The superlaser "trick"?

[DarkStar]

The glow of the planetary shield. Concession accepted.

That's from the original version. The Special Edition disagrees.

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

"Concession accepted."

The DET theory is the most obvious.

I agree that DET theory is a good place to start, in the absence of information. I would also agree that it was the most likely theory during the era of the Original Editions of the movies. However, those days are over.

I find it amusing how you can say that DET does not explain the rings, and then turn around and say that I have not disproved DET.

It is a theory which apart from the shockwave corresponds with all the visuals and the official evidence.[/quote]

Actually, that should be "apart from the shockwaves, bands, secondary explosions, the nature of the destruction, et cetera."

Your theory on the other hand does not only fail to explain the shockwave, it also assumes the existence of a strange, completely unknown technical device without a shred of evidence.

The very things you seek to ignore are the evidence.

[Ryoga]

You know what I find most amusing about this whole affair?

DorkStar seems to have forgotten the truly atrocious arguments he made in that little debacle. At least, that's the impression I got when he expressed ignorance of my sig.

Given that I have no recollection of writing that, and that you have provided no source for it, even when asked, I can't help but assume your sig is a fabrication.

Now, if you'd care to provide a source, I'd happily change my mind.

Eheh. Ehehehe. Mwahahaha!

You mealy-mouthed little fucker. Did you really think your ineptitude wouldn't catch up with you someday? I'm afraid life doesn't quite work that way, alas; all anyone has to do is go to page 6 of the 'Pure Star Wars' forum to see you get thrashed like the sub-human piece of dog feces that you are.

[His Divine Shadow]

That's from the original version. The Special Edition disagrees.

Your utter lack of intelligence and ability to accurately depict what is seen is noted, concession accepted right back at you.

I wonder if that page of yours can be considered a crime against humanity, or atleast an affront to education...

[His Divine Shadow]

Hmm and here come the flames.

Yeah, and rightly so.

[SirNitram]

The return of Scooters favorite circular argument. Watch carefully, children, this is how dishonset debators act.

1) He claims there is no shield.

2) When a screenshot from the SE is examined, one can plainly see a 'glow' enveloping the world, much like a shield glows when overloaded.

3) He will now claim that is the chain reaction of what he calls the Reverse Genesis Effect, and claim the only result, therefore, is his theory.

How is this circular, you ask? Simple: He will claim it cannot be a large scale shield, a known SW tech, because it must be a completely unexplained, unknown reaction, without proof. True use of Occam's Razor reveals his theory to be a sack of decaying shit. Of course, he will continue to claim that Occam would discard a theory with any unknowns(Thus proving his utter lack of knowledge in yet another field, philosophy), instead of just discarding the one with more unknowns.

As anyone can see, Dark Star is on his last legs, and will refuse to budge on any point. If he can't win here, he's lost entirely.

[His Divine Shadow]

As anyone can see, Dark Star is on his last legs, and will refuse to budge on any point. If he can't win here, he's lost entirely.

Ofcourse his next trick will be to try and claim this not so and that he has logic and reason on his side and blah blah blah ... blah blah no one has been able counter my theories blah blah blah...

And so on until the Earth plunges into the sun.

[DarkStar]

You know what I find most amusing about this whole affair?

DorkStar seems to have forgotten the truly atrocious arguments he made in that little debacle. At least, that's the impression I got when he expressed ignorance of my sig.

Given that I have no recollection of writing that, and that you have provided no source for it, even when asked, I can't help but assume your sig is a fabrication.

Now, if you'd care to provide a source, I'd happily change my mind.

Eheh. Ehehehe. Mwahahaha!

You mealy-mouthed little fucker. Did you really think your ineptitude wouldn't catch up with you someday? I'm afraid life doesn't quite work that way, alas; all anyone has to do is go to page 6 of the 'Pure Star Wars' forum to see you get thrashed like the sub-human piece of dog feces that you are.

Well, well, well . . . even though you still wouldn't provide an exact reference, I did take the time to look through the thread you referred to, and guess what I found:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... c&start=28

Seems Ryoga still hasn't figured out the difference between DarkStar and TheDarkling.

You shall change your sig immediately, fool.

[DarkStar]

2) When a screenshot from the SE is examined, one can plainly see a 'glow' enveloping the world, much like a shield glows when overloaded.

