A look back at the versus debate

[darth_timon]

Hello one and all.

I am soon going to be completely revamping my site and as part of the update, I am hoping to add a page that includes a history of the debate. I am also hoping to include interviews with some of the debate's major players (if they are so willing and have the time to take part).

If anyone has any particularly fond memories of events relating to the debate, please feel free to drop me an email at benjamin.berwick@googlemail.com. If you don't wish to be named on my site then just say so in your email and I'll label you anon.

[Dark Hellion]

I find it slightly funny that the debate has been over so long that recollection of it is more like telling war stories then telling news of actual events.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I find it slightly funny that the debate has been over so long that recollection of it is more like telling war stories then telling news of actual events.

As Wong said: Versus Debates, Combat for Geeks.

[rhoenix]

Isn't this more about the calcs, evidence, and such more than the people who pointed it all out and hashed it out properly?

Not to take away from anyone's thunder (as it would be of historical note to see who, what, when, how, and why), but as Shakespeare said, "the play's the thing." The actors evoke the play, but the play as whole is the event.

[TC Pilot]

And without good actors, the play's crap.

[Darth Servo]

Isn't this more about the calcs, evidence, and such more than the people who pointed it all out and hashed it out properly?

Not to take away from anyone's thunder (as it would be of historical note to see who, what, when, how, and why), but as Shakespeare said, "the play's the thing." The actors evoke the play, but the play as whole is the event.

I'd say its both the evidence and the players. How could anyone write about the history of this debate without writing about the famous trolls like TOWNMNBS, about Mike crushing Darkstar, Wayne's ultiimate VS webpage and comedy of the whole thing, etc, etc, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't this more about the calcs, evidence, and such more than the people who pointed it all out and hashed it out properly?

Why can't it be about both?

Not to take away from anyone's thunder (as it would be of historical note to see who, what, when, how, and why), but as Shakespeare said, "the play's the thing." The actors evoke the play, but the play as whole is the event.

That would be appropriate if everyone were playing the game honestly. Then you could simply talk about strategy, like you do in a well-played chess game. But when certain players tend to misrepresent themselves, their abilities, and their facts, that should be pointed out because these people will continue to do so elsewhere, and others need to be warned of that.

For example, if you don't point out the many examples of lies from certain parties, then future people might take those peoples' claims at face value. Similarly, if you don't point out that interesting coincidence that all of the real science, engineering, and military types tend to end up on one side of this debate, people might get away with claiming that there is equal expertise on both sides (that is exactly what creationists do after all).

[darth_timon]

In the end, I'm happy to look at this from all angles. If someone wants to contribute a look at how the technical arguments have evolved over the years, I'll include that. If someone else wants to look at the major players (both good and bad), I'll do that too. The humourous element is also welcome (how can I not refer to Wayne's 'Last Bastion' series).

[rhoenix]

I'd say its both the evidence and the players. How could anyone write about the history of this debate without writing about the famous trolls like TOWNMNBS, about Mike crushing Darkstar, Wayne's ultiimate VS webpage and comedy of the whole thing, etc, etc, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that the players' roles are without merit - I was merely saying that what happened was of more import than who it happened with.

That would be appropriate if everyone were playing the game honestly. Then you could simply talk about strategy, like you do in a well-played chess game. But when certain players tend to misrepresent themselves, their abilities, and their facts, that should be pointed out because these people will continue to do so elsewhere, and others need to be warned of that.

For example, if you don't point out the many examples of lies from certain parties, then future people might take those peoples' claims at face value. Similarly, if you don't point out that interesting coincidence that all of the real science, engineering, and military types tend to end up on one side of this debate, people might get away with claiming that there is equal expertise on both sides (that is exactly what creationists do after all).

Actually, I think you've assuaged my main worry, which was that you or Poe or others might be misrepresented as characters, rather than players, so to speak - however, as you said, if all the real military, science, and engineering types are on one side, then that does neatly take care of that.

Of another note is tracking arguments made by both sides - as you said, since the people whose experience with most of the data in question are siding firmly with the Star Wars side of things, seeing the different arguments made ad nauseum by the Trek crowd would be more interesting than who made those arguments. However, as Darth Servo pointed out above, what those arguments evolved into is equally important, and to see what, one must know the people involved.

Thank you both - I retract my objection.

[FedRebel]

Wikipedia says the following regarding history...

