How does the new Star Wars Canon affect the debate?

[Borgholio]

This also means planetary shields are gone.

Nope. Look frame by frame. Alderaan has a planetary shield that holds for a fraction of a second.

Come to think about it makes me want to completely rethink how the DS destroys a planet.

Again, look frame by frame. You don't see a chain reaction like in Star Trek - Enterprise. The planet just fucking blows up. The fact that certain pieces manage to survive a bit longer than others before they too fly apart just means that the planet isn't one homogeneous mass (exactly how it should be).

[Eternal_Freedom]

=

Come to think about it makes me want to completely rethink how the DS destroys a planet.

Again, look frame by frame. You don't see a chain reaction like in Star Trek - Enterprise. The planet just fucking blows up. The fact that certain pieces manage to survive a bit longer than others before they too fly apart just means that the planet isn't one homogeneous mass (exactly how it should be).

While I appreciate the support, I already said that

Incidentally, for an example of a chain-reaction weapon destroying a planet, go watch Ender's Game. It's a very different thing to "big laser hits, planet explodes."

[Borgholio]

While I appreciate the support, I already said that

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts...etc etc etc...

[malguslover]

This also means planetary shields are gone.

Nope. Look frame by frame. Alderaan has a planetary shield that holds for a fraction of a second.

Come to think about it makes me want to completely rethink how the DS destroys a planet.

Again, look frame by frame. You don't see a chain reaction like in Star Trek - Enterprise. The planet just fucking blows up. The fact that certain pieces manage to survive a bit longer than others before they too fly apart just means that the planet isn't one homogeneous mass (exactly how it should be).

no you see there is no mention of Planetary shields any where in the movies or Clone wars. The idea of Planetary shields comes from the Thrawn Trilogy i beielve. In reality that lighting up affect is just part of the special effect of the planet exploding. Without the EU saying Alderaan had a planetery shield means that well they don't have one.

Yes you do still see a chain reaction its just incredibly fast which is how chain reactions happen. There are several explosions. not one. Just because they made it fast doesn't make it not a chain reaction. Have you ever lit up a string of M-80s? They blow up one at a time but incredibly fast this is because its a chain reaction

[Borgholio]

no you see there is no mention of Planetary shields any where in the movies or Clone wars.

Irrelevant. You don't have to mention it to have it exist. Think about artificial gravity. We see it in effect but nobody ever mentions it. Thus by your logic, since it's not in the dialogue, it doesn't exist.

The idea of Planetary shields comes from the Thrawn Trilogy i beielve.

Incorrect. The Empire Strikes Back clearly mentions (in dialogue, as per your your insistence) of a powerful deflector shield that covers a large area of the planet's surface. While not a full planetary shield, it's not unreasonable to go one step further and say that a major first-rate core world such as Alderaan has a bigger and more comprehensive shield than a backwater shithole like Hoth.

In reality that lighting up affect is just part of the special effect of the planet exploding.

Link?

Without the EU saying Alderaan had a planetery shield means that well they don't have one.

You see a planetary shield, they have a planetary shield. If you claim it's just a special effect, then I ask you to provide a link to where one of the art directors or animators states that it was just an effect.

There are several explosions. not one.

In the image above, please point out the several explosions. You will probably be pointing at the various colored clouds of debris as evidence of several explosions. Have you ever seen an object explode in slow motion? Take an excellent example here:



These are hydrogen bombs. Note the explosion. It's not a perfect sphere, is it? You see various bubbles of superheated plasma, debris and the shockwave itself moving at different speeds. You would probably argue that there are several explosions. Obviously that is incorrect. One explosion, but a massive input or release of energy will not allow for a perfectly spherical explosion. A supernova is another excellent example. A nearly perfect sphere blows up into a noticeably non-spherical debris cloud.

Just because they made it fast doesn't make it not a chain reaction.

And once again I ask you for frame by frame evidence showing a chain reaction and once again you have failed to provide. Simply repeating it doesn't make it true.

Have you ever lit up a string of M-80s? They blow up one at a time but incredibly fast this is because its a chain reaction

I don't see them blowing up a string of Alderaans....do you? I see one planet, one explosion. You blow up one m-80, you don't get a chain reaction do you?

[Xess]

If you watch a video of Alderaan being blown up, there's the initial bang and then later a second bang. It could be explained by either a chain reaction or something like the core taking a split second longer to blow up than the outer crust. The Death Star blowing up though is just one bang, there's a very faint second ring but no second bang.

