Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Strange that when I look at those two screenshots, I see no stars that have faded off the screen. Just ones that have been occluded and lost in the debris. Their "disappearance" is not so much due to contrast as the bright exploding cloud of junk obscuring them.
Then you have a vision problem. You can see stars around the rear of the Liberty that are gone in the next frame. Additionally converting BMP to JPEG tends to lessen the quality and the stars are less visible. But if you have a DVD of SW6 you should be able to easily verify this.
See what I already said. Even in the JPEG, you can make out the stars... and even in the JPEG, you can figure out why you can't see them. (Crap in front).
Kane Starkiller wrote:The brightness of the explosion will naturally be greatest at it's center which means that other ships still being visible doesn't mean the Liberty won't be obscured.
Do you do much photography? Any shift in sensitivity of the film to brightness is going to be applied equally to the entire frame.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Yes I also saw the shape which might be the cruiser's rear though I didn't mention it since I don't like basing anything on vauge shapes. However yes this is further evidence that increases the ambiguity and ultimate uselesness of the scene to determine any kind of operating mechanism for the superlaser.
That is your
only evidence to claim that the
Liberty did not disappear. I recommend you develop it. Hint: Take the full resolution shot and do a transparent overlay.
Kane Starkiller wrote:I see I'll have to post a screencap of the event:
Link
As you can see in the first frame the superlaser hits and we see the shield effect on the bottom of the ship. In the second frame the rear of the ship is vaporized and the vapor has already expanded for several ship widths in all directions thus obscuring the ship. In the final frame the superlaser has already vaporized the entire ship. The "suddenes" of the ships disappearance can easily be explained by the firepower of the superlaser: it vaporized the entire ship so quickly that 24fps camera barely had the time to catch two frames.
Your observation that vapor lacks chunks only further demonstrates the power with which the ship was hit since it was completley vaporized. But there is absolutley no support for any strange matter vanishing mechanisam we find in phasers.
Those shots show exactly what I was talking about. Look at them closely; the vapor does not truly
obscure the ship. You can make out the outline in frame 2, and in frame 3, you can see the substantially more transparent "hole" I mentioned.
Here. Take a contrast-enhanced snippet, where I've enhanced the hole and made it perfectly visible - since you can't seem to see it in the original version:
This "hole" is where the wingless Rebel cruiser was. Note how you can see Endor through this transparent hole. Now look back at the original image. You notice those outward streaks? That's the leading edge of debris
still. If, in fact, the cruiser had exploded past these, then we would see the following:
- The outer cloud would be dispersed by the blast of debris passing through it. It would not maintain a distinct form so similar to its state in frame 2.
- The "hole" would not have distinct edges. (The edges are shockingly sharp considering how grainy a sample I'm giving you.) In fact, it wouldn't exist - the distribution of debris should be fairly continuous within
- The "hole" would not match so closely the ship's original outline.
- The "hole" would be expanding. As we see in the next frame, the hole stays the same size and - in fact - becomes more distinct as the debris clears out of the area. (See below.)
- We would see the impact jostle all the nearby ships.
See here, where I've overlaid frame
4 transparently on top of frame
3 - the last frame you posted:
If you want, I can re-tint the two frames differently and fiddle with the degree of transparency to help you see, or turn it into an irritating animated GIF switching between the two frames, but you should be able to note the following features:
- Two distinct "outer edges" from the explosion. The larger one is from the fourth frame.
- Two distinct Falcon positions superimposed on each other.
- Only one distinct bright "hole" in the middle. This is because it's nearly impossible to differentiate the change in the hole from frame 3 to frame 4 - it just sharpens.
For all these reasons, it's perfectly clear that the wingless Rebel cruiser disappeared. It didn't explode super-fast.
Understand now? With the
Liberty, we can have doubts - "We should see something in this frame - is that something?" With the wingless cruiser, we see the explosion head on against a visible background - leaving the only room for doubt being "ILM did the special effect wrong for this one."
Kane Starkiller wrote:Then provide screenshots as I have demonstrating those "compression curves" whatever they are.
