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

For reviews and close examination of sources - episode reviews, book reviews, raves and rants about short stories, et cetera.
Post Reply
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:48 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:Physics change. Rules stay. 100 Years ago, physical books considered impossible to blow up a whole town with a single bomb. Or to fly outside Earth's atmosphere.
But even then, no one really working in acoustics assumed that one third of 60 dB is 20 bD - it is 55 dB (or 50, depending on scale). Never had. Never will, if he wants to make his work correctly. Such meaning is simply nonexistant in science or engineering.
What rules have I broken? There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing a ratio of two logarithmic values.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:So ration of powers is expressed in linear decibels, not in decibel/decibel fraction.
And no one but complete moron would do otherwise, for many reasons, some of them stated before.

Therefore, even if logarithmic scale were used in SW, they STILL would understand a fraction of power as a shift in scale - and not as fraction in scale.
What you think a moron wouldn't or would do is your own opinion. I've shown how the scale can work.
SailorSaturn wrote:I assumed he spoke about POWER, not scale number. No one refers to a third of scale number as a third of power, UNLESS the scale is linear and those two things fall together.
They talked about a ratio of power levels which you continualy assume were given out at linear scale. Something for which you presented no evidence other than a lot of screaming, bolding and underlining your claims.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Prove it. And no you cannot use planet's reaction to do so. That planet reacts linear to shots is never stated in book, it's an unjustified assumption by you. Canon supercedes physics, which means postulating a new entity is always better than disregarding canon.
You've got it backwards. You need to prove 1/3 was given in linear scale before you can make any claims based on it. Secondly nothing in canon states some kind of chain reaction was involved.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Mathematically - 1/3. But NO ONE SANE will claiim that 10W is a third of 1000W just because of that. And no one sane will claim 10 dB POWER is 1/3 of 30 dB POWER. Note, btw that dB is dimensionsless, while power is not!

There is only one meaning of "one third of power" - and it is the one I gave before: three thirds combined make the whole power. And if you say "a third of number in arbitrary logarithmic scale", than this is simply not one third of power, as stated in the canon!
You just cannot comprehend what I am telling you can you? 10W is not one third of 1000W but 10W IS one third of 1000W on a logarithmic scale.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:And when speaking about power, everybody (who works in field) wants to "go back to linear values"
Everybody? You have some evidence to back that up? Including Imperial engineers?
SailorSaturn13 wrote:You postulate a sudden and unmentioned increase of recharge rate of 13 magnitude orders?

The recharge for second shot went for a hour although it could be done in less than microsecond?
Apparently yes.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:On the contrary: canon supercedes physics. Disregarding canon statement (and understanding it in a way no one but Warsies do IS disregarding) is much, much worse than changing universe physics.
Generally the physics in universe is at the merci of author, he wants planets easily exploding - they are. He wants them reacting nonlinear to some sorts of energy - they are. In SW there are also canon issues - physics given by lower canon is superceded by higher - by that's irrelevant here.
Words are also defined by author - and we, the readers , cannot understand them like we want. Each word has to be understood in its normal meaning. If there are two, OK - bet in this case there aren't. Not to mention that it is billion times more probably that physic laws will change than that people actually buildingsomething big like DS1 will resort to such formulas to define "one third". And no we do not introduce exotic reaction - we just transfer it from reactor to the planets, which fits canon much better.
Actually as far as I can see only a handful of people on this board insist that Death Star destroys planets via some fancy chain reaction so your accusation that "only Warsies" interpret evidence as I are incorrect.
Again nowhere do you provide evidence linear scale was used, you claim you don't add any exotic reaction you just "transfer the reaction to the planet" which obviously means that you do in fact introduce another unknown reaction to the planet as well as the one within the reactor that creates the beam. And somehow you believe this is simpler than saying they were using logarithmic scale.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:They say absolutely nothing about it in general. Once in a while, one might comment on the practical impossibility of blowing up a planet.

However, what you're doing is something that the textbooks intentionally and directly discourage, in order to justify conclusions that were highly questionable in the first place. Trying to redefine the meaning of the word "third" simply does not work.
Never did I redefine the word third merely asked for evidence they were comparing linear values. Evidence you haven't shown instead relying on strawmaning my argument.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:KS, you believe that most people would use a scale that measures in log of a complex function representing the maximum power of the superlaser.
The simple mistake you make is that with a logarithmic scale, 1/3 of the superlaser power is a purely erroneous formulation, as it would be 1/3 of the log of the superlaser power.

The most clever way to speak of Despayre shots would have been to say a millionth or a billionth of the final power, or x points on scale "alphazeta som'thing".

The very fact that you have to bring it through the logarithmic grinder literaly defeats your argument.

I'm tired of your spin. Look, even Motti didn't give a rat's ass about saying it was just 30 percent of the DSFP (just borrowing S13's unit), instead of coming with the proper fraction.
They were going in for a quick estimation, one you don't have to break your mind into pieces and working it through translations of logarithmics functions not even properly applied to be understood (yes, as S13 largely points it, your use of the fraction is wrong).