History

Pre-Usenet era

Impromptu debates over the merits of Star Trek versus Star Wars have been going on since Star Wars debuted in the late 1970s. Prior to the development and widespread adoption of computer networks, they would often take place at fan conventions and among small groups of friends. The VS arguments steadily increased in volume and frequency during the early days of the internet and BBS communities. Groups such as rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc and rec.arts.sf.tv would be taken over by long flamewars dedicated to VS arguments for weeks on end. The intensity of these disputes were often sufficient to wreck the harmonious atmosphere of a previously friendly and easygoing newsgroup. As a way to get this contentious and distracting topic off of their network space, the new hierarchy of alt.startrek.vs was created in 1997. It was populated by other groups such as alt.startrek.vs.balylon5, but the Star Trek versus Star Wars branch has traditionally been the most heated and active of the versus newsgroups.

Usenet era: ASVS

From 1997 until roughly 2002, the highest-traffic site[citation needed] to engage in battle with other Star Trek and Star Wars fans was the Newsgroup alt.startrek.vs.starwars, or ASVS. True to its combative origins, ASVS prided itself on the level of hostility and general chaos that it promoted and encouraged. Attempts from outside agents to troll and disrupt the group were either co-opted by the participants or greeted as welcome diversions. During this time many of the cultural aspects of the debate that remain to this day, such as speculative fan fiction, the ascendancy of the more technological, scientific, and documentary-style approach to evidence, and smash-mouth style of "discussion" was established.

In the beginning of the Usenet era pro-Trek arguments based on examination of dialog and technical manual stats held sway. As the documentary-style approach began to gain favor, Star Wars proponents with backgrounds in mathematics and physics were able to put together calculations derived from the film evidence pointing to lower-level power estimates of Star Wars capabilities that were far greater than had been previously accepted. They adopted apologetic arguments regarding negative assumptions about the Star Wars universe, such as that the elite Imperial Stormtroopers seemed to be sub-par marksmen, or that hyperspace couldn't be faster than Warp drive because its speeds were described in terms of 'lightspeed.'"

In less than five years the group went from a solid pro-Trek majority to a clear pro-Wars majority[citation needed]. The group also worked to promote the prevailing approach to analyzing evidence by passing various rules [4] that were enforced by means of peer pressure and shaming tactics. The pro-Wars advocates' general success in debate and politicking was a Pyrrhic victory, as once the majority of remaining debaters agreed that the debate was decided in their favor, and developed rules cementing this consensus, there were few topics left for discussion.

WWW discussion boards era

Starting in 2000, ASVS's status as leader of the versus debate was threatened from other online communities such as Spacebattles.com and Stardestroyer.net that employed World Wide Web-based bulletin boards. Declining levels of access to and familiarity with Usenet and the increase in availability of free and open source implementations of bulletin board software lead to more traffic driven to these sites while ASVS participation dwindled. Many long-time veterans of the debate disliked these new web boards, citing the moderators power to unilaterally ban opposing viewpoints and crack down on trollish and abusive behavior as being contrary to the spirit of the debate. There was less stigma attached to free-wheeling less serious and analytical arguments at many of these communities, which was another cause of friction. Many also disliked the format of the web boards, seeing them as slower and more difficult to navigate and keep track of than the interface provided by their favorite news reader.

Many "invasions" of the populace from one community to another took place during this transitional time. The ensuing personality conflicts and flame wars provided many with an amusing diversion from the basic problem of stagnation that faced ASVS. Despite this, the changeover was nevertheless irreversible. Where once ASVS received thousands of posts per week, as of 2005 it has slowed to a few dozen or less, while the various web-based communities have thousands of participants and hundreds of messages per day.

Post AOTC:ICS era

The technology-related debate took a turn in 2002 after the publication of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, better known by its acronyms AOTC:ICS, EP2: ICS, or E2ICS. Dr. Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics and was previously known for his scholarly discussions of Star Wars technology, was hired by LucasFilm, Ltd. to do the research and technical write-ups for the book. The book had figures for Star Wars weaponry that confirmed many of the upper estimates of the pro-Wars advocates, which were far higher than what the pro-Trek side had been able to field.

The book was immediately controversial. Some pro-Trek debaters doubted the accuracy of the book, questioning the author's objectivity and personal integrity. Suspicions were raised in part because of the thanks offered by Dr. Saxton in the Acknowledgments section of his book to several prominent pro-Wars debaters. This led to allegations that the book itself was written in order to win the Star Trek vs Star Wars debate. Defenders of the book said that LucasFilm hired Dr. Saxton based on the strength of his earlier works, and that this was thus a tacit blessing of his firepower calculations. They also pointed to his education, which they argued made him more qualified to do the requisite mathematical and scientific analysis of the films than any previous technical writer of the Star Wars series.

