The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[User1619]

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

Then I'd have to throw in FASCIST as well.

[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?

The planet's core, duh?

It's gone in such a chaotic explosion it's a miracle you'd still get a planet out of accretion million years later. The referential is rather shakey. Not to say that stuff was sent flying away quite fast, and that's no potential energy there.

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.

Please clarify your point.

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;

What?
I'm not following you here. What do you mean by local and how that does that solve the problem of tachyons being a non-baryonic matter by definition?

and the planetary fragments following the explosion were definitely local.

Definitely local? Please define local and how it has anything to do with tachyons or explains anything.
Some of the fragments were still present, it's hardly a surprise as in a chaotic explosion, it's hard to actually get all the matter expelled away.
But these fragments, slowly moving and very visible at sublight speeds, Solo's ship were hitting them (and not for long mind you). How do you achieve that with tachyonic matter?

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.
This is not the case with the superlaser: the the fact that the liquid-hot planet transformed into a solid asteroid field, indicates a zero-sum equation.

Amusing. One conclusion doesn't relate to the other.
We're talking about the energy production and the energetic input, and you look at the very very end of the phenomenon, and wrongly at that, since we did see quite a lot of white matter fly away.

Sounds like you're pulling arguments out of thin air, and I'll be waiting for your evidence.

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.

Where did we see a process of elimination? When did you show that that murky scientific sounding babbling you brought actually was possible?

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

Again, local tachyonic disturbances are sub-luminal.

I think this is even more absurd than Saxton's helix lightspeed beam. Assuming that anything about tachyons could even get below c, it would require the tachyonic matter to move back and forth and in all direction at a given very specific frequency, so the "echo" of that now tachyonic matter would be what we see, looking like normal baryonic matter expanding.

Excuse me but I think I'll stick with magic.

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 not have remained local at the speeds observed, so there's no denying that it was a tachyonic disturbance.

English, please?

[User1619]

Potential energy? In relation to what referential exactly?

The planet's core, duh?

It's gone in such a chaotic explosion it's a miracle you'd still get a planet out of accretion million years later. The referential is rather shakey. Not to say that stuff was sent flying away quite fast, and that's no potential energy there.

Still needed to overcome the planet's binding (i.e. inverse potential) energy by infusion of kinetic energy at at least 11J/g, but no more than about 20/g if it wasn't to be blown out of the system entirely.
The rate shown was more like 300,000J/g if it occurred normally; but the planet's mass remained in-system, so obviously it didn't occur in normal-space.

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.

Please clarify your point.

Please clarify what you're having a problem with. Their claimed .05C rate of explosion is fine with me, given their evidence; if you have a problem with it, then speak now or forever hold your peace. I'm simply observing the fact that it must have been a localized tachyonic disturbance, given the totality of circumstances involved in the equation.

Local tachyon disturbances are subluminal;

What?
I'm not following you here. What do you mean by local and how that does that solve the problem of tachyons being a non-baryonic matter by definition?

Because we see them localize once their kinetic energy equals potential energy, returning to a non-tachyonic state in the region.

and the planetary fragments following the explosion were definitely local.

Definitely local? Please define local and how it has anything to do with tachyons or explains anything.

Some of the fragments were still present, it's hardly a surprise as in a chaotic explosion, it's hard to actually get all the matter expelled away.

Actually it not only IS a surprise, it's impossible other than by a tachyonic explanation.

But these fragments, slowly moving and very visible at sublight speeds, Solo's ship were hitting them (and not for long mind you). How do you achieve that with tachyonic matter?

I explained that already-- and that they became non-tachyonic once their kinetic energy equalled potential energy.

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.
This is not the case with the superlaser: the the fact that the liquid-hot planet transformed into a solid asteroid field, indicates a zero-sum equation.

Amusing. One conclusion doesn't relate to the other.

Unless one believes in the law of conservation-of-energy; I personally happen to subscribe to it.

We're talking about the energy production and the energetic input, and you look at the very very end of the phenomenon, and wrongly at that, since we did see quite a lot of white matter fly away.

