Alderan's Destruction, Divergant thread of the Tech debate.

[Darth Wong]

You're a moron; your theory requires a nuclear fission reaction in the Earth's core which has efficiencies on the order of billions of percent.

How do you figure that? At 100% a 80 kilometer ball of Fisile metal at sea level dencity yealds 4.45^32J.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. First, as mentioned SEVERAL TIMES TO YOU IN THE EARLIER THREAD, the theory calls for a 5km ball, not an 80km ball. Second, you need 1E38 J, not 4E32 J. Third, this "uranium droplet" would not be composed of 100% fissile material, you moron, or it would have gone off already! How fucking stupid can you be? Don't you realize that most uranium is useless for that purpose, which is why uranium in which the fissile isotope has been removed is called DEPLETED uranium and considered garbage?

[Patrick Degan]

What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?

Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial so far as the observed effects of the superlaser are concerned. The weapon delivered sufficent energy to blow a terrestrial planet apart in a tenth of a second.

No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.

With my theory, the total energy is much lower and is something that the DS might have actualy been faintly, future possably able to do. With the DET Model some of the energy to destroy the planet must have been lost in the machine. The DET numbers are so huge that the efficiancy must be millions of times beyond anything we can forsee. Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before. And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required. The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.

[DaveJB]

And Stewart, if you try and use the Exhaust Port as "proof" that the DS had trouble with heat overproduction, bear in mind that the Athlon 64 and Opteron processors both have circuitry to prevent a thermal overload, but that doesn't mean that they have trouble with excess heat! It's there as a precaution - in fact, I seem to remember the novel stating that.

(Not the best example I'm sure, but it was the first one I thought of)

[Master of Ossus]

This is pathetic. DarkStar's theory on the Superlaser is one of the weakest and stupidest on his entire website. I can't believe anyone bought into that.

[SirNitram]

Unfortunately for you, fission reactions would require a ball of solid uranium twice the Earth's mass. This fact shows you not only are wrong, but are lying about any comprehension of the physics involved.

Were are you getting your figures? That is the stupidest thing I've read on this board, ever.

I know; the mere idea that the Earth's core could be fissile material stored at densities which would have it go off already is an outrageously stupid idea, but I've gotten used to you posting stupid things.

A ball 80klicks OD would mass about ~5^18 kilos at surface dencity more at core pressures. That amount of fisile mass times 20,000 tons of TNT equivilant each equals 4.5^32 Joules. Unless I've screwed up the math in my head some place.

You merely forget a few things. Copied from the first time I posted this and you ran away in fear from actual math:

To illustrate the problem...

1e39 J. The canon energy state of Alderaan following the explosion.

8.9e13 J. The factual, 100% release of fission, per kilogram of material. Keep in mind we're talking about a naturally occouring fission bomb, so your efficiency will be closer to 1%.

~1e25 kg. The mass of the nuclear material required to blow the hell out of Alderaan, derived from the above. Someone check this math, please.

5.974e24 kg. The mass of Earth, and thus, logically, Alderaan.

Hrm.

For this to work, you need twice the Earth's mass in fissile material, in a naturally occouring state, just happening to be weapons grade.

Fuck the energy requirements for this; this boondoggle is ridiculous once you actually look at the amount of stuff involved!

I have read at least two articles that claim that there must be a ball of Urainium/Plutonium in the center of the Earth to explain the heat and magnetic field for so many billions of years.

Yea, they claim it. They offer no evidence. You offer no evidence. Guess what? That makes them worthless via Parsimony. Game, set, match.

[General Zod]

I have read at least two articles that claim that there must be a ball of Urainium/Plutonium in the center of the Earth to explain the heat and magnetic field for so many billions of years.

wow, a whole two articles. probably not from very reliable sources. ya know what? basic geology proves this WRONG! of course it would be too much to assume you know anything about that. here's the actual reasons: the earth's core is composed of semi liquid iron, with other metals around it.

the friction caused by the plates moving and the magma churning around the core eventually magnetizes the core, creating the earth's magnetic field. no uranium required. this isn't to say of course that there might not be uranium floating in the mantle or near the core, however it's a rather big leap of logic to assume that it's what's making it stay warm, when in fact it's more likely due to the immense pressure as a result of the plates, the crust and the mantle around it. pressure + objects = friction = heat. see? simple.