The various communities have since divided into two groups, mostly identified along Star Wars / Star Trek party lines. The first group accepted Dr. Saxton's book as an accurate and valid part of Star Wars canon. Many taking this view held that the book decided the debate in favor of Star Wars. A number of pro-Trek debaters agreed and retired from the field. As a consequence, the debate receded into areas of esoterica or died out altogether in some communities.

The second group consisted of those who rejected the book for three main reasons. First, they doubted its accuracy, believing that many of the numbers were derived from research and from conclusions that they disagreed with. Second, they refused to consider technical books of this type as being genuine Star Wars canon. Finally, they stated that Dr. Saxton's book contradicted other sources of equal or higher authority, specifically the movies and their novelizations. Thus, they concluded that the book was inadmissible as evidence.

[FedRebel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars says the following regarding history...

Could somebody please fix the link from that abomination, into this...

Wikipedia says the following regarding history...

[chitoryu12]

I love how they call it a "geeky polomic" between "nerds". They can accuse an article about politics in Lithuania of having "weasle words", i.e. words that may favor a certain arguement while not looking it, yet they call SW vs. ST "geeky". Thank you free editing.

[Eleas]

I love how they call it a "geeky polomic" between "nerds". They can accuse an article about politics in Lithuania of having "weasle words", i.e. words that may favor a certain arguement while not looking it, yet they call SW vs. ST "geeky". Thank you free editing.

Now, while I don't particularly like Wikipedia's definition of the word "neutral", your own interpretation of the text seems singularly creative. To anyone equipped with a search function, it's easy enough to see that the word "polemic" (in itself a fairly neutral word) was the only of them used to describe the debate itself. Neither "geeky" or "nerds" was used, except for the former being used to illustrate fan contentions among the newsgroups.

Tip for the day: If you must use strawmen, be sure to make them less flimsy.

[chitoryu12]

I love how they call it a "geeky polomic" between "nerds". They can accuse an article about politics in Lithuania of having "weasle words", i.e. words that may favor a certain arguement while not looking it, yet they call SW vs. ST "geeky". Thank you free editing.

Now, while I don't particularly like Wikipedia's definition of the word "neutral", your own interpretation of the text seems singularly creative. To anyone equipped with a search function, it's easy enough to see that the word "polemic" (in itself a fairly neutral word) was the only of them used to describe the debate itself. Neither "geeky" or "nerds" was used, except for the former being used to illustrate fan contentions among the newsgroups.

Tip for the day: If you must use strawmen, be sure to make them less flimsy.

How was it a strawman? The text was edited, so "geeky" and "nerds" were removed. You can use the history function to check the older version.

[Eleas]

Now, while I don't particularly like Wikipedia's definition of the word "neutral", your own interpretation of the text seems singularly creative. To anyone equipped with a search function, it's easy enough to see that the word "polemic" (in itself a fairly neutral word) was the only of them used to describe the debate itself. Neither "geeky" or "nerds" was used, except for the former being used to illustrate fan contentions among the newsgroups.

Tip for the day: If you must use strawmen, be sure to make them less flimsy.

How was it a strawman? The text was edited, so "geeky" and "nerds" were removed. You can use the history function to check the older version.

...which, in this case, shows that free editing has indeed worked to remove the offending loaded words entirely. In other words, the exact thing you criticised it for not doing. See?

[Darth Wong]

...which, in this case, shows that free editing has indeed worked to remove the offending loaded words entirely. In other words, the exact thing you criticised it for not doing. See?

Oh for fuck's sake, the subject is the kind of things people say about "vs" debating. It is NOT yet another debate about the dubious merits of Wikipedia. Which forum do you think you're in?

[Eleas]

Oh for fuck's sake, the subject is the kind of things people say about "vs" debating. It is NOT yet another debate about the dubious merits of Wikipedia. Which forum do you think you're in?

Point. Consider it dropped.

[darth_timon]

I am considering, for better or worse, whether to ask Darkstar to contribute to this little project of mine. I would even consider asking TOWNMNBS, but I have no idea how to contact him.

The reason being is not to stir up trouble, but to simply present multiple angles on this debate.

I would also consider asking Mike and Wayne to offer their own views on the history of this subject, maybe devising some kind of 'interview' format. I'd like to ask Curtis Saxton too, but I would understand if all three are considerably busy and wouldn't have time to contribute directly- especially since their opinions are already well known (and Mr Saxton doesn't participate in the debate anymore).