So you want to dismiss the very end; that gives new meaning to the word "cherry-picking...."
And you're claiming what, exactly? That white matter flying away, precludes a zero-sum equation?

Sounds like you're pulling arguments out of thin air, and I'll be waiting for your evidence.

Just a soon as I get your valid flaw in my argument... for once.
(Pssst....saying "I don't get it," doesn't count.)

Where did we see a process of elimination? When did you show that that murky scientific sounding babbling you brought actually was possible?

Ah, so anything over your head, must not be valid.... gotcha-- you must be from SDN; if they can't get their heads around something then it sticks in their craw and they jump reflexively into denial.

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

Again, local tachyonic disturbances are sub-luminal.

I think this is even more absurd than Saxton's helix lightspeed beam. Assuming that anything about tachyons could even get below c, it would require the tachyonic matter to move back and forth and in all direction at a given very specific frequency, so the "echo" of that now tachyonic matter would be what we see, looking like normal baryonic matter expanding.

Excuse me but I think I'll stick with magic.

Then you fail in your argument, since the hyperaccelerated mass could not remain in a tachyonic state once the kinetic energy equalled potential energy; and we've proven that it couldn't be non-tachyonic normal mass during the explosion.

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 at the speeds observed, so there's no denying that it was a tachyonic disturbance.

English, please?

It didn't blast the planet's mass out of the system or vaporize it, so it had to have exploded in hyperspace given the rates observed.

There would be 2 ways to do this: either convert the planet's mass to tachyons, or create a huge warp-field around it. Given that their technology only allows for the the former-- as well as the fact that the Death Star shifted itself to tachyons for hyperdrive-- then that's the story I'll go with.

Now, you know about the inverse-square law of radiation, right?
Normally, a planet is insulated from space by thousands of miles of distance, via this law; however distances are shorter in hyperspace, so if you shortened them by a favor of about 15,000 times then it would radiate into space much more quickly, and explode like a pressure-cooker if you suddenly took the lid off.
And that's exactly what the DS did.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Still needed to overcome the planet's binding (i.e. inverse potential) energy by infusion of kinetic energy at at least 11J/g, but no more than about 20/g if it wasn't to be blown out of the system entirely.
The rate shown was more like 300,000J/g if it occurred normally; but the planet's mass remained in-system, so obviously it didn't occur in normal-space.

Where do you got your numbers from? Please provide numerous details.

Please clarify what you're having a problem with.

Your sentence. I don't get it. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

Their claimed .05C rate of explosion is fine with me, given their evidence; if you have a problem with it, then speak now or forever hold your peace. I'm simply observing the fact that it must have been a localized tachyonic disturbance, given the totality of circumstances involved in the equation.

What equation?
And where do you get the idea of "a localized tachyonic disturbance" from exactly?

What?
I'm not following you here. What do you mean by local and how that does that solve the problem of tachyons being a non-baryonic matter by definition?

Because we see them localize once their kinetic energy equals potential energy, returning to a non-tachyonic state in the region.

We see *some* debris, and they're moving. And I suppose you meant KE got turned into PE, not equals.
And how do you think the matter in question can naturally return to a baryonic state?
That's a new angle of your theory! Instead of claiming subluminal tachyonic debris, it's not returning to the baryonic state on its own?
It's getting better by the minute.
Especially since we don't even know why we should even consider that those debris the MF flew through ever moved to the tachyonic stage first!

Your theory is just dropped like that, and there's not much information to verify how sensical it might be.

Definitely local? Please define local and how it has anything to do with tachyons or explains anything.

Some of the fragments were still present, it's hardly a surprise as in a chaotic explosion, it's hard to actually get all the matter expelled away.

Actually it not only IS a surprise, it's impossible other than by a tachyonic explanation.

Obviously wrong on the first point, unless you believe the explosion was perfect, and the jury is still out on the second to see if you're just making stuff up or if there actually is some scientific basis behind your suggestion.

But these fragments, slowly moving and very visible at sublight speeds, Solo's ship were hitting them (and not for long mind you). How do you achieve that with tachyonic matter?

