I just had to share this silly Death Star argument

[Vympel]

but you keep proving you don't even know your weight in spit about science. Hell, you either don't want to mention or couldn't care less about the fact that the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE is not only one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, but is also the strongest and they are within each atom. Why not looking that up in your dictionary. Just as Big H [aka tjhairball- Vym] said, releasing energy of that magnitude when you have a large mass, like a planet is powerful shit.

This is GStone, on strek-v-swars, desperately trying to come up with a DeathStar Chain Reaction that isn't completely stupid. And failing.

[Patrick Degan]

He'd still have to go a long way to beat Darkstar's load of bullshit.

[Darth Lucifer]

I'm not exactly following everything here...what is GStone's basic premise?

The other guy posting that link only confused me more. I tried to read it but it was like speaking in tongues...my brain could not filter all that technobabble.

Help, plz?

[Junghalli]

Jebus, I'm surprised someone hasn't tried the old "it ignited all the oxygen in the atmosphere!" one.
There was some speculation at one time that an atomic blast would do that actually. Just out of curiousity would that actually blow up the planet or just render it lifeless?

[Alyeska]

It takes incredibly volitile elements to break the strong nuclear force, and even then very little of it actualy goes E=MC2. A planet like Alderan has a dynamo mantel to it. That material is already under emense pressure and energy. Causing such stable elements to break their strong nuclear force is an extreme leap in logic. Its simpler to assume great amounts of firepower rather then some exotic chain reaction weapon with no direct evidence to support it. Its merely conjecture and bad science.

[Dark Hellion]

So, what is his theory? If the SNF breaks down the energy shouldn't be released. The strenght of the SNF is the fact that unlike all other force particle gluons have a color charge as well as carry said charge. This forces them to have a non inverse square drop off. The force is strong because as you pull apart the PE gets large enough and then E=MC^2 kicks in and spits out another quark. If you simply negate the color charge of the Gluons completely all you have is a slightly worse version of the TA D-gun. The particles would scatter from Electromagnetic repulsion but this energy release would be much different from a DET deviceand generally have an incredibly different visual effect than what the movie portrays. The particles would quickly reform color neutral pairs and drift as particulate matter without large clumps as the movie shows.
(Note the above post is going off the top of my head quickly at 1:30 Am and taken on a scale I don't deal in in my studies[quantum/cosmological] and so might not be 100% correct, but generally shows the theory to be bullshit)

[Petrosjko]

I would so sig this part...

Hell, you either don't want to mention or couldn't care less about the fact that the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE is not only one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, but is also the strongest and they are within each atom.

...but it would bump more worthy wit from my sig.

Alternatively, it gives me the strangest urge to introduce myself to people as the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE.

Damn, he makes it sounds like some sort of badly translated anime character or team. Hell, his whole speech looks like a bad translation.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, he doesn't realize that nuclear binding energy is actually negative. Sure, it's strong, but it holds atoms together rather than blowing them apart. Jebus, what an idiot.

This is like saying that if you blow up a planet, all of the gravitational potential energy will be released; one has to be seven kinds of stupid in order to think it works this way.

I wonder why the rabid Trekkies never seem to notice that none of their number actually have real science qualifications, and just make it up as they go along.

[Ted C]

I'm not exactly following everything here...what is GStone's basic premise?

The other guy posting that link only confused me more. I tried to read it but it was like speaking in tongues...my brain could not filter all that technobabble.

Help, plz?

The insulting version: he thinks Alderaan (and by extension, any Earth-like planet) is actually a giant bomb, and the Death Star is just a flying detonator.

That's really all there is to his "chain reaction theory". He isn't explaining anything with all his talk about fire rings and delayed explosions; he's just flinging pseudoscientific technobabble and hoping we'll take it as seriously as he does. This is the sort of person who buys Shakti Stones for his stereo.

[Crown]

but you keep proving you don't even know your weight in spit about science. Hell, you either don't want to mention or couldn't care less about the fact that the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE is not only one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, but is also the strongest and they are within each atom. Why not looking that up in your dictionary. Just as Big H [aka tjhairball- Vym] said, releasing energy of that magnitude when you have a large mass, like a planet is powerful shit.

This is GStone, on strek-v-swars, desperately trying to come up with a DeathStar Chain Reaction that isn't completely stupid. And failing.

Pffft, I stopped debating that when Hariball accused me of using 'circular logic' for starting off with the laws of thermodynamics. I couldn't breathe since I was laughing so hard.

[Praxis]

I stopped debating there after the arrow debate with Darkstar and the board closed down.

It was sad, I tell you.

[Lord Poe]

You're a saint by surviving over there Vympel. You can't call someone a dumbass, but Gstone can call you one. (earlier in the thread)

Nice Modding over there. But then again, it IS Darkstar's board.

[Praxis]

You're a saint by surviving over there Vympel. You can't call someone a dumbass, but Gstone can call you one. (earlier in the thread)

Nice Modding over there. But then again, it IS Darkstar's board.

Try reporting him to the moderators (aka Alyeska)?

[nightmare]

Watch out guys, we're standing on a giant nuke, just waiting to go off.

[Alyeska]

If planets were really as volitile as he claimed, the internal dynamo in the mantel would already have detonated Earth long ago. Thats a LOT of energy going on down there.

[Lord Poe]

Watch out guys, we're standing on a giant nuke, just waiting to go off.

What happens if we pour Cherry Coke and Pop Rocks into an active volcano?

[The Cleric]

Watch out guys, we're standing on a giant nuke, just waiting to go off.

