"Star Wars: Death Star" and the destruction of Ald

[Mr. Oragahn]

Yes I know 1/3 is 1/3. At which scale? You assume it's linear yet events from the book directly disprove it since scattering planetary mass is not 3 times more energetic than destroying portions of surface. For real world example see decibels.

The book disproves nothing of that.
You're glaringly missing out the mere fact that for three shots all powered at 1/3, they got two drastically magnitudes of effects.
The power didn't change between shot 2 and 3, they couldn't, at that time they were limited to 1/3.

So obviously, something DID kick in at some point, while the core output didn't change. It's not that hard to understand.

Besides, there's no need to make things complicated. It's extremely straight forward here: "at only one-third of the power that would be available when it was fully operational."

If 1/3 of the power turns out to be like 1/10000000000 of the future power, it's not 1/3 of the future power.

Why do you try to spin that?

1/3 of the power is like 1/3 of the energy. It's a quantity that measures linearly when directly referenced.

See, taking your decibel example, let's pick two values. A = 20 dB and B = 40 dB.
B is twice the quantity of decibels that A is.
However, B is not twice the amount of equivalent intensity or power that A is.
Power is measured in watts.

Again you describe your theory as "exotic phenomenon". You might as well call it "dfhgbehgbdj" for all the useful information we get.

If you wish. This is not a problem at all.

You not only failed to describe what causes it you failed to describe what it is.

I didn't even attempt to because I don't have to. That's a common mistake and one you keep making. The theory doesn't pretend it can explain what happens in details. It is there to tell that under certain parameters (initial core power and number of shots), we can expect certain effects.

See, that's the mistake with those who take the pure DET path.

The theories aren't opposed on how they explain what happens as far as physics are concerned. They are opposed on what will likely occur, as a whole, when the weapon is fired at x power and y times.

Again, I certainly do not need to explain the physics behind it.

If you can't even provide a mechanism or an explanation beyond "exotic mechanism" then how can you make any claims about it?

This would mean that if we can't formulate a theory that comes along a detailed article on physics, the theory is false. You're begging for matters which are not needed, and putting red herrings in lieu of meaningful argumentation.

I could just as well claim it's an "exotic mechanism" that actually requires 10^50J from Death Star but most of it doesn't show since it's sucked into hyperspace due to "hyperspatial flux effect". Meaningless.

You could. But it would be opposed to my theory, and certain theory rating rules simply require to aim for less unnecessary elements.

You could claim that 1/3 of 10^50 J does only that little damage to the planet because most of the energy is sucked into space. But then, while my theory would actually argue that with less energy, you can at some point, obtain greater effects, yours would argue that an enormous amount of energy is wasted for no good. Therefore mine would be more moderate, conservative in the good sense of it.

You have no theory. You simply retell what happened in the book, assume 1/3 is linearly scaled power and then attach the "exotic mechanism" string without any explanations whatsoever.

Because that's what precisely happens. At least, I'm able to understand the most basic descriptions forwarded by the book and take them at face value, without trying to murk waters and play spin doctor.

That is the lower end yes. The upper end is over 10^38J which corresponds neatly with observed effects.

Yes, it does, but 1/3 of that power doesn't translate into what happens to Despayre, and do I need to remind you, again, that the book makes a simple case that it's 1/3 of the final power.

All easily explainable by the scale not being linear. No reason to appeal to your undefined "exotic mechanism".

The scale is linear. It's power. It's not power as something vague like having the power to break wood. It's power with a very distinct factor in front of it. Even 1/3 of the power to blast Alderaan would translate into far greater effects than those which occured on Despayre.

And again, the problem is not even the scale, because as you missed it, shots 2 and 3, both at 1/3 (the DS at that time couldn't do more), had wholely different effects. Shot 3 was not just a repeat of shot 2. It was far more destructive. Which pretty much shows that there's no problem about some core output power scale. The problem is that you can't acknowledge a very simple fact, written black upon white in the book.

I understand how it's not easy to admit it, since it literally breaks your long held view about the Death Star, but you can't get around it.

And I'm not even bothering you with the other elements such as the mention of the chain reaction, the blossoming dark spot, the ring of fire that grows and runs over the surface, all in the book, or the fact that the planet, despite being hit by a single beam worth of 1/3 of the power the DS will be capable of, doesn't generate asymetrical effects on the planet's surface, but on the contrary seems to spread the energy rather well.


-----------------


Oh, and small edit:

That is the lower end yes. The upper end is over 10^38J which corresponds neatly with observed effects.

Of course, if you assume that the explosion is the combined effect of the beam hitting a shield, and then said beam's energy still being unleashed into the planet, you're greatly invited to defend that position in the face of the many problem it poses in the thread "Alderaan, & problems with planetary shield claims".
It highlights why even if there was a shield, nothing of what is claimed would have happened.
It also points out the nonsensical flaws of said shield design if it had been there to boot (which thus far was completely left without any trace of support by both the ANH novel and the Death Star novel).

[Praeothmin]

Yes I know 1/3 is 1/3. At which scale? You assume it's linear yet events from the book directly disprove it since scattering planetary mass is not 3 times more energetic than destroying portions of surface. For real world example see decibels.

Your analogy is flawed, Kane.
Decibels are the units used to quantify power on a logarythmic scale, yet when mentioning said power levels using fractions, 1/3 is still 1/3.
It would be expressed differently in dBm, but it would still be 1/3.

Let's go with an easy power level example.

You've got 0dBm (equal to 1mW).
You say you're emitting at 1/2 the power.
Then you would be emitting at 0.5mW (1 divided by 2).
The difference would be when you express this value in dBm.
You would say "I have a power level of -3dBm!"
But it would still be 1/2 of the total power...

[Kane Starkiller]

The book disproves nothing of that.
You're glaringly missing out the mere fact that for three shots all powered at 1/3, they got two drastically magnitudes of effects.
The power didn't change between shot 2 and 3, they couldn't, at that time they were limited to 1/3.

So obviously, something DID kick in at some point, while the core output didn't change. It's not that hard to understand.

I reread the relevant quotes and you're right nowhere does it state that second was 2/3 of power and third full power. What you didn't mention however is that only the first beam was quantified as being 1/3 of the final available power. Not the other two. So you have no basis in claiming that other two were also 1/3.

Besides, there's no need to make things complicated. It's extremely straight forward here: "at only one-third of the power that would be available when it was fully operational."

