SoD 2008

[Kane Starkiller]

Wait, so basically, it's just the downscaled turbolaser argument in disguise, that is, pick the volume of your ship, reactor core or cannon bore or whatever, and multiply by "energy density".

No, as I have been trying to explain, it's not. It wasn't me who gave out those starship stats. It was given by an official source that doesn't need justification. That Death Star's existence happens to lend support is fortunate in that it disproves any accusation of "wank" but it is not critical.

You sure seem to read a lot in his words. Not that it matters much, because he'd have to prove that the Death Star technology can be downscaled. Which we're far from seeing any soon. Any claim in that direction would be hot air.
Besides that same old horrible leap of logic and association error, I thought CPL would be fairly aware of the recent revelations about the Death Star in the EU book related to those matters.

He doesn't have to prove anything since he isn't the one claiming the stats, an official source is. He is just repeating what he read there.

Wrong.

Your stance assumes a method of operation for how the DS works, in contradiction to the visuals shown for the movie only universe. When going to the movie+EU universe, we again see that the mechanism isn't pure DET.

When discussing the movie only universe, the visuals override the ICS. When discussing the movie+EU universe, both the ICS and the recent DS novel have equal weight in authenticity. This would mean that the ICS is an incomplete tech manual when it comes to the description in the text for the SL mechanism. So, power generation levels can not be assumed to be equal to the assuming energy for planet desctruction because the mechanism isn't purely DET. There is some use of DET, but not for the entire thing.

This is how you are wrong.

No one has ever shown any reasoning as to how various explosion artifacts point to "non DET" mechanism. Simply listing them is not enough.
Sources explicitly state that Death Star can generate power as several main sequence stars for a week. This only supports ICS further.

[Alyeska]

At this point, the continued off topic discussion is intentional. The behavior is trollish to say the least.

Please drop the offended attitude. It doesn't suit you well.

Stop acting like a troll. That will be a general improvement in your personality.

I created this thread to point out errors made by Darkstar and to get his response. I also was interested in seeing what other people around here would have thought about that. I didn't create this thread to discuss STvsSW or any technical aspect there of. That you and others continue to discuss completely off topic material shows your complete disrespect. You are acting like a troll when you intentionally derail a thread and refuse to stay on topic.

[GStone]

No one has ever shown any reasoning as to how various explosion artifacts point to "non DET" mechanism. Simply listing them is not enough.

Show me a single instance of an explosive in real life creating planar rings and isn't spherical. C4, the A-bomb. Find me something. I've done my own searches and I have never found a single instance where it's nonspherical in nature. Shaped charges don't count because that's a redirection of the force of the blast.

Sources explicitly state that Death Star can generate power as several main sequence stars for a week. This only supports ICS further.

So, you're proposing to ignore evidence in favor of the less specific source. This isn't the same as having contradictory pieces of information and choosing which one fits the evidence. One source says one mechanism, another says there is more than what source 1 is saying.

[Mr. Oragahn]

At this point, the continued off topic discussion is intentional. The behavior is trollish to say the least.

Please drop the offended attitude. It doesn't suit you well.

Stop acting like a troll. That will be a general improvement in your personality.

I created this thread to point out errors made by Darkstar and to get his response. I also was interested in seeing what other people around here would have thought about that. I didn't create this thread to discuss STvsSW or any technical aspect there of. That you and others continue to discuss completely off topic material shows your complete disrespect. You are acting like a troll when you intentionally derail a thread and refuse to stay on topic.

Oh, intentionally is a bit hard. But okay, I'll start a "State of Debate 2008" thread somewhere else, if this can make you happy. Geez.
That said, I won't remove the stuff about your behaviour. I've seen you recently harp on people's ass at SBC for no real reason.

Now, the other off topic bit... it won't go much far anyway, since it deals with the Death Star and Alderaan, and we already have our fair share of that in the other section.
We'll probably have to move that stuff over there.
We may loose Kane during the exodus though.

[Alyeska]

Oh, intentionally is a bit hard. But okay, I'll start a "State of Debate 2008" thread somewhere else, if this can make you happy. Geez.

You can always use Darkstars. You had no place taking over my thread. And it was very intentional seeing as I told people to stop multiple times. Willful disregard for proper etiquette.

That said, I won't remove the stuff about your behaviour. I've seen you recently harp on people's ass at SBC for no real reason.

About my behavior? I wasn't the one who took part in a thread hijack. I made accurate statements about it. And I don't harp on people for no reason.

Now, the other off topic bit... it won't go much far anyway, since it deals with the Death Star and Alderaan, and we already have our fair share of that in the other section.
We'll probably have to move that stuff over there.
We may loose Kane during the exodus though.