Point being, you're completely spinning the meaning of a mere fraction into completely meaningless distorted babble based on an irrelevant exercise in mathematics.
There is nothing complex about the conversion formula I have given. Secondly something is not erroneous just because you disagree with it. And honestly "logarithmic grinder". It's a very simple function and it is completely defined unlike your "exotic" reaction which you yourself said needs no defense. Finally I'm not interested in your self proclaimed mind reading capabilities when it comes to Motti and the rest of Imperial officers.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We know that the 1/3 + 1/3 and the direct 2/3 have roughly similar effects. The difference can be explained by the fact that one weapon delivers the energy all at once, while the second does it over more than one hour and a quarter, with two shots separated by one hour and fifteen minutes.
Define "roughly similar". You completely ignored my point that even several orders of magnitude difference could still result in effects which fit the description in the novels.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Not the crust of the crescent. The atmosphere expands, that's all.
You are welcome to provide evidence that only the atmosphere expands.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Geez. It is blue, because it's the fucking planet's atmosphere for crissake. If you watched the whole sequence, you'd notice that this blue doesn't grow out of the explosion, as if it was as hot as a blue star. No, this blue region is already there.
If you can't get that from the very picture you post, it's sad.
Besides, all other zones don't show any blue while they become superheated. It is not because some parts become super heated that they would automatically turn blue either.

Again, my point was not about claiming there were no parts of the planet being thrown into space. My point was that the other side of the planet didn't have its crust inflate and moved upwards.
What is this thing where you get angry if I don't accept your baseless assumptions? Yes it's blue. Superheated objects are blue. At a frame rate of 24/s it is easily possible that at one moment you'll see a bluish planet and in the next the planet is blue because it's matter is superheated. Try to understand that you claimed this is EVIDENCE for the supposed chain reaction so go ahead and prove it.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:My take on it was about the threshold caused by the saturation of the superlaser into an unique target. Call that CR or not, it's not important.
Your take is completely irrelevant unless you can offer a description of the mechanism and evidence.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Way to miss the point.
Can you care to actually read what people say?
It is most bizarre, as long as you ponder the lack of description about a super crater, massive ejecta or else, while there's enough energy dumped into the planet to cause massive earthquakes all across the planet.
That's why I liked the idea of the beam drilling the crust and depositing energy within the planet.
How is what you like in any way relevant? Why would every single detail need to be described in the book? So they didn't mention the crater so what? Secondly how exactly do you expect to drill all the way to the core without producing an enormous crater?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It explains nothing because it's very unclear and wrong even on the simple use of words and units.
It cannot be unclear since it is explicitly stated mathematical formula with all operators (log,=,+,^) mathematically defined. Secondly it isn't wrong since it correctly converts values from log to lin scale.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:No, because the reaction in the reactor occurs in real space, and is a real space reaction. Hypermatter is even said as being constrained to real space (AOTC:ICS -- ouch).

Basically, the DS novel says it's still hypermatter, but the reactors aren't capable of the outputs claimed in the ICS.