If 1/3 of the power turns out to be like 1/10000000000 of the future power, it's not 1/3 of the future power.

Why do you try to spin that?

1/3 of the power is like 1/3 of the energy. It's a quantity that measures linearly when directly referenced.

See, taking your decibel example, let's pick two values. A = 20 dB and B = 40 dB.
B is twice the quantity of decibels that A is.
However, B is not twice the amount of equivalent intensity or power that A is.
Power is measured in watts.

It is irrelevant how power is measured. It doesn't matter whether you are measuring power, energy, distance or time if you are working with logarithmic scale. At logarithmic scale with the base of 10, 3 times greater quantity is actually 1000 times greater quantity on linear scale.
Suppose you want to put the power consumption of a lightbulb, a steel mill and the production of a power plant on a chart. A lightbulb is rated at say 100W (10^2W), steel mill 1 MW(10^6W) and the powerplant at 100 MW (10^8W). Obviously there is no way to put this on a linear scale chart and have it be readable. So you use a logarithmic chart where 100W becomes 2 since log(100) is 2, MW becomes 6 and 100 MW becomes 8. At this scale a lightbulb will use up 2/8 or 1/4 or the power generated by the power plant while the steel mill will use up 6/8 or 3/4 of the total power.
This situation is analogous to Death Star which is expected to fire at individual starships all the way up to planets which will require 10 orders of magnitude greater power. Again for the purpose of chart reading for the Death Star's engineers or not having it's captains have to order firepower set to one quadrillionth a logarithmic or a similar non linear scale could be used. This way 1/3 would be enough to destroy any ~10km starship, 2/3 do depopulate the planet or destroy a large asteroid and full power enough to obliterate an entire planet along with any orbital structures and moons.

I didn't even attempt to because I don't have to. That's a common mistake and one you keep making. The theory doesn't pretend it can explain what happens in details. It is there to tell that under certain parameters (initial core power and number of shots), we can expect certain effects.

See, that's the mistake with those who take the pure DET path.

The theories aren't opposed on how they explain what happens as far as physics are concerned. They are opposed on what will likely occur, as a whole, when the weapon is fired at x power and y times.

Again, I certainly do not need to explain the physics behind it.

Who said anything about explaining it in detail? You don't explain anything at all. What is this exotic reaction you keep talking about? How does it work? Secondly you are trying to pass off retelling of the events described in the book as prediction of what would happen. That isn't it.

This would mean that if we can't formulate a theory that comes along a detailed article on physics, the theory is false. You're begging for matters which are not needed, and putting red herrings in lieu of meaningful argumentation.

You provided nothing more than undefined words. "Exotic reaction", "exotic saturation" etc. Do you understand that simply by adding the word "exotic" you don't explain anything?

You could. But it would be opposed to my theory, and certain theory rating rules simply require to aim for less unnecessary elements.

You could claim that 1/3 of 10^50 J does only that little damage to the planet because most of the energy is sucked into space. But then, while my theory would actually argue that with less energy, you can at some point, obtain greater effects, yours would argue that an enormous amount of energy is wasted for no good. Therefore mine would be more moderate, conservative in the good sense of it.

In other words you think that stringing a bunch of meaningless undefined words together and adding a energy number to the end constitutes a theory. And furthermore you think that what those meaningless words even say is irrelevant and only the number at the end matters. In which case one must wonder why not simply put up a number. I can say 10^50J, you say 10^20J and you win. And then maybe someone will post 10^2J and then his "theory" wins. That doesn't make any sense.

Because that's what precisely happens. At least, I'm able to understand the most basic descriptions forwarded by the book and take them at face value, without trying to murk waters and play spin doctor.

Again retelling what happened is not a theory. If Newton revealed the theory of gravity which said "an exotic mechanism caused the apple to fall on my head this morning" I doubt we would be launching rockets into space today.

Yes, it does, but 1/3 of that power doesn't translate into what happens to Despayre, and do I need to remind you, again, that the book makes a simple case that it's 1/3 of the final power.

So what? 1/3 of planet scattering at 10,000km/s is still planet scattering not destroying a portion of the surface.

The scale is linear. It's power. It's not power as something vague like having the power to break wood. It's power with a very distinct factor in front of it. Even 1/3 of the power to blast Alderaan would translate into far greater effects than those which occured on Despayre.

Scale does not have anything to do with the physical dimension being discussed. We could easily present time, volume, density or temperature in logarithmic or any other scale.

And again, the problem is not even the scale, because as you missed it, shots 2 and 3, both at 1/3 (the DS at that time couldn't do more), had wholely different effects. Shot 3 was not just a repeat of shot 2. It was far more destructive. Which pretty much shows that there's no problem about some core output power scale. The problem is that you can't acknowledge a very simple fact, written black upon white in the book.

I understand how it's not easy to admit it, since it literally breaks your long held view about the Death Star, but you can't get around it.

Only first shot is quantified as being 1/3 of the final power. The other two weren't.

And I'm not even bothering you with the other elements such as the mention of the chain reaction, the blossoming dark spot, the ring of fire that grows and runs over the surface, all in the book, or the fact that the planet, despite being hit by a single beam worth of 1/3 of the power the DS will be capable of, doesn't generate asymetrical effects on the planet's surface, but on the contrary seems to spread the energy rather well.

Just because your theory is so undefined that it basically says merely "chain reaction" doesn't mean that every time someone mentions the words "chain reaction" it corroborates your theory. It only means your theory is poorly defined. There are many types of chain reactions ranging from chemical to nuclear and sometimes it's not even a physical reaction but a social or political. Finally the chain reaction in the book clearly refers to passage before that describes beam hitting the continents which move causing earthquakes which cause tsunamis which cause destruction all over the hemisphere. And beam heating up the core which causes volcanoes which spew the smoke which covers the surface etc. What is the blossoming dark spot and how does it point to chain reaction? Is the spot actually dark or only in contrast to the rest of the superheated planet similar to solar dark spots. This is the standard tactics: declare anything suspicious as confirmation of the "chain reaction" which you haven't even defined or described or quantified or well...anything.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I reread the relevant quotes and you're right nowhere does it state that second was 2/3 of power and third full power. What you didn't mention however is that only the first beam was quantified as being 1/3 of the final available power. Not the other two. So you have no basis in claiming that other two were also 1/3.

