The superlaser "trick"?

[Master of Ossus]

Saxton's site is not canon. It is not even official. However, every single one of his analyses that I have read, I have agreed with completely. Thus, referencing Saxton's site for these debates is ok, as long as his conclusion is defensible, or you are using it for a picture or something that he has posted but not his conclusions.

[SirNitram]

Saxton's conclusions are often sound, but they are not written in stone. Of course, neither are my conclusions. If you were a reasonable, logical debator, neither would yours be. But, as stated by myself and others, you've proved yourself stupid.

As for spaceborne shields, have you perhaps considered that a planetary shield is, and always will be, partially atmospheric..?

No, you haven't, I'm sorry, I forgot how stupid you are.

As for the last, you push that these splinters are a necessary part of shields, presumably from the analysis of Saxton and Young, as if the fact they wrote it made it pure fact(Saxton's good, but the only thing he wrote that's pure fact is the ICS). If you supported this view, I would simply cite the fact Saxton wrote a page on the Death Star's main weapon, and by your own argument, this overrides your speculation.

[SirNitram]

Saxton's site is not canon. It is not even official. However, every single one of his analyses that I have read, I have agreed with completely. Thus, referencing Saxton's site for these debates is ok, as long as his conclusion is defensible, or you are using it for a picture or something that he has posted but not his conclusions.

Quite a good point. But as this shield splinters stuff is contradicted by multiple canon instances, I feel safe in refuting it.

[DarkStar]

Gee, how can asking you to actually outline your theory be a "gross misrepresentation"?

It's obvious I referred to your 'atmospheres are solid mass' idiocy. Your smokescreens are not working.

Suggesting your argument was nonsensical is a personal insult?

To me? No. However, Warsies (yourself included) have difficulty separating a person and their arguments . . . hence the Warsie habit of personal attacks in the place of counterarguments. I assume that it is based on the investment of far too much ego into the debate, leading to the sorts of bias and error Warsies are known for.

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".

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.

As I say on my site, an Earth-like planet, assuming 100% mass-energy conversion, has 5000 times the necessary material to produce 1e38J. So, in spite of the fact that we're dealing with atmospheric gasses, let's assume that a rough 1/5000th efficiency holds against atmospheres, too, even though this concept is also contrary to the theory.

Spontaneous mass/energy conversion?!?

Once again, you have taken my argument and mangled it. At no point is spontaneous mass/energy conversion discussed or required, explicitly or implicitly. You really must stop being so dishonest.

So, let's estimate the mass of the atmosphere that the beam touches. The total mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5.14e21 grams. Earth's total surface area is about 509,600,000 km^2. Judging by the Death Star as it fired the shot, the superlaser couldn't be more than about 5 kilometers in diameter, for a total area of 25 km^2, or about one twenty-millionth of the total surface area of the planet. Assuming the atmosphere is approximately homogeneous in mass over the surface area, that's 257,000,000,000,000 grams. Insert the 1/5000th efficiency, and we're down to 51,400,000,000 grams, or about 5.1e7 kg. Give a nod to Einstein, and that's 4.5e24J.

Even if we accepted your "spontaneous mass/energy conversion" idea as valid, unfortunately, the atmosphere of Alderaan does not react in that manner. There is no initial blast produced by the atmosphere being converted to energy, and the cloud formations would certainly not survive such a conversion. You make your case weaker with each post.

1. You continue your dishonest "spontaneous" nonsense.
2. I do not claim that the atmosphere should react in that manner . . . it is your attempted addition to my theory which makes that claim. I am demonstrating for you that your addition is preposterous. Do not attempt to claim that it makes my case weaker as a result . . . the problems are yours.

Does your addendum to my theory therefore have any weight? Nope.

I'm not adding weight to your theory. I'm undermining it.

WTF?

You are "undermining" my theory in about the same way as someone tacking some bullshit onto a bill in Congress (resulting in a veto) undermines the original bill's arguments.

We do not know the composition of the beam, nor how it should be expected to behave with atmosphere. If it is anything like the SPHA-T weapons, it seems to have no real interaction with air (because, if those SPHA-T's are really as powerful as is claimed, they should have ionized the air and made a hellacious thunderclap, among other things).