[Borgholio]

Well a planet is made up of different materials. Like I said, it's quite expected to see different parts absorb energy and blow up at different speeds. Again, that doesn't signify a chain reaction. Alderaan is not a nuclear bomb going off, a terrific amount of energy was dumped into the planet in a fraction of a second. That's not the definition of a chain reaction.

[malguslover]

no you see there is no mention of Planetary shields any where in the movies or Clone wars.

Irrelevant. You don't have to mention it to have it exist. Think about artificial gravity. We see it in effect but nobody ever mentions it. Thus by your logic, since it's not in the dialogue, it doesn't exist.

The idea of Planetary shields comes from the Thrawn Trilogy i beielve.

Incorrect. The Empire Strikes Back clearly mentions (in dialogue, as per your your insistence) of a powerful deflector shield that covers a large area of the planet's surface. While not a full planetary shield, it's not unreasonable to go one step further and say that a major first-rate core world such as Alderaan has a bigger and more comprehensive shield than a backwater shithole like Hoth.

In reality that lighting up affect is just part of the special effect of the planet exploding.

Link?

Without the EU saying Alderaan had a planetery shield means that well they don't have one.

You see a planetary shield, they have a planetary shield. If you claim it's just a special effect, then I ask you to provide a link to where one of the art directors or animators states that it was just an effect.

There are several explosions. not one.

In the image above, please point out the several explosions. You will probably be pointing at the various colored clouds of debris as evidence of several explosions. Have you ever seen an object explode in slow motion? Take an excellent example here:



These are hydrogen bombs. Note the explosion. It's not a perfect sphere, is it? You see various bubbles of superheated plasma, debris and the shockwave itself moving at different speeds. You would probably argue that there are several explosions. Obviously that is incorrect. One explosion, but a massive input or release of energy will not allow for a perfectly spherical explosion. A supernova is another excellent example. A nearly perfect sphere blows up into a noticeably non-spherical debris cloud.

Just because they made it fast doesn't make it not a chain reaction.

And once again I ask you for frame by frame evidence showing a chain reaction and once again you have failed to provide. Simply repeating it doesn't make it true.

Have you ever lit up a string of M-80s? They blow up one at a time but incredibly fast this is because its a chain reaction

I don't see them blowing up a string of Alderaans....do you? I see one planet, one explosion. You blow up one m-80, you don't get a chain reaction do you?

no not even close

Funny that you mention Empire because even Wookipeida didn't classify that as a planatery shield. That was a deflector sheild on the surface of the planet. It is nothing like the planetery shield as described in Thrawn.

Show me one moment in the movie or tv series where they mention PLANETARY SHIELDS It doesn't happen. Hell show men one interview where they say planetary shield.

The burden of proof is on you to prove it is a planetary shield as its never mentioned in any canon.

My link to the special effect is the special effect itself.

Be honest you think that back in 1977 they said hey lets add a glow to the destruction of Alderaan so that it looks like it has a planetary shield failing before it blows up even though we have no idea what that is.?

Your example only proves my point A NUCLEAR BOMB IS A CHAIN REACTION

The picture you show also shows that other explosions don't originate from the center

[malguslover]

Well a planet is made up of different materials. Like I said, it's quite expected to see different parts absorb energy and blow up at different speeds. Again, that doesn't signify a chain reaction. Alderaan is not a nuclear bomb going off, a terrific amount of energy was dumped into the planet in a fraction of a second. That's not the definition of a chain reaction.

that would be a chain reaction. Having one thing causing other things to react is a chain reaction. They dump a terrefic amount of energy into a planet there is an explosion which causes several other explosions of various sizes.

[malguslover]

If you watch a video of Alderaan being blown up, there's the initial bang and then later a second bang. It could be explained by either a chain reaction or something like the core taking a split second longer to blow up than the outer crust. The Death Star blowing up though is just one bang, there's a very faint second ring but no second bang.

the core blowing up a second later would be a chain reaction.

[Borgholio]

Funny that you mention Empire because even Wookipeida didn't classify that as a planatery shield. That was a deflector sheild on the surface of the planet. It is nothing like the planetery shield as described in Thrawn.

And I quite clearly said that it was different. Go back and re-read my post.

Show me one moment in the movie or tv series where they mention PLANETARY SHIELDS It doesn't happen. Hell show men one interview where they say planetary shield.

And you have not yet shown me one big of dialogue where they mention Artificial Gravity.