It shouldn't have gone anywhere to begin with. This thread was never about that.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Wait, so basically, it's just the downscaled turbolaser argument in disguise, that is, pick the volume of your ship, reactor core or cannon bore or whatever, and multiply by "energy density".

No, as I have been trying to explain, it's not. It wasn't me who gave out those starship stats. It was given by an official source that doesn't need justification. That Death Star's existence happens to lend support is fortunate in that it disproves any accusation of "wank" but it is not critical.

The fact that you didn't provide the stats isn't the problem.
The existence of the Death Star does not, in any way, "protect" the claims made by Saxton via EU books, for the reasons mentionned above.
I'll see you in the appropriate Death Star thread. You know where it is.

He doesn't have to prove anything since he isn't the one claiming the stats, an official source is. He is just repeating what he read there.

There's a lot to say about the objectivety and attention he lends to his repeating of some sources.

[2046]

Just a historical note, but Alyeska's initial thread was in response to my "History - Regarding SpaceBattles" post, and not the "State of the Debate 2008" posting.

Other than that, carry on.

[Kane Starkiller]

Show me a single instance of an explosive in real life creating planar rings and isn't spherical. C4, the A-bomb. Find me something. I've done my own searches and I have never found a single instance where it's nonspherical in nature. Shaped charges don't count because that's a redirection of the force of the blast.

Show me a single instance of a real world chain reaction creating planar rings. No explosion in real life is perfectly spherical. You have no case and until then I'll go with EU rather than undefined and unsupported theories.

So, you're proposing to ignore evidence in favor of the less specific source. This isn't the same as having contradictory pieces of information and choosing which one fits the evidence. One source says one mechanism, another says there is more than what source 1 is saying.

How can "energy burst equivalent to several weeks of main sequence stars" be any more explicit than it is? You keep calling rings evidence for chain reaction theory without even explaining how and why it points to a chain reaction since we have never seen a chain reaction even remotely similar.

The fact that you didn't provide the stats isn't the problem.
The existence of the Death Star does not, in any way, "protect" the claims made by Saxton via EU books, for the reasons mentionned above.
I'll see you in the appropriate Death Star thread. You know where it is.

I explained several times how existence of Death Star supports power generation ability of smaller ships. I repeat: SUPPORTS not PROVES. That you continue to ignore that evidence and pretend that Death Star is somehow not indicative of their abilities even though the Empire built it is your problem.

There's a lot to say about the objectivety and attention he lends to his repeating of some sources.

Blowing up a planet requires 10^38J but you reject that because of some unexpected phenomena even though you can't explain how or why that phenomena disproves the stated energy requirement. There are EU sources which explicitly state that Death Star generates as much energy as several main sequence stars in a week. You reject that information too even though it could hardly be more explicit. You reject the statement from "Death Star" which states a hypermatter reactor went unstable it vaporized the ISD within a microsecond dismissing it as a fluke only possible when there is a reactor malfunction. That there is no mention of this only being possible during the malfuncntion and that it fits perfectly with ICS is again ignored by you. You refuse to examine all these evidence as a single body instead trying to discredit them one by one even though all those evidence support each other and point to a very clear conclusion.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Kane, you're welcome to post in the appropriate thread. I even bumped it.
I'm waiting for you over there.

[GStone]

Show me a single instance of a real world chain reaction creating planar rings. No explosion in real life is perfectly spherical. You have no case and until then I'll go with EU rather than undefined and unsupported theories.

I'll tell you what. Take any explosive you think will cause a planar expansion and stand, so that the explosive ring moves along side you. Let's start with a grendade. Pull the pin and hold it in your palm above you head with your palm open.

Do grenades cause planar ring? They must because the explosion isn't perfectly spherical. After that, we can do the same thing with an M-80 with your other hand in the same position. And not the fake M80s, the ones that are illegal in the US. Since they don't cause perfectly sphereical explosions, they must be planar in nature, too.

I can play this game too all day long. So, let's get back on track.

How can "energy burst equivalent to several weeks of main sequence stars" be any more explicit than it is? You keep calling rings evidence for chain reaction theory without even explaining how and why it points to a chain reaction since we have never seen a chain reaction even remotey similar.

The same holds true when studying electric fish for the first time. You see they emit energy from their bodies. You might not know the mechanism, but you know they zap stuff. You don't know that it releases energy by stimulating the electrocytes in its body. You just know that it's zapping stuff. The same is true here. You know one of its effects is the cause of not one, but 2 planar rings of increasing intensity, amongst other things. A DET explosion moves outwardly in all 360 degree angles from the central part of the explosion.

Do you even understand the concept behind the building and usage of shaped charges? Do you understand the desire to rechannel the explosive force? Did you get the importance that the idea of rechanneling is key to a shaped charge?