I explained that already-- and that they became non-tachyonic once their kinetic energy equalled potential energy.

That's not an explanation. You're pointing to your baseless non sequitur that you pulled out of the blue. Prove that all you say can work and has some meat behind it.
Oh but wait, I remember that style of argumentation. You pull some totally fancy theory that's just a bag full of disconnect sciency sounding elements, pretend having evidence, and anytime asked to provide evidence, you point to your... theory.
I and Praeothmin already dealt with that nonsense once. I really hope this is not a redux of it.
That is not going to work.

Clarification: a release of greater energy than that which is input.
This is not the case with the superlaser: the the fact that the liquid-hot planet transformed into a solid asteroid field, indicates a zero-sum equation.

Amusing. One conclusion doesn't relate to the other.

Unless one believes in the law of conservation-of-energy; I personally happen to subscribe to it.

Me to. Notice that citing CoE hardly makes your point valid. You must actually prove that it works.
Also, notice that claiming a CR doesn't preclude said CR from forwarding the necessary energy for what we saw. It's actually the point of the CR, and has always been for more than a decade of argumentation on this event. I even summarized what the concept of CR in such debates really is about.

We're talking about the energy production and the energetic input, and you look at the very very end of the phenomenon, and wrongly at that, since we did see quite a lot of white matter fly away.

So you want to dismiss the very end; that gives new meaning to the word "cherry-picking...."

No, I may dismiss your explanation about what we found ourserlves with once all this action settled and some fragments were seen drifting.

And you're claiming what, exactly? That white matter flying away, precludes a zero-sum equation?

Why should I do that?
No, that it may not fit with that unsubstantiated claim that it is tachyonic matter.
Let's just keep things simple, if still possible, and see all your evidence and numbers behind your puzzling claims.

Sounds like you're pulling arguments out of thin air, and I'll be waiting for your evidence.

Just a soon as I get your valid flaw in my argument... for once.
(Pssst....saying "I don't get it," doesn't count.)

Me asking for (obviously solid) evidence, equations behind your numbers and the scientific facts that support your theory is plain enough to actually get a proper reply to my request.
That is the flaw of your theory, and that's a valid point of departure for me to make such a request.
In fact, I wouldn't even need to point a flaw, because you should have provided that data before anyone asked you to do so. That's just the way it works in the scientific community.

Where did we see a process of elimination? When did you show that that murky scientific sounding babbling you brought actually was possible?

Ah, so anything over your head, must not be valid.... gotcha-- you must be from SDN; if they can't get their heads around something then it sticks in their craw and they jump reflexively into denial.

No, I repeat, genius. When did you provide that you ran a decent process of elimination and when did you substantiate anything you advanced beyond "it works because I say so and use scientific terms I may not truly understand"?

I think this is even more absurd than Saxton's helix lightspeed beam. Assuming that anything about tachyons could even get below c, it would require the tachyonic matter to move back and forth and in all direction at a given very specific frequency, so the "echo" of that now tachyonic matter would be what we see, looking like normal baryonic matter expanding.

Excuse me but I think I'll stick with magic.

Then you fail in your argument, since the hyperaccelerated mass could not remain in a tachyonic state once the kinetic energy equalled potential energy; and we've proven that it couldn't be non-tachyonic normal mass during the explosion.

Ha? *We* proved that? Since when? Where?
I'm asking for some simple evidence and you're adding another layer of nonsensical babble.

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 at the speeds observed, so there's no denying that it was a tachyonic disturbance.

c = 299,792,458 m / s

Or, at 25 fps; 11,991,698.32 m/s

If we "see" something moving faster than that, then we have a problem. That's about 12,000 km/frame. Earth has a diameter of 12,740 km. We're almost speaking of a full planetary diameter per frame.
Alderaan has a diameter of 12,500 kkm.
And you know what? We are nowhere that close. So why bother with technosmurf tachyonic babble for what we see?

English, please?