The burden of proof is on you

I have proven everything I said. They never mention planetary shields in the OT, yet there clearly is one. They never mention Artificial Gravity and yet it's there. If you open your fucking eyes you see it all. On the other hand, you have proven nothing. You claim the shield around Alderaan is just a special effect but you've never proven it. You claim there's a chain reaction and yet you have proven nothing. For all your insistence on dialogue there's no line that states the DS laser initiates a chain reaction. Since they never mention a chain reaction, it must not exist. There, take a piece of your own logic and choke on it.

Be honest you think that back in 1977 they said hey lets add a glow to the destruction of Alderaan so that it looks like it has a planetary shield failing before it blows up even though we have no idea what that is.?

And why not? They clearly had large magnetic and energy fields in existence at that time. There several scenes showing the X-wings flying through the DS shield in the final minutes of the film...so why is it hard to believe they would apply the same thing to the planet?

Your example only proves my point A NUCLEAR BOMB IS A CHAIN REACTION

Your statement only demonstrates how little you know about actual physics. The initial release of energy in a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction. The rest of the explosion is not. Those gas clouds and pieces of debris...those shockwaves...are those part of the chain reaction too? No. Do you see fission or fusion reactions continuing more than a couple seconds after initiation? No, you do not. It vaporizes itself within a second. So how can you possibly believe that the chain reaction continues when there isn't even any nuclear material left around to react? Think dude, think.

The picture you show also shows that other explosions don't originate from the center

In addition to physics, you don't know anything about geology either. If I were to shoot a planet with the DS laser, the planet has rock, minerals, liquid magma, liquid iron outer core, and solid iron inner core. Each of those materials will require a different amount of energy to break apart and shatter. Thus, they will do so at different rates. The brittle crust will probably shatter first, then the liquid middle sections will vaporize, then the core will explode even more violently since there's more mass there than in the crust.

Or an alternative, the laser penetrates straight to the core and shatters it, causing the planet to expand in a crude sphere until pieces of the core and mantle overtake the crust and burst through, creating the appearance of several explosions. This happens in supernovas all the time. The shell of the star actually stays fairly stable until the core explodes and bursts through the outer layers...and it's anything but perfectly spherical.

[Borgholio]

If you watch a video of Alderaan being blown up, there's the initial bang and then later a second bang. It could be explained by either a chain reaction or something like the core taking a split second longer to blow up than the outer crust. The Death Star blowing up though is just one bang, there's a very faint second ring but no second bang.

the core blowing up a second later would be a chain reaction.

You are not talking about a physical chain reaction, you're talking about an abstract chain reaction. By your definition, pushing the firing trigger on the death star is part of the chain reaction. Please dispense with that semantic bullshit. We are talking about a chain reaction in a nuclear or physics sense.

A nuclear chain reaction is when one atom explodes, creating neutrons that cause other atoms to explode. THAT is a chain reaction in the scientific sense, and THAT is not what is happening.

[malguslover]

you're trying to use fallacies to win your argument

The movie doesn't need to explain gravity because its something everyone in the world is familer with.

A Planetary shield is not. It is something that is never mentioned in ANY Star Wars movie or TV show.

How come a planetery Shield isn't used ever again? Episode 3? Maybe around Coruscant? or how about around Naboo? No mention of a planetery shield anywhere

Even in ROTJ its not called a planetary shield.

But because you see a high power laser beam hit a planet and it lights up as its being destroyed you think that must mean they have something that is never talked about, used again, or even suggested anywhere in the 6 movies or in the 121 episodes of the TV show.

What do you think is going to happen to a Blue planet when a GIANT BEAM OF LIGHT HITS THE SURFACE OF IT?

And I quite clearly said that it was different. Go back and re-read my post.

Yeah still never called a planetary shield

And you have not yet shown me one big of dialogue where they mention Artificial Gravity.

why would they mention something that is comon knowledge. They also don't mention breathing air

I have proven everything I said. They never mention planetary shields in the OT, yet there clearly is one. They never mention Artificial Gravity and yet it's there. If you open your fucking eyes you see it all. On the other hand, you have proven nothing. You claim the shield around Alderaan is just a special effect but you've never proven it. You claim there's a chain reaction and yet you have proven nothing. For all your insistence on dialogue there's no line that states the DS laser initiates a chain reaction. Since they never mention a chain reaction, it must not exist. There, take a piece of your own logic and choke on it.