But the first and second shots have all similar effects. The second shot doesn't change dramatically from the first one. It just adds more of the level of destruction from the first one.
The first one is at 1/3 of the power the Death Star will be capable of.

The second and third shots have recharge times which only differ by four-six minutes, so they can't be drastically different either.

Now let's add Alderaan to that. The beam generates two distinctly separate explosions. The first one actually cause a level of destruction on the surface of Alderaan that is in the ballpark of the so called watered down first two shots that hit Despayre.

It's particularily impossible to claim that the second Despayre shot was more powerful than the first one:

An hour and fifteen minutes after the first beam, Tenn fired the second one.
The planet Despayre, already scorched lifeless and beset with cataclysmic groundquakes and volcanism, began to shake like some tormented creature in its death throes. Massive cracks, thousands of kilometers long and tens of klicks wide, striated the world. Mountains collapsed in one hemisphere as they jutted up and rose in another. It was impossible to see all this directly, of course, because of the cloud cover that had blanketed the surface, but the IR and VSI scopes showed everything all too clearly. The molten core of the globe, already venting through innumerable new volcanoes, oozed to the surface and produced oceans of lava that spread across the land. This was how the planet had been born, and this was how it was dying.

See that cloud layer that blocks the view from the new wave of devastation?
The first beam put the atmosphere on fire. The second doesn't even kick fireballs through it, nor is making a significant part of said atmosphere drift away.

There's no way the second shot could have been much more powerful, especially not if an hypothetical logarithmic scale was involved.

And even if I would have underestimated the power of the second shot, the addition of the energy of the second shot brought the effects to a total of energy which generated effects which are the same as those generated by a shot from the Eclipse superlaser cannon.

Let's compare:

Eclipse's superlaser firepower and effects:

The Eclipse was also intended to devastate entire worlds. Its main weapon was a superlaser weapon although its power was only two-thirds that of the main weapon aboard the first Death Star --it was 'merely' powerful enough to crack the crust of a planet rather than destroy it outright.

Effects of two shots from the first Death Star:

An hour and fifteen minutes after the first beam, Tenn fired the second one.
The planet Despayre, already scorched lifeless and beset with cataclysmic groundquakes and volcanism, began to shake like some tormented creature in its death throes. Massive cracks, thousands of kilometers long and tens of klicks wide, striated the world. Mountains collapsed in one hemisphere as they jutted up and rose in another. It was impossible to see all this directly, of course, because of the cloud cover that had blanketed the surface, but the IR and VSI scopes showed everything all too clearly. The molten core of the globe, already venting through innumerable new volcanoes, oozed to the surface and produced oceans of lava that spread across the land. This was how the planet had been born, and this was how it was dying.

So we have very similar effects, with one case being a shot at 2/3, and the other being 1/3 + 1/3.

Besides, there is that bit:

COMMAND CENTER, OVERBRIDGE, DEATH STAR

"You're confident of this?" Motti nodded. "Yes, sir. The interior is not finished, but the hull is patent and the hyperdrives will be ready shortly. Enough for a partial shakedown."
"Good. Since the Rebels know our location, we cannot risk staying in the same system until we are at full readiness."
"Prudent."
"And the superlaser?"
"Engineering tells me that we can manage thirty percent power and, after a fast capacitor recharge for an hour or two, that much again."
"How strong will that beam be?"
Motti shrugged. "Theoretical. Nobody knows for sure."
"Well, then we need to test it before we embark."
"That would be wise. Do you have a target in mind?"
Tarkin smiled. "Yes. I do."

So the second shot will be ready after an hour or two after the first one, and will, again, be at thirty percent power (roughly).

Therefore, the connection between the three shots is definitely established.

It is irrelevant how power is measured. It doesn't matter whether you are measuring power, energy, distance or time if you are working with logarithmic scale. At logarithmic scale with the base of 10, 3 times greater quantity is actually 1000 times greater quantity on linear scale.
Suppose you want to put the power consumption of a lightbulb, a steel mill and the production of a power plant on a chart. A lightbulb is rated at say 100W (10^2W), steel mill 1 MW(10^6W) and the powerplant at 100 MW (10^8W). Obviously there is no way to put this on a linear scale chart and have it be readable. So you use a logarithmic chart where 100W becomes 2 since log(100) is 2, MW becomes 6 and 100 MW becomes 8. At this scale a lightbulb will use up 2/8 or 1/4 or the power generated by the power plant while the steel mill will use up 6/8 or 3/4 of the total power.
This situation is analogous to Death Star which is expected to fire at individual starships all the way up to planets which will require 10 orders of magnitude greater power. Again for the purpose of chart reading for the Death Star's engineers or not having it's captains have to order firepower set to one quadrillionth a logarithmic or a similar non linear scale could be used. This way 1/3 would be enough to destroy any ~10km starship, 2/3 do depopulate the planet or destroy a large asteroid and full power enough to obliterate an entire planet along with any orbital structures and moons.

Power is watts. Watts is not a logarithmic unit.
If you introduce a transition to a logarithmic scale, you invent a new unit (like decibels, or magnitude on the Richter Scale), and thus you use the terms of that unit.

In the case of decibels, if you say the power or intensity has doubled, it wouldn't translate as twice the amount of decibels. It would translate as twice the power or intensity, which you would have, then, to be translated back into decibels.

Who said anything about explaining it in detail? You don't explain anything at all. What is this exotic reaction you keep talking about? How does it work?

You asked for details, and again, the theory doesn't aim at explaining the mechanism, it aims at establishing a pattern of expected effects according to frequency and magnitude of superlaser shots.
It's apples and oranges. I don't expect to keep going on that again and again, so if you don't get that point, just drop it.

Secondly you are trying to pass off retelling of the events described in the book as prediction of what would happen. That isn't it.

No. I merely observe and then put up an hypothesis to explain the outcomes.
The book mentions some hyperspace related exotic phenomenons, yet doesn't explain their mechanics. Still, they do happen. I'm not the only one associating exotic effects to the superlaser.

You provided nothing more than undefined words. "Exotic reaction", "exotic saturation" etc. Do you understand that simply by adding the word "exotic" you don't explain anything?

It doesn't matter. I don't have to explain the mechanism behind those terms. The theory is not there to explain what they are, but when and under what circumstances they will occur.