We hear blasts in atmosphere. Are you now suggesting soundless battles are taking place? Are you sure you are actually watching the movies?

We hear explosions when something is seen to explode, but the weapons themselves make no more noise than a phaser. Are you so unfamiliar with your canon that you failed to realize this?

Beam strikes planet. Planet goes BOOM!

That sounds an awful lot like the over-simplistic-thinking example I gave in my last message: "Duh, energy beam make planet go kaboom."

Because energy beam did make planet go KABOOM. That is what we see on screen.

Thank you for proving that the basis of your claims is the simplest possible observation of the canon. Tell me, how hard were you squinting when you watched it, and how rapidly were you fast-forwarding through the scene?

The planet's mass does not spontaneously convert into radiation.

I have never made such a claim, nor was it implicit in my theory.

There was one globe-encircling enveloping glow, after which the planet explodes with the accompanying single planar ring propagating outward as the blast is scattering most of Alderaan's mass into open space. That doesn't faze me at all, since it conforms to DET and not spontaneous conversion to radiation.

If the Canon showed us anything like you have just described, I might agree with you. However, it does not, and therefore I do not.
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWaldpics.html

No, the creationist "missing link" bullshit comes from their continual efforts to nitpick a mechanism they can't personally accept.

Change the name, and the story's about you.

Your response also plays right into the analogy, and facts of our case. Like the early Darwinians, I have a theory which explains exactly what we see, in a way that DET/Creation does not. Some of the nuts and bolts are missing, but a determination of the properties of the mechanism has been made. We know how it acts, and we know what it does . . . the unfit die.

I was waiting for you to try to make that argument. It fails, because, like creationists, you must invoke a Mysterious Unknown Mechanism to make your theory work.

Au contraire . . . it is you who must have a Magic Mechanism piled on top of DET. The entire reason that the creation myth was shown to be false was that its claims . . . 'the Earth is only 6,000 years old', 'there was a complete global flood within that time', and so on . . . were shown to be inconsistent with the facts. Similarly, DET is inconsistent with the facts, since it does not explain, and actually must reject, the canon visual evidence.

Your implicit idea is that because I have identified a mechanism, but not the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of it, my theory is inferior. This is not valid reasoning on your part.

The actual visual record from ANH contradicts your argument wholesale

On the contrary . . . my theory only contradicts your false beliefs about the canon visuals.

and requires so many variables to make it work that it fails on Law of Parsimony grounds.

The first objective of any theory which hopes to be able to survive against another in the light of the Law of Parsimony is that it sufficiently explain the observations. Because DET fails to do so, it doesn't even make it to the arena.

Once again, knowledge of nuclear biology is not necessary to demonstrate evolutionary change or natural selection in a given environment.

That line of reasoning is remarkably dissimilar to the line of reasoning you use in regards to the superlaser, where you demand the nuts and bolts.

Because evolution is physically demonstrable.

And the fact that DET did not occur is canonically demonstrable.

The big problem is that DET fits what we see on the screen much better than a MUM which induces spontaneous conversion of matter into radiation, yet leaves a substantial amount of planetary mass behind and affects some layers of atmosphere but not others.

Your sentence is laden with misrepresentation. There is no sudden, causeless, spontaneous conversion of matter into radiation in my theory. There is no suggesting that some layers of atmosphere are affected but not others in my theory.

Your straw men are ridiculous . . . but, of course, that is why you employ them.

Watching the movie and seeing what's up on the screen is my belief of how one should do things.

Pity you don't do that, or rather devise fantasies about what happened on screen as opposed to what actually does take place.

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

DET and rings? DET and a secondary explosion? What, was the planet just a ticking bomb waiting to go off a few seconds after being tapped by a superlaser? You seem to think so.

Um, no. You're the one proposing the idea of Alderaan as a bomb waiting to go off with your MUM trigger.[/quote]

Substantially accurate, in regards to my theory . . . this may be a first. It is the canister of fuel to the superlaser's match. However, this works just fine in my theory, and is demonstrated in the canon. Your problem is that DET does not make allowances for such facts. There is no reason for a superlaser love tap to make the planet blow itself to smithereens after the beam has ceased.

