Kane Starkiller wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
The evidence has already been cited several times.
- Death Star not fully functional.
- Shot 1: 1/3 (Motti)
- Shot 2: 1/3 (Motti and Tarkin's or Tenn's thoughts), recharge time X minutes (1 hour 13 minutes), beam fired two minutes later. Effects with similar effects as 2/3 of a superlaser, crust cracking (see Eclipse).
- Shot 3: recharge time X+4 or X+6 minutes, beam fired 1 hour and nineteen minutes after third recharged debuted. Planet explodes.
Why do you think the power would suddenly increase like mad when the recharge time is the same, safe for a few minutes? How exactly?
We even see that there's not much difference between 1/3 + 1/3 and 2/3, which of course completely debunks the idea of a logarithmic scale (erroneous use aside).
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
A portion of the crescent's atmosphere expands. In case you didn't notice, it's still blue over there.
There's no where planetary mass expanding in that region, which was your claim regarding the power of the superlaser in its final capacity.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
They cannot get more than 1/3 for the first two shots, the third shot is recharged roughly as fast as the second one, and you think this allows for a sudden increase of power that reaches beyond e32 joules of total energy?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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?
What curve? For me, it's not changing to any significant margin.
If you're not using a simple mathematical function for your scale, it's pointless. It's meant to make things simpler. The logarathmic one is relatively easy.
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.
Both sources put the 2/3 shot at the same level of destruction, generating gigantic crust cracks.
1/3 shots would still need to have many many teratons of energy to allow the generation of swarms of volcanoes and shifting of tectonic plaques across the whole planet. The biggest earthquakes on Earth started with energies in the low teraton range (but spread over a given time).
There's no evidence that the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary event left continentally huge cracks of the kind mentionned in both book, and that event is measured at more than 100 teratons.
We're seaking multiple continent long cracks or more.
e22-e23 J wouldn't allow the large and long cracks mentionned in both sources. You'd need to toy with the petaton range, and of course the curious affair that the first shot isn't described as blewing a huge crater into the planet, while effects actually indicate energy spreading (hence the other bizarre effect).
e28-29 J would likely be too much. There are no reports of atmosphere drifting away, the atmosphere actually remains in place, and it's precisely indicated in the book that the second shot is of the same level of the first, which didn't kick off much atmosphere either, let dark spots settle where the beam impacted, and that dark layer of clodus covered fires and volcanos and blocked vision.
I'd suppose this could be in the petatons of energy.
The other bizarre enough aspect of the destruction for a weapon that delivers the energy at one point only is that the damage is relatively well spread. Either it uses a far fetched system of an energy wave that travels along the surface of the globe, or what I prefer, it dig a hole in the crust and drops the energy in the core of the planet, which is the best way to radiate it omnidirectionally.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
You realize, of course, that since we know that it's a linear scale, the fact that you admited yourself that if you were to stick with a conventional DET, you'd also have to introduce an explanation to explain why 1/3 of the power of the final capacity - which has nothing to do with logarithmic scales - wouldn't rip the planet apart and why a hell of an energy disappears *somewhere*.
You also realize, I hope, that the book clearly says the destruction of Alderaan involved more energy than the reactor could output:
Death Star wrote:
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 hyperspace. As a result, Alderaan exploded into a fiery ball of eye-smiting light almost instantaneously, and a planar ring of energy-reflux - the "shadow" of a hyperspatial ripple - spread rapidly outward.
We'd notice that, then, there are even two of such refluxes, the second being even more powerful than the first. Again, all the reactions occur in real space. Hypermatter (fancy name for tachyonic matter in the EU) is precisely used within constrained real space environments.
Tachyonic matter itself is nothing more than a form of matter that theoretically exists in real space, with the slight difference that it just goes faster than light.
We have enough evidence that you get more destruction than the energy the beam can deliver, not the other way round, and of course, enough evidence that exotic phenomenons do happen.