And furthermore you think that what those meaningless words even say is irrelevant and only the number at the end matters. In which case one must wonder why not simply put up a number. I can say 10^50J, you say 10^20J and you win. And then maybe someone will post 10^2J and then his "theory" wins. That doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense if you understand that I consider that the three shots are of the same power, and come nowhere even near to e32 J each.
So basically, I notice that the superlaser has destructive effects with correspond to a level of energy X, which is low, and suddenly, out of the blue, the third shot, still at 1/3, causes a level of destruction which lies in the e32 J range (many orders of magnitude above X), at least, as the planet explodes.

But sure, you can say that the reactor generates god awful amounts of energy, and that some of it gets sucked somewhere. The only thing being that it's generally prefered to favour low end figures.
It is also generally viewed as "normal" that exotic effects would kick in with higher levels of energy, not lower ones.

Again retelling what happened is not a theory. If Newton revealed the theory of gravity which said "an exotic mechanism caused the apple to fall on my head this morning" I doubt we would be launching rockets into space today.

With the slight difference that the theory in question would actually adress the more simplistic conditions required to make an apple fall, like shaking the branch with a given force, or cutting the queue with given tools and again, a given force.

The apple thing is great in fact, because the thing would be that while it doesn't require much energy to cut the queue of an apple, the impact generated by the apple falling on the ground would generate more energy than the one you used to "launch" the apple.


Besides:

It took no more than an instant. Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much bigger than matter-energy conversion limited to realspace. At full charge, the hyper-matter reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted immediately into hyperspacec. As a result, Alderaan exploded into a fiery ball fo eye-smiting light almost instantaneously, and a planar ring of energy-reflux - the "shadow" of a hyperspatial ripple - spread rapidly outward.

It pretty much approves the idea that you get more energy that you could get with anihilation of anything in real space.
Oh, you may say that hypermatter is not real space, but that doesn't work, because hypermatter is described by the EU as tachyonic, which is mere realspace matter, just theoretically faster than light.
Hell, it's precisely the E2:ICS that says the reaction occurs in real space, not inside a pocket exotic subspace existing in the middle of a reactor.

So that pretty much highlights how you actually gain energy via exotic mechanisms while realspace reactions are limited to lower outputs.

Just because your theory is so undefined that it basically says merely "chain reaction" doesn't mean that every time someone mentions the words "chain reaction" it corroborates your theory. It only means your theory is poorly defined. There are many types of chain reactions ranging from chemical to nuclear and sometimes it's not even a physical reaction but a social or political.

I actually tackled this. Mike insisted on this point. Still, the description is as if someone looked a Robert's screencaps and put that into words.

Finally the chain reaction in the book clearly refers to passage before that describes beam hitting the continents which move causing earthquakes which cause tsunamis which cause destruction all over the hemisphere. And beam heating up the core which causes volcanoes which spew the smoke which covers the surface etc. What is the blossoming dark spot and how does it point to chain reaction? Is the spot actually dark or only in contrast to the rest of the superheated planet similar to solar dark spots.

It only mentions a dark spot:

A flash of pale green glimmered briefly from the holo.
The room shook, vibrating enough to rattle the chairs. She felt her viscera become momentarily buoyant, and realized that the ship's gravity field had flickered.
"What is that?" Memah stood, fighting sudden, inexplicable panic. After all, what could possibly pose a danger to—
Ratua held up a hand to quiet her. Those green eyes watched the 'proj. "Wait a second," he said. "Something's wrong."
The image of the planet Despayre seemed to shiver as a thin beam of emerald green—nearly the same color as Ratua's eyes, she thought— from off the edge of the 'proj lanced into the center of the single huge continent.
They both watched disbelievingly as an orange spot blossomed on the image of the planet. It seemed no bigger than Memah's thumbnail at first, but it grew rapidly, spreading in an expanding circle. The center of the orange turned black.
"Kark," Ratua said. He sounded stunned.
"What? What is it?"
"They—they're firing at the planet. With the superlaser."
The orange and black spread in irregular waves now, continuing outward from the center. The blue of the ocean didn't even slow it down.
"The atmosphere's on fire," Ratua said. Calmly, as if he were discussing the weather. Going to be a warm day today, temperature around five thousand degrees . . .
She felt a horrifying urge to laugh. It didn't seem real—it couldn't be real. Ratua must've tuned in to some future-fic holo by mistake. It wasn't a real planet she was watching burn. No. Things like that just didn't happen.
Memah stared at the image. She could not look away.

Which would seem to imply that the point of impact already started to cool down, unless there's something else at play. But maybe you have an idea here?

This is the standard tactics: declare anything suspicious as confirmation of the "chain reaction" which you haven't even defined or described or quantified or well...anything.

Well, on the same hand, the road is already paved by a book that acknowledges exotic effects, so it's much less outrageous.

[SailorSaturn13]

1/3 of power is 1/3 of power. Like 1/3 of gigaton is 333.3 Megatons. The book is very clear at that. Any other reading is absurdistic. The non linearity of EFFECTS is clear - and shows that there is a chain reaction underway. Note that in acoustics, for example, "Doubling intensity" means doubling intensity. Not doubling decibells.

[Kane Starkiller]

But the first and second shots have all similar effects. The second shot doesn't change dramatically from the first one. It just adds more of the level of destruction from the first one.
The first one is at 1/3 of the power the Death Star will be capable of.

The second and third shots have recharge times which only differ by four-six minutes, so they can't be drastically different either.

If the first two show similar effects then there is no problem. The problem is the third one which blows the planet apart and that one is not quantified to 1/3.

Now let's add Alderaan to that. The beam generates two distinctly separate explosions. The first one actually cause a level of destruction on the surface of Alderaan that is in the ballpark of the so called watered down first two shots that hit Despayre.

You have no way of proving that. The first one already generates fire rings that expand uniformly around the planet meaning the entire planet is already expanding. But if you have evidence that first one did not in fact started to scatter the planetary mass I would like to see it.

See that cloud layer that blocks the view from the new wave of devastation?
The first beam put the atmosphere on fire. The second doesn't even kick fireballs through it, nor is making a significant part of said atmosphere drift away.

There's no way the second shot could have been much more powerful, especially not if an hypothetical logarithmic scale was involved.

And even if I would have underestimated the power of the second shot, the addition of the energy of the second shot brought the effects to a total of energy which generated effects which are the same as those generated by a shot from the Eclipse superlaser cannon.

