped atomic gases in the quantum-degenerate regime. Using sympathetic cooling in addition to the techniques that produce Bose-Einstein condensates, we can also cool fermionic atoms to quantum-degenerate temperatures.

Before you attempt to invoke quantum theory as a defence for parts or the whole of your case, you really should be certain that you comprehend the material you're citing as evidence.

[Patrick Degan]

Once again, from the SNPRO page:

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).

The ring would further be exploding in two ways, as a ring with an inner radially expanding component, and with a complex body radius expansion due to the initial explosion ejection velocity and the change in velocity
due to gravity.

A process operating under conditions in which there is certainly not a luxury of time for ring formation.

[DarkStar]

My my, but you will stick your neck waaaaay out, won't you. How careless.

1. You ignore the canon facts, choosing the simplest observations. You claim this is as per Occam's Razor, but that's preposterous . . . Occam's Razor slices only at theories designed to fit the facts, not the observations. The more thorough your observations are, the better.

Um, wrong. Occam's Razor states that it is a cardinal error to multiply variables beyond any reasonable level.

I'm really quite sorry, but I cannot continue a conversation with someone who denies basic facts of the event, under the mistaken belief that you need only glance at the canon and then make guesses based on your limited evidence, when more evidence is just sitting there.

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html

2. 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.

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.

Oh my god . . . you have got to be kidding. Fermionic atoms are not things which magically appear when shit gets cold. Fermionic atoms are plain old atoms with a non-integer spin due to an odd number of fermions in their composition. Lithium-6, hardly a magical product of cold temperatures, is a fermionic atom.

Dipshit.

3. No effort on your part to add something to my theory and then claim that it is not so, and thus the theory is disproved, will ever work. That is a clever re-mix of the straw man argument.

The only strawman here is your own. You misprepresent my words, you take quotes out of context, and you refuse to clarify your positions other than invoking your MUM or falling back on the lame excuse that you've "already explained it".

These are all lies and misrepresentations on your part, presumably in an effort to evade the fact that you think that tacking something on to my theory and claiming that the tack-on is disproved constitutes a disproof of my theory. Given your utter lack of understanding of basic concepts, I do not find this suprising at all.

You claim a process which uses the planetary mass to feed an energy reaction but will not define it.

And you know why . . . I refuse to speculate beyond what we can observe. A failure to make that refusal is a Warsie fault.

During the course of this thread, you yourself raised the spectre of mass/energy conversion, then try to claim that this is not what you are saying when pinned down on the question.

I have made no such claim. My dispute with your foolishness revolves around the use of the term "spontaneous".

4. Rings around planets, stars, and so on does not constitute evidence that the rings of Alderaan are natural, expected phenomena. Given time, material from a star or around a planet can coalesce into a ring, but time is a luxury you don't have. This does not correspond to the DET requirement that a ring should suddenly appear within milliseconds of impact, and depart the planet at significant fractions of lightspeed.

More misrepresentation in an attempt to cloud the issue. You also decided to totally ignore the theory I cited in the link to the SNPRO page which is inconvenient to your argument.

That's because trying to employ a crack-head theory which ignores the evidence is a stupid way to argue . . . of course, you do this with the DET thing, too, so I suppose you're just being consistent.

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.

However, there is no reason to believe this, given the fact that the guy's theory is silly. This is most easily observed in the SN1987A example, where the fact is that the ring was there for several thousand years before the supernova occurred.

I'm really quite sorry, but your use of evidence requires that much of it be ignored, your arguments are specious, and your conclusions are fatally flawed as a result.

Because you say so? No, I don't think so at all.

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.

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.

Oh my god . . . this is the saddest thing you've said yet. The fermionic atom example was given to you because you were making the stupid claim that atoms are solid objects. And yet, you seem to think that you can take a counterargument to a stupid sub-claim of yours under the interaction topic, and then claim that I have used this counterargument as a claim about the original topic.

I cannot (and would not wish to) comprehend the confusion of ideas in your head that could result in that conclusion.