No you just use logic fallacies to try and win a arguement. They never mention planetary shields ANYWHERE IN STAR WARS CANON

And why not? They clearly had large magnetic and energy fields in existence at that time. They several scenes showing the X-wings flying through the DS shield in the final minutes of the film...so why is it hard to believe they would apply the same thing to the planet?

Actually no they say " We're passing through their magnetic field."
They don't say through the shield.

Your statement only demonstrates how little you know about actual physics. The initial release of energy in a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction. The rest of the explosion is not. Those gas clouds and pieces of debris...those shockwaves...are those part of the chain reaction too? No. Do you see fission or fusion reactions continuing more than a couple seconds after initiation? No, you do not. It vaporizes itself within a second. So how can you possibly believe that the chain reaction continues when there isn't even any nuclear material left around to react? Think dude, think.

not even remotely what I said but sure why not

Now are you claming that Alderaan explosion is the same as a nuclear explosion?

If I were to shoot a planet with the DS laser, the planet has rock, minerals, liquid magma, liquid iron outer core, and solid iron inner core. Each of those materials will require a different amount of energy to break apart and shatter. Thus, they will do so at different rates. The brittle crust will probably shatter first, then the liquid middle sections will vaporize, then the core will explode even more violently since there's more mass there than in the crust.

Oh I do know. But here's the thing if say a rock gets enough "energy" i'm going to assume we are talking about thermal energy here to break apart guess what? It doesn't explode.

Do you think all matter can just explode in a fiery explosion?

it doesnt matter how much energy you put into granite its not going to cause a fiery explosion to occur. Sorry to break it to you but Aqua Teen Hunger Force isn't an accurate depiction of Science. Not every single object will cause a fiery explosion

[Borgholio]

you're trying to use fallacies to win your argument

You don't even know what a fallacy is. Here is the argument so far.

You: "It's not a planetary shield it's a special effect"
Me: "Prove it"
You: "It's not mentioned in dialogue"
Me: "Many things aren't mentioned in dialogue. If it looks like a shield then it's probably a shield unless otherwise stated."
You. "It's not a planetary shield it's a special effect"

Ad nauseam.

That's not a fallacy, that's sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Let me state it plainly sir. If you can't prove it's a special effect then shut the fuck up. Dialogue is proof. Lack of dialogue is not.

Now are you claming that Alderaan explosion is the same as a nuclear explosion?

Nope, but you are.

Oh I do know. But here's the thing if say a rock gets enough "energy" i'm going to assume we are talking about thermal energy here to break apart guess what? It doesn't explode.

Yes it WILL explode, you dumbass. We're not talking about slowly heating an object until it melts. What happens when you pump more energy into an object than it can absorb, transfer, or re-radiate? IT BLOWS UP. The material simply shatters due to excessive thermal stress. What do you think happens when you run a blowtorch across a slab of granite? The quartz crystals shatter explosively. That's how they make granite flooring. If your blowtorch was a million times hotter, the granite itself would explode too.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force isn't an accurate depiction of Science.

Now I know the kind of entertainment you enjoy watching on Saturday mornings while drinking milk from your sippy cup. Listen you uneducated shitstain, once you learn something about proper physics or thermodynamics, then you can try to debate people on this thread about what happens when you mix energy and matter. And once you learn how to actually back up your arguments with evidence instead of using words that you have no idea their meaning, then you can debate canon with us.

[Eternal_Freedom]

malguslover, you're operating on a really dumb concept of "uses a chain reaction to destroy the planet." You do (sort of correctly) say that a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction, but you missed one important point: the chain reaction causes the energy release, the damage is done by that energy being redistributed by various means. Incidentally, a nuke would be an exponential chain reaction, since it keeps growing and growing. Something described as "a chain reaction" would be more akin to a nuclear reactor, the reaction perpetuates itself but doesn't grow exponentially.

Hell, by your definition of a nuke being a chain reaction, ordinary chemical explosives are a chain reaction, since it's chemical bonds breaking and releasing energy and spreading. Obviously it's the chain reaction doing the damage, not the overpressure or heat released, right? [/sarcasm]

When we talk about chain reaction weapons, we mean stuff like ST phasers, a weapon that creates a reaction in the target that causes the damage, not "uses a chain reaction to supply the energy to cause damage" since that second definition applies to literally every non-melee weapon in science fiction.