The fact that the reactor managed to attach an exotic reaction to the superlaser does in no way provide evidence of the power level you think of, most obviously because you could not estimate the energy necessary to shift matter into hyperspace with a superluminal boost.
I've seen SDN peoples argue that it was an acceleration fueled by raw energy. That would be most absurd, as it would mean infinite energy requirements before reaching c, which proves that the hyperspace phenomenon is exotic and cheats physics - like if we didn't know already!
And the phrasing is nothing more than saying, for example, that the reactor of any SciFi weapon of doom provided the [name of exotic effect] used to deal damage. Again, I find the parallels with Star Trek most amusing regarding S8472 and the Xindi superweapon, as they do exactly the same stuff as the Death Star, but take more time to do so. Still, the damage they do comes the reactor, no matter whatever exotic effect it attaches to the beam, because I think we both know planets don't blow up on their own.
So sure, it had to come from the reactor. This is no way means the Death Star reactor invalidated what was stated as a fact a line above about reactions occuring in normal space.
You'll just have to sit with the fact that the superlaser has a power that is capped below what you thought, and that the destruction it provides largely owes it to a gizmo fancy effect imbued within the superlaser.
Which is just fine, because without any mention of a planetary shield, neither by the ANH novelization nor the Death Star novel, the effects of the beam of the unprotected planet largely show that the real DET there is within the range of the effect described as part of 1/3 shots, and that only full saturation shots (3/3) manage to trigger exotic effects which range beyond what looks like a level of destruction in the petaton range.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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?
The problem is what you understand by chain reaction actually.
Pretty much everything is a chain reaction, just like a bullet that hit material, then interaction x generates effect y which in turn does effect z etc. until sparks fly everywhere and you get a hole in a wall.
In our context, chain reaction is loosely used in opposition to direct energy transfer. I try to distance myself from the CR idea. Maybe my choice of words is not the best in that case. I suppose it would be just better to stick with non-DET and that's all.
Now, again, I consider that there's a good part of DET involved in the chaos, but that's not all.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
I'm not arguing about a mere saturation of energy to obtain most "normal" effects. I'm talking about saturating a target with enough superlaser stuff, whatever it is, that at some points to different non conventional effects occur, both being very energetic, and the second one literally opening some hyperspace hole in the middle of the target.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
I'm sure because I don't believe there's a shield over Alderaan, because the effects of the superlaser hitting the planet are most bizarre in the film, because mere energy doesn't create rings, because the novel clearly says that you can't get that much energy from the reactor (it merely picks the words from the ANH novelization while adding the cap on the reactor's capacity), because of the inconsistency of effects between shots of the same power (Despayre) and other things I'm forgetting atm.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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?
Because they fit and I even base them on the EU, which I don't always do.
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.
Your point would be right if you didn't invent nonsensical rules and ignored half of the data.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: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.
A very low amount which would, somehow, manage to escape the fireball.
A concentration which, first, wouldn't be enough to block the light from the hot matter beneath, which would spread and thus become even less dense, and a concentration of matter which would heat up faster than it cooled as it would return towards the planet, while the hot matter would still be present there.
The time needed to radiate the energy would be immense. I mean, even hundreds of gigatons would require a couple of minutes to cool down, and such fireball wouldn't really be blocked by the matter ejected from their own energy.
If anything, it may actually point to another odd effect. Just one more.
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's a fitting analogy on many points nonetheless, thus the mention.
Read of 10^6W and 10^7W off a logarithmic chart. You'll notice that 10^6W is 6/7 or 10^7W.
If such a chart exists, it's bollocks. 6/7 e7 watts doesn't certainly not give e6 watts. 6/7 of 10 e6 watts gives 8.57... e6 watts.
log(10^9)/log(10^11)=9/11
Let's say that the absolute power of the Death Star, completed, is e33 W (I don't agree with this value, but I take because it makes calcs simple).
1/3 is also 11/33. if you were right, it would mean 1/3 or that high output is e11 W. Thank you, your weapon isn't even worth a kiloton of firepower.