The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[Mike DiCenso]

You're seriously going to cling to that one single quote? That's extremely disingenuous, and will probably earn you another warning.

As I noted earlier, the Databank quote does not mean anything since the superlaser beam could still work on a chain-reaction principle or other technobabble as described in the EU novel and the ANH novelization (being G-canon it overrides the Databank and everything else, except the movies), and yet be possessed of "unimaginable amounts of raw energy". In fact, given how vague that statement is, a beam with DET component of gigatons or petatons would still be "unimaginable amounts of raw energy" to most people.

So you cling desperately to one line like the drowning man in a storm to flotsom.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Such is the problem with your chain reaction theory; numerous quotes such as the one from the Star Wars website imply a DET, "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is among the first things mentioned, implying that said "raw" power is very crucial and a centerpoint of the Death Star. The original ICS states that it has enough power output to destroy a planet; again, implying that the power output is what destroys the planet.

Theoretically, you could stretch any of these quotes to fit the chain reaction theory, but it would involve massive amounts of miscommunication and wonky word choice on the part of the authors. The statements are much less ambiguous if we use the DET model, where "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is unthinkable because it is millions of times the power output of our sun, not because "unthinkable" is really just a few gigatons, which in theory modern nuclear missiles can match, and that there is the fact that it's really a chain reaction that a technical book did not bother to mention or hint at.

Occam's razor. Your chain reaction theory requires that various authors describe the Death Star's superlaser in a very miscommunicated way, constantly saying quotes that imply a DET and using wonky word choice when they could simply have said this:

The Death Star uses a chain reaction to (insert technoblabble here) in order to blow up planets.

[User1619]

Official Star Wars website:

"The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds."

'Raw' power dismisses any claims to it being a chain reaction*.



*Which is completely undefined. If you are going to claim chain reaction, you need to explain WHAT this reaction is. The novel Star Wars Death Star handwaves the halo rings, all while still including a "power generation of several main sequence stars" quote, meaning that any weird effect from the superlaser is really just a side effect that does not alter the energy needed to generate the laser.

The trilithium warheads seen in ST:Generations also "unleashed" enough raw power to blow up a star-system, but obviously the little warhead didn't CONTAIN that much energy, any more than a match contains enough energy of a ton of TNT that it touches; it's just a catalyst that triggers the reaction. In fact the term "unleashed" indicates that it isn't generated; like if you unleash a tiger to attack an animal, then you aren't generating the energy, you're just enabling an outside reaction.

Face it: the DS simply converted some silicon at low-potential energy and high thermal energy (i.e. liquid silicon at a planet's core), into a some silicon at high potential energy and low thermal energy (i.e. the asteroid-field which the Falcon finds instead of the planet).

How hard is it to figure out that this is NOT a high net-energy equation-- particularly when the only example of similar technology involving similar shifts, involve hyperdrive-conversion of matter to tachyons, which clearly doesn't involve much energy?

Likewise, SDN openly brags that the planetary explosion takes place at a rate that's I've provento be about 15,000 times faster than enough to vaporize the planet and blow it out of the system, but it doesn't do that; so we're definitely looking at a hyperspace-situation here; and for that same reason, that precludes be a "chain reaction" producing that amount of energy to blow it up that fast-- even ignoring the fact that fusion would be the only such process possible, and that they never fuse heavy elements elsewhere.

So the case is clear: the DS operated by converting the mass of the planet into tachyons using a gigantic hyperdrive-motivator, and simply dispersed the hot planet's mass over over a large area of cold space by the simple process of thermodyamic expansion, and the planet pops like a baloon with very little energy-input by the Death-Star. Easy peasy!

Occam's razor. Your chain reaction theory requires that various authors describe the Death Star's superlaser in a very miscommunicated way,

No, that would be explaining it, not describing it.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Official Star Wars website:

"The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds."

'Raw' power dismisses any claims to it being a chain reaction*.



*Which is completely undefined. If you are going to claim chain reaction, you need to explain WHAT this reaction is. The novel Star Wars Death Star handwaves the halo rings, all while still including a "power generation of several main sequence stars" quote, meaning that any weird effect from the superlaser is really just a side effect that does not alter the energy needed to generate the laser.