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

Look at the third image of the Alderaan destruction scene as it played out in the SE. I assume this is the "glow" you refer to. However, it neither envelops the world, nor does it show anything more than a significant brightness increase in the area of the superlaser strike . . . a brightness increase which does cross the terminator from day into night, created by Alderaan's sun. But, look at where the superlaser hits. This is to be expected.

And, actually, the fact that the clouds are unchanged happens to coincide with my theory. A true DET beam should have burned away those clouds instantly, as one would see with a nuclear explosion. However, as you can see, those clouds are unaffected.

Thanks, SirNitram . . . I hadn't noticed that before.

As to whether it looks like a shield overload, I'm quite curious to know where you get this idea. What shield overload event are you comparing it to?

[TheDarkling]

Hmm I said that? I seemed to remember it being said but couldnt remember me saying it oh well.

Its taken out of context anyway but then again Im not shocked at that fact.

[SirNitram]

TPM shield effects, of course, where the N-1 Starfighter's shields glow brilliantly. Also the slight glow of the theatre shield on each strike. We can't see a ripple, but we CAN see a glow. Of course, you'll demand it has to be a complete unknown instead of a known...

Which, of course, contradicts the utter bullshit you were flinging a while back about 'splinters' being necessary for a shield to be present...

[Patrick Degan]

OK, I've been observing this comedy long enough before finally deciding to weigh in.

Look at the third image of the Alderaan destruction scene as it played out in the SE. I assume this is the "glow" you refer to. However, it neither envelops the world, nor does it show anything more than a significant brightness increase in the area of the superlaser strike . . . a brightness increase which does cross the terminator from day into night, created by Alderaan's sun. But, look at where the superlaser hits. This is to be expected.

Without any mechanism for interference of the beam's trajectory, there should not be a significant increase in brightness covering the hemisphere facing the Death Star. It should instead simply travel through the planet's mass unimpeded.

And, actually, the fact that the clouds are unchanged happens to coincide with my theory. A true DET beam should have burned away those clouds instantly, as one would see with a nuclear explosion. However, as you can see, those clouds are unaffected.

In point of fact, this directly contradicts your "theory". Without a shield of any sort, visible turbulence as that area of the planet's atmosphere is burned away would be evident as the beam propagates through to the core.

[DarkStar]

TPM shield effects, of course, where the N-1 Starfighter's shields glow brilliantly.

"Glow brilliantly"? None of the shields we have seen "glow brilliantly" . . . at best, they diffract light like dirty glass, or produce a haze.

http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/multim ... mg=112&tt=

http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/multim ... img=16&tt=

Which, of course, contradicts the utter bullshit you were flinging a while back about 'splinters' being necessary for a shield to be present...

Yes, yes, I know, I'm a lying bastard for ever agreeing with Saxton or Brian Young, because I made everything up about splinters.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/rb/shower1.gif

[DarkStar]

Without any mechanism for interference of the beam's trajectory, there should not be a significant increase in brightness covering the hemisphere facing the Death Star. It should instead simply travel through the planet's mass unimpeded.

I did not say that the beam itself was being sprayed off to the sides. However, the intense energy release at the superlaser's target point would make for a hella-bright spot on the surface. The atmospheric scattering of this light would quite easily allow it to not only be carried to the horizon, but produce a brightness beyond the horizon. Think "sunset".

And, actually, the fact that the clouds are unchanged happens to coincide with my theory. A true DET beam should have burned away those clouds instantly, as one would see with a nuclear explosion. However, as you can see, those clouds are unaffected.

In point of fact, this directly contradicts your "theory". Without a shield of any sort, visible turbulence as that area of the planet's atmosphere is burned away would be evident as the beam propagates through to the core.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with my theory. There is no reason for the atmosphere to be burning away, except with the DET theory. My theory requires a solid mass to deal with . . . that is why the starships destroyed by the superlaser of the DS2 did not create the ring effect . . . by the time it could have existed, the ship's mass had been violently redistributed.

[Patrick Degan]

Without any mechanism for interference of the beam's trajectory, there should not be a significant increase in brightness covering the hemisphere facing the Death Star. It should instead simply travel through the planet's mass unimpeded.

I did not say that the beam itself was being sprayed off to the sides. However, the intense energy release at the superlaser's target point would make for a hella-bright spot on the surface. The atmospheric scattering of this light would quite easily allow it to not only be carried to the horizon, but produce a brightness beyond the horizon. Think "sunset".