[Sarevok]

So the theory that Earths core is heated by the decay of radiactive isotopes is wrong. Right ?

[Darth Wong]

So the theory that Earths core is heated by the decay of radiactive isotopes is wrong. Right ?

No, it's not been discredited. It's just that some people have a theory that the uranium all collected in a 5km wide ball at the centre, whereas others think it's more evenly distributed throughout the planet's mass. Doesn't change anything either way since neither theory makes the preposterous assertion that it's all pure fissile material. Not to mention the fact that it would be many orders of magnitude too small anyway, and would have gone off by now if that were the case.

[Ender]

At least you are not propagating this funny/stupid "fusion/fission-bomb planet" theory... this theory is so horrible stupid that's even hard to laugh about.

Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.

So it is actually your position that a material mostly made up of iron, was induced to fission?

Do you know anything whatso ever about nuclear physics?

No, I dispute that the gravitational binding energy is not the lower limet. If all the mass of the planet had escape velosity, why would the fragments shown in the film clearly be moving parrallel to and in the same direction as the Milenium Falcon as it approched the last known pos of the planet?

Because it flew through it moron.

You have to be very carefull about the assumptions that you start with if you are going to get good data.

Like your assumptions that you can induce anything to fission?

[Ender]

What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?

Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial so far as the observed effects of the superlaser are concerned. The weapon delivered sufficent energy to blow a terrestrial planet apart in a tenth of a second.

No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

With my theory, the total energy is much lower and is something that the DS might have actualy been faintly, future possably able to do. With the DET Model some of the energy to destroy the planet must have been lost in the machine. The DET numbers are so huge that the efficiancy must be millions of times beyond anything we can forsee. Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

That they are sufficiently advanced that it is not an issue; afterall they have no problem disposing of thewaste heat from Coruscant.

[Darth Wong]

Do you know anything whatso ever about nuclear physics?

I'm sure he can find eight or nine unnamed university professors who will all agree with him

[Ted C]

No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?

There is no discrepancy to explain.

Yes, the Death Star would undoubtedly have to dissipate some portion of the energy generated for the superlaser blast, but since you have no idea what portion, your argument against the DET theory is completely unfounded. We don't expect the mechanism to be 100% efficient, but virtually anything less might be feasible with Imperial/Republic technology. For all you know, the Death Star had to dissipate less than one megaton of energy (4.2E+15 J) in the course of delivering it's planet-shattering energy beam (1E+38 J).

Until you can demonstrate that inefficiency of the superlaser mechanism forced the Death Star to absorb more energy than the known laws of physics would allow it to reasonably handle, you have no basis for disputing the DET theory due to overheating of the weapon system.

[Darth Wong]

I don't even see why we should humour his delusion that DET should be considered a "theory" at all. It is the default explanation of thermodynamics. It's like saying that you need to provide evidence for the "direct impact" theory when one football player runs into another. It is an inevitable outcome of the laws of physics, and he is going to need some pretty impressive evidence to support any alternative explanation.

[Stewart at SDI]

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

Were is it cannon that the DS-1 made so much energy? Nothing in the films mentions this figure. If it comes from the books, radio plays or tapes, it is lessor cannon. According to Lucas himself, that lessor cannon is not equal to the films, wich are the "Whole and only truth".

That does not change the effect of magnatude of the power. The accellerating mass argument does not hold water on two counts.

First, the energy required must be less than Newtonian physics sugjests or it would be impossable. The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then. It does not matter wether the DS used a "HYPER DRIVE" or a "WARP ENGINE" as some of the early books claimed, in either case, the energy to move it was less than Einstinian formula's dictate.

Second, if the efficiancy of the power generation device is not perfectly efficiant, the waist energy would vaporise the DS. Since the generation machine is not 100% efficiant, the power must be less than the figure you cite.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[HRogge]

Were is it cannon that the DS-1 made so much energy? Nothing in the films mentions this figure. If it comes from the books, radio plays or tapes, it is lessor cannon. According to Lucas himself, that lessor cannon is not equal to the films, wich are the "Whole and only truth".