You'll, of course, notice that with the output being capped as such, with the superlaser definitively made exotic in its higher outputs, and with the diameter of the station upped to 160 km instead of 120 km, any downscaling of energy density to the size of a core of an ISD will lead to much lower figures than the recent nonsensical stuff we got served with.
Oh yes, I'm sure you see the connection and that's why you can't stand it.
Quote and page number for AOTC:ICS please. Again you simply restate your claim that hypermatter reactors aren't capable of the outputs claimed by the ICS even though novel explicitly states that hyperreactor provides the superluminal boost. You can't pretend that it doesn't exist all you wish it won't go away. Secondly your accusation that "I can't stand the downscaling of power" could just as easily be turned on you. With much greater justification I might add since you mention AOTC:ICS hypermatter rector where it suits you yet continue to claim it's output figures are wrong. A hallmark of dishonesty. By the way could you provide the actual quote in question?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Because of the reason I typed two paragraphs above. Read AOTC:ICS.
The same one whose output figures you reject in the same breath? By all means provide quotes and understand acceptance of hypermatter operation description and simultaneous rejection of power generation figure is nothing less than dishonesty.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Oh but the evidence thus far has clearly established that the output is capped, and alone can't reach planet busting levels without a very major help from hyperland.
You have established nothing other than claiming accelerating planetary mass faster than light is somehow less energy intense. The same goes for your baseless claims that "hyperland" will somehow "help" the planet get destroyed instead of being the other way around: you need energy to go to "hyperland".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Ha, again, that one. It never gets old, doesn't it huh?
It may have never occured to Wong, nor you, that nowhere it implies that the energy figure mentionned is before the jump.
You do realize that it would be most stupid to generate star level of power just to make a microjump, right?
You also do realize that Star Wars' EU officially has trips that last weeks, if not more, and that any consumption relevant to travel is also relative to time and distance of said trip.
Of course, this totally flies above your head, because it's so much easier to get a fix of wank by swallowing completely nonsensical interpretation that disregards even most logical ways to measure total consumption.
The quote stats jump to hyperspace. Any additional travel time is neither considered nor included in the quote.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:No, that's not "in other words", because you clearly don't get the simple point of it. Call the extra gain of energy a question of CR or not, it's not a big problem, because again, my point is not to claim how it exactly happen.
Then you have no point.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:Thus the chain reaction is only defined by it's proponents insistence that it somehow lowers Death Stars energy requirement.
Obviously.
Concession accepted.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:There's nothing new. You can read many topics about the Death Star, I always considered, fundamentally, that it was both DET and exotic (for the extra energy).
It rather fits well with other bits of EU, notably how Han in Vector Prime thought only the Death Star could completely vapourize a 20 km wide rocknall.
That is Han's opinion. His opinions on Imperial military capabilities have shown to be unreliable.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You're conveniently missing the fact that I consider the book itself dispelling the idea that the reactor can produce planet busting levels of energy on its own. This has nothing to do with the fact that it could be right or wrong. It's just that you can't even see the evidence (from my point) I rely on to formulate the theory.
That's because you've provided no evidence whatsoever.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yes, I know. That's why I said the superluminal boost was another exotic effect.
Ah so we have "one exotic" effect and "another exotic" effects. And this is what "proves" Death Star is not "pure DET"? As I said you have absolutely nothing but your fantasies.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:That's lots of babble to evade the problem. Could you explain just simply why, while the superlaser would hit the surface and even heat up the atmosphere to some extent before hand, there'd be so much cool enough matter expelled ahead of the fireball, and why it would be dense enough to mask the much greater amount of super heated matter, and why that cooler matter supposedly sitting above wouldn't actually spread over the surface of the planet, instead of just rising vertically into the sky as you claim?
If anything, the cooler matter would be expelled sideways, with any superheated matter going up, only to be preceded by a nearby atmosphere already on fire.
Your claims don't make any sense.
They don't make any sense to you perhaps. The most superheated matter will be expelled the highest even into vaccum where it will coll down much faster than the superheated matter still in the atmosphere. Thus it could appear from distance after some time as if there is a dark spot over where superlaser hit. In any case you yourself offered no alternative explanation what it is or how is it caused. You are predictably claiming that any unexplaind phenomenon somehow supports your "theory" which you don't even have.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:What rules have I broken? There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing a ratio of two logarithmic values.
Yes there is.
What you think a moron wouldn't or would do is your own opinion. I've shown how the scale can work.
More to the point, you've shown you WANT the scale to work.
You just cannot comprehend what I am telling you can you? 10W is not one third of 1000W but 10W IS one third of 1000W on a logarithmic scale.
No, it is 1/100th, or a -2 change on a logarithmic scale.
Never did I redefine the word third merely asked for evidence they were comparing linear values. Evidence you haven't shown instead relying on strawmaning my argument.
Yes, you have redefined a third. One third refers to a -.5 change on a base ten logarithmic scale, a -5 dB change on a decibel scale, etc. Still haven't checked out an algebra textbook, as I suggested? Go do it.

There is a hair of wiggle room in one third. One third of power may not mean one third of energy if the time is not constant, for example... but then you must still address recharge time, and still have the problem that three shots, each at one third power with the same charging time, had dramatically different effects.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:14 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Yes there is.
Intersting how you can't point to it then.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:More to the point, you've shown you WANT the scale to work.
The scale works whether you admit it or not.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No, it is 1/100th, or a -2 change on a logarithmic scale.
log (10)/log(1000)=1/3. You can ignore this all you like.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Yes, you have redefined a third. One third refers to a -.5 change on a base ten logarithmic scale, a -5 dB change on a decibel scale, etc. Still haven't checked out an algebra textbook, as I suggested? Go do it.

There is a hair of wiggle room in one third. One third of power may not mean one third of energy if the time is not constant, for example... but then you must still address recharge time, and still have the problem that three shots, each at one third power with the same charging time, had dramatically different effects.
Your constant suggestions that I should go read an algebra textbook do not somehow add credence to your claims. log(10)/log(1000)=1/3. There is absolutely nothing mathematically wrong in showing the ratio between logarithmic values.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:04 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:Intersting how you can't point to it then.
I have. Referring to the logarithm of a quantity as if it was the quantity itself is exactly the sort of mistake that any basic college algebra text will try to keep you from making.
The scale works whether you admit it or not.
No, it doesn't. The root of a quantity is dependent on the choice of unit, making it a particularly meaningless quantity before we start concerning ourselves with what the cube root of a watt actually is - which, when you take a third of the logarithm of power, is the unit you're actually dealing with.
log (10)/log(1000)=1/3. You can ignore this all you like.
And now drop to millijoules, which for the same quantity is log 10000 / log 1000000 = 2/3.