You can see them - and the detailed description -
here. There's no earthly reason for me to repeat word-for-word what's said there - nor is it as clear as it is in the case of the wingless cruiser, where we can actually
see the cruiser disappear. In the case of Alderaan, we murkily glimpse the edge, then it vanishes, then the clouds of smoke shift so we
should be able to murkily glimpse the edge again.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Kane, read the quote again. The key line is not that Alderaan is disappeared; the key line is the reduction in spatial mass.
"Reduction in spatial mass" is very specific; "disappearance," like the visuals of the explosion of Alderaan, is vague. Also, the conversion of mass into energy is clear - not only from the line itself, but through contradiction.
In other words you pick and choose which parts of the quote you will take literaly and which not? Selective interpretation of novel passages is not something you can base a scientific theory on as you would know if you knew as much about science as you claim.
Kane, don't be dishonest. The one trying to "pick and choose" parts of that quote to pay attention to and parts to not pay attention to is you. You are arguing that mass reduction "shouldn't be taken literally." The viable alternative to "literal" isn't ignoring the line; the alternative is presuming it to have been metaphorical, some figure of speech. Reducing spatial mass
isn't the language of metaphor.
There's no other way to take it than what I told you.
If you're wondering why Alderaan "disappearing" doesn't require that Alderaan turned instantly invisible, then you don't have a good grasp on words. Alderaan has literally
disappeared (it's not where you can find it anymore), but that doesn't mean it has disappeared in one or another particular fashion, as you seem to think it would mean "literally." If you don't want to read the novelization "literally," you are discarding it as an informational resource and saying that it
is not canon.
Kane Starkiller wrote:You need 10^21kg of matter and antimatter to create 10^38J of energy. The number might rise depending on the actual efficiency. But this is still 6000 times lesser than an Earth sized planet. The gravity on the surface of the Death Star 19m/s2 or 2g. Hardly a significant problem for a civilization that can create artificial gravity.
Multiply that by two for having at least two shots on board - and then increase the problem by the fact that everything
outside the Death Star also needs an
artificial repulsion field. If the Death Star loses power even
momentarily, it promptly implodes and any crew deep within die.
Then multiply the problem by far more than two, because when the Death Star fired, it did not noticably accelerate in the other direction. Jetting half your mass out at a substantial fraction of
c moves you very rapidly - therefore, you need either many times the mass-energy fired or a
second equal and opposite beam coming out the other side.
Were a Death Star to come anywhere close to a planet, it would begin ripping atmosphere off. Vader's out of control TIE fighter would have fallen straight back down towards the Death Star - not flown into the depths of space.
Then factor in the fact that no hyperdrive can operate effectively within a gravity well and we find the Death Star is also an interdiction field... and come back to the fact that any ship with the sensors to detect planetary-scale gravitation would pick up instantly on the Death Star's presence and true nature.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Any are strong enough if applied on a large enough scale.
I am really growing tired of your evasions. Name those energy conversion mechanisms and explain how they can generate enough energy to scatter the planetary mass at 10,000km/s. I know of three: fission, fusion and matter annihilation. None of those can reduce the energy requirement for the Death Star.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Any of a host of fictitious and non-fictitious possibilities. However, I see you are committing a further error...
Now you really got me intrigued. There is a non-fictutious reaction that releases 10^38J from the planet without requiring similar imput? Not one but an entire "host" of them? By all means elaborate, I'm all ears.
As for fictitious I assume we are talking about fictitious reaction
within SW universe and not technobabble explanations from other sci-fi universes namely Star Trek? If so you are welcome to elaborate them as well.
"Matter annihilation" includes fission and fusion. Other methods for turning matter into energy range the scale from particle-antiparticle reactions to chemical reactions to Hawking radiation.
As I've mentioned... any crossover between the two universes presumes a shared universe with shared physics. So I promise nothing.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:By all means, post the pictures. I told you that the visual evidence is highly inconclusive as to whether or not the weapons fire looks like phaser or disruptor fire in effect for two reasons:
First, LAAT fire in the movies is remarkably unimpressive. I do not recall having seen a single vaporization.