[malguslover]

Now I know the kind of entertainment you enjoy watching on Saturday mornings while drinking milk from your sippy cup. Listen you uneducated shitstain, once you learn something about proper physics or thermodynamics, then you can try to debate people on this thread about what happens when you mix energy and matter. And once you learn how to actually back up your arguments with evidence instead of using words that you have no idea their meaning, then you can debate canon with us.

Ok this actually made me spit my drink out i laughed so hard. I'll get to the rest of what you said later.


You are saying I am a little kid because I have seen Aqua Teen Hungerforce a show that only airs on Adult Swim due to its adult nature all the while you are on an internet forum arguing over Star Wars a movie that was originally made for kids.



edit:

Yes it WILL explode, you dumbass. We're not talking about slowly heating an object until it melts. What happens when you pump more energy into an object than it can absorb, transfer, or re-radiate? IT BLOWS UP. The material simply shatters due to excessive thermal stress. What do you think happens when you run a blowtorch across a slab of granite? The quartz crystals shatter explosively. That's how they make granite flooring. If your blowtorch was a million times hotter, the granite itself would explode too.

Ok this right here

Tell me what energy are you adding? You know a lot about physics so you can tell me what energy is being put into a rock causing it to create a fireball as it explodes

[malguslover]

malguslover, you're operating on a really dumb concept of "uses a chain reaction to destroy the planet." You do (sort of correctly) say that a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction, but you missed one important point: the chain reaction causes the energy release, the damage is done by that energy being redistributed by various means. Incidentally, a nuke would be an exponential chain reaction, since it keeps growing and growing. Something described as "a chain reaction" would be more akin to a nuclear reactor, the reaction perpetuates itself but doesn't grow exponentially.

Hell, by your definition of a nuke being a chain reaction, ordinary chemical explosives are a chain reaction, since it's chemical bonds breaking and releasing energy and spreading. Obviously it's the chain reaction doing the damage, not the overpressure or heat released, right? [/sarcasm]

When we talk about chain reaction weapons, we mean stuff like ST phasers, a weapon that creates a reaction in the target that causes the damage, not "uses a chain reaction to supply the energy to cause damage" since that second definition applies to literally every non-melee weapon in science fiction.

i'm saying that the Nuclear bomb and the alderaan destruction are nothing alike. You even agreed that its multiple explosions.

Rocks don't create fiery explosions on there own.

A chain reaction is a sequence of reactions where a reactive product or by-product causes additional reactions to take place. In a chain reaction, positive feedback leads to a self-amplifying chain of events.

The overpressurization or heat releases that cause the explosions is a direct result of the initial explosion. hence the chain reaction.

[Borgholio]

Yes, I'm saying you're a kid because the best argument you can make to back up your lack of scientific education is to reference a fucking cartoon show. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, your arguments are based on cartoon physics (no surprise there), and you can't pull a shred of proof to back up any of your statements. You're just a whiny little fanboy bitch.

[Borgholio]

The overpressurization or heat releases that cause the explosions is a direct result of the initial explosion. hence the chain reaction.

No you fucking moron. THIS is a chain reaction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction

[malguslover]

You are using the same fallacies that people use to prove the existence of god.

Saying that Planetary shields exist because no one talks about them is a fallacy

Dialogue is proof. Lack of dialogue is not.

I agree show me the Dialogue in any of the 6 movies or 121 episodes of The clone wars that mention even just in passing Planetary Shields.

Dialogue is proof so show me the proof.

Can you quote me ever saying that Alderaan is a nuclear explosion? Like you said Dialogue is proof

The material simply shatters due to excessive thermal stress

I could not agree more with you. If you take a rock and add a lot of heat the rock will shatter. However it will not ever create a this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p059FJm5gE

which is what you are claiming

[malguslover]

The overpressurization or heat releases that cause the explosions is a direct result of the initial explosion. hence the chain reaction.

No you fucking moron. THIS is a chain reaction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction

yes that is a type of chain reaction

one of several KINDS of chain reaction. Are you now saying that nuclear chain reactions are the only type of chain reactions because that is what you wrote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_reaction

[malguslover]

Yes, I'm saying you're a kid because the best argument you can make to back up your lack of scientific education is to reference a fucking cartoon show. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, your arguments are based on cartoon physics (no surprise there), and you can't pull a shred of proof to back up any of your statements. You're just a whiny little fanboy bitch.

i am a star wars fanboy no argument there but i don't see what that has to do with anything.