The energy state of Alderaan was changed by a certain amount of energy... we can calculate the energy. COE dictates it's the minimum energy the DS has produced for the shot.

That does not change the effect of magnatude of the power. The accellerating mass argument does not hold water on two counts.

First, the energy required must be less than Newtonian physics sugjests or it would be impossable.

Translation:
I don't believe they could produce that much energy, so it's impossible.

The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then.

There are SciFi universes with even higher energy productions...

It does not matter wether the DS used a "HYPER DRIVE" or a "WARP ENGINE" as some of the early books claimed, in either case, the energy to move it was less than Einstinian formula's dictate.

According to our information the DS draws it's energy from a hypermatter reactor.

Second, if the efficiancy of the power generation device is not perfectly efficiant, the waist energy would vaporise the DS. Since the generation machine is not 100% efficiant, the power must be less than the figure you cite.

So the fact that the DS is NOT vaporized show us the incredible efficiency of the GE's tech... thank you.

[Tribun]

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

Were is it cannon that the DS-1 made so much energy? Nothing in the films mentions this figure. If it comes from the books, radio plays or tapes, it is lessor cannon. According to Lucas himself, that lessor cannon is not equal to the films, wich are the "Whole and only truth".

That does not change the effect of magnatude of the power. The accellerating mass argument does not hold water on two counts.

First, the energy required must be less than Newtonian physics sugjests or it would be impossable. The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then. It does not matter wether the DS used a "HYPER DRIVE" or a "WARP ENGINE" as some of the early books claimed, in either case, the energy to move it was less than Einstinian formula's dictate.

Second, if the efficiancy of the power generation device is not perfectly efficiant, the waist energy would vaporise the DS. Since the generation machine is not 100% efficiant, the power must be less than the figure you cite.

Sincerely, Stewart.

Do the words "simple observation" tell you something?

[Darth Wong]

Since it is a canon observation that the Death Star produces more energy than all of mankind has produced in its entire existence simply by accelerating itself, it is a foregone conclusion that their energy generation systems are far more effective than ours. Why shouldn't their energy dissipation systems also be far more effective?

Were is it cannon that the DS-1 made so much energy? Nothing in the films mentions this figure. If it comes from the books, radio plays or tapes, it is lessor cannon. According to Lucas himself, that lessor cannon is not equal to the films, wich are the "Whole and only truth".

Jebus, are you really this stupid? Tell you what, why don't you demonstrate your scientific expertise by performing the bog-simple calculation of determining the energy requirements for the Death Star's acceleration around the gas giant Yavin?

That does not change the effect of magnatude of the power. The accellerating mass argument does not hold water on two counts.

First, the energy required must be less than Newtonian physics sugjests or it would be impossable. The suspensiof disbelife is off the charts then. It does not matter wether the DS used a "HYPER DRIVE" or a "WARP ENGINE" as some of the early books claimed, in either case, the energy to move it was less than Einstinian formula's dictate.

Wrong. The energy state change of the Death Star is irrefutable. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that if it could increase its energy by this much without the requisite expenditure of energy, then they would have an infinite free-energy power generation system on their hands.

Second, if the efficiancy of the power generation device is not perfectly efficiant, the waist energy would vaporise the DS. Since the generation machine is not 100% efficiant, the power must be less than the figure you cite.

Wrong again. It does not have to be perfect; it only needs to be close to perfect. And its acceleration is a CANON FACT, moron.

Challenge time: PROVE that you have at least a high-school level of scientific competence. Using reasonable estimates of average density, perform the simple kinematic calculations to determine the kinetic energy state change in the Death Star which results from accelerating itself.

[Tribun]

Mike, that guy had gone though you Imperial Smackdown, AND a 5-rounds debate. Normal procedure won't help against such stupidy.

I think you should start more serious measures.

By the way, is there any chance that you can tall us when you expect the debate too appear on the site?