[Darth Servo]

and Mr Saxton doesn't participate in the debate anymore.

As far as I know, Dr Saxton never participated in the debate at all. Desperate Trektards tried to claim he did so they could continue their jihad against the ICS, labeling it "biased".

[Socar15]

and Mr Saxton doesn't participate in the debate anymore.

As far as I know, Dr Saxton never participated in the debate at all. Desperate Trektards tried to claim he did so they could continue their jihad against the ICS, labeling it "biased".

If I recall correctly, Curis Saxton participated in one thread on ASVS, and only then at the request of other people if I'm remembering right. I think it was just him explaining why the whole idea of shields being immune to lasers was nonsense.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I am considering, for better or worse, whether to ask Darkstar to contribute to this little project of mine. I would even consider asking TOWNMNBS, but I have no idea how to contact him.

The reason being is not to stir up trouble, but to simply present multiple angles on this debate.

I would also consider asking Mike and Wayne to offer their own views on the history of this subject, maybe devising some kind of 'interview' format. I'd like to ask Curtis Saxton too, but I would understand if all three are considerably busy and wouldn't have time to contribute directly- especially since their opinions are already well known (and Mr Saxton doesn't participate in the debate anymore).

From what I've heard, Darkstar claims to have had death threats over this whole vs debate. I wouldn't expect too much in the way of honesty out of him.

[Dark Hellion]

Darkstar is the kind of person who takes juvenile "oh I hope a bus hits him" and turns it into a death threat. He suffers the same mix of self-deluded over importance and low self-esteem of many of these types of over involved debaters.

[Lord Poe]

If I recall correctly, Curis Saxton participated in one thread on ASVS, and only then at the request of other people if I'm remembering right. I think it was just him explaining why the whole idea of shields being immune to lasers was nonsense.

Your post sparked my memory a bit, so I did some digging. Curtis DID participate in the VS debates in a very limited way (for all of two posts), back in 1997, before ASVS existed.

From: Curtis Saxton <sax...@physics.usyd.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Lightsabre deflection of Phaser beams
Date: 1997/07/23
Organization: STAR WARS Technical Commentaries
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.ds9,alt.tv.star-trek.tos,alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.fan.starwars,rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc

I usually ignore STvSW. Too much noise. But today some kind bystanders
told me that I might find something interesting. For the sake of
brevity I shall delete the invective and superfluous rhetoric.

James Grady Ward wrote:
> Coffey wrote:
>
> > >> The accomplishment of the complete disruption of an Earth-like planet
> > >> sets a lower limit to the destructive capability of the Death Stars'
> > >> prime weapon. The gravitational binding energy of a planetary body is
> > >> the minimum amount of energy required to eject all of its material
> > >> with sufficient force that it will not fall back together.
> > >
> > >Who said it would never reform a planet?

The material ejected in the Alderaan explosion was moving outwards at
speeds of several planetary diameters (tens of thousands of km) per
second. That's faster than the escape velocity. The kinetic energy
involved in the Alderaan explosion is very much greater than the energy
scale of the planet's self-gravity.

If the ejecta was moving slowly enough to fall back and reform then it
would have taken minutes or hours for the explosion to unfold.

Let's make it clear: the velocity is too high. Stuff won't fall back.

The gravitational binding energy of a planet sets a scale on the kind of
energies you need to overcome a planet's self-gravity. (Use much less
energy and you'll blast off *parts* of the planet; or the bits will fall
back in a length of time similar to the duration of the explosion; or
you'll just melt the surface a bit.)

> > Watch the movie again, those pieces will be shooting out at 10000's of
> > km/s for quite a few millenia (if not billions of years).
>
> And on what do you basis this revelation?

The observed speed of the explosion. The fact that all of the planet
participated in the explosion. I say again: there's far too much
kinetic energy in the explosion for the matter to pull itself back
together again.

> If the peices were
> shot out at the speed you just suggested ...
> there would be nothing close to recognizable
> as a asteroid field from the palnet within a few MINUTES. The Falcon
> arrives a little while after the event and the peices of Alderaan are
> more or less still in the neihborhood of where Alderaan was.

Consider the time between the explosion (as sensed by Kenobi) and the
realspace reversion alarm heard by the people in the Falcon's hold.
That wasn't more than a minute or two. The Falcon *did* arrive very
shortly after the explosion.

> ... Since you are implying that we have to
> dump enough energy into the planet to send every atom off at
> some rediculous speed( which the movie did not show anyway)

Incorrect. We *did* see this kind of speed in the movie. Within a few
seconds of the explosion, *all* of the mass of Alderaan had been
displaced by several tens of thousands of km.