After all, you're the one trying to make the case for spontaneous conversion of mass into radiation

No, I'm not. That is your straw man which you are trying to make a case for.

When it hits the surface, it initiates some sort of reaction which results in a globe-encircling band of destruction, laying waste to whatever it touches, and gaining energy as it travels around the globe.

Gaining energy, Gracie? How does a process gain energy as energy is radiatively dispersed and expended over a large area?

Beats me . . . that's one of the nuts-and-bolts "mysteries" you seem to think I have to solve. However, the canon shows us the destructive band encircling the globe, becoming more destructive as it travels, and losing none of its apparent energy.

Yet you propose a mechanism which is somehow feeding additional energy to the effect (direct violation of Conservation of Energy),

No, because the energy is coming from the mass of the planet as the destruction occurs.

Over and above the fact that you'll have a helluva time explaining why vaporized ejecta will organize itself along a plane and manage to collect the necessary energy to depart at .3c

It's called Angular Momentum Transfer. I'm sorry if that's too complicated a concept for you to understand.

Oh, then do please explain it to all of us, preferably including the math. Bear in mind that this fantastic mathematical explanation of how vaporized ejecta over a large part of a single hemisphere will order itself in a matter of milliseconds into a globe-encircling planar ring will amaze and delight your own Saxton, and will probably be quite a shocker to physicists everywhere.

I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath.

you'll still have to explain how the ring departed the planet using vaporized material, when, at the time of the first ring's appearance, there was no material vaporization occurring over any part of the globe except over the superlaser strike zone.

The ring appears concurrent with the planetary blast. The energy umbrella appears with the superlaser strike and is more easily explicable with the idea of the beam striking a planetary shield.

Oh good grief, make up your mind. Does the ring come as a result of planetary shield failure (as you seem to be claiming now), or vaporized ejecta (which you claimed in the last post)? If the former, how do you account for the second ring, and if the latter, how do you account for the fact that vaporized ejecta over the surface was not planetwide at the time of the first ring's appearance?

I have no idea how you expect to explain how to get the vaporized material from the strike zone to maneuver itself in the way you require. But, please, be my guest.

Exactly what is so difficult about Angular Momentum Transfer?

Nothing at all, for me, but it constitutes a devastating disproof of DET.

The rings of material tossed off by supernovae (see SN1987A, to name but one example) certainly do not require MUMs as the mechanics of their propagation, and are very much governed by Conservation of Angular Momentum.

A pity you have no idea what you're talking about . . . those aren't rings

For your edification:

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/snpro/[/quote]

. . . because, obviously, data concerning hourglass shapes from stellar collapse is extremely relevant to a discussion about a planet and planar rings. He also thinks that the outer rings were from a prior supernova event, not realizing that SN1987A, a former blue supergiant (well, at least for the past few millenia . . . it was a red SG prior to this), has a former cousin that also shows a peculiar hourglass thing going on (Sher 25).

The material of the outer rings has been in transit for about 20,000 years . . . it is not a result of the supernova blast.

The material of the inner (circumstellar) ring was in place prior to the supernova event. This is demonstrated by the fact that a blast wave of material is only now starting to collide with the inner surface, as demonstrated by the brightening knot closest to the star's former location.

Also scathing:
"This is purely a proposal and as of this writing has no general acceptance in the scientific community."
"The above diagram and said theory are based on my own
opinions of the Supernova event and are not held by
science in general, NASA or STSCI."

After reading it, I have no doubt that the above quotes are true.

My question to you is, what the hell does this have to do with Alderaan? Alderaan's first ring was created almost instantaneously, and departed the planet at .3 lightspeed. Why bring up an example of rings that were already in place?

[DarkStar]

As for spaceborne shields, have you perhaps considered that a planetary shield is, and always will be, partially atmospheric..?

Then why can't we see it as it goes down? I've already had this discussion previously, you know . . .

[Cpt_Frank]

Well actually we do see it, there's a green glow in the original, and a white glow in the SE, however, since you claim completely without evidence that this is the anti-genessis effect, there's no way out of this circle:
We show you the shield glow
You claim Alderaan had no shield
You claim it's the anti-genessis effect

Your theory is based on the unsupported assumption that Alderaan has no shields, an established SW technology, AND that the DS relies on a completely unknown technological device.