[Stewart at SDI]

Wrong, you yourself stated that the core of the planet could fission like a nuclear bomb, which would indicate that said core is made out of unstable, fissionable isotopes. Otherwise it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb.

(Technically you can get almost any matter to undergo fission, but this doesnt mean you can make a fission bomb out of just any sort of matter, either. There is a reason certain kinds of unstable isotopes are used in making the bombs, after all.)

The stable isotopes are also used to make bombs, because they fission when struck by high energy nutrons. They only use the less stable isotopes because of the efficiancy of the process and to make the bomb small enough to put on a plane instead of a cargo ship.

The "un-stable" isotopes make a small bomb practicle. The small bomb makes the "Hydrogen" bomb possable. That makes the "Fision-Fusion-Fision" bomb possable. Those are all of the biggest and most efficiant types made.

In Hydrogen bombs the yeald is boosted dramaticly by encasing the fusion secondary in a sleve of U-238 wich fisions when struck by fast neutrons from the D-D and D-T reactions. Typicaly more than half the energy from these types of bomb is from fission of the sleve around the secondary.

Which bears on your ludicrous notion that the core of a planet can fission like a nuclear bomb how exactly?

If the core of the planet is made of Thorium, Urainium and Plutonium a powerfull burst of high energy nutrons would fission much of the matierial there. (Due to it's extreem compression under so much weight.) With so much mass as the whole planet to act as a tamper and Nutron reflector, a large portion of the rest would also fission due to very high energy nutrons that might otherwise escape.)

I recomend both books by Richard Rhodes "THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB" and "DARK SUN" to get the best un-clasified education on this subject available.

If these books form the basis of your understanding of nuclear physics (not that I'm going to believe you read either book much less properly understand them), then they must not be very good if you think that the core of a planet is some giant atom bomb just waiting to go off.

Again I do recomend them as some of the best un-classified matierial on the subject.

From your statement above, it is clear that you do not have a clear idea of how various differant forms of fission, nuclear weapons and reactors work as they relate to the many differant types of fisile isotopes and elements. It is also abundantly clear that you have not read any of the papers on the Fisile core theories. I recomend that you go to the library and get the back issues of "POPULAR SCIENCE" I think it was that had a fair article in simple terms that you might find interesting. It was in 2001 or 2002 IIRC. It's on the cover so you should not have to much trouble finding it.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[Stewart at SDI]

Of course, the Death Star was especially designed to destroy only planets with ridiculously improbable uranium cores.

Why would you assume that all planets did not have cores containing fisile elements? The reasoning goes something like this. The densest stuff sinks under heavier stuff. That means that the heavy fisile elements eventialy get to the core as the mantle and liquid outer core mix.

As to becomming a bomb, remember 99.7% of Uraimium is stable unless hit by a "Fast" Nutron, like the DS fires?

[Ghost Rider]

Hosing because this one is sheer babble...like everything else.

Have at thee...horsemen, and have fun guys

[Stewart at SDI]

Hey Stewie, do you design Star Trek games?

I use standard gamming practices that I learned in the service and write the rules to cover how things work. Then there is no limet to what you can do, just how the mechanism works. I also have a spread sheet program that lets you build out a unit, star ship, shipette, shuttle, station or missile, that then computes the cost and several other factors for that unit. In this way everyone pays the same for what they get. (Almost.) It works in any fantacy space setting, ST, SW, B-5, Buck Rogers, ECT.

It's $20 if you want to give it a try and I'll give you the program if you send me a critique.

Sincerely, Stewart.

[The Dude]

Of course, the Death Star was especially designed to destroy only planets with ridiculously improbable uranium cores.

Why would you assume that all planets did not have cores containing fisile elements? The reasoning goes something like this. The densest stuff sinks under heavier stuff. That means that the heavy fisile elements eventialy get to the core as the mantle and liquid outer core mix.

So that's a yes; you do believe that the Death Star was designed to destroy only planets with astronomically improbable fissile uranium cores. Here's a hint, fucktard: the (unproven) uranium core theory calls for a FIVE kilometer ball of 99+% U-238. Your "theory" calls for an EIGHTY kilometer ball of 100% U-235.