Some instructive reading for you:

What, did you guess from the data you found that fermionic atoms only exist in supercooled states? You must have, because it is nowhere stated. Indeed, the first link makes specific reference to fermionic atoms as the other class of atoms in nature, and that these were cooled. And yet, you claim that fermionic atoms are magic things that appear when things get chilly. That's awful.

Before you attempt to invoke quantum theory as a defence for parts or the whole of your case, you really should be certain that you comprehend the material you're citing as evidence.

@ you

Good grief, man. That's just terrible. Go draw or something . . . you are unsuited to technical debate.

[DarkStar]

Oh, yeah, *now* it shows page nine, ten minutes later, after multiple refreshes. This thread is on as much crack as P.D.

[Patrick Degan]

I now see how you won the title you wear so "proudly" on this board.

I'm really quite sorry, but I cannot continue a conversation with someone who denies basic facts of the event, under the mistaken belief that you need only glance at the canon and then make guesses based on your limited evidence, when more evidence is just sitting there.

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html

Oh, and just what evidence have you presented? The Mysterious Unknown Mechanism you either cannot or will not define? Your "creative" reinterpretation of other peoples' words and writings? Sorry, but evidently you did not actually comprehend the text of the page you so pathetically attempt to cite as backing for your increasingly rickety argument.

Oh my god . . . you have got to be kidding. Fermionic atoms are not things which magically appear when shit gets cold. Fermionic atoms are plain old atoms with a non-integer spin due to an odd number of fermions in their composition. Lithium-6, hardly a magical product of cold temperatures, is a fermionic atom.

Did you even bother to read any of the pages I left the links to? Did you even bother to try to comprehend the conditions under which the aforenamed entities combine into fermionic states? Nice try with the Lithium-6 strawman, but their collapse into fermionic atomic states in Bose-Einstein condensates applies, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Oh, and by the way:

This approach, pioneered by my group at JILA, is not the only way of obtaining ultracold Fermi gases. Randy Hulet and his group at Rice University (see Truscott et al. in further reading), as well as Christophe Salomon and co-workers at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris (see Schreck et al. in further reading), have used a technique known as "sympathetic cooling", in which a gas containing a mixture of isotopes - rather than a mixture of spin-states - is cooled. Both groups have used this approach to cool mixtures of lithium-6 and lithium-7 atoms. The lithium-7 atoms, which are bosons, are evaporatively cooled in the usual way. Meanwhile, the simultaneously trapped lithium-6 atoms, which are fermions, cool simply by being in thermal contact with the boson gas - just as hot coffee would cool if placed in contact with ice.

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). In the quantum regime, the mean energy per fermion rises above the value expected from classical physics or in a Bose gas. The fermion atoms have more kinetic energy, which means that the trapped Fermi gas spreads over a larger volume than the Bose gas (figure 2b). This quantum phenomenon, called Fermi pressure, is seen in astrophysics and is responsible for stabilizing white-dwarf and neutron stars against their gravitational potential.

Those two extracts from the article A Fermi Gas Of Atoms at the Physics Web website say you're wrong.

Dipshit.

Yes, you certainly are.

These are all lies and misrepresentations on your part, presumably in an effort to evade the fact that you think that tacking something on to my theory and claiming that the tack-on is disproved constitutes a disproof of my theory. Given your utter lack of understanding of basic concepts, I do not find this suprising at all.

Your "theory" seems to alter itself to suit the conditions of the moment. But it still relies on your MUM. And since you refuse to define your argument, others have to do the work for you.

You claim a process which uses the planetary mass to feed an energy reaction but will not define it.

And you know why . . . I refuse to speculate beyond what we can observe. A failure to make that refusal is a Warsie fault.

No, I suspect the real reason is that you cannot explain your so-called theory to save your life, so you believe hiding behind a screen of jargonese will save you and impress everybody else with your pretentions to Superior Knowledge.