Of course this 1000th repetition of these and many other arguments my fellow debators have made here won't keep you from whining again
'but I have evidence, it is established read the posts.....' yadda yadda yadda.

DarkStar threads are nothing more than post count inflating threads.

[Patrick Degan]

It's obvious I referred to your 'atmospheres are solid mass' idiocy. Your smokescreens are not working.

The only smokescreens which aren't working are your own. It seems you're now down to misrepresenting my words, which is not surprising as your argument deterioriates.

To quote you:

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.

To which my reply was:

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.

You kept refusing to provide even a remotely rational basis for the attempt to argue that somehow that there would be no physical interaction involved with the superlaser beam propagating through to the surface. And even you must be aware that gasseous particles have mass. It is not possible for there to be a complete lack of disruption or turbulence along the path of the beam's trajectory to the surface. To which you then offered some lame excuse that only the lower atmosphere was subject to disruption but that the upper levels would not be so affected in your attempt to dismiss the very evident lack of cloud dispersal or turbulence.

However, Warsies (yourself included) have difficulty separating a person and their arguments

Excuse, excuse, blah blah. Now down to attacking the messenger. Your position deterioriates even further.

hence the Warsie habit of personal attacks in the place of counterarguments.

A presumption of moral superiority on your part destroyed the moment you started calling your opponents idiots —fairly early on as well.

I assume that it is based on the investment of far too much ego into the debate, leading to the sorts of bias and error Warsies are known for.

Ah, more projection.

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".

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.

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

As I say on my site, an Earth-like planet, assuming 100% mass-energy conversion, has 5000 times the necessary material to produce 1e38J. So, in spite of the fact that we're dealing with atmospheric gasses, let's assume that a rough 1/5000th efficiency holds against atmospheres, too, even though this concept is also contrary to the theory.

Spontaneous mass/energy conversion?!?

Once again, you have taken my argument and mangled it. At no point is spontaneous mass/energy conversion discussed or required, explicitly or implicitly. You really must stop being so dishonest

As for "mangling" your argument, it is you who is insisting that the mass of Alderaan is feeding the reaction. And that is you who is saying "mass-energy conversion" in the above quote, is it not?

As for your insult, Mr. Moral Superiority, I leave your own words to stand as the indictment of your true nature.

Even if we accepted your "spontaneous mass/energy conversion" idea as valid, unfortunately, the atmosphere of Alderaan does not react in that manner. There is no initial blast produced by the atmosphere being converted to energy, and the cloud formations would certainly not survive such a conversion. You make your case weaker with each post.

1.You continue your dishonest "spontaneous" nonsense.

Funny that you were the one who stated that mass/energy conversion is happening. Just what part of your statement didn't say that?

2.I do not claim that the atmosphere should react in that manner . . . it is your attempted addition to my theory which makes that claim.

It is the implicit end to the process you are claiming is taking place. If your position is that Alderaan is providing the energy to destroy itself, if the superlaser beam itself is not doing so, then spontaneous mass/energy conversion is the only method by which this is wholly improbable event is even remotely feasible. You've thrown out fission or fusion as the explanation for your Mysterious Unknown Mechanism. What's left? Magic?

I am demonstrating for you that your addition is preposterous.

Actually, you're demonstrating that your theory is preposterous. It's not taking that much effort on my part to help that along.

Do not attempt to claim that it makes my case weaker as a result . . . the problems are yours.

I always have problems with theories which make no damn sense whatsoever.

Non sequitor. Once more, I am not responsible for your fantasies. A theory does not survive simply because his proponnent keeps saying "it is because it is because it is".
I recommend a hearing aid. Because those weapons are decidedly louder than a phaser.
It's called Occam's Razor. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you.
It's not fission. It's not fusion. You deny outright Direct Energy Transfer. You state that Alderaan is somehow fueling the reaction for its own destruction. So what is left? Magic?
Because you deny it? No, I don't think so.
Sigh...yet more projection.
Oh?! And what can that possibly be?
Precisely. It disposed of the notion of the MUM in the form of a Creator God. Evolution needed no God Theory to explain it.
Absolute rubbish. DET shows us what occurred with the fewest number of variables required. That you refuse to accept the notion that the Death Star could produce the energy required to blast a planet apart in a tenth of a second is your problem. Your entire case is based upon rejecting that proposition outright, invoking your MUM, and then trying to make the facts of the case fit your theory.