What happens if we pour Cherry Coke and Pop Rocks into an active volcano?

God kills a kitten.

[Glimmervoid]

Dose not the fact that the deathstar blows up ships disprove that it uses chain reactions to destroy planets. I mean if it was designed to make the core expanded or some thing why would it work on shielded star ships.

[Lord Poe]

Dose not the fact that the deathstar blows up ships disprove that it uses chain reactions to destroy planets. I mean if it was designed to make the core expanded or some thing why would it work on shielded star ships.

Quiet you! You're not supposed to point out logic to these people!

[SPOOFE]

Dose not the fact that the deathstar blows up ships disprove that it uses chain reactions to destroy planets.

I guess the "Death Star chain reaction" nonsense comes with a de facto concession that SW ships have neutronium hulls. That's where the mass comes from...

[Darth Wong]

Dose not the fact that the deathstar blows up ships disprove that it uses chain reactions to destroy planets.

I guess the "Death Star chain reaction" nonsense comes with a de facto concession that SW ships have neutronium hulls. That's where the mass comes from...

Also, a remarkable number of ST fans loudly claim that SW has no particle shielding despite the atmosphere retention fields, the Endor ship-blocking shield, the obvious relation to tractor-beam technology, etc. That's what's so annoying about them; it's bad enough to deal with bad science, bad logic, and horrendous ignorance of military tactics, but do we really need to deal with such blatantly obvious outright lies too?

[Vympel]

Obviously, he doesn't realize that nuclear binding energy is actually negative. Sure, it's strong, but it holds atoms together rather than blowing them apart. Jebus, what an idiot.

This is like saying that if you blow up a planet, all of the gravitational potential energy will be released; one has to be seven kinds of stupid in order to think it works this way.

I wonder why the rabid Trekkies never seem to notice that none of their number actually have real science qualifications, and just make it up as they go along.

Look at this response when I pointed this out to him :

Thank you, even though I know you're being sarcastic. I knew when I wrote it you'd have trouble figuring it out on your own. So, I'll guide you through it.

Of course it doesn't make atoms blow up on their. The important part is "on their own". Strong force doesn't have an inverse square law and only has a short range. That's why you don't see atoms collapse on themselves, given the large strength of the strong force. Now, if you were to get these interior particles to separate by some kind of 'negating effect' of the strong force that's, at least, temporary, you can let the other forces in atoms work on moving around the particles. Even with a 10 pound chunk of common rock, that's quite a bit.Now imagine an Earth-like planet worth of that kind of energy. You'd have high levels of radiation all around. The trick is to release the energy. Going the brute force method, there'd be no point in trying to release that energy for a planet, since you'd have to have an energy strength greater than the strong force to begin with. Once you "release" the strong force, aka keep it from working on the other bits, the other fundamental forces come into effect.

So, Big H's statement of "A planet has enough energy - aka "matter" - to blow quite a bit up. Provided that it is released in some fashion." is correct. Matter has a lot of energy that can be used.

Could you have an any more obvious backpedal?

Vague pseudo-scientific bullshit #1: Some negating effect! [ah, so I'll just magically turn it off once my error was pointed out to me and save my argument!]

Vague pseudo-scientitic bullshit #2: Quite a bit of ... other forces! Yeah! That's the ticket. Vague qualitative statements.

Vague pseudo-scientific bullshit #3: The "other bits" and the "other fundamental forces".

Fucking dishonest ...

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, now he's getting closer to Darkstar's Mysterious Unknown Mechanism™ which lies at the heart of his Solarmonite Theory for Alderann's destruction.

[Darth Wong]

Of course it doesn't make atoms blow up on their. The important part is "on their own". Strong force doesn't have an inverse square law and only has a short range. That's why you don't see atoms collapse on themselves, given the large strength of the strong force. Now, if you were to get these interior particles to separate by some kind of 'negating effect' of the strong force that's, at least, temporary, you can let the other forces in atoms work on moving around the particles.

"Negating effect" of the strong force? This is like saying that a planet will blow apart from centrifugal forces if you can just "negate" gravity temporarily, and completely ignore the laws of thermodyamics and that pesky negative gravitational potential energy problem.

Even with a 10 pound chunk of common rock, that's quite a bit.Now imagine an Earth-like planet worth of that kind of energy. You'd have high levels of radiation all around. The trick is to release the energy.

Does he honestly not understand what it means for this energy to be negative? It is not "released"; it is required from the attacking platform.

Going the brute force method, there'd be no point in trying to release that energy for a planet, since you'd have to have an energy strength greater than the strong force to begin with. Once you "release" the strong force, aka keep it from working on the other bits, the other fundamental forces come into effect.

So by "release", he means "magically turn it off and ignore the fact that it's a gigantic violation of thermodynamics to make the negative potential energy simply disappear without producing an equal amount of positive energy to cancel it out?

So, Big H's statement of "A planet has enough energy - aka "matter" - to blow quite a bit up. Provided that it is released in some fashion." is correct. Matter has a lot of energy that can be used.

No, it has a lot of energy that is required in order to destroy it. What a maroon.

Could you have an any more obvious backpedal?

Even his backpedal is fucking stupid. He still thinks the planet contains a lot of energy, but he still doesn't seem to understand what it means for this energy to be negative.

His argument is like saying that if you have a gigantic credit card debt, you can harness this hidden financial power somehow by magically negating it temporarily.

[Lord Poe]

His argument is like saying that if you have a gigantic credit card debt, you can harness this hidden financial power somehow by magically negating it temporarily.

"How can I be overdrawn? I still have checks left!"