The first shot was so powerful that it caused entire tectonic plates to shift. Such an impact will cause enormous dust loading in the atmosphere. No wonder the effects of the second were obscured.

Let's compare:

Eclipse's superlaser firepower and effects:

Which is easily explained by non linear logarithmic scale. No need for undefined "exotic" reactions.

So the second shot will be ready after an hour or two after the first one, and will, again, be at thirty percent power (roughly).

Therefore, the connection between the three shots is definitely established.

But no quantification is given for the third which really makes the difference by blowing the planet apart.

Power is watts. Watts is not a logarithmic unit.
If you introduce a transition to a logarithmic scale, you invent a new unit (like decibels, or magnitude on the Richter Scale), and thus you use the terms of that unit.

In the case of decibels, if you say the power or intensity has doubled, it wouldn't translate as twice the amount of decibels. It would translate as twice the power or intensity, which you would have, then, to be translated back into decibels.

Did anyone rate Death Star's power in watts? No they rated it in fractions of the total power. As I explained in my previous post there is no reason to assume it must have been linear.

You asked for details, and again, the theory doesn't aim at explaining the mechanism, it aims at establishing a pattern of expected effects according to frequency and magnitude of superlaser shots.
It's apples and oranges. I don't expect to keep going on that again and again, so if you don't get that point, just drop it.

Yes I see how it would be very convenient for you to simply say "exotic chain reaction" and I drop it. It isn't going to happen however. Again your theory aims at nothing, you have no theory. You repeat what happened in the book and add the word "exotic" at various location. You explain nothing, no mechanism is given, chain reaction is not even defined. What kind of chain reaction is it? Nuclear, chemical?

No. I merely observe and then put up an hypothesis to explain the outcomes.
The book mentions some hyperspace related exotic phenomenons, yet doesn't explain their mechanics. Still, they do happen. I'm not the only one associating exotic effects to the superlaser.

Except the one is an official author while you are not. The author states that at full power a portion of planet is accelerated into hyperspace which you somehow assume it corroborates chain reaction which is not even defined. How?

It doesn't matter. I don't have to explain the mechanism behind those terms. The theory is not there to explain what they are, but when and under what circumstances they will occur.

Yes you do. And your theory has no predictive value unless you can give me formulas with which I can calculate what will the effects be at 1/2, 1/5, or 14/18 of power. That's the problem. Your "theory" has a predictive value insofar as I come to you ask you what the effects will be and then you make things up as you go along. A true theory can be verified and used for prediction without asking the author to tell it for you.

It makes sense if you understand that I consider that the three shots are of the same power, and come nowhere even near to e32 J each.
So basically, I notice that the superlaser has destructive effects with correspond to a level of energy X, which is low, and suddenly, out of the blue, the third shot, still at 1/3, causes a level of destruction which lies in the e32 J range (many orders of magnitude above X), at least, as the planet explodes.

But sure, you can say that the reactor generates god awful amounts of energy, and that some of it gets sucked somewhere. The only thing being that it's generally prefered to favour low end figures.
It is also generally viewed as "normal" that exotic effects would kick in with higher levels of energy, not lower ones.

Of course nowhere does the book say the third shot was also at 1/3.

With the slight difference that the theory in question would actually adress the more simplistic conditions required to make an apple fall, like shaking the branch with a given force, or cutting the queue with given tools and again, a given force.

The apple thing is great in fact, because the thing would be that while it doesn't require much energy to cut the queue of an apple, the impact generated by the apple falling on the ground would generate more energy than the one you used to "launch" the apple.

I am talking about the theories that govern the fall of the apple. The example I gave explains nothing just like you. It is therefore not a theory.

It pretty much approves the idea that you get more energy that you could get with anihilation of anything in real space.
Oh, you may say that hypermatter is not real space, but that doesn't work, because hypermatter is described by the EU as tachyonic, which is mere realspace matter, just theoretically faster than light.
Hell, it's precisely the E2:ICS that says the reaction occurs in real space, not inside a pocket exotic subspace existing in the middle of a reactor.

So that pretty much highlights how you actually gain energy via exotic mechanisms while realspace reactions are limited to lower outputs.

It says that beam is more powerful than what you'd expect from any matter-antimatter annihilation. Thus there is more to the hypermatter generator. How does any of that mean that energy somehow comes from the planet?

I actually tackled this. Mike insisted on this point. Still, the description is as if someone looked a Robert's screencaps and put that into words.

You mean your post where you talk about the "first and second plateau", "double treshold theory", "another type of reaction", "exotic chain reaction" etc. That does not explain anything.

Which would seem to imply that the point of impact already started to cool down, unless there's something else at play. But maybe you have an idea here?

Most likely dust loading into the atmosphere and probably in the orbit as well.

Well, on the same hand, the road is already paved by a book that acknowledges exotic effects, so it's much less outrageous.

No it isn't. The book mentions exotic effects within hypermatter reactor but says nothing to support your claim that most of energy came from planet.
And that's the thing: You claim that most of energy came from planet then attach the words "exotic chain reaction" to your claim and call that a "theory".

[Mr. Oragahn]

If the first two show similar effects then there is no problem. The problem is the third one which blows the planet apart and that one is not quantified to 1/3.

Yes, it is, for the mere reason that the station is not operational, and that the first two shots could only be worth of 1/3 of the power after a one hour recharge, and the third shot is a one hour recharge affair as well.
The power can't be suddenly so different, up to the point where it would even surpass the power of the Eclipse' superlaser.

You have no way of proving that. The first one already generates fire rings that expand uniformly around the planet meaning the entire planet is already expanding. But if you have evidence that first one did not in fact started to scatter the planetary mass I would like to see it.

I can prove that. The first explosion doesn't affect the whole planet. We see a large crescent, on the low right side of the planet, that is not moving at all, which implies that a whole portion of the surface, during the first half of a second after the beam hit, didn't get affected to the extent you claim, where the mass of the planet would be already expanding.
There is definitely ejecta at the point of impact, but it pretty much stops there.

But no quantification is given for the third which really makes the difference by blowing the planet apart.

It is given, if you care to read. We have a recharge time for the third shot which is roughly the same as the second one, a second shot which was said being the same as the first one. Just stop ignoring this, it's largely available and copied many times in this thread.

Did anyone rate Death Star's power in watts? No they rated it in fractions of the total power. As I explained in my previous post there is no reason to assume it must have been linear.