Just one, simple, answer: the shots at Despayre. It's all in this very thread. I report your sorry arse for blatant ignorance of evidence and other people's posts.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Face it: the DS simply converted some silicon at low-potential energy and high thermal energy (i.e. liquid silicon at a planet's core), into a some silicon at high potential energy and low thermal energy (i.e. the asteroid-field which the Falcon finds instead of the planet).

Potential energy? In relation to what referential exactly?

How hard is it to figure out that this is NOT a high net-energy equation-- particularly when the only example of similar technology involve similar shifts involve hyperdrive-conversion of matter to tachyons?
Likewise, SDN openly brags that the explostion takes place about 15,000 times faster than enough to vaporize the planet and blow it out of the system, so we're definitely looking at a hyperspace-situation here;

You're basing your theory on the claims of speed from SDN?
And the factor 15000 is after observing how fast the planet expanded, and that expansion had simply nothing supraluminal whatsoever.

... and for that same reason, it couldn't be a "chain reaction," even ignoring the fact that fusion would be the only such process possible, and that they never use it elsewhere for fuel by fusing heavy elements to iron, since the end-product of local asteroids indicates far less total energy expended than the speed of the reaction permits.

Chain reaction is not to be understood as the logical and physics friendly cascade reaction of nuclear reactions. It's fit for all term that points to exotic reactions where a small input of something allows greater effects than DET could achieve.
In other words, it's like triggers, or detonators. It relies on unknown physics laws to find energy from some place else with a minimal input, in the same way you can start a huge fire with a single match.

So the case is clear: the DS operated by converting the mass of the planet into tachyons using a gigantic hyperdrive-motivator, and simply dispersed the hot planet's mass over over a large area of cold space by the simple process of thermodyamic expansion, and the planet pops like a baloon with very little energy-input by the Death-Star. Easy peasy!

I think it remained very visible for a mass converted to tachyons, dontcha think?
Or are you referring to the unquantified mass of the planet that effectively got boosted into hyperspace? (And that's admitting that it really does effect a conversion to tachyonic matter.)

[User1619]

Face it: the DS simply converted some silicon at low-potential energy and high thermal energy (i.e. liquid silicon at a planet's core), into a some silicon at high potential energy and low thermal energy (i.e. the asteroid-field which the Falcon finds instead of the planet).

Potential energy? In relation to what referential exactly?

The planet's core, duh?

How hard is it to figure out that this is NOT a high net-energy equation-- particularly when the only example of similar technology involve similar shifts involve hyperdrive-conversion of matter to tachyons?
Likewise, SDN openly brags that the explostion takes place about 15,000 times faster than enough to vaporize the planet and blow it out of the system, so we're definitely looking at a hyperspace-situation here;

You're basing your theory on the claims of speed from SDN?

Concessions which harm one's argument are an exception to the hearsay-rule, and likewise in this case they are readily observable.

And the factor 15000 is after observing how fast the planet expanded, and that expansion had simply nothing supraluminal whatsoever.

Local tachyon disturbances are subluminal; and the planetary fragments from the explosion were definitely local, as they proved when they hit the Falcon as it arrived in-system.

... and for that same reason, it couldn't be a "chain reaction," even ignoring the fact that fusion would be the only such process possible, and that they never use it elsewhere for fuel by fusing heavy elements to iron, since the end-product of local asteroids indicates far less total energy expended than the speed of the reaction permits.

Chain reaction is not to be understood as the logical and physics friendly cascade reaction of nuclear reactions. It's fit for all term that points to exotic reactions where a small input of something allows greater effects than DET could achieve.

Clarification: a release of greater energy than that which is input, i.e. an exothermic reaction (vs. endothermic).
This is not the case with the superlaser: the fact that the liquid-hot planet transformed into a solid asteroid field, indicates a zero-sum equation.

In other words, it's like triggers, or detonators. It relies on unknown physics laws to find energy from some place else with a minimal input, in the same way you can start a huge fire with a single match.

Meaning MAGIC, in which case your argument fails out of hand against that which is possible, by simple process of elimination.