Try megajoules - you get 5/3.

Starting to get the point?
Your constant suggestions that I should go read an algebra textbook do not somehow add credence to your claims. log(10)/log(1000)=1/3. There is absolutely nothing mathematically wrong in showing the ratio between logarithmic values.
In showing it? No. There are scenarios in which the ratio of logarithms actually arise; this is, however, not one of those.

In referring to the fraction of the original unit? No. An earthquake 1/3 as strong as a Richter 6 earthquake is a 5.5, not a 2.0.

A sound that is thrice as loud as a dB +80 sound is +85.

This is how people actually work with logarithmic scales. Ask a seismologist. Ask an audiologist. Ask a high school math teacher. Ask a physicist. Consult a textbook that has a chapter on logarithms. You'll see exactly the same thing as I'm telling you.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:12 pm

What rules have I broken? There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing a ratio of two logarithmic values.
Rule is "Don't confuse a ratio of logarithms as a ratio of (physical)quantities described by those logarithms". Which can indeed be found in Algebra textbook or in a physical textbook.

What you think a moron wouldn't or would do is your own opinion. I've shown how the scale can work.
More to the point, you've shown you WANT the scale to work.
And it doesn't, because a scale must be good for all values, not just over 10^25J.



You've got it backwards. You need to prove 1/3 was given in linear scale before you can make any claims based on it. Secondly nothing in canon states some kind of chain reaction was involved.
It says nothing either way. Why is hypotheses "no chain reaction" more preferable is unexplained.
Everything stated in the canon must be understood in its NORMAL MEANING, i.e. how a COMMON PERSON ON TODAY EARTH would understand it. "1/3 of power" under this rules, is understood in just one way - so that this power and two same constitute the original power.
YOU have to prove that such a meaning is contradicted by same or canon before any other option are to be considered. And the contradiction must be entirely canon-based. If it involves something else it is of lower level.


You just cannot comprehend what I am telling you can you? 10W is not one third of 1000W but 10W IS one third of 1000W on a logarithmic scale.

So "10W isn't a third of 1000W..., but it is". Great clarity of thinking.
log10 is 1/3 of log1000, but that doesn't mean "10W IS one third of 1000W on a logarithmic scale"... Especially given that in milliWatt-based scale log10000 would be 2/3 of 1000000 .

Everybody? You have some evidence to back that up? Including Imperial engineers?
Including them, because someone thinking in line of "10W IS one third of 1000W" is as absolutely unfit to steer a Death Star, as someone who thinks "2*2=22".
But actually engineers are irrelevant. If we treat canon as evidence we must understand it as a TRANSLATION - obviously common language in SW is not our English. Therefor more important is how "one third of power" is understood in today's English.

Actually as far as I can see only a handful of people on this board insist that Death Star destroys planets via some fancy chain reaction so your accusation that "only Warsies" interpret evidence as I are incorrect.
This was not what I said. Only Warsies would interpret "one third of power" in non-linear sense. And that you can hardly deny.
See only a handful of people at all are interested in HOW Alderaan was destroyed - in this way or another. But a HUGE number of people deal with physical quantities and an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them interprets "one third of power" like we do.

Roondar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Post by Roondar » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:23 pm

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have cut straight trough Alderaan without pause.

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would not have acted like a more or less centrally burried explosive.

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have taken longer to actually explode Alderaan due to limits in how fast thermal energy can propagate through matter.

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been limited to real-world matter/energy conversion ratios and thus never able to exceed the E=MC^2 limits*. And for a bonus, if it did manage to get all that energy, Alderaan would not just have exploded, it would also have been shoved straight out of orbit.

*) That is to say, any additional energy will have to be kinetic energy.

Never mind that the DS beam, even if we assume it somehow managed to affect all of Alderaan more or less at once even though this obviously cannot happen in real life physics, if it where DET would have mostly flashvaporised Alderaan before any form of explosion would follow (due to the speed of the remnants of Alderaan we know that the DS beam did tremendous overkill)

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been the greatest single waste of time and energy ever since flinging an object even 1/10th the Size of the Deathstar at near lightspeed at Alderaan would have accomplished the exact same thing and is, as seen by the empires FTL capabilities both a realistic possibility and quite surely a ton cheaper. Not too mention no pesky rebels can shoot it down if launched at point blank range. (Who needs the DS anyway when a chunk of rock on collision course will manage quite nicely?)

In fact, the mere point that the empire didn't think of this first before building the DS is good evidence that they do not actually have the energy generation capability pro-wars debators claim - it would have been childs play to destroy planets using far simpler and smaller devices than the DS if they had that ability.

Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been different than what is desribed in the Deathstar book.
Last edited by Roondar on Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:46 pm


That is Han's opinion. His opinions on Imperial military capabilities have shown to be unreliable.
Where? Movie-based statements can only- be contradicted by movies. Where is movie-based evidence the Imperial Fleet can destroy a planet?

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:48 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I have. Referring to the logarithm of a quantity as if it was the quantity itself is exactly the sort of mistake that any basic college algebra text will try to keep you from making.
Please name that textbook page and quote how exactly they are discouraging specifically.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No, it doesn't. The root of a quantity is dependent on the choice of unit, making it a particularly meaningless quantity before we start concerning ourselves with what the cube root of a watt actually is - which, when you take a third of the logarithm of power, isthe unit you're actually dealing with.
Again we are expressing the quantity as logarithmic value. No watts are mentioned in the book making your objection irrelevant.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:And now drop to millijoules, which for the same quantity is log 10000 / log 1000000 = 2/3.
Try megajoules - you get 5/3.

Starting to get the point?
Wrong. log(10000)/log(1000000)=4/6 You don't simplify the fraction unless you want to loose the initial values. Secondly in this example the denominator represents the full power of Death Star and is always "3".
Jedi Master Spock wrote:In showing it? No. There are scenarios in which the ratio of logarithms actually arise; this is, however, not one of those.

In referring to the fraction of the original unit? No. An earthquake 1/3 as strong as a Richter 6 earthquake is a 5.5, not a 2.0.

A sound that is thrice as loud as a dB +80 sound is +85.

This is how people actually work with logarithmic scales. Ask a seismologist. Ask an audiologist. Ask a high school math teacher. Ask a physicist. Consult a textbook that has a chapter on logarithms. You'll see exactly the same thing as I'm telling you.
I never said this is exactly the mode in which logarithmic scales are used. But it can explain why 1/3 of power is actually many orders of magnitude less energetic than full power without resorting to completely undefined "exotic" reaction. Thus it is a superior explanation.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Rule is "Don't confuse a ratio of logarithms as a ratio of (physical)quantities described by those logarithms". Which can indeed be found in Algebra textbook or in a physical textbook.
Yes "don't confuse". I expect the Imperial engineers to be smart enough not to confuse it. Hence they will know than 1/3 represents the logarithmic values.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:And it doesn't, because a scale must be good for all values, not just over 10^25J.
Why? You won't use the superlaser to target X-Wings will you? Thus it is perfectly reasonable that unless you need more than 10^25J you won't even fire the superlaser.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:It says nothing either way. Why is hypotheses "no chain reaction" more preferable is unexplained.
Everything stated in the canon must be understood in its NORMAL MEANING, i.e. how a COMMON PERSON ON TODAY EARTH would understand it. "1/3 of power" under this rules, is understood in just one way - so that this power and two same constitute the original power.
YOU have to prove that such a meaning is contradicted by same or canon before any other option are to be considered. And the contradiction must be entirely canon-based. If it involves something else it is of lower level.
Really "normal meaning"? When exactly have you been appointed the absolute ruler of Earth so that you alone can determine what is and is not "normal meaning"?
SailorSaturn13 wrote:So "10W isn't a third of 1000W..., but it is". Great clarity of thinking.
log10 is 1/3 of log1000, but that doesn't mean "10W IS one third of 1000W on a logarithmic scale"... Especially given that in milliWatt-based scale log10000 would be 2/3 of 1000000 .
I have been very clear. 10W is not a third of 1000W but logarithmic value of 10W IS one third of logarithmic value of 1000W. This is extremely simple and I can only conclude that your strawman of my argument is an attempt at deliberate deception. log(10000)/log(1000000)=4/6. You won't simplify if you wish to keep the original information.
SailorSaturn13 wrote:This was not what I said. Only Warsies would interpret "one third of power" in non-linear sense. And that you can hardly deny.
See only a handful of people at all are interested in HOW Alderaan was destroyed - in this way or another. But a HUGE number of people deal with physical quantities and an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of them interprets "one third of power" like we do.
Many claims no evidence. I agree that in the absence of any other information the first option is to interpret 1/3 as linear scale. But if "1/3" of power is obviously not only 3 times smaller than full power an explanation must be found. Your answer is "exotic" reaction. Mine is a logarithmic scale which I actually mathematically defined.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have cut straight trough Alderaan without pause.
Wrong. The beam would hit the surface superheated the portion of the planet which would turn into plasma which would absorb even further energy from the beam and expanded rapidly in all directions taking the planet with it. There is no way the beam would simply "cut through" the planet.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would not have acted like a more or less centrally burried explosive.
Wrong. That's exactly how it would behave.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have taken longer to actually explode Alderaan due to limits in how fast thermal energy can propagate through matter.
Wrong. The superheated plasma would expand rapidly and simply pushed the planetary matter compressing it and superheating it aswell. Thermal energy conduction is completely irrelevant.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been limited to real-world matter/energy conversion ratios and thus never able to exceed the E=MC^2 limits*. And for a bonus, if it did manage to get all that energy, Alderaan would not just have exploded, it would also have been shoved straight out of orbit.
Wrong. To produce 10^39J of energy you need 10^22kg. Assuming that matter is stored at the density of a neutron star (10^17kg/m3) the total space on the Death Star would be 100,000m3 or a spherical tank 29m wide. Thus there is no theoretical limitation on matter-antimatter annihilation.
I would urge you to familiarize yourself with these basic physical concepts before making any more bold claims about "DET" reaction.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, even if we assume it somehow managed to affect all of Alderaan more or less at once even though this obviously cannot happen in real life physics, if it where DET would have mostly flashvaporised Alderaan before any form of explosion would follow (due to the speed of the remnants of Alderaan we know that the DS beam did tremendous overkill)
The beam could indeed "affect" the planet as I explained above: rapid expansion which produced extreme mechanical heating. And what do you think "flashvaporization" entails? It entails rapid expansion of the planet. This is exactly what we see.
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been the greatest single waste of time and energy ever since flinging an object even 1/10th the Size of the Deathstar at near lightspeed at Alderaan would have accomplished the exact same thing and is, as seen by the empires FTL capabilities both a realistic possibility and quite surely a ton cheaper. Not too mention no pesky rebels can shoot it down if launched at point blank range. (Who needs the DS anyway when a chunk of rock on collision course will manage quite nicely?)
That only proves Empire has enormous energy production capabilities where it can waste such energies simply to make a point.
Roondar wrote:In fact, the mere point that the empire didn't think of this first before building the DS is good evidence that they do not actually have the energy generation capability pro-wars debators claim - it would have been childs play to destroy planets using far simpler and smaller devices than the DS if they had that ability.
Death Star is reusable. Your "1/10th Death Star flinging" concepts are not. Secondly what do Imperial decisions have to do with the clear observed capability?
Roondar wrote:Never mind that the DS beam, if it where DET, would have been different than what is desribed in the Deathstar book.
Why?
SailorSaturn13 wrote:Where? Movie-based statements can only- be contradicted by movies. Where is movie-based evidence the Imperial Fleet can destroy a planet?
He stated Empire cannot destroy the planet even though it did with million times the required energy thus he underestimated the Imperial power by one million. He claimed the Empire cannot construct something the size of Death Star even though they did.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:32 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I have. Referring to the logarithm of a quantity as if it was the quantity itself is exactly the sort of mistake that any basic college algebra text will try to keep you from making.
Please name that textbook page and quote how exactly they are discouraging specifically.
Try Sullivan and Sullivan, College Algebra, section 5.9, Logarithmic Scales (exact page numbers will vary depending on edition), and note that in every example, and every problem in the section, where they ask about the value being measured by a logarithmic scale (e.g., intensity)... which, if you answer your way, you will get terribly wrong.