It is linear. Get a clue, the addition of two shots at 1/3, or the exposure to one single shot at 2/3 generate extremely similar effects.
That alone denies the existence of a logarithmic scale of power.

YYes I see how it would be very convenient for you to simply say "exotic chain reaction" and I drop it. It isn't going to happen however. Again your theory aims at nothing, you have no theory. You repeat what happened in the book and add the word "exotic" at various location. You explain nothing, no mechanism is given, chain reaction is not even defined. What kind of chain reaction is it? Nuclear, chemical?

Well, since we're at a point where you seem to have an issue understanding simple words, let me state it for you very clearly: I don't care. It's absolutely fine as it is.

It's not my fault you cannot comprehend the mere fact that the theory has more to do with probabilities than with explaining the physics behind exotic phenomenons, hyperspace rifts, planar ripples of what have you and superluminal boost.

Except the one is an official author while you are not. The author states that at full power a portion of planet is accelerated into hyperspace which you somehow assume it corroborates chain reaction which is not even defined. How?

I don't say it's a chain reaction that generates the boost. Or whatever you understand there, maybe you get it as chain reaction.

Yes you do. And your theory has no predictive value unless you can give me formulas with which I can calculate what will the effects be at 1/2, 1/5, or 14/18 of power. That's the problem.

Aw... It doesn't require formulas, for crying out loud.
It's all about saturating a world with enough superlaser energy/matter and the effects you obtain when you reach certain thresholds of power. I assume you can understand that, right, because it's not very complicated.

Your "theory" has a predictive value insofar as I come to you ask you what the effects will be and then you make things up as you go along. A true theory can be verified and used for prediction without asking the author to tell it for you.

Don't pull that nonsense over me about verifying a theory for a fictional universe. Nearly no theory can be verified as long as no new material is created to provide further meat to study after the theory has been formulated.
We're not in a test lab, and I don't happen to have a Death Star under hand. *sigh*

I am talking about the theories that govern the fall of the apple. The example I gave explains nothing just like you. It is therefore not a theory.

You really didn't get it. The more a theory involves fictional and far fetched elements such as a superlaser, the less it can be reproduced by trying to obtain a corresponding point of reference in real life - which is the only way to reproduce tests - but you completely miss the point that it's all about getting a bigger bang for the buck.

It says that beam is more powerful than what you'd expect from any matter-antimatter annihilation. Thus there is more to the hypermatter generator. How does any of that mean that energy somehow comes from the planet?

It comes from somewhere, but not from the reactor, because the book clearly says that even the Death Star's reactor couldn't provide that amount of energy.

You mean your post where you talk about the "first and second plateau", "double treshold theory", "another type of reaction", "exotic chain reaction" etc. That does not explain anything.

My "theory" is, among a few other things, just my take on what caused the massive explosion due to the third shot.

Most likely dust loading into the atmosphere and probably in the orbit as well.

Not up to the point where it goes above the superheated atmosphere and already super heated soil. There's no reason why the dark - non superheated - soil would manage to reach higher altitudes than the atmosphere on fire unless what was on fire cooled down significantly.

No it isn't. The book mentions exotic effects within hypermatter reactor but says nothing to support your claim that most of energy came from planet.

Just read the quotes then, because I can't imagine how you can miss that rather obvious part. The book precisely says that the exotic effects happen in the planet, not in the reactor.

And that's the thing: You claim that most of energy came from planet then attach the words "exotic chain reaction" to your claim and call that a "theory".

Yes, thank you. Got a problem with that? That's what people do when they talk about, for example, the S8472 beam that blows planets. It fires a beam worth of petatons, but later on the planet blows up. You likes have no problem to claim a chain reaction, or whatever exotic phenomenon that wouldn't require a chain reaction but which still involves non conventional physics.

I just love the double standard dance. This is some serious denial, really.

[SailorSaturn13]

Did anyone rate Death Star's power in watts? No they rated it in fractions of the total power. As I explained in my previous post there is no reason to assume it must have been linear.

It is not an question of rating or scales. "One third" is not defined over any ratings, scales, or numbers. "X has one third power of Y" means that if we take something with power X, and another thing with power X, and yet another thing with power X, then together they get a power Y. You can apply a third to a number of energy in watts, or gigatons, or tons of antimatter, and the result will always be the same: one third of 120 Exajoules is 40 Exajoules, one third of 30 Gigatons is 10 gigatons, and one third of 1.5 tons of antimatter is 0.5 tons of antimatter. As you see "one third" is unit-independent.

Now the logarythmic scale is just that - a scale, a way to write down the measurements. Such a scale is always arbitrary because of the starting point - the power that you set for 0 decibel decides which values you get. Now, in a matematical sense, you can, of course, take a logarythm of a number, divide it by three and set this new number in the exponent, but it makes zero sense physically. 20 decibel (note the word is not conjugated - precisely because we do not treat it as quantity!) is NOT a third of 60 decibel any more than half of an island is a half-island, of a pupil having a mark 6 is three times better (or worse) than a pupil with mark 2. To properly define a number which is 1/3 on logarithmic scale, you would have to take a cubic root of a value, and I doubt you could explain what is a cubic root of a watt(or joule).

Because of all that, there is ONLY ONE scale on which "one third" can be used... and it is the linear. And then, it is TOTALLY irrelevant, in which units (Joules, Tons, solar-week-outputs) we measure, the result is always the same.


Offtopic: where have you studied physics that you don't know basics rules about handling physical values???

Of course nowhere does the book say the third shot was also at 1/3.

It had the same recharge time as the second, so they have similar power

Yes I see how it would be very convenient for you to simply say "exotic chain reaction" and I drop it.

The basic point in dealing with SF universes is: WE don't know HOW things happen, but we know THAT they happen.

We dont know how hyperdrive works - we know it works and that's it. We don't know how transporter works - it works, and that is enough. We may know or not know some parameters (for example, there is NO canon formyla for warp velocities), but this doesn't change that things exist.
Likewise we don't know how "hyperblast" works, but we know THAT it works first "1/3 shot" shakes the planet, second after a hour shakes it more third after another hour shatters it, three such shots fired at the same time shatter planet and let some debris (which is not sucked into hyperspace) fly away violently. Every time you ask for an exact scientific explanation for some phenomenon you ask a Forbidden Question, that is a question that has no right to be asked. Sometimes the universe gives us an explicit answer ("Fusion furnaces...power everything...to starships"), but when its not there we have to accept it as an unknown. The theory doesn't need this, nor does it need to be able to predict everything. No one know exactly HOW apes become humans... but scientist unitedly believe they did.