You do realize that you are the one using cartoon physics right? I am literately saying that it is NOT Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Where as you are saying that if you add enough "energy" to a rock it will do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p059FJm5gE

[Eternal_Freedom]

malguslover, you're operating on a really dumb concept of "uses a chain reaction to destroy the planet." You do (sort of correctly) say that a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction, but you missed one important point: the chain reaction causes the energy release, the damage is done by that energy being redistributed by various means. Incidentally, a nuke would be an exponential chain reaction, since it keeps growing and growing. Something described as "a chain reaction" would be more akin to a nuclear reactor, the reaction perpetuates itself but doesn't grow exponentially.

Hell, by your definition of a nuke being a chain reaction, ordinary chemical explosives are a chain reaction, since it's chemical bonds breaking and releasing energy and spreading. Obviously it's the chain reaction doing the damage, not the overpressure or heat released, right? [/sarcasm]

When we talk about chain reaction weapons, we mean stuff like ST phasers, a weapon that creates a reaction in the target that causes the damage, not "uses a chain reaction to supply the energy to cause damage" since that second definition applies to literally every non-melee weapon in science fiction.

i'm saying that the Nuclear bomb and the alderaan destruction are nothing alike. You even agreed that its multiple explosions.

There are multiple explosions because the energy is not being redistributed evenly, due to different materials and densities within the planet. As Borgholio has pointed out, this is consistent with stuff we have observed such as supernovae, nuclear weapons detonating or even conventional explosions, where the blast damage will not be uniform in all directions because of varying circumstances (like stuff shielding things behind it, the material the bomb detonates on and so on).

Once again for the record: The presence of multiple apparent explosions does not make the weapon a chain reaction. If you can present some other evidence of it being a chain-reaction, other than "but there's multiple explosions!" please do, otherwise shut the hell up.

Rocks don't create fiery explosions on there own.

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY DO YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Rocks will explode into superheated fragments when they are imparted with enough energy. You do realise that "rock" isn't a single material right? You do understand that it's constituent molecules can be vaporised and expand as gasses (or plasma)?

[malguslover]

malguslover, you're operating on a really dumb concept of "uses a chain reaction to destroy the planet." You do (sort of correctly) say that a nuclear bomb is a chain reaction, but you missed one important point: the chain reaction causes the energy release, the damage is done by that energy being redistributed by various means. Incidentally, a nuke would be an exponential chain reaction, since it keeps growing and growing. Something described as "a chain reaction" would be more akin to a nuclear reactor, the reaction perpetuates itself but doesn't grow exponentially.

Hell, by your definition of a nuke being a chain reaction, ordinary chemical explosives are a chain reaction, since it's chemical bonds breaking and releasing energy and spreading. Obviously it's the chain reaction doing the damage, not the overpressure or heat released, right? [/sarcasm]

When we talk about chain reaction weapons, we mean stuff like ST phasers, a weapon that creates a reaction in the target that causes the damage, not "uses a chain reaction to supply the energy to cause damage" since that second definition applies to literally every non-melee weapon in science fiction.

i'm saying that the Nuclear bomb and the alderaan destruction are nothing alike. You even agreed that its multiple explosions.

There are multiple explosions because the energy is not being redistributed evenly, due to different materials and densities within the planet. As Borgholio has pointed out, this is consistent with stuff we have observed such as supernovae, nuclear weapons detonating or even conventional explosions, where the blast damage will not be uniform in all directions because of varying circumstances (like stuff shielding things behind it, the material the bomb detonates on and so on).

Once again for the record: The presence of multiple apparent explosions does not make the weapon a chain reaction. If you can present some other evidence of it being a chain-reaction, other than "but there's multiple explosions!" please do, otherwise shut the hell up.

Rocks don't create fiery explosions on there own.

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY DO YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Rocks will explode into superheated fragments when they are imparted with enough energy. You do realise that "rock" isn't a single material right? You do understand that it's constituent molecules can be vaporised and expand as gasses (or plasma)?

The intial explosion is already faded by the time all the other explosions occur. That is a chain reaction.

the material the bomb detonates on and so on)

THAT IS A CHAIN REACTION. If throw a stick of dynamite into a gas station the resulting explosions are caused by a chain reaction. The dynamite causes the gasoline to ignite. That is by its very defintion a chain reaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_reaction

Please I beg that you just read the definition.

and yes Borgholio is actually stating that read his comments.

[malguslover]

You guys do understand that a Rube Goldberg machine is really a set of Chain reactions right?