So the case is clear: the DS operated by converting the mass of the planet into tachyons using a gigantic hyperdrive-motivator, and simply dispersed the hot planet's mass over over a large area of cold space by the simple process of thermodyamic expansion, and the planet pops like a baloon with very little energy-input by the Death-Star. Easy peasy!

I think it remained very visible for a mass converted to tachyons, dontcha think?

Again, local tachyonic disturbances are sub-luminal.

Or are you referring to the unquantified mass of the planet that effectively got boosted into hyperspace? (And that's admitting that it really does effect a conversion to tachyonic matter.)

We've already covered that: non-tachyonic matter could not have remained local or solid at the speeds observed; so since the planetary fragments were both, there's no denying that it was a tachyonic disturbance.

Edited for syntax

[Mike DiCenso]

Such is the problem with your chain reaction theory; numerous quotes such as the one from the Star Wars website imply a DET, "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is among the first things mentioned, implying that said "raw" power is very crucial and a centerpoint of the Death Star. The original ICS states that it has enough power output to destroy a planet; again, implying that the power output is what destroys the planet.

Theoretically, you could stretch any of these quotes to fit the chain reaction theory, but it would involve massive amounts of miscommunication and wonky word choice on the part of the authors. The statements are much less ambiguous if we use the DET model, where "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is unthinkable because it is millions of times the power output of our sun, not because "unthinkable" is really just a few gigatons, which in theory modern nuclear missiles can match, and that there is the fact that it's really a chain reaction that a technical book did not bother to mention or hint at.

Occam's razor. Your chain reaction theory requires that various authors describe the Death Star's superlaser in a very miscommunicated way, constantly saying quotes that imply a DET and using wonky word choice when they could simply have said this:

The Death Star uses a chain reaction to (insert technoblabble here) in order to blow up planets.

Again, you cling to the single line, desperately and dishonestly while you ignore everything else. There is nothing "miscommunicated" about this. Either the Databank is wrong or it is correct or it means something else. The last part is simple, because they don't want to bore the average reader with technobabble, which they do later on in the entry for the EU section. But the point is simple. Unleash unimaginable amounts of energy. Is the beam unimaginable amounts of energy? Or when it hits and does a chain-reaction, it does that?

But more importantly, and I will not repeat myself. Even taking your interpretation of that line, it is still highly at odds with G-level canon material and EU-canon material. If you keep ignoring this, you will get another warning.
-Mike

[User1619]

Such is the problem with your chain reaction theory; numerous quotes such as the one from the Star Wars website imply a DET, "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is among the first things mentioned, implying that said "raw" power is very crucial and a centerpoint of the Death Star. The original ICS states that it has enough power output to destroy a planet; again, implying that the power output is what destroys the planet.

Theoretically, you could stretch any of these quotes to fit the chain reaction theory, but it would involve massive amounts of miscommunication and wonky word choice on the part of the authors. The statements are much less ambiguous if we use the DET model, where "unthinkable amounts of raw power" is unthinkable because it is millions of times the power output of our sun, not because "unthinkable" is really just a few gigatons, which in theory modern nuclear missiles can match, and that there is the fact that it's really a chain reaction that a technical book did not bother to mention or hint at.

Occam's razor. Your chain reaction theory requires that various authors describe the Death Star's superlaser in a very miscommunicated way, constantly saying quotes that imply a DET and using wonky word choice when they could simply have said this:

The Death Star uses a chain reaction to (insert technoblabble here) in order to blow up planets.

Again, you cling to the single line, desperately and dishonestly while you ignore everything else. There is nothing "miscommunicated" about this. Either the Databank is wrong or it is correct or it means something else. The last part is simple, because they don't want to bore the average reader with technobabble, which they do later on in the entry for the EU section. But the point is simple. Unleash unimaginable amounts of energy. Is the beam unimaginable amounts of energy? Or when it hits and does a chain-reaction, it does that?

But more importantly, and I will not repeat myself. Even taking your interpretation of that line, it is still highly at odds with G-level canon material and EU-canon material. If you keep ignoring this, you will get another warning.
-Mike

Actually he's committing a grammatical error by using the word "describe" in the context of explaining the Superlaser, when that obviously wasn't the author's intention.