It didn't blast the planet's mass out of the system or vaporize it, so it had to have exploded in hyperspace given the rates observed.
There would be 2 ways to do this: either convert the planet's mass to tachyons, or create a huge warp-field around it. Given that their technology only allows for the the former-- as well as the fact that the Death Star shifted itself to tachyons for hyperdrive-- then that's the story I'll go with.

Err... what kind of rate did you observe lately? Actually, what kind of version of the movie did you watch?

Now, you know about the inverse-square law of radiation, right?

Mmm... yes?

Normally, a planet is insulated from space by thousands of miles of distance, via this law; however distances are shorter in hyperspace, so if you shortened them by a favor of about 15,000 times then it would radiate into space much more quickly, and explode like a pressure-cooker if you suddenly took the lid off.
And that's exactly what the DS did.

Oh, another piece of that BS cake. Let's hear how you relate the radiation of Alderaan (wut?) to hyperspace and how that means it radiates energy faster...
Next post of yours like this, and I swear, I'm going to wear some rolleyes spectacles all along. It will just be simpler.

[User1619]

If we "see" something moving faster than that, then we have a problem.

Sure, just ignore EVERYTHING I said.

As I said previously, the problem with online debates is that they're limited by the intellectual honesty and capability of either party; and you clearly haven't the currency or integrity to keep up, so I'm declaring this one a TKO against you.

[Mr. Oragahn]

If we "see" something moving faster than that, then we have a problem.

Sure, just ignore EVERYTHING I said.

Weird, that's rather the impression I get.
What did I ignore? Oh, easy. Nothing. Every single point you made, I replied to it, and even if most of it didn't make sense, I kindly asked for clarification and voiced concerns before seeing that you were pulling another of those huge pseudo-science bluffs.

Your failure to provide any form of evidence or clarification on "your" calculations is noted though.

As I said previously, the problem with online debates is that they're limited by the intellectual honesty and capability of either party; and you clearly haven't the currency or integrity to keep up, so I'm declaring this one a TKO against you.

You can declare anything you want, it is absolutely clear in this debate that you made up shit, and you can't be bothered to back it up. It isn't even sure if you even understand what you throw at the screen.
You try to play it the "smart-ass" way when I ask for evidence, pretending I have to find a flaw in your self-collapsing logic first. I already told you that I didn't need to find a flaw in your logic. The real flaw is one of substance, of evidence, and there's none of that in your posts. There's no connection between your different claims. You pull non sequitur after non sequitur like an aroused rabbit. When sort of stuck, you add another layer of nonsense with even more scientific terms, in the vain hope of impressing me out of this debate.
I'm certainly not against the idea of exploring any suggestion, extrapolation on tachyons and else, but at least prove that it makes sense.
So provide evidence, provide the equations and calculations behind ALL your figures, and show which scientific principles you base your theory on, and we'll see if your theory floats.
Otherwise, buzz off.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

The quote from Star Wars: Death Star about the hypermatter reactor creating a burst matching the weekly power output of several main sequence stars is hard to refute, is it not?

Or the superlaser having unthinkable amounts of raw power. Sure, you could argue that a space age society consider a few gigatons that darkstar proposes to be unthinkable (even when modern nukes can theoretically go that high) and that the writer of the Star Wars database spoke in extremely vague and misdirecting ways when he says "unthinkable" amounts of "raw" power, but that would be grasping at straws and going against Occam's razor. The quote fits better with the DET theory than with the chain reaction theory. So does the original ICS quote that the Death Star has enough power output to destroy a planet; claiming that it really meant "enough power output to create a chain reaction to destroy a planet" is assuming that the authors left out a CRUCIAL part of the function of the superlaser, and deliberately mislead us.

Then there's the feat of the Death Star circumnavigating Yavin 4 in a matter of minutes, calculating out to 67 km/s, requiring about e29 joules of energy assuming a density similar to a GSC.

Then there's the lack of coherency or evidence in the chain reaction theories:

The Alderaan was a huge nuclear bomb theory does not explain the halo rings, or the fact that superlaser works on stuff other than M class planets, and has no evidence to support it.