As requested:
LAAT firing
LAAT swiping
Notice the several meters tall clouds of vapor especially in the second frame?
As I said... remarkably unimpressive, and
not something we could say there is no material disappearance in, or no relation to phasers/disruptors.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:If it is worth remarking upon, it is remark-able. Hence remarkable. It is not worth mentioning if it is a small increase.
Further, on the scale of the Death Star, even a small unexpected increase in power generation implies a not well tested reactor design, something based on unfamiliar technology.
More semantics. Never would've guessed. You of course know just what Tarkin and Vader consider worth remarking upon? You know just how much remarkable is? And there is a difference between untested superlaser technology and untested superlaser technology upgraded on Death Star scale.
Sarcasm is unbecoming.
The difference is simply
size. Which, for a DET weapon, would not matter.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Trinity was a chain reaction; estimates varied as to how efficient, swift, etc, the reaction would progress. The unknown was not the absolute potential of Trinity; the question was the actual untested mechanics of the chain reaction within the bomb.
That was not "proving your point." That was demolishing it. Only a chain reaction provokes such miscalculations - so famously in the case of Trinity that almost every sci-fi "new" superweapon analogous to the atomic bomb turns out to have a test "successful beyond the most optimistic expectations of everyone."
But the bomb itself is a DEt weapon is it not? And matter-antimatter reactions are not perfect either. Efficiency of the process and speed is also an issue. So it is perfectly reasonable to expect them not to know exactly what kind of power to expect. That doesn't mean that superlaser technolgy was new and experimental especially since we saw it in AOTC. And it ceartainly doesn't mean that superlaser produces some reaction that magically enables it to blow up a planet with only a fraction of imput energy.
Only if you take your frame of reference to not include the weapon itself. The simple fact is that they should
know - and control - the output of their own generator.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:And now there are other planet-busting superlasers? That would make the Empire's miscalculations a sign of scientific incapability.
You are so fixated on snippets from dalouge that you can't even see the trees from the forrest. The Death Star worked perfectly. A 160km wide battlestation that blew up Alderaan with no ill effects to itself. And you conclude that beacuse of one line of dialouge this means the Empire is scientificly incabable.
Only in your selective interpretation of the quote does it mean -
when placed in context - that the Empire is scientifically inept. (This means something different from incapable in the general sense, incidentally - this is where we get to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and other accidents.)
Kane Starkiller wrote:There is no material disapperance no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. And please elaborate further on those basic characteristics.
Basic characteristics? They are
visible glowing well-collimated beams (or bolts) even when fired into a vacuum. That is a basic characteristic which is, in truth, highly unusual - but also common to many SF energy beam weapons.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's not even my theory regarding how the Death Star operates; many others have come to this conclusion in the past.
Starting, as the ANH novelization demonstrates, with George Lucas and Alan Dean Foster. If you want to try and push a DET Death Star, you're going to need to build positive support for your argument. Simply trying to pretend all the evidence for a SLE Death Star can be ignored isn't enough even if you succeed in developing reasonable explanations for every single one of the eight pieces of evidence analyzed in this thread.
"DET" Death Star is a default principle for eny energy exchange. If you disagree find me an alternative or at least disprove that direct energy transfer took place.
Your agrument basically follows the same line of reasoning as 9/11 conspiracy nuts use: Find some vauge evidence that might suggest "foul play" (controlled demolition appearance of TWC/interpreting Liberty explosion a certain way) and then pretend then any other valid explanation are not enough.
Kane, there is no "default" mechanism for blowing up planets. Don't even try to play the "default" card here - I'm not that gullible.
It's very simple to debunk the theory that the Death Star directly transferred 1e38 joules of kinetic [thermal] energy to Alderaan through particle bombardment (photons, plasma, what-have-you). I've already demonstrated one such proof through
your attempted reinterpretation of the mass-energy conversion quote and the non-trivial consequences for the Death Star. Another common proof is appealing to the visual depiction of the explosion, which - of course - does not match the model of using a laser or particle beam to superheat a radially symmetric sphere.