The Falcon hit some debris during its deceleration towards the point
where Alderaan had been. In fact the Falcon plowed through quite a lot
of debris on its way in. The debris did not disappear, but it was still
on its way outwards.

> of
> course you are going to get a rediculously high value for the
> energy needed. ...

> ...

> If the planet had been blown up in the manner in which you describe
> Han should have ran into about 1 or 2 boulders and that would
> be it. What Han ran into, and was shown if I recall, was a large
> field of asteroids WHERE Alderaan had been. The movie never
> tried to imply that every atom of Alderaan was sent off at
> escape velocity.

It did. One moment the mass of Alderaan was sitting still in a nice
cosy place. The next moment it was moving outwards very rapidly.

> ...
>
> > >> It should be noted that this is simply the minimum energy required to
> > >> destroy a terrestrial planet. It is quite possible that the Death
> > >> Star's maximum capability may be much greater.
> > >
> > >Wrong. To destroy it you only need to smash a big
> > >rock into it.

And the rock would have to smash into the planet with more than the
planet's binding energy. Otherwise it might make a big crash, but
everything would settle down again. And if you don't give the rock
enough energy, you won't see the planet explode as quickly as Alderaan
did.

> > >This is tring to calculate how much energy
> > >would be needed to send each peice of it off at an =
> > >insane speed.

Watch the explosion. Do some photogrammetry. Observe how far the
explosion progresses and in what length of time. The speed you'll
measure (if you do it honestly) is much more than escape velocity.

Let me explain binding energy. There is a potential energy associated
with any configuration of matter, due to the mutual attraction of all
the little parts of the object. If you want to unbind the matter then
you have to supply an amount of kinetic energy which cancels the
potential energy. Otherwise gravity eventually wins and everything
falls back together.

Energy is a conserved quantity; the process or path you use to inject
the energy does not matter. The binding energy is a clear-cut criterion
which does not depend on circumstance.

You can calculate the gravitational binding energy of an Earthlike
planet by taking the density profile of Earth or Venus and integrating
the Newtonian gravitational potential energy over the whole volume. The
observed kinetic energy of the Alderaan explosion is very much greater
than this threshold.

> > > All that was shown was a large explosion
> > >in the center of the planet makeing a field of rubble.
> >
> > Incase you forgot that is what happened.
>
> Nope, I remember Han finding a field of asertoids where
> Alderaan had been. Thus you are wrong and that is not
> what happened. Some of the planets total mass probably
> was shot out of its gravity well, but what was shown
> clearly was not all of the mass being shot out. ...
> ... If each single
> atom of the planet was sent outward like you said, in less
> than a minute the size of the expanding sphere would have
> made it such that you would not see anything left where
> Alderaan had been. And since Han did not pop out of hyper
> space that soon after the event, we can assume at least
> a few minutes passed which makes it even more harder
> to beleive this silly ungrounded assumption when the movie
> suggest otherwise.

I see a major the point of your miscomprehension. You reject the speed
of the debris which can be measured from the movies frames depicting the
explosion. You see that the MF runs into rocks. You assume that if the
debris really was fast then it wouldn't be found anywhere near the
destination of the MF. Perhaps you believe that the observed rocks are
sitting at rest relative to the former location of Alderaan.

The rocks are flying outwards in all directions, away from the point
where Alderaan once existed. The swarm moves faster than the speed
which their mutual gravity can overcome. The Falcon enters the region
by flying *through* the expanding shell of debris.

> > >You do realize that escape velocity actually depends
> > >on the gravitation field strength at the given point.

Yes. It depends on how much mass is nearby and it depends on its
distribution. Big concentrations of matter have high escape velocities
at their surfaces. For an Earthlike planet it's something like a dozen
km/s. Escape velocity is different at different points thorughout the
interior of the planet, reducing from the surface towards the centre.
The maximum value is at the surface. As the planet blows apart (becomes
less concentrated) the escape velocity evalueated at each particle
becomes less. The maximum you ever have to worry about is the surface
escape velocity of the unexploded planet. If your debris is moving
faster than this speed then, as a rule of thumb, you know that the stuff
is never going to fall back under self-gravity because escape velocities
only become less.

> > Gee most planets are globes afterall.
>
> Not real planets, they all are flatened out on the ends.
> A simple obvious result of the spining about their axis.

This is only a small correction, only on the order of the planet's
rotational energy. If the rotational energy was comparable to the
gravitational potential energy then the planet wouldn't be round at
all. It would be a flat disk or something.