The antimatter - matter conversion theory does not explain the halo rings and is contradicted by Star Wars: Death Star

According to Star Wars: Death Star, much of the planet's matter was shifted into hyperspace. Some pro Trek debaters rejoice at this, but:

1. "Much"; even only one percent of the planet's matter not being shifted leaves a huge amount of matter left

2. Shunting matter into hyperspace takes huge amounts of energy; as stated with the "consuming more energy than many nations will in their life time" quote.

3. Shunting matter into hyperspace does not break it apart, so the Death Star's superlaser still has to do that.

4. Matter in hyperspace is still affected by gravity wells, so the superlaser still has to overcome the planet's gravitational binding energy.

So shunting much of the matter into hyperspace dos away with most of the chain reaction theories, while still requiring overcoming planetary binding energy and breaking the planet into bits.

[Praeothmin]

The quote from Star Wars: Death Star about the hypermatter reactor creating a burst matching the weekly power output of several main sequence stars is hard to refute, is it not?

Nope, Mike took it down in page 3 of this very thread, and you even replied to his argument...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Mike's post, some highlights as to his general points:

"The fact that it was improved in order to allow star destroyer sized vessels carry hypermatter reactors."

"The fact that it was improved..." woah there, how did Mike come up with this? Is it stated that the improvement was that the hypermatter reactor was miniaturized? No, because then the quote would have mentioned that it was the first hypermatter reactor on a star destroyer, not an improved prototype.

Hypermatter reactors are NOT unique to the Death Star: this is a fact, as the hypermatter reactor on the Death Star was the "largest...ever built", and the Battle Lance test was before the Death Star finished completion. So what else could use hypermatter?

Large battle stations, maybe? No, because multiple EU sources confirm that ISD's are capable of going up against defense stations with rough parity. If the defense stations were far more powerful per kg and per meter like them having hypermatter reactors and ISD's not would implicate, battle stations would completely outclass and destroy ISD fleets.



Mike's assertion that the "weekly output of several main sequence stars" refers to in the case of a misfire is faulty. The sentence structure is this:

If something went wrong with Y, well...Y is capable of X, so if something bad happens we're screwed.

"Y is capable of X" is not typically used as what Y would do if something went wrong; it's a prior (or speculative) feat used as evidence for what would happen if said bad thing happened.

For example:

"If Mike Tyson got pissed at me...well, Mike Tyson can lift 300 pounds (note: I do not know if he actually can, this is an example), so if he hits me, I'm not going to feel well this weekend."

Is Mike Tyson going to lift 300 pounds only if he hits you?

Besides, why would a misfire increase the power output of the hypermatter reactor? Are you saying that a hypermatter reactor can have an insane power output of e32 watts only by accident? What?

[Praeothmin]

Nope, I was talking about his evidence that main sequence stars can be red dwarfs, and thus the DS may not be generating as much power as you want it to be... :)

Also, how about the fact that an uncontrolled reaction means all reactants at the same time are obliterated in an explosion, while in normal operations there are safeguards limiting power generation?

[Mr. Oragahn]

This is sooo not going to work, SWST.
I notice in that text below that you actually allowed yourself to cite another source. By doing so, you accept all other posters to do the same. Anyone knowing his nut about the EU regarding that question would tell you that it's a mistake, since the EU largely supports the fact that the Death Star is powered by fusion, the stellar kind. Nothing too fancy here.

I highlighted the importance of such quotes and their meaning here:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 408#p32408
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 409#p32409
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 428#p32428

SWST, you absolutely have NO interest into accepting other EU sources. Of course, that would make your case moot, since you'd be cherry picking.

The quote from Star Wars: Death Star about the hypermatter reactor creating a burst matching the weekly power output of several main sequence stars is hard to refute, is it not?

Only if you ignore the fact the Death Star is powered by fusion, that a hypermatter core can be powered by the water collected from ice asteroids, which again means fusion (quote provided in the ICS thread, regarding the ancestor of the Death Star), and that Despayre was shot at thrice, with capacitors charged up and ready to deliver 1/3 of their maximum yield, and were maxed out after each shot. The effects are nothing close to a third of 2 e32 J, even less n e38 J.

