Death Star firepower argument

[OmegaGuy]

Some guy said that the 1e38j figure had to be wrong since if it was right it would propel the debris far away enough so fast that Han would never run into so much of it when he entered the system (he provided no calcs, he said they were unnecessary), and he said that localized debris groups couldn't exist, even when I pointed out that we saw them in the explosion, he replied that Lucas has a tenous grasp of physics. So apparently even though we see the groups, they don't exist?

So anyway he said that that means that Wong's calculations were wrong and the Death Star doesn't have 1e38j of power, but he never provided any sources to back up his claims (even though I did), he just said it was 'basic physics'.

[Isolder74]

Who is this guy? Its not who I think it is is it?

[Darth Wong]

Some guy said that the 1e38j figure had to be wrong since if it was right it would propel the debris far away enough so fast that Han would never run into so much of it when he entered the system (he provided no calcs, he said they were unnecessary), and he said that localized debris groups couldn't exist, even when I pointed out that we saw them in the explosion, he replied that Lucas has a tenous grasp of physics. So apparently even though we see the groups, they don't exist?

So anyway he said that that means that Wong's calculations were wrong and the Death Star doesn't have 1e38j of power, but he never provided any sources to back up his claims (even though I did), he just said it was 'basic physics'.

He's obviously nothing more than a generic moron. If he thinks that the pitiful meteor shower that Han Solo ran into was "so much" when compared to the 6 billion trillion tons of material that would compose an entire planet, he's either blind or mind-bogglingly stupid.

[OmegaGuy]

Who is this guy? Its not who I think it is is it?

He's not one of the guys from the hate mail page, if that's what you mean. It was on the same board I had the other argument on. He says the debris would be way too dispersed for so many asteroids to be together like that, despite the fact that I showed him pictures of the explosion with clumps of debris in them that weren't spreading out.

[Wyrm]

When someone says "basic physics", demand a calc or line of reasoning that shows it. If it's so fucking basic, he ought to be able to explain it. Otherwise, he's talking out of his ass.

[XaLEv]

Therefore, the main edge of the cloud has covered roughly 10,000km in a time of 0.83 seconds, for an average velocity of 1.2E7 m/s. Some of the debris is obviously travelling much more quickly than the main edge of the cloud, but some of it is travelling much more slowly as well.

The main debris cloud grows in a way that is slightly elongated in the direction of the incident beam. At late stages, the debris is clearly not concentric with the initial position of the planet. This suggests momentum transfer to a large part of the planetary bulk. Judging by the offset of the centre of mass before the beam strike and several seconds into the explosion, the mean recoil velocity of the ex-Alderaanian matter is on the order of 6.7 x 10^6 m / s in the plane of the picture, implying an impulse of 4.0 x 10^31 kg m / s. A massless, light-speed beam delivering this amount of momentum would have a total energy of 1.2 x 10^39 J. However this is an underestimate by some trigonometric factor, since the beam clearly was not parallel to the plane of the picture. Even so, the momentum-based estimate is in good agreement with estimates based on the apparent velocities of the expanding debris. The difference of one to two orders of mangitude is justified by the inefficiency of converting incident beam energy into kinetic energy of debris; much of the input energy is deposited as heat in the absorbing material.

Then ask him how the initial violence of the explosion can be explained by significantly less than 1e38 J.

[OmegaGuy]

I did ask him that, all he said was that it was 'based on faulty science' with no further explanation.

[Ghost Rider]

I did ask him that, all he said was that it was 'based on faulty science' with no further explanation.

Then he's dodging moron who has no proof to back his statement up.

A person who claims a calculation was faulty should always have the proof to show what is faulty about it and proof of his/her calculation. If he won't produce this, then he's just playing the accusation card.

[Publius]

One of the most important aspects of an argument is the readiness to support it. If someone is going to make a rationally-based criticism of a quantitative assessment, it goes without saying that one is obligated to be able to justify one's criticism. It is absolutely unacceptable to dismiss an argument out of hand as being faulty without being able to demonstrate -- in detail -- why the argument is faulty (and it is furthermore discourteous to dismiss an explanation or theory without at least offering a more reasonable alternative).

This phantom debater's tactic of dismissing detailed analyses by applying copious amounts of hand-waving and vague claims of faulty science is not a valid one. You might consider reminding him or her of the burden of proof, or of the fact that the Jedi mind trick does not, in fact, constitute a compelling argument. He or she cannot simply wave a hand and dismiss calculations with a word or two. As has been pointing out, if a person cannot provide, on demand, supporting evidence for appeals to "basic science," it is more than likely that he or she is bluffing.

[OmegaGuy]

Thanks