I could open up just about any decent algebra textbook and it'll do the same thing. Most will use the Richter scale, and many will also use decibels, with a good number talking about stellar magnitude; Sullivan and Sullivan use decibels and the Richter scale.
Again we are expressing the quantity as logarithmic value. No watts are mentioned in the book making your objection irrelevant.
Power is not a logarithmic value. Power is a well defined quantity, which we may measure in watts, horsepower, et cetera.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:And now drop to millijoules, which for the same quantity is log 10000 / log 1000000 = 2/3.
Try megajoules - you get 5/3.

Starting to get the point?
Wrong. log(10000)/log(1000000)=4/6 You don't simplify the fraction unless you want to loose the initial values. Secondly in this example the denominator represents the full power of Death Star and is always "3".
No, actually, simplifying the fraction changes nothing (and you would need to be simplifying it).

The cube root of Death Star power is (a) not in watts and (b) depends on the choice of unit size.

Further, you're not even being remotely consistent at this point. If you define the Death Star as 3 on a logarithmic scale, the 1 value ("1/3" as you measure it) is 1/100th - which is more than the energy of the effects seen, bringing us right back to the original point.
I never said this is exactly the mode in which logarithmic scales are used.
To be precise, it is the mode which they are never used in, except by people who aren't competent to use them.
But it can explain why 1/3 of power is actually many orders of magnitude less energetic than full power without resorting to completely undefined "exotic" reaction. Thus it is a superior explanation.
No, it cannot - and your energy assumptions require an undefined exotic reaction within the Death Star's core, undefined exotic mechanisms relating to recoil compensation, and a few more extras.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:29 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Try Sullivan and Sullivan, College Algebra, section 5.9, Logarithmic Scales (exact page numbers will vary depending on edition), and note that in every example, and every problem in the section, where they ask about the value being measured by a logarithmic scale (e.g., intensity)... which, if you answer your way, you will get terribly wrong.