> > A few small gravitational
> > differences are hardly going to matter.
>
> When you are making the silly assumption that you have
> to COMPLETELY overcome the gravitation well with EACH
> atom of the planet( not what was shown anyway) it does.

It *was* shown.

We watch the explosion and measure the kinetic energy of it; determining
that it is vastly greater than the binding energy.

> And when you factor into this that gravitation field
> strength drops off as an inverse square relationship,
> it is not a small difference.

The drop-off is naturally accounted for in calculating the total binding
energy. It is implict in the Newtonian formulation which you use to do
the integration. All that matters is the threshold energy which comes
out of the calculation. It is a simple criterion which does not vary
according to process or path.

> > >Just who is this idiot anyway.

Me.

> > A Post graduate student of Theoretical Astrophysics, just who are you?

I don't destroy planets for a living (not yet anyhow). But calculating
the binding energy of a planet is essentially the same task as many
rudimentary electrostatics problems which are routinely done by senior
high school students and early undergrad students in physics (at least
in my part of the world).

> Oh, I am just restating things that an astromony professor
> here told us. Whom BTW thinks this students needs to
> do some more research as well. And I have enough of
> a hobby of physics to know that this guy at the very
> least does not understand how impulse force works.

I have enough of a hobby of physics to see that you don't understand the
path-independence of work. Conservation of energy and probably a few
other things.

> Actually
> anyone who has passed high school physics should know
> that the ammount of time a force acts over has a major bearing
> on how destructive it can be.

That's why we don't fomrulate the problem in terms of force and time.
Calculate the energies involved. The binding energy sets a *minimum*
threshold because in reality some of the injected energy will be wasted
as heat rather than a perfect conversion to kinetic energy.

> This guy appearently either
> does not understand how rapidly annilation reactions go or
> does not understand impulse one or the other. He is also
> ignoring what a sudden increase in the temperature of the
> core of a planet would do. Really all that is needed
> to make a planet explode is to make the core around 4 billion
> degrees real quick.

And the energy to do this has to be injected by the DS. It all comes
back to the energy argument. [sigh]

> Something droping a little antimatter
> on it would do.

How much antimatter? Typical Trekkie: arguing in terms of "kind"
without regard for "quantity". Always thinking that you can get
something for nothing, too ...

> ...
> The simplest explaination I have ever heard for the death
> stars "beam" was that it was an anti-matter beam and the
> explosion is caused by sudden fussion and fission reactions
> inside the planet caused by the heat of the annilation reactions.

You want to establish some kind of run-away nuclear reaction to help you
reach the threshold energy to unbind the planet? Another source in
addition to the energy injected by the DS?

The main trouble with this kind of argument is that the nuclear
reactions will need immense temperatures and densities. You don't get
stellar-core temperatures and densities throughout a planet.

Matter becomes hot and compact along the DS beam. But if you look at
the composition of a terrestrial planet and assume that all the matter
along the beam instantly does fission and fusion with perfect efficiency
to Iron then there still isn't quite enough to blow the planet apart.
The beam is too thin.

> Of course YOU will reject this, since it does not make the
> deathstar stronger than even the average ST ship. But still
> it explains the result and the clear absence of anti-matter
> as a weapon even explains Han's confusion how such a weapon
> could be made.

A man sailing into Hiroshima at the end of WW2 would be dumbfounded too.
Solo was not really thinking in physical terms. He was experiencing a
momentary panic and surprise. His problem that events confounded his
preconceptions about human capabilities.

> > >> The DeathStar exhibits more firepower than 10000 times the power as if
> > >> it were one HUGE PURE ANTIMATTER-MATTER BOMB

We observe that the mass-energy of the Death Star (assuming that the
station has denisty 1kg per cubic metre) is not great in comparison to
the binding energy of a planet. This means that the DS has an
interesting internal power source; possibly involving tamed forms of
exotic matter, mini black holes or whatever. In other words, there's
more to the DS than just the habitable hull. This is only a side issue.

> > >Now what he forgot. Annilation reactions takes =
> > >place INSTANTLY( or as near as quantum mechanic will
> > >allow).

Unforgotten, but irrelevent.

We have not yet established that the DS beam is antimatter anyhow.

> > >Due to the rapid rate of the reaction,
> > >the force it generates could not be equated to
> > >simple kinetic energy.

Yes. It makes things hot immediately surrounding the beam. Hot stuff
means big pressure. Pressure blows things apart. Kinetic energy,
plus some inefficiency (heating).