During the course of this thread, you yourself raised the spectre of mass/energy conversion, then try to claim that this is not what you are saying when pinned down on the question.

I have made no such claim. My dispute with your foolishness revolves around the use of the term "spontaneous".

Now down to nitpicking semantics, are we? Either mass/energy conversion is taking place, as you opened the door for, or it is not. You denied fission, fusion, and antimatter annihilation as the mechanism of this conversion. Matter certainly doesn't burn like gasoline simply because a trigger event starts it off, though you claim something very like that as your mechanism which is also gaining energy. Without any natural mass/energy conversion mechanism, this leaves only a hyperimpossible spontaneous conversion of matter into radiation. You can't have it both ways.

More misrepresentation in an attempt to cloud the issue. You also decided to totally ignore the theory I cited in the link to the SNPRO page which is inconvenient to your argument.

That's because trying to employ a crack-head theory which ignores the evidence is a stupid way to argue

There's that projection again. Are you sure you aren't looking into a mirror as you type?

[bIf 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.[/b]

However, there is no reason to believe this, given the fact that the guy's theory is silly. This is most easily observed in the SN1987A example, where the fact is that the ring was there for several thousand years before the supernova occurred.

The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event and has no bearing on the theory offered up by the authour in question.

I'm really quite sorry, but your use of evidence requires that much of it be ignored, your arguments are specious, and your conclusions are fatally flawed as a result.

Because you say so? No, I don't think so at all.

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.[/i]

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.

And I don't need to "presme superiority", boy. You've conceeded that all by yourself.

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.

Oh my god . . . this is the saddest thing you've said yet. The fermionic atom example was given to you because you were making the stupid claim that atoms are solid objects.

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

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. We've seen such nonsense here before and even in the Hate Mail section of the main Stardestroyer.net site, offered up by an equally foolish gentleman named Stilgar. He failed to impress then, and you fail to impress now.

And yet, you seem to think that you can take a counterargument to a stupid sub-claim of yours under the interaction topic, and then claim that I have used this counterargument as a claim about the original topic.

Ah, I see your position becomes conveniently fluid yet again. You try to deny the validity of the attack on your theory's failure to explain the lack of atmospheric disturbance in the wake of the superlaser beam by citing an utterly inapplicable example of entities which exist only under degnerate material conditions. Now that you've been called on it, you're going to try to wriggle out of it by claiming that you didn't really say or mean what you said. Either you can't retain an accurate memory of your own thought processes, or you are carelessly tossing out jargonese to weave a smokescreen, or you simply cannot stand by any argument you make.

I cannot (and would not wish to) comprehend the confusion of ideas in your head that could result in that conclusion.

Yet more projection. Really, you could write for Berman and Braga.

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.

You must have, because it is nowhere stated. Indeed, the first link makes specific reference to fermionic atoms as the other class of atoms in nature, and that these were cooled. And yet, you claim that fermionic atoms are magic things that appear when things get chilly.

When things get chilly. When conditions of extreme supercompression are in force. That's what the experimental studies and the theory actually says. Only in a mind such as yours where words don't actually mean what they say is any other conclusion possible.

And again:

Quantum degeneracy

Using these novel experimental techniques, physicists have been able to cool Fermi gases of atoms into the quantum-degenerate regime below the Fermi temperature, TF. But because the effects of quantum statistics become stronger as a gas is cooled further into this regime, the ultimate cooling limit is an important issue. Experiments at JILA using potassium-40 in two spin-states, and at Rice and the ENS in Paris using lithium-6, have so far cooled atoms to about 20% of TF. We do not yet know why potassium-40 atoms cannot be cooled any further, although the quantum nature of fermions as well as technical challenges could both play a role.

Are you now going to deny that the text means what it actually says?

That's awful

I agree, you're argument is awful, as are your efforts to defend it. Unfortunately, it's all we've got with which to examine your (we can hardly call it) "logic".

[SirNitram]

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.

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.