I could open up just about any decent algebra textbook and it'll do the same thing. Most will use the Richter scale, and many will also use decibels, with a good number talking about stellar magnitude; Sullivan and Sullivan use decibels and the Richter scale.
Which doesn't change the fact you can compare logarithmic values.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Power is not a logarithmic value. Power is a well defined quantity, which we may measure in watts, horsepower, et cetera.
Why do you keep repeating things I already agree with and which change nothing? The point is you can show logarithmic values of power and then compare those logarithmic values.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No, actually, simplifying the fraction changes nothing (and you would need to be simplifying it).

The cube root of Death Star power is (a) not in watts and (b) depends on the choice of unit size.

Further, you're not even being remotely consistent at this point. If you define the Death Star as 3 on a logarithmic scale, the 1 value ("1/3" as you measure it) is 1/100th - which is more than the energy of the effects seen, bringing us right back to the original point.
Why do you keep repeating your erroneous claim that Death Star's power was expressed in watts as opposed to fractions of full power? Secondly I already defined that base in the Death Star's example would be 10^13 as opposed to 10. Thus if you define 3 as full power it's linear value is actually 10^39. I already posted an example of a possible conversion formula.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:To be precise, it is the mode which they are never used in, except by people who aren't competent to use them.
Passing off your opinions as fact seems to be a habit with you. Besides the fact they are never used does not mean they cannot be used. The fact which you refuse to admit is that a simple mathematical formula and usage of logarithmic scale explains the discrepancy without the need to introduce an "exotic" reaction which is undefined and completely useless.
I might as well said that 1/3 is explain by an "exotic" mathematical formula .
Jedi Master Spock wrote:No, it cannot - and your energy assumptions require an undefined exotic reaction within the Death Star's core, undefined exotic mechanisms relating to recoil compensation, and a few more extras.
Death Star's inner workings are undefined either way. You just add one more: an "exotic" reaction within the planet. Secondly there are indeed theoretical models for explaining the energy densities: neutron-antineutron annihilation and neutrino emmisions for recoil handling. Far more than what you have with your "exotic" claim.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:59 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Try Sullivan and Sullivan, College Algebra, section 5.9, Logarithmic Scales (exact page numbers will vary depending on edition), and note that in every example, and every problem in the section, where they ask about the value being measured by a logarithmic scale (e.g., intensity)... which, if you answer your way, you will get terribly wrong.

I could open up just about any decent algebra textbook and it'll do the same thing. Most will use the Richter scale, and many will also use decibels, with a good number talking about stellar magnitude; Sullivan and Sullivan use decibels and the Richter scale.
Which doesn't change the fact you can compare logarithmic values.
You just aren't getting it, are you?
Why do you keep repeating things I already agree with and which change nothing? The point is you can show logarithmic values of power and then compare those logarithmic values.
But the comparison is meaningless when you're talking about a fraction of power.
Why do you keep repeating your erroneous claim that Death Star's power was expressed in watts
It doesn't matter what base unit you prefer - watts, yottawatts, horsepower, or stone-cubits per instant squared - the cube root of the base power (1/3 of the log) has a unit that's fundamentally undefined... and not power, which is mass * distance per time squared.
as opposed to fractions of full power? Secondly I already defined that base in the Death Star's example would be 10^13 as opposed to 10. Thus if you define 3 as full power it's linear value is actually 10^39. I already posted an example of a possible conversion formula.
So you're positing a logarithmic scale with undefined values... which completely disagrees with three shots of power one third blowing up a planet.
Passing off your opinions as fact seems to be a habit with you. Besides the fact they are never used does not mean they cannot be used.
You're trying to invent a new form of math in which "one third" means "1e-26 fraction of." I think I'm justified in objecting to that.
The fact which you refuse to admit is that a simple mathematical formula and usage of logarithmic scale explains the discrepancy without the need to introduce an "exotic" reaction which is undefined and completely useless.
I might as well said that 1/3 is explain by an "exotic" mathematical formula.
So you feel that redefining "one third" in conjunction with redefining "power" and introducing numerous unstated presumed exotic mechanisms is simple.

It's about as simple as declaring that "United Federation of Planets" refers to the Galactic Empire envisioned by George Lucas in his famous film series - and about as wrong.
Death Star's inner workings are undefined either way. You just add one more: an "exotic" reaction within the planet. Secondly there are indeed theoretical models for explaining the energy densities: neutron-antineutron annihilation and neutrino emmisions for recoil handling. Far more than what you have with your "exotic" claim.
The Death Star's inner workings could be any number of known plausible technologies when we use a reasonable energy yield - even fusion. However, the moment we assume 1e38+ levels of energy, then the simple geometry of the situation dictates a highly unusual exotic mechanism.

I've explained before that using neutrinos for recoil compensation doesn't work at the energy densities explained. The back end of the Death Star is doomed even at neutrino's weak level of interaction.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:06 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:The point is you can show logarithmic values of power and then compare those logarithmic values.
And everybody else's point is that no one in science uses fractions with logarithmic values...