Rather similar to creationists rejecting the entire concept of evolution outright, invoking the Creator God as their MUM, and then trying to contort the facts to fit their "theory".
Your theory is inferior because it presumes that its premise is the proof. That is the demonstration of what valid reasoning isn't.
Only in your mind, perhaps...
No, it is the simplest theory which fits the facts which is the Law of Parsimony. Having to invoke utterly unprovable and nonsensical MUMs to make a theory work does not make it work no matter how much you keep insisting otherwise.
Wrong yet again. Particularly since the concept of biological heredity was known from the 15th century thanks to Gregor Mendel. No Mysterious Unknown Mechanism was even remotely necessary to advance evolution. By contrast, your entire theory is pinned on MUM.
You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust. Just what part of the depiction of a planet violently exploding into billions of fragments after being struck by a very powerful energy beam fails to do this?
A statement which is disproven by a casual perusal of this thread.
Right. Because you can invoke MUM as your "explanation".
That's not what you were saying in an effort to explain why the clouds remained undisturbed as the beam propagated to the surface?
And yet more projection.
You don't even realise just how nonsensical you're being at this point. A theory which isn't much better than the Solarmonite Theory from Plan Nine From Outer Space.
It's not actually possible to make allowance for facts which do not exist.
Because the planetary mass is converting itself to energy? I thought that was not what you were saying.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If the mass of Alderaan is supplying the energy for its own destruction, then that says spontaneous conversion of matter into radiation is occurring (since it cannot conceivably be fission given that most of a planet's constituent matter is atomically stable, and it cannot be fusion since most of a planet's constituent matter is to heavy to fuse, and the requisite pressure/density conditions are not present). If spontaneous conversion of matter to radiation is not what is taking place, then there is no mechanism whatsoever to support your increasingly rickety theory.

Except magic. Or Solarmonite.
You really have no clue whatsoever about mass/energy balances, do you? You really do imagine there is a way to violate Conservation of Energy.
Even though this is physically impossible. And you still insist DET is the more difficult theory?
I hate to tell you this, but if physicists were listening to our different arguments, I'm not the one they'd be laughing at. As for your denial of a clearly observable physical mechanism in this universe, this is even more mind-boggling than your notion that Conservation of Energy can be freely violated in the manner you propose for your MUM. You may as well ask how accretion disks, planetary ring systems, and the ring ejecta from supernovae can be organised around the masses they surround.
I do not claim that at all.
Let's try this slowly, shall we?

1. Superlaser strikes planetary shield.

2. Shield glows from overload and collapses.

3. Planetary disruption commences.

4. Ring of superheated, ionised material propagates outward ahead of the blast, while the majority of the planetary mass is violently ejected outward (which accounts for all those asteroids the Millenium Falcon runs into)

This process occurs within a tenth of a second.
You'll pardon me for laughing once again.
What a way you have of cherry-picking your way through material to find just those bits which suit you. The nature of the outer rings of SN1987A is not what is being argued here.
No, he is being honest in regards to his theory. After all, he has to be.

Now, just how did I know that you'd try such a simplistic rebuttal? I did not even remotely attempt to argue that Alderaan's planar ring was the same as that of SN1987A's outer rings. My point was to illustrate that planar rings are not the phenomena dependent upon MUMs you seem to think they are.

So, to sum up: against the theory that Direct Energy Transfer is collapsing a planetary shield prior to violently blasting that same planet apart in a tenth of a second, you offer up the idea of the superlaser beam acting as a "trigger" for a process fueled by Alderaan's own constituent matter, which propagates rapidly through atmosphere yet induces no pressure disruption in its trajectory to the surface from bow-shock radiation, and operates in total violation of Conservation of Energy —which you further insist isn't spontaneous conversion of matter into radiation (or are, depending upon the needs of the moment) even though it cannot be fission, fusion, or matter/antimatter annihilation.