That does not explain the total lack of atmospheric disruption at the point of impact. If there is no shield to impede the progress of the beam, atmospheric disruption is unavoidable. You yourself conceeded that there was no such disruption in an earlier post along this thread.

And, actually, the fact that the clouds are unchanged happens to coincide with my theory. A true DET beam should have burned away those clouds instantly, as one would see with a nuclear explosion. However, as you can see, those clouds are unaffected.

In point of fact, this directly contradicts your "theory". Without a shield of any sort, visible turbulence as that area of the planet's atmosphere is burned away would be evident as the beam propagates through to the core.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with my theory.[/quote]

Then you will perhaps do us the courtesy of explaining it. I have time.

There is no reason for the atmosphere to be burning away, except with the DET theory. My theory requires a solid mass to deal with . .

A planetary atmosphere is a SOLID MASS?!? Is that what you're saying? Or perhaps somehow you believe that your mechanism does not operate with respect to conservation of momentum and is phasing through gaseous matter without disrupting it?

that is why the starships destroyed by the superlaser of the DS2 did not create the ring effect . . . by the time it could have existed, the ship's mass had been violently redistributed.

In a word, ludicrous. The starships would not have the physical properties in operation which could remotely generate any sort of planar ring, such as tidal force and angular momentum: two alternative forces to account for the planar ring at Alderaan and from the two Death Stars (and before you imagine you have a point to seize upon, no I do not liken the Death Stars to Alderaan).

[DarkStar]

I did not say that the beam itself was being sprayed off to the sides. However, the intense energy release at the superlaser's target point would make for a hella-bright spot on the surface. The atmospheric scattering of this light would quite easily allow it to not only be carried to the horizon, but produce a brightness beyond the horizon. Think "sunset".

That does not explain the total lack of atmospheric disruption at the point of impact. If there is no shield to impede the progress of the beam, atmospheric disruption is unavoidable. You yourself conceeded that there was no such disruption in an earlier post along this thread.

Atmospheric disruption as the beam passes through the atmosphere is a necessary effect of DET theory. It is not a necessary effect of mine.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with my theory.

Then you will perhaps do us the courtesy of explaining it. I have time.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html

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

There is no reason for the atmosphere to be burning away, except with the DET theory. My theory requires a solid mass to deal with . .

A planetary atmosphere is a SOLID MASS?!?

I trust you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that I did not say that. If that is so, I must assume that the above foolishness on your part is an intentional effort to confuse the issues.

that is why the starships destroyed by the superlaser of the DS2 did not create the ring effect . . . by the time it could have existed, the ship's mass had been violently redistributed.

In a word, ludicrous. The starships would not have the physical properties in operation which could remotely generate any sort of planar ring, such as tidal force and angular momentum:

And, as I am sure you are aware, the forces you mention are insufficient to explain the rings in the planetary and DS examples. Why bring them up?

[Patrick Degan]

Atmospheric disruption as the beam passes through the atmosphere is a necessary effect of DET theory. It is not a necessary effect of mine.

In other words, there is no physical interaction taking place between gaseous matter and energy beam. No, all you are doing is simply repeating your claim but offering no explanation as to its validity.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with my theory.


Then you will perhaps do us the courtesy of explaining it. I have time.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html

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

Funny, but I do not see any sort of explanation. Only a claim that some Mysterious Unknown Mechanism "must" be the explanation for Alderaan's destruction. This does not tell us what this MUM is or how it is supposed to operate.

There is no reason for the atmosphere to be burning away, except with the DET theory. My theory requires a solid mass to deal with . .

A planetary atmosphere is a SOLID MASS?!?

I trust you are sufficiently intelligent to realize that I did not say that. If that is so, I must assume that the above foolishness on your part is an intentional effort to confuse the issues.[/quote]

No, it is a challenge to your evident assertion that somehow, there is no physical interaction between gaseous matter and energy beam, which you still haven't explained.

The starships would not have the physical properties in operation which could remotely generate any sort of planar ring, such as tidal force and angular momentum:

And, as I am sure you are aware, the forces you mention are insufficient to explain the rings in the planetary and DS examples. Why bring them up?[/quote]

How so? Do enlighten us.