In optics, the power levels of lasers are mentioned in dBm or in Watts, but whenever someone says "cut the power of this laser by half", they don't mean half the dB value, but half the actual power in Watts, or 3dB less then its original value.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:14 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:You just aren't getting it, are you?
Vague allusions to something "I'm not getting" are irrelevant.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:But the comparison is meaningless when you're talking about a fraction of power.
No it isn't since it can be converted back to linear scale if one so chooses.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:It doesn't matter what base unit you prefer - watts, yottawatts, horsepower, or stone-cubits per instant squared - the cube root of the base power (1/3 of the log) has a unit that's fundamentally undefined... and not power, which is mass * distance per time squared.
Who cares what is the unit? It doesn't matter whether it's time, power, mass etc. You are comparing the logarithmic value of quantity.
See the chart of people killed in 2004 Indian ocean earthquake:Link
Is log of 1000 humans still a human? Of course not. What difference does it make?
Jedi Master Spock wrote:So you're positing a logarithmic scale with undefined values... which completely disagrees with three shots of power one third blowing up a planet.
Read the thread. It is already established third shot was not quantified as being 1/3. Logarithmic scale I proposed as an example has all values defined: 10^13 as a base and 10^25 as a shift.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:You're trying to invent a new form of math in which "one third" means "1e-26 fraction of." I think I'm justified in objecting to that.
No I'm not, your strawmaning notwithstanding. I am saying that logarithmic value of a certain quantity is 1/3 of the logarithmic value of certain other quantity. Why you translate that into me saying that 10^-26 fraction is somehow automatically 1/3 is your own problem.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:So you feel that redefining "one third" in conjunction with redefining "power" and introducing numerous unstated presumed exotic mechanisms is simple.

It's about as simple as declaring that "United Federation of Planets" refers to the Galactic Empire envisioned by George Lucas in his famous film series - and about as wrong.
I redefined nothing since, when you convert linear values using the formula I used as an example, you get 1/3. Do you understand this? The value you get from initial number IS 1/3 when you convert it.
And the formula is simple, it has one logarithmic operation and one addition.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:The Death Star's inner workings could be any number of known plausible technologies when we use a reasonable energy yield - even fusion. However, the moment we assume 1e38+ levels of energy, then the simple geometry of the situation dictates a highly unusual exotic mechanism.

I've explained before that using neutrinos for recoil compensation doesn't work at the energy densities explained. The back end of the Death Star is doomed even at neutrino's weak level of interaction.
Where exactly have you explained this? How do you know that neutrinos aren't emitted on the back of the Death Star as opposed through it? Through "exhaust ports"?

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:20 pm

Praethomin wrote:And everybody else's point is that no one in science uses fractions with logarithmic values...

In optics, the power levels of lasers are mentioned in dBm or in Watts, but whenever someone says "cut the power of this laser by half", they don't mean half the dB value, but half the actual power in Watts, or 3dB less then its original value.
Does anyone else in science mention "exotic" chain reactions that can blow up planets? Interesting how you can immediately accept that yet this simple conversion formula is completely unacceptable because it's not used in real science books even though there is nothing mathematically wrong with it.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:22 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:Vague allusions to something "I'm not getting" are irrelevant.
Short of physically burying you in college algebra texts - which is more money than I'd care to spend on your education - what do you want?
No it isn't since it can be converted back to linear scale if one so chooses.
log(A)/log(B) does not convert back to a linear quantity. It converts back to a root.
Who cares what is the unit? It doesn't matter whether it's time, power, mass etc.
We explicitly have power. Not "logarithmic scale X," power.
You are comparing the logarithmic value of quantity.
See the chart of people killed in 2004 Indian ocean earthquake:Link
Is log of 1000 humans still a human? Of course not. What difference does it make?
The difference between a car accident that kills 3 people and a building collapse that kills a thousand. That difference.
Read the thread. It is already established third shot was not quantified as being 1/3. Logarithmic scale I proposed as an example has all values defined: 10^13 as a base and 10^25 as a shift.
All completely whacked out and arbitrary.

And even the first shot is more than 1e13 joules. So.
No I'm not, your strawmaning notwithstanding.
I'm not strawmanning:
I am saying that logarithmic value of a certain quantity is 1/3 of the logarithmic value of certain other quantity. Why you translate that into me saying that 10^-26 fraction is somehow automatically 1/3 is your own problem.
With 1e13 logarithmic base and simplification disallowed, you're defining "one third" to mean "1e-26 as much."
I redefined nothing
You have redefined "one third." You have redefined "power." These are simple facts that you have no grounds to dispute.
Where exactly have you explained this? How do you know that neutrinos aren't emitted on the back of the Death Star as opposed through it? Through "exhaust ports"?
On the back? Crushing the Death Star like an egg sandwiched between two pistols, in other words?

Post Reply