> > >Force that happen over
> > >very short times act much more violently than
> > >ones that happen over long periods of time.

While is tautologous and irrelevent. Treating the problem in terms of
force causes unnecessary complications. Calculate the energy threshold
required to blow a planet apart. Then talk about sources for that
energy.

> > >One proton colliding with
> > >a anti-proton would release two gamma rays that
> > >would be energic enough to cause any atom they
> > >hit to undergo immediate fission( and in the process =
> > >release more energy).

The trouble is that you need to have a certain rate of these reactions
within a certain volume in order for a chain-reaction to sustain
itself.
In material as diffuse as rock/mantle/core, the gamma rays could go a
fair way before hitting another atmoic nucleus.

*Assuming* that the DS beam is anti-matter then we only get the
annihilations along the beam (which appears to be less than a meter
wide). You expect this to initiate conflagration throughout the bulk of
the planet? Your nuclear fuel just isn't dense enough for a runaway
reaction.

> > >It actually has been estimated that a shoeboxed
> > >size chunk of anti-matter could destroy a planet if
> > >it was sat down on its surface.

"Is said" by whom? I grant that it would probably render the planet
uninhabitable. It is also "said" that the annihilation of 1kg of
antimatter releases energy equivalent to about forty modern nuclear
warheads. That will make a huge hot radioactive crater, but it won't
blast the planet to smithereens.

> > >Whatever it does,
> > >the deathstar does from the inside

Ahem: The DS does its work from the outside. The beam hits the surface
of the planet before it hits the core. The planet is blasted apart
starting from this first point of contact.

> > >which actually
> > >reduces the total force it needs as comapred to
> > >destroying a planet from the outside.

Ad nauseum... It doesn't matter how you do the job. You need to inject
the same amount of energy to blow a planet apart. It's like blowing an
electron off a (classical) atom - the method makes no difference to
energy involved.

What you seem to be trying to do is imagining ways to cheat, finding an
energy source within the planet. Ie. your nuclear chain reactions. But
you fail to consider whether your reaction rates are at the self-
sustaining level over a significant portion of the planetary volume.
The DS beam is very thin, and it starts at the surface. Runaway
reactions would need stellar temperatures and densities anyhow.

> > >No, at best it can do about what one photon =
> > >torpedo would do if fired inside the planet.
> > >Now since ST shields can stand being
> > >hit by photon torpedos, you have just
> > >convinced me that the average ST ship
> > >could take at least one hit by that super
> > >laser.

> > Did you learn all this from the Star Trek tech. manual or do you have
> > a University degree in therotical astrophysics.
>
> Well, it was from a astrophysics professor that I was
> told that it would take only a few kilograms of anti-matter
> being released inside the MANTLE of a planet to blow
> off the surface and mantle leaving the core of the planet exposed.

Yes. Probably. But this is *not* the majority of the planet, and much
of the stuff would probably fall back down. The explosion will involve
only a fraction of the *total* binding energy of the planet. The
explosion will be slower in unfolding than the Alderaan explosion.

> It has to do with all of side effect of an annilhation reaction.
> Not the least of which is a sudden jump to several billion( or was
> it trillions?) of degrees around the detonation site.
> Turing a small section of the planet into plasma temporarly
> will do VERY bad things to the planet in very short order.

That kind of heating is a natural side effect of dumping a lot of energy
into one place. Heating -> big pressure -> expansion = explosion.
That's the method of energy delivery for blowing the planet apart. *If*
the delivery mechanism involves antimatter then the DS power systems
need to generate and squirt antimatter. You get out what you put in
(minus heating losses).

> This is not even getting into the fact that it would start
> large numbers of nuclear chain reactions going off. You
> would have a small sun burning inside the planet for a couple
> of seconds. The planet would not survive that.

Yes, it's hot near the point of detonation. You will get nuclear
reactions near the point of detonation. These reactions need not lead
to self-sustaining reactions in other parts of the planet. Because not
all of the planet will become dense or hot enough to give you favourable
reaction rates.

> BTW, this same astrophyics professor is currently working
> on models of super novea. Supposedly he does know what he
> is talking about, seeing as he has actually gotten physics
> papers published about this. He got the number by applying
> the models of stellar core dynamics on a planet.

The conditions of a stellar core in a supernova are not really very
similar to the conditions in the bulk of a planet. I doubt whether the
stellar core models will be directly applicable to a <1m thin DS beam
etc. If I'm wrong then tell me why. Otherwise our readers might assume
that this is just another hot-headed Trekkie bluff.