In other words, your so-called theory requires some FOUR THOUSAND times as much uranium as anyone has ever theorized to exist at Earth's core, it requires that it be 100% fissile (but somehow stable enough to not go off on it's own accord). Secure your tinfoil hats, kids.

You're always good for an unintentional laugh.

As to becomming a bomb, remember 99.7% of Uraimium is stable unless hit by a "Fast" Nutron, like the DS fires?

1) Prove that the DS fires fast neutrons.
2) Show the energy balance for stable uranium 238 being struck by fast neutrons to produce fissile plutonium, and the subsequent fission. Translate this into a minimum mass (and therefore diameter) of uranium core needed to provide the observed energy output (1e38J).
3) Suck it.

[Durandal]

Why do you say this? I did not make any such assumption.

If the Falcon has any residual speed after comming out of hyperspace, the fragments must be moving parrallel to his course but slower than it is moving. That would imply that at least some of the fragments did not have sufficiant velocity to escape the gravity well of the total mass.

If they didn't achieve escape velocity, then they'd still be where the planet was. If we assume that a given piece of debris was going roughly 10 km/s, it would take almost ten minutes to clear a single planetary diameter. Feel free to point out a significant portion of mass in the clip that's traveling that slowly.

Since they were woried that they could not fly threw a star, logic would dictate that they also should not fly threw a planet. Since all of the "metiors" courses are parrallel to the Falcons the only logical conclusion is that their navigation was spot on and they came out on a course directly tword the Planet's expected possition.

No shit, Sherlock.

Wrong Explosions do not work like that. When anything explodes, the space were it used to be gets empty very quickly. After 50% expansion of the radius, 89% of all the mass is beyond the origional sphere of the planet. By the time that the expansion reaches 100% beyond the origional surface, only about 1.2% remains in that origional volume. The more it expands, the less is left behind. After expanding several diamiters there would be almost nothing left behind.

You're assuming that a planet exploding is like a grenade exploding. The sheer scale of each event makes this comparison totally absurd. In order for an explosion to work, you have to have enough energy to overcome the binding energy of the object being detonated (ignoring fracture energy for structural components). In the cases of grenades and bombs, this is trivial, since the binding energy is insignificant. This is extremely basic, Newtonian mechanics. On Newtonian scales, if a particle trying to cross a potential barrier V does not have at least V J of kinetic energy, it will not cross. Period.

For a planet, the binding energy is anything but trivial; in fact, it's massive. Earth's binding energy is somewhere around 2.4E32 J. This is the absolute minimum amount of energy that must be applied to make sure the pieces don't slam back together. If a significant portion of the mass was traveling less than 11.2 km/s, then it wouldn't make it out to several planetary diameters. Simple observation that it did make it out that far that fast tells us that it's traveling well in excess of 11.2 km/s. It's traveling about a million times faster.

The only way out of this dilemma, is for a significant portion of the planet not to have escape velocity and thus be falling back into it's origional volume.

What "dilemma"? This is simple geometry. If a large object explodes and you fly toward it, the fragments will move toward you. The only way fragments should be moving parallel to your course is if you fly through the point where the explosion took place.

[Master of Ossus]

I use standard gamming practices that I learned in the service and write the rules to cover how things work. Then there is no limet to what you can do, just how the mechanism works. I also have a spread sheet program that lets you build out a unit, star ship, shipette, shuttle, station or missile, that then computes the cost and several other factors for that unit. In this way everyone pays the same for what they get. (Almost.) It works in any fantacy space setting, ST, SW, B-5, Buck Rogers, ECT.

So, basically your "simulation" was based on firepower estimates for the GE that were shown to be inaccurate, but also takes the UNBELIEVABLE step of "balancing" how much each unit costs each side? And you brought this up to SUPPORT your arguments of Federation superiority?

It's $20 if you want to give it a try and I'll give you the program if you send me a critique.

Sincerely, Stewart.

So, Stewie, you're marketing games that use materials copyrighted by Paramount, I see. Do you have expressed written permission? What would Paramount say if I decided to send them an e-mail?