[LMSx]

"Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"

This is going to sound a little out there, but is it possible that the sentence was referring to the reactor core turning the hypermatter or whatnot into energy to blow up the moon? Since the Death Star could only regenerate energy after a days time for the Superlaser, the "abstract problem", in this case, would be seeing how little energy as possible could be used to blow up the moon. I'm sure that the engineers ran simulations to see how much energy would be expended to blow up a planet sized object, so there would be no abstract problem for Alderaan.

[Master of Ossus]

The DS could clearly fire at least twice in less than two days, and perhaps substantially less. Remember Vader talking about how that day would be long remembered. "It has seen the end of Kenobi, it will soon see the end of the Rebellion."

[Patrick Degan]

This is going to sound a little out there, but is it possible that the sentence was referring to the reactor core turning the hypermatter or whatnot into energy to blow up the moon? Since the Death Star could only regenerate energy after a days time for the Superlaser, the "abstract problem", in this case, would be seeing how little energy as possible could be used to blow up the moon. I'm sure that the engineers ran simulations to see how much energy would be expended to blow up a planet sized object, so there would be no abstract problem for Alderaan.

If the Death Star superlaser applied only the minimum amount of energy required to blow the planet apart, we would have seen the debris field of Alderaan expanding at only escape velocity, 11km/sec. At that rate, it would have taken a full ten minutes for the debris field to expand to twice the planetary diametre. Instead, the mass of the planet was violently blasted apart, impelling its debris at thousands of kilometres per second. This is what gives credence to the energy figures for the superlaser, despite whatever Mr. Dark Star believes.

The sentence in question merely refers to the mental process by which you would calculate how powerful the destructive force applied by the Death Star would be out of simple curiosity. As far as the engineers aboard the battlestation were concerned, however, there was nothing to figure out.

[LMSx]

Hrm. Okay. I didn't mean minimum force specifically as the absolute minimum, but I see that point.

[Cal Wright]

"Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"

This is going to sound a little out there, but is it possible that the sentence was referring to the reactor core turning the hypermatter or whatnot into energy to blow up the moon? Since the Death Star could only regenerate energy after a days time for the Superlaser, the "abstract problem", in this case, would be seeing how little energy as possible could be used to blow up the moon. I'm sure that the engineers ran simulations to see how much energy would be expended to blow up a planet sized object, so there would be no abstract problem for Alderaan.

That's what I think of it. Considering it only takes a ship like the Falcon to make the trip in rougly six hours. then another trip to Yavin. So within a twelve hour period the superlaser could have been used twice. Also, they might have used a lower power setting, but the uncompleted DS II fired twice in the middle of a thirty minute battle.

[LMSx]

Now that I think of it, there's the possibility that the total amount of power expended on Alderaan was the "safe amount", so strong that no planetary shield could stop it. If it was the minimum force, then the planetary shield might have had the ability to stop it.

Anyways, the quote can be applied for both theories. If the total amount of power is too much, then the Death Star will have expended an excess amount of power, AND have high-velocity parts of the moon hitting it. Remember, the DS just crossed Yavin's horizon when it started to fire, so it was much closer to the target then with Alderaan.

[DarkStar]

Atmospheric disruption as the beam passes through the atmosphere is a necessary effect of DET theory. It is not a necessary effect of mine.

In other words, there is no physical interaction taking place between gaseous matter and energy beam. No, all you are doing is simply repeating your claim but offering no explanation as to its validity.

No, because your "other words" bear no resemblance to mine. You do this a lot.

Evidently, you are unfamiliar with my theory.


Then you will perhaps do us the courtesy of explaining it. I have time.

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html

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

Funny, but I do not see any sort of explanation.

Funnier still, if you believe that, is the fact that you then made claims about it.

Only a claim that some Mysterious Unknown Mechanism "must" be the explanation for Alderaan's destruction. This does not tell us what this MUM is or how it is supposed to operate.

The theory is developed from observation and known fact. This, I realize, is contrary to the Warsie preference that we simply leap to the conclusion that it is DET. However, should you try to implement such a thinking policy, you'll find that things will run more smoothly.

Now, if you feel that I have provided an insufficient theory because the explanation of the finer points of the mechanism's underlying physics is missing, I'm afraid the problem is yours, and not mine. We could speculate back and forth until the end of time and never come up with a perfect solution, because the canon is silent on the issue. What we must do is go with the observations and what they have to say . . . where they are silent, so must we be silent.