Also, note this:
The superlaser theory was formulated after watching the movie in special edition, way BEFORE the book came out. The fact that the book quotes fit this theory nearly to 100% shows how much predictive power the theory had.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes, it is, for the mere reason that the station is not operational, and that the first two shots could only be worth of 1/3 of the power after a one hour recharge, and the third shot is a one hour recharge affair as well.
The power can't be suddenly so different, up to the point where it would even surpass the power of the Eclipse' superlaser.

What is your evidence that Death Star can only recharge at one rate? And the power obviously is suddenly different since it blew the planet apart.

I can prove that. The first explosion doesn't affect the whole planet. We see a large crescent, on the low right side of the planet, that is not moving at all, which implies that a whole portion of the surface, during the first half of a second after the beam hit, didn't get affected to the extent you claim, where the mass of the planet would be already expanding.
There is definitely ejecta at the point of impact, but it pretty much stops there.

The planet is expanding before the last of the beam even impacted.

It is given, if you care to read. We have a recharge time for the third shot which is roughly the same as the second one, a second shot which was said being the same as the first one. Just stop ignoring this, it's largely available and copied many times in this thread.

As I said recharge time is not necessarily limited to a constant rate. Furthermore refusal to accept your assumptions at face value does not equate to ignoring evidence.

It is linear. Get a clue, the addition of two shots at 1/3, or the exposure to one single shot at 2/3 generate extremely similar effects.
That alone denies the existence of a logarithmic scale of power.

How steep is the curve? Secondly the description of the effects both from Eclipse and Death Star firing on the prison planet is not precise enough to peg it more precisely than within several order of magnitude: 10^22J-10^29J or so could all fit with the described effects.

Well, since we're at a point where you seem to have an issue understanding simple words, let me state it for you very clearly: I don't care. It's absolutely fine as it is.

It's not my fault you cannot comprehend the mere fact that the theory has more to do with probabilities than with explaining the physics behind exotic phenomenons, hyperspace rifts, planar ripples of what have you and superluminal boost.

Well then I don't care either. Explain your theory or I see no reason not to stick with the conventional energy transfer.

I don't say it's a chain reaction that generates the boost. Or whatever you understand there, maybe you get it as chain reaction.

Then why do you claim it's a chain reaction then? You said that description within the novel supports your claim but if the "hyperspce boost" has nothing to do with your chain reaction claim then it doesn't support it in any way does it?

Aw... It doesn't require formulas, for crying out loud.
It's all about saturating a world with enough superlaser energy/matter and the effects you obtain when you reach certain thresholds of power. I assume you can understand that, right, because it's not very complicated.

What is there to understand? Again you explain nothing. What is this "superlaser energy/matter"? Saturating the planet with energy until it reaches the energy threshold of gravitational binding energy is exactly the conventional theory.

Don't pull that nonsense over me about verifying a theory for a fictional universe. Nearly no theory can be verified as long as no new material is created to provide further meat to study after the theory has been formulated.
We're not in a test lab, and I don't happen to have a Death Star under hand. *sigh*

Interesting. So you are absolutely sure that conventional theory doesn't apply but when asked to support your claim (not a theory since a theory actually requires more than the word "exotic") suddenly it's a "fictional universe" and you don't have to defend your theory at all.

You really didn't get it. The more a theory involves fictional and far fetched elements such as a superlaser, the less it can be reproduced by trying to obtain a corresponding point of reference in real life - which is the only way to reproduce tests - but you completely miss the point that it's all about getting a bigger bang for the buck.

Then why should I even consider your claims? You strung together two words "exotic" and "reaction" called that a theory and then said "sorry but the theory is so far fetched I can't even begin to explain or support it". Well that's too bad but it doesn't make your "theory" any less useless and irrelevant.

It comes from somewhere, but not from the reactor, because the book clearly says that even the Death Star's reactor couldn't provide that amount of energy.

Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much bigger than matter-energy conversion limited to realspace.At full charge, the hyper-matter reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted immediately into hyperspacec.

Emphasis mine. Hypermatter reactor was indeed what provided the superluminal boost obviously by creating more energy that could be obtained my simple matter-antimatter annihilation.

My "theory" is, among a few other things, just my take on what caused the massive explosion due to the third shot.

Well your take is useless since it doesn't explain anything and you in fact insist on the fact that you don't actually have to explain anything. I really don't see why I should take your meaningless theory over the simple non-linear scale explanation.

Not up to the point where it goes above the superheated atmosphere and already super heated soil. There's no reason why the dark - non superheated - soil would manage to reach higher altitudes than the atmosphere on fire unless what was on fire cooled down significantly.

Who says it wasn't superheated? The superheated dust was blown into space and cooled down since it has very low volume to surface area ratio.

Just read the quotes then, because I can't imagine how you can miss that rather obvious part. The book precisely says that the exotic effects happen in the planet, not in the reactor.

See the quote above where it specifically states that hypermatter reactor provides the hyperspace boost not the planet.

Yes, thank you. Got a problem with that? That's what people do when they talk about, for example, the S8472 beam that blows planets. It fires a beam worth of petatons, but later on the planet blows up. You likes have no problem to claim a chain reaction, or whatever exotic phenomenon that wouldn't require a chain reaction but which still involves non conventional physics.

I just love the double standard dance. This is some serious denial, really.

Stay on topic please. We are not discussing Species 8472 now.

It is not an question of rating or scales. "One third" is not defined over any ratings, scales, or numbers. "X has one third power of Y" means that if we take something with power X, and another thing with power X, and yet another thing with power X, then together they get a power Y.

If you assume the scale is linear. Read of 10^6W and 10^7W off a logarithmic chart. You'll notice that 10^6W is 6/7 or 10^7W. There is also no problem in adding numbers as long as you know which scale you are using. Finally I am certainly not saying the explanation is perfectly elegant but it certainly beats "exotic chain reaction which somehow enables Death Star to blow up the planet without the necessary power".

[Praeothmin]

Hypermatter reactor was indeed what provided the superluminal boost obviously by creating more energy that could be obtained my simple matter-antimatter annihilation.