Frankly, you'd be much better off arguing for magic, or Solarmonite, as the alternative to DET.

[Patrick Degan]

And that is the last I have for this thread for the next two days. I'll be detained from the boards until then.

[Cpt_Frank]

DarkStar will certainly conserve the debate in its current state, no advancements will be made ya can be sure.

[Patrick Degan]

Since Dark Star decided to cherry-pick through the text of the SNPRO page I cited, I leave this quote in regard to supernova planar ring formation:

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.

[DarkStar]

Well actually we do see it, there's a green glow in the original, and a white glow in the SE

A green glow would support your view. The removal of that glow in the SE, and its replacement by a non-descript brightness, does not support your view.

however, since you claim completely without evidence that this is the anti-genessis effect,

I do not claim that the brightening of the clouds that is seen is part of the effect in action.

[SirNitram]

As for spaceborne shields, have you perhaps considered that a planetary shield is, and always will be, partially atmospheric..?

Then why can't we see it as it goes down? I've already had this discussion previously, you know . . .

You discussing things doesn't mean they're explained, Dark Star. That often means you've invented bullshit to try and alter what happened.

[Ryoga]

Well actually we do see it, there's a green glow in the original, and a white glow in the SE

A green glow would support your view. The removal of that glow in the SE, and its replacement by a non-descript brightness, does not support your view.

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? What the hell are you smoking?

I reccommend we stop feeding the troll; the admin won't ban him because he hasn't done anything /directly/ wrong, but I think he makes it abundantly clear that he's not interested in discussion...simply advancing his own masturbatory fantasies.

And before you say it, DipShit, because I know you will: I made a mistake and I corrected it. Can't say the same for you, now, can I?

[TheDarkling]

Hey thats theDarkling its very important to my self worth that you get the the there, thanks .

[SirNitram]

Hey thats theDarkling its very important to my self worth that you get the the there, thanks .

Darkling, Darkling, Darkling!

Mwahahaha.

I love being evil.

[Ryoga]

Consider it done.

[TheDarkling]

Thanks SirNitram almost caused me to become a broken man but my sanity (what little I had) has now been saved.

[SirNitram]

Thanks SirNitram almost caused me to become a broken man but my sanity (what little I had) has now been saved.

Well dammit, that ruins MY fun.

[SirNitram]

Well, for those still interested in whether Dark Star's claims hold any weight at all, even under his own warped rules, I present proof that Alderaan had shielding.

"The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough." ANH Novel, p 129-130

Since we know even a small, uncharted settlement of a world can boast a large scale shield, this is obviously a reference to such, and possibly more(Surface to orbit guns like the ion cannon on Hoth).

[TheDarkling]

That doesnt prove the shield was up though, shields are often said to take time to raise (ICS, WEG).

Of course how long was the death star in system - did they have time to raise the shield?, did they always have the shield up? - any indications?

[His Divine Shadow]

that the shield effect was way way above the atmosphere is evidence enough I think

[Isolder74]

If i understand correctally, Alderaan is near the galactic core. BTW Vader's dialogue in the Novel gives the impression that he was against blowing up Alderaan but he was for blowing up a rebel target. He seem to like the Idea of THREATING to blow up Alderaan to get the Princess to talk but not actually doing it. But you see Tarkin wanted a core world for his "demonstration" and Tarkin seems to be the only person(besides the Emporer) who has ever challanged Vader's authority.

[Ender]

All post ROTJ info we have indicates that planetary shields were usually up.

However, this is after several years of intense war, so whether this is the case back when the Rebellion was still picking up steam is unclear.

[SirNitram]

That doesnt prove the shield was up though, shields are often said to take time to raise (ICS, WEG).

Of course how long was the death star in system - did they have time to raise the shield?, did they always have the shield up? - any indications?

Tsk! Dark Star doesn't use those books, remember? In the context of this debate, the only time we are sure a shield is raised while we watch is Hoth.. And it's near instant(They drop from Hyperspace, and then detect the shield).

[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.