Warsies such as yourself, on the other hand, seem to think that canon silence gives one the liberty to go screaming one's fool head off about DET this and DET that, when there is no evidence whatsoever for DET, and plenty of counterevidence.

Sorry, kid. The game is up.

The starships would not have the physical properties in operation which could remotely generate any sort of planar ring, such as tidal force and angular momentum:

And, as I am sure you are aware, the forces you mention are insufficient to explain the rings in the planetary and DS examples. Why bring them up?

How so? Do enlighten us.

You require an explanation as to why a planet's once-per-24-hours-or-so-rotation is insufficient to explain rings flying away at significant fractions of lightspeed? You're worse off than I thought.

[Patrick Degan]

Hey, you want to start playing the Flame Game, I'm up for it for as long as you are.

Atmospheric disruption as the beam passes through the atmosphere is a necessary effect of DET theory. It is not a necessary effect of mine.

In other words, there is no physical interaction taking place between gaseous matter and energy beam. No, all you are doing is simply repeating your claim but offering no explanation as to its validity.

No, because your "other words" bear no resemblance to mine. You do this a lot.

No, I leave your words, or lack thereof, to determine the matter. You made a claim that your theory explains the effects observed against Alderaan, yet do not detail the theory in any way, shape, or form. Try actually addressing the objection instead of simply denying it.

Funny, but I do not see any sort of explanation.

Funnier still, if you believe that, is the fact that you then made claims about it.

I read it, and your so-called theory explains nothing. You can't make claims regarding something that doesn't exist.

Only a claim that some Mysterious Unknown Mechanism "must" be the explanation for Alderaan's destruction. This does not tell us what this MUM is or how it is supposed to operate.

The theory is developed from observation and known fact. This, I realize, is contrary to the Warsie preference that we simply leap to the conclusion that it is DET. However, should you try to implement such a thinking policy, you'll find that things will run more smoothly.

You should take your own advice. What we see is a planet which is violently exploded after being hit with an energy beam. Direct energy transfer is the simplest explanation for this phenomenon. It requires no recourse to exotic Mysterious Unknown Mechanisms which you invoke but either fail or refuse to detail.

Now, if you feel that I have provided an insufficient theory because the explanation of the finer points of the mechanism's underlying physics is missing, I'm afraid the problem is yours, and not mine.

Wrong. If you're going to offer up an alternative explanation for a phenomenon, it is not enough to merely invoke it and claim that it explains everything. That is using the premise of the argument as the proof of the argument.

We could speculate back and forth until the end of time and never come up with a perfect solution, because the canon is silent on the issue.

Immaterial. If you're going to offer a theory to explain something, you first have to justify just why the theory wins over competing theories on its own merits, not simply because you disagree with the other theory and deny its validity.

What we must do is go with the observations and what they have to say . . . where they are silent, so must we be silent.

If we follow that rule, then your theory has zero support. Since absolutely nothing in the canon or official material even remotely suggests anything other than DET as the mechanism for the superlaser.

Warsies such as yourself, on the other hand, seem to think that canon silence gives one the liberty to go screaming one's fool head off about DET this and DET that, when there is no evidence whatsoever for DET, and plenty of counterevidence.

Ah, a classic example of "projection". Substitute "screaming one's fool head off about MUM this and MUM that" and we've summarised your entire argument in a nutshell. Especially since there is zero evidence for your Mysterious Unknown Mechanism, but excellent visual evidence for Direct Energy Transfer.

Sorry, kid. The game is up.

Yes. Your own.

And, as I am sure you are aware, the forces you mention are insufficient to explain the rings in the planetary and DS examples. Why bring them up?

How so? Do enlighten us.

You require an explanation as to why a planet's once-per-24-hours-or-so-rotation is insufficient to explain rings flying away at significant fractions of lightspeed? You're worse off than I thought.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies, I'm afraid. Kindly explain to us why Conservation of Angular Momentum does not apply when Alderaan is exploded.

[SPOOFE]

"Glow brilliantly"? None of the shields we have seen "glow brilliantly" . . . at best, they diffract light like dirty glass, or produce a haze.

Yes, shields that are not actively repelling energy. Watch the movies again and watch what happens when a shield is struck by an energy weapon... it glows. Brilliantly.