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

[DarkStar]

. . . you have sufficient eloquence to sound like you're intelligent, but you have all the intelligence of a doorknob. It's such a disheartening state of affairs . . . I would expect someone of your intelligence to be typing something more like "stAR TRek suxORZ" or something.

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

I'm really quite sorry, but I cannot continue a conversation with someone who denies basic facts of the event, under the mistaken belief that you need only glance at the canon and then make guesses based on your limited evidence, when more evidence is just sitting there.

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html

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".

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.

The Mysterious Unknown Mechanism you either cannot or will not define?

"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?

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

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

Oh my god . . . you have got to be kidding. Fermionic atoms are not things which magically appear when shit gets cold. Fermionic atoms are plain old atoms with a non-integer spin due to an odd number of fermions in their composition. Lithium-6, hardly a magical product of cold temperatures, is a fermionic atom.

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.

Did you even bother to try to comprehend the conditions under which the aforenamed entities combine into fermionic states?

"Combine into fermionic states"? Oh good grief.

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

There are proper fermions . . . leptons (including electrons) and quarks. There are fermionic hadrons, including protons and neutrons. All of these have a spin of 1/2, and most people call all of them fermions, which is science-ese for "it has a spin of 1/2". There are also bosonic hadrons . . . these only have two quarks (protons and neutrons have three), and therefore end up being spin-1 particles. Boson is science-ese for "has an integer spin value".

When you have an atom with an odd number of fermions and fermionic hadrons, such as occurs in Lithium-6 (three protons, three neutrons, three electrons), you have a fermionic atom, referred to as such because the entire atom has a spin of 1/2. This means, for better or worse, that the whole damned she-bang may also be referred to as a fermion. Add another neutron to make Lithium-7, and now you have a bosonic atom, or boson.

The point of supercooling fermionic or bosonic atoms is to slow the motion of the atoms . . . that way, one hopes, you end up getting the de Broglie wavelengths (i.e. the particles' 'outer rims') to overlap, so they 'touch', creating what is called "degeneracy". The reason this is hard with fermionic atoms is because, unlike bosonic atoms, fermionic atoms are damnably hard things to get to 'collide', so getting the average motion to slow down is that much more difficult. The hope, however, is that we'll be able to create a fermionic version of a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

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

Dipshit.

Oh, and by the way:

This approach, pioneered by my group at JILA, is not the only way of obtaining ultracold Fermi gases. Randy Hulet and his group at Rice University (see Truscott et al. in further reading), as well as Christophe Salomon and co-workers at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris (see Schreck et al. in further reading), have used a technique known as "sympathetic cooling", in which a gas containing a mixture of isotopes - rather than a mixture of spin-states - is cooled. Both groups have used this approach to cool mixtures of lithium-6 and lithium-7 atoms. The lithium-7 atoms, which are bosons, are evaporatively cooled in the usual way. Meanwhile, the simultaneously trapped lithium-6 atoms, which are fermions, cool simply by being in thermal contact with the boson gas - just as hot coffee would cool if placed in contact with ice.

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.

Dipshit.

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.

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.

Those two extracts from the article A Fermi Gas Of Atoms at the Physics Web website say you're wrong.

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.

During the course of this thread, you yourself raised the spectre of mass/energy conversion, then try to claim that this is not what you are saying when pinned down on the question.

I have made no such claim. My dispute with your foolishness revolves around the use of the term "spontaneous".

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. Is there no limit to your stupidity?

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.

However, there is no reason to believe this, given the fact that the guy's theory is silly. This is most easily observed in the SN1987A example, where the fact is that the ring was there for several thousand years before the supernova occurred.

The previous ring was the residual from an earlier supernova event and has no bearing on the theory offered up by the authour in question.

The previous ring was not a residual from a prior supernova of the star . . . your crack-head theorist is mistaken. I'm not even sure, off the top of my head, if a star could ever be expected to have two supernovas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh my god . . . this is the saddest thing you've said yet. The fermionic atom example was given to you because you were making the stupid claim that atoms are solid objects.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.