JMS even addressed your points and provided quotes about this event here:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 248#p29248

Once again, you literally ignored his entire post.

Or the superlaser having unthinkable amounts of raw power.

Which is not asking to be taken literally, and which actually doesn't tell how much of that raw power it has, if we go down the literal route.

Sure, you could argue that a space age society consider a few gigatons that darkstar proposes to be unthinkable (even when modern nukes can theoretically go that high)...

Modern nukes don't go that high. Now, could we build a gigaton nuke? In theory, yes. We could even build a teraton one, assuming we'd get a large enough cluster of high multi-megaton warheads, with enough reactants for fusion and fission.

... and that the writer of the Star Wars database spoke in extremely vague and misdirecting ways when he says "unthinkable" amounts of "raw" power, but that would be grasping at straws and going against Occam's razor. The quote fits better with the DET theory than with the chain reaction theory. So does the original ICS quote that the Death Star has enough power output to destroy a planet; claiming that it really meant "enough power output to create a chain reaction to destroy a planet" is assuming that the authors left out a CRUCIAL part of the function of the superlaser, and deliberately mislead us.

The Chain Reaction Theory has never denied that there's still a large amount of energy involved there, provided by the Death Star, no matter what you think.
The CRT largely exists to point out that the effects observed don't match those expected of a DET.

Please try to stick that somewhere in your mind.

Then there's the feat of the Death Star circumnavigating Yavin 4 in a matter of minutes, calculating out to 67 km/s, requiring about e29 joules of energy assuming a density similar to a GSC.

So you know how fast the Death Star entered the system? Do you realize that Yavin's gravity alone could have accelerated the DS?

Then there's the lack of coherency or evidence in the chain reaction theories:

The Alderaan was a huge nuclear bomb theory does not explain the halo rings, or the fact that superlaser works on stuff other than M class planets, and has no evidence to support it.

Who ever said that Alderaan was a huge nuclear bomb? Not to say that the DET theory totally fails to explain the rings either, so I don't see where you're going with that.

The antimatter - matter conversion theory does not explain the halo rings and is contradicted by Star Wars: Death Star

The rings are totally unrelated to any explanation thus far. They're simply the evidence that something funky goes on. It doesn't prevent anyone from arguing that the rest of the destruction is done with X or Y, CRT or DET.
No theory explains the rings, and we don't need one, because the book says it's due to some hyperspace reflux, and that's fine enough.

So your theory, any theory, needs to take the hyperspace part of it into account.

According to Star Wars: Death Star, much of the planet's matter was shifted into hyperspace. Some pro Trek debaters rejoice at this, but:

1. "Much"; even only one percent of the planet's matter not being shifted leaves a huge amount of matter left

It's still enough to lower the figure if you're calculating how much the Death Star provided in sheer DET.

2. Shunting matter into hyperspace takes huge amounts of energy; as stated with the "consuming more energy than many nations will in their life time" quote.

That quote speaks of a jump, and as far as I know, nothing is said about the duration and distance of said jump. It says so just like one says a car's trip will consume X gallons of fuel. It never says it consumes them all from the moment it starts moving.

Besides, Alderaan didn't have a hyperdrive as far as I know. Not to say that there's no evidence that there's much energy needed if you're not going to make the matter move through hyperspace.
For all we know, the part of Alderaan that went into hyperspace may have just remained where it was once there.

3. Shunting matter into hyperspace does not break it apart, so the Death Star's superlaser still has to do that.

That is some shit you pulled out of your hole.
Actually, it's nothing short of a lie since there's ample evidence that if ships aren't protected while in hyperpsace, they will shatter/explode and be destroyed.

4. Matter in hyperspace is still affected by gravity wells, so the superlaser still has to overcome the planet's gravitational binding energy.

Huh, no. Because the matter is shunted into hyperspace, so fuck GBE.
Do you even try or what?