Except it is not stated how that was achieved.
Did it simply open a Hyperspace rift within the planet, thus creating a huge vortex that sucked most of Alderaan's mass in Hyperspace?
How does Hyperspace work, by the way?
Without knowing that, we have no clue as to how the "superluminal boost2 was achieved.
So DET isn't necessarily the right answer...
And we still have the quotes, from the same novel you got yours, that state that 3 shots rated at 1/3 the total, finished output power destroyed a world, but the first shot only damaged some continents...

And no matter how you want to spin it, 1/3 power will always be linear and mean exactly that: total power divided by 3...

[Kane Starkiller]

Except it is not stated how that was achieved.
Did it simply open a Hyperspace rift within the planet, thus creating a huge vortex that sucked most of Alderaan's mass in Hyperspace?
How does Hyperspace work, by the way?
Without knowing that, we have no clue as to how the "superluminal boost2 was achieved.
So DET isn't necessarily the right answer...

What vortex? It simply stated that hypermatter reactor at full power provided a superluminal boost that shifted the matter into hyperspace. Thus it accelerated the matter faster than light. You make it sound as if hyperspace is just waiting to snatch anything all you need is to tickle the object with a few Joules of energy.

And we still have the quotes, from the same novel you got yours, that state that 3 shots rated at 1/3 the total, finished output power destroyed a world, but the first shot only damaged some continents...

And no matter how you want to spin it, 1/3 power will always be linear and mean exactly that: total power divided by 3...

I carefully explained how and why logarithmic scale would be used in Death Star's case. Your accusations of "spin doctoring" and declaration that 1/3 will always be linear without providing no reasoning or evidence notwithstanding.

[Praeothmin]

It simply stated that hypermatter reactor at full power provided a superluminal boost that shifted the matter into hyperspace.

This is what is said, but notice it does not say how it achieves this...

Thus it accelerated the matter faster than light.

By an unknown mechanism...

I carefully explained how and why logarithmic scale would be used in Death Star's case. Your accusations of "spin doctoring" and declaration that 1/3 will always be linear without providing no reasoning or evidence notwithstanding.

The problem is that your explanantion doesn't hold water.
The unit scale of their power measurments may well be linear, but fractions are not.
What don't you understand about this concept?
This is basic Math, and is all the "proof" that is needed.
Fractions are linear, not logarithmic. Period...

[Kane Starkiller]

This is what is said, but notice it does not say how it achieves this...

So what? Humans measured solar power output long before they ever heard of nuclear fusion. It didn't change the results however.
Blowing up a planet requires certain amount of power, how it is done is irrelevant. If you think it can be done by a certain trick let's hear it. Notice that hypermatter is stated to provide superluminal boost only at full power and that prison planet was blown up even though the full power was not yet available thus there was no superluminal boost.

The problem is that your explanantion doesn't hold water.
The unit scale of their power measurments may well be linear, but fractions are not.
What don't you understand about this concept?
This is basic Math, and is all the "proof" that is needed.
Fractions are linear, not logarithmic. Period...

Have you been reading my posts at all? If they are using logarithmic scale then they'll use fractions of logarithmic values.
log(10^9)/log(10^11)=9/11
See? It's very simple.

[Jedi Master Spock]

They most certainly would not. Nobody who actually uses logarithmic scales, whether dealing with sound, earthquakes, or brightness, makes that mistake.

[SailorSaturn13]

If you assume the scale is linear. Read of 10^6W and 10^7W off a logarithmic chart. You'll notice that 10^6W is 6/7 or 10^7W. There is also no problem in adding numbers as long as you know which scale you are using. Finally I am certainly not saying the explanation is perfectly elegant but it certainly beats "exotic chain reaction which somehow enables Death Star to blow up the planet without the necessary power".

Have you been reading my posts at all? If they are using logarithmic scale then they'll use fractions of logarithmic values.
log(10^9)/log(10^11)=9/11
See? It's very simple.

Have YOU not read what I wrote? It is FORBIDDEN (!!!) to work so with physical values!

"One third of a power" has a PHYSICAL meaning - the one which I gave previously. It does not rely on any human-given denotion or scale. A scale is just a convenient way to write down physical values. Now when you inroduce a scale, you also create a mathematical apparatus which answers, among others questions like "If this is how I denote such power, JUST HOW do I denote a third of it?" And this translates to "divide the number by 3" if the denotion is linear "OFFSET the number by a logarithmus of 3" if the denotion is logarithmic.

Take your own example. First off, you wont find "10^7 Watt" in a logarithmic chart, you only find 10^7. And the difference is crucial, because 10^7 Watt is also 10^14 erg/s. Applying your "method" to this, we get 10^12 erg/s as "6/7" of 10^14 erg/s, which translates to 10^5 Watt being 6/7 of 10^7 Watt as well as 10^6 Watt... get the idiocy?
Second do you know why logarithmic chart was invented at all? It was to simplyfy multiplying and dividing , because in log-chart "multiplying and dividing look like addition and subtraction" get it? LOOK LIKE. Multiplying, on a log scale looks (is performed) like addition. And dividing - like subtraction. What you do is a pure mathematical manipulation with zero physical meaning.

Or do you argue that, as 2 KV = 2000V and 3 KA = 3000A, we get 6 KWt = 2 KV*3 KA = 2000 V * 3000 A = 6000000 Wt, like some pupils do???

Or do you want to say that 2*2 is ~1.61681 "on logarithmic scale" just because ln2*ln2 = 0.48 ???!

One minor point. You claim the scale is logarithmic because they only talk in fractions of a Death Star power. That's BS again. "Full shot of a Death Star" is a unit of energy with the same rights as joule, eV, or "Week output of Coruscant sun". This unit equals to X Joules, and so "One third of total power" equals to X/3 joules. It also equals to Y erg, and "One third of total power" equals to Y/3 erg. (with Y = X*10^7) Or to Z eV, and "One third of total power" equals Z/3 eV( Z = X*6*10^18). And so on...

I am certainly not saying the explanation is perfectly elegant

Not just "not elegant". It is horrendous word-splitting, "Divide in two" does not mean "Divide into a billion planets on one side and 10000 planets on another". Likewise "a third" is not "a power so that its logarithm on some arbitrary scale is a third of a logarithm of the first power on the same arbitrary scale". To say so is idiotic and respectless at the same time!