> > I'm not going to argue because I don't. And quite frankly I don't
> > think you do, I think you have trouble concieving how much power is
> > required to do what the DS does.
>
> Nope, I have seen the results in which peoples calculations
> do account for understanding how quickly the forces really react.
> A lot of energy suddenly dumped on the core of a planet does
> strange things that you seem to not understand. The least of
> which would be a mini core bounce similar to what happens in
> a supernova. You would not need the exact amount of
> energy being dumped on to the core, as once you got the
> core reacting the pressure of the planet would actually
> help generate more force from chain reactions.
>
> > If the defiant carried such weaponry, that is just stupid, the whole
> > show would be inconcievably stupid, every single little crappy
> > starship capable of annihaliting galaxy after galaxy as if they were
> > the ultimate doomsday machines. Yeah Whatever.

Consequence: whatever the details; ST vessels do not have sufficient
power to threaten planets, in practice.

> OH, but it is fine if you claim that each individual SD has
> such fire power. Do we see a bit of a double standard here.

Did someone claim that a SD has planet-destroying firepower? A
continuous bombardment by many ships (General Dodonna's "half the
starfleet" in one instant, or fewer ships acting over a longer time)
surely could do the trick, eventually. But it's not practical to devote
so much effort to one world, drawing away ships which are needed on
patrol in trouble-spots across the galaxy.


I hope that this resolves some of your confusion.

- C.J.Saxton
STAR WARS Technical Commentaries
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/

From: Curtis Saxton <sax...@physics.usyd.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Lightsabre deflection of Phaser beams
Date: 1997/07/23
Organization: STAR WARS Technical Commentaries
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.ds9,alt.tv.star-trek.tos,alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.fan.starwars,rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc

STvsSW threads are notoriously capable of devouring human energy and
time, but I am tempted today to take a dip in the stagnant pool and
address the silliest Trekkist fallacies.

Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <33CE96D6.7...@eos.ncsu.edu>, James Grady Ward
> <jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes
> >Graham Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >> [...] It
> >> is true that the beam displays some properties of a laser beam - i.e. it
> >> travels at the speed of light, in straight lines, etc. Should this be
> >> the case, then of course the beam would be utterly unable to affect any
> >> Startrek vessel equipped with navigational shields. This includes
> >> Starships, Runabouts, and Shuttlecraft - though it does NOT include
> >> space stations such as Spacedock or DS9.
> >
> >[Dominion stuff cut.]
>
> But since DS9 does not move at high speed, it does not have NAVIGATIONAL
> shields. These are the only ones we know to be immune to lasers.

What a peculiar fixation! A particular kind of shield immune to a
particular kind of weapon, regardless of power? Regardless of whether
the weapon power exceeds the dissipative capacities so carefully stated
in the TrekTech manuals?

Consider this dialogue:

ST: My skin is immune to butterflies.
SW: How do you know?
ST: A butterfly blundered into a collision with my nose yesterday. I
am unharmed.
SW: But if you are hit by 10^40 butterflies simultaneously moving in
the same direction, you'll be knocked off your feet.
ST: [Voice becoming shrill as her faith is challenged.] Utter
nonsense! It's all butterflies! It doesn't matter how many butterflies
hit me or how energetic they are! It's all just butterflies! You know
nothing about physics!
SW: I see.

[Lord Poe]

I am considering, for better or worse, whether to ask Darkstar to contribute to this little project of mine. I would even consider asking TOWNMNBS, but I have no idea how to contact him.

The reason being is not to stir up trouble, but to simply present multiple angles on this debate.

Why would you consider interviewing a troll who does nothing but repeat TOWNMNBS and James Grady Ward arguments anyway? Elim Garak was more prolific, FFS.

[Manus Celer Dei]

I am considering, for better or worse, whether to ask Darkstar to contribute to this little project of mine. I would even consider asking TOWNMNBS, but I have no idea how to contact him.

The reason being is not to stir up trouble, but to simply present multiple angles on this debate.

I would also consider asking Mike and Wayne to offer their own views on the history of this subject, maybe devising some kind of 'interview' format. I'd like to ask Curtis Saxton too, but I would understand if all three are considerably busy and wouldn't have time to contribute directly- especially since their opinions are already well known (and Mr Saxton doesn't participate in the debate anymore).

From what I've heard, Darkstar claims to have had death threats over this whole vs debate. I wouldn't expect too much in the way of honesty out of him.

Darkstar has definately recieved at least one death threat from a poster on SDN.

Of course, the fact that this poster was clearly doing it to attention whore and was banned very soon afterwards as a result would probably be lost on DS.