So shunting much of the matter into hyperspace dos away with most of the chain reaction theories, while still requiring overcoming planetary binding energy and breaking the planet into bits.

Unsurprisingly, cherry picking, baseless claims and even lies lead you to such an erroneous conclusion.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

This is sooo not going to work, SWST.
I notice in that text below that you actually allowed yourself to cite another source. By doing so, you accept all other posters to do the same. Anyone knowing his nut about the EU regarding that question would tell you that it's a mistake, since the EU largely supports the fact that the Death Star is powered by fusion, the stellar kind. Nothing too fancy here.

Star Wars does not necessarily use nuclear fusion, since their fusion reactors are described as fusing heavy metals. Nuclear fusion could not possibly have powered the feats that the Death Star did.

I highlighted the importance of such quotes and their meaning here:

viewtopic.php?p=32408#p32408
viewtopic.php?p=32409#p32409
viewtopic.php?p=32428#p32428

SWST, you absolutely have NO interest into accepting other EU sources. Of course, that would make your case moot, since you'd be cherry picking.

A technobabble neutrino charge capable of piercing the upper and lower mantle of a planet is still going to require energy, you know that?

Only if you ignore the fact the Death Star is powered by fusion, that a hypermatter core can be powered by the water collected from ice asteroids, which again means fusion (quote provided in the ICS thread, regarding the ancestor of the Death Star), and that Despayre was shot at thrice, with capacitors charged up and ready to deliver 1/3 of their maximum yield, and were maxed out after each shot. The effects are nothing close to a third of 2 e32 J, even less n e38 J.

How does any of this counter the blatant statement that the Death Star’s hypermatter reactor can produce bursts of energy matching the weekly power output of several stars.

JMS even addressed your points and provided quotes about this event here:

viewtopic.php?p=29248#p29248

Once again, you literally ignored his entire post.

No it does not. That post is not related to the quote in question.

Which is not asking to be taken literally, and which actually doesn't tell how much of that raw power it has, if we go down the literal route.

“Raw” is in direct contradiction to the chain reaction theory, literal or not. Figurative “raw” is still in direct contradiction to a technobabble M/AM chain reaction.

Modern nukes don't go that high. Now, could we build a gigaton nuke? In theory, yes. We could even build a teraton one, assuming we'd get a large enough cluster of high multi-megaton warheads, with enough reactants for fusion and fission.

My point is that in the cold war, the United States considered using teraton level packs of nukes. Gigaton and teraton level energy by no means fits with the idea of unthinkable amounts of energy; e32 joules does.

The Chain Reaction Theory has never denied that there's still a large amount of energy involved there, provided by the Death Star, no matter what you think.
The CRT largely exists to point out that the effects observed don't match those expected of a DET.

Please try to stick that somewhere in your mind.

And what is this undefined “large amount of energy” that you so speak of? Is it any less than e32 joules?

So you know how fast the Death Star entered the system? Do you realize that Yavin's gravity alone could have accelerated the DS?

The Death Star hyperjumped into the system, and Yavin’s gravity could not have accelerated the Death Star at 64/km/s^2

Who ever said that Alderaan was a huge nuclear bomb? Not to say that the DET theory totally fails to explain the rings either, so I don't see where you're going with that.

There are those who make the claim that the superlaser caused Alderaan to undergo nuclear fusion/fission, causing it to explode.

The rings are totally unrelated to any explanation thus far. They're simply the evidence that something funky goes on. It doesn't prevent anyone from arguing that the rest of the destruction is done with X or Y, CRT or DET.
No theory explains the rings, and we don't need one, because the book says it's due to some hyperspace reflux, and that's fine enough.

And what makes you think that this hyperspace reflux precludes the need to overcome planetary gravitational binding energy?

So your theory, any theory, needs to take the hyperspace part of it into account.

And the hyperspace part of it contradicts the A/M chain reaction theory of the Death Star.

It's still enough to lower the figure if you're calculating how much the Death Star provided in sheer DET.

Even 1% of the matter still remaining in real space requires e30 joules of energy.