Your chain reaction theory requires that various authors describe the Death Star's superlaser in a very miscommunicated way, constantly saying quotes that imply a DET and using wonky word choice when they could simply have said this:

The Death Star uses a chain reaction to (insert technoblabble here) in order to blow up planets

And that obvously wouldn't be a "description," but an explanation.
That's just messed up-- and why they say that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," since it gives a person something to talk about without having a fucking idea WHAT they're talking about.

[Mike DiCenso]

This is an offical warning to StarWarsStarTrek.

No more ignoring of people's rebuttals and evidence, or simply hand-waving it away. You have been extended every courtesy and understanding since you first came here 6 months ago, but now I see that you are often trolling people by ignoring their arguements and evidence, then not even acknowledging it in any way shape or form. That is more than simple trolling that is flat out dishonesty.

This is not the only thread, and you face possible further warnings and as a consequence your first ban ever here. Please do not let that happen.

Thank you.
-Mike

[User1619]

This is an offical warning to StarWarsStarTrek.

No more ignoring of people's rebuttals and evidence, or simply hand-waving it away. You have been extended every courtesy and understanding since you first came here 6 months ago, but now I see that you are often trolling people by ignoring their arguements and evidence, then not even acknowledging it in any way shape or form. That is more than simple trolling that is flat out dishonesty.

This is not the only thread, and you face possible further warnings and as a consequence your first ban ever here. Please do not let that happen.

Thank you.
-Mike

The sad thing is, he's so schlocky and SDN-ified in his arguments, that I don't think he's even aware that he's doing it.
Having said that, I do want to applaud the board for censuring intellectual dishonesty-- whether intentional or reckless, since ignorance is no excuse for it.

[Admiral Breetai]

really SWST this is DET planet killing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp37K5fuKDY and this too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1yLDear ... re=related

and so is this (though you can argue chain reaction)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcGtUEHzk9s

notice the difference? the deathstar has more in common with the Vorlon planet killer a chain reaction weapon then anything else I'm not even sure if anything in the films supports it being pure DET

*side note any one wanna calculate the above vids the force required to do those things etc etc?*

The sad thing is, he's so schlocky and SDN-ified in his arguments, that I don't think he's even aware that he's doing it..

at least he's not bringing up that "luke stood at the center of the planet and produced such power that his force aura radiated through out the Galaxy and he essentially became as dense as the super massive blackhole at the center of the galaxy" From Dark Empire Sdners love to site it as to why him and sidious are the strongest force users ever (hint they aren't)

SWST hasn't done the force user wank thing most SDners love to do yet and that makes him not nearly as bad as it could be

[User1619]

really SWST this is DET planet killing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp37K5fuKDY and this too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1yLDear ... re=related

and so is this (though you can argue chain reaction)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcGtUEHzk9s

notice the difference? the deathstar has more in common with the Vorlon planet killer a chain reaction weapon then anything else I'm not even sure if anything in the films supports it being pure DET

*side note any one wanna calculate the above vids the force required to do those things etc etc?*

The sad thing is, he's so schlocky and SDN-ified in his arguments, that I don't think he's even aware that he's doing it..

at least he's not bringing up that "luke stood at the center of the planet and produced such power that his force aura radiated through out the Galaxy and he essentially became as dense as the super massive blackhole at the center of the galaxy" From Dark Empire Sdners love to site it as to why him and sidious are the strongest force users ever (hint they aren't)

SWST hasn't done the force user wank thing most SDners love to do yet and that makes him not nearly as bad as it could be

Then Hitler should be praised compared to Tojo, Stalin and Mao.

[Admiral Breetai]

Then Hitler should be praised compared to Tojo, Stalin and Mao.

wouldn't a more apt analogy be Generic die hard fanatic Russian soldier A should be praised compared to crazy old uncle Joe after all we're not dealing with the master mind here just one of his disciples?

[User1619]

Then Hitler should be praised compared to Tojo, Stalin and Mao.

wouldn't a more apt analogy be Generic die hard fanatic Russian soldier A should be praised compared to crazy old uncle Joe after all we're not dealing with the master mind here just one of his disciples?

Ok, Goebells then-- a lackey-stooge with no balls LOL

[Admiral Breetai]

Ok, Goebells then-- a lackey-stooge with no balls LOL

ah come on dude as funny as that was the last thing I want is you on vacation again