That quote speaks of a jump, and as far as I know, nothing is said about the duration and distance of said jump. It says so just like one says a car's trip will consume X gallons of fuel. It never says it consumes them all from the moment it starts moving.

Besides, Alderaan didn't have a hyperdrive as far as I know. Not to say that there's no evidence that there's much energy needed if you're not going to make the matter move through hyperspace.
For all we know, the part of Alderaan that went into hyperspace may have just remained where it was once there.

Obviously the matter moved, since when the Falcon reached Alderaan, nothing was there except for an asteroid field.

That is some shit you pulled out of your hole.
Actually, it's nothing short of a lie since there's ample evidence that if ships aren't protected while in hyperpsace, they will shatter/explode and be destroyed.

What evidence? Where? How much protection is needed?

Huh, no. Because the matter is shunted into hyperspace, so fuck GBE.
Do you even try or what?

And matter in hyperspace is still affected by gravity, so the superlaser still had to overcome GBE.

Unsurprisingly, cherry picking, baseless claims and even lies lead you to such an erroneous conclusion.

Another problem with the chain reaction theory is that it assumes that the hyperspace aspect described in Death Star lowers the activation energy needed to blow up Alderaan instead of providing more energy so that it can destroy Alderaan. From the same paragraph, the fancy technobabble of the hypermatter reactor allows for greater power generation than mass-energy conversion in real-space; meaning that the hypermatter reactor is more potent than an antimatter reactor.

[Praeothmin]

Mr. O., just a nitpick about your language:

That is some shit you pulled out of your hole.

Close to being insulting (or on the way to being so)...

Please use "bullshit" instead, as insulting Bulls is not frowned upon here... :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

This is sooo not going to work, SWST.
I notice in that text below that you actually allowed yourself to cite another source. By doing so, you accept all other posters to do the same. Anyone knowing his nut about the EU regarding that question would tell you that it's a mistake, since the EU largely supports the fact that the Death Star is powered by fusion, the stellar kind. Nothing too fancy here.

Star Wars does not necessarily use nuclear fusion, since their fusion reactors are described as fusing heavy metals. Nuclear fusion could not possibly have powered the feats that the Death Star did.

Where is that said?
Not to say that fusing heavy metals is absurd, you'd want to use fission for that.
If anything, you'd rather look for a very lightweight particle with lots of potential energy for your über fusion process.
You may be confused about the necessary pressures and temps though.

I highlighted the importance of such quotes and their meaning here:

viewtopic.php?p=32408#p32408
viewtopic.php?p=32409#p32409
viewtopic.php?p=32428#p32428

SWST, you absolutely have NO interest into accepting other EU sources. Of course, that would make your case moot, since you'd be cherry picking.

A technobabble neutrino charge capable of piercing the upper and lower mantle of a planet is still going to require energy, you know that?

Good thing you did cherry pick, as expected. You pulled, what? One sentence, among a variety of nearly ten different long quotations. Good job.
Besides, how do you quantify the neutrino charged beam?

Only if you ignore the fact the Death Star is powered by fusion, that a hypermatter core can be powered by the water collected from ice asteroids, which again means fusion (quote provided in the ICS thread, regarding the ancestor of the Death Star), and that Despayre was shot at thrice, with capacitors charged up and ready to deliver 1/3 of their maximum yield, and were maxed out after each shot. The effects are nothing close to a third of 2 e32 J, even less n e38 J.

How does any of this counter the blatant statement that the Death Star’s hypermatter reactor can produce bursts of energy matching the weekly power output of several stars.

Simple: they both come from the same book. So any sensible mind would mesh them together with a fitting rationalization, not ignoring three long paragraphs (provided again by JMS as per the link I posted) in favour of one single sentence which is nowhere firm about the conditions under which that burst is produced.
Yes, it's not exactly an elegant way to interprete the sentence you think of, but since no one can dismiss what happened to Despayre, it does call for a rationalization.
And that rationalization has been provided in that thread pages ago.

JMS even addressed your points and provided quotes about this event here:
viewtopic.php?p=29248#p29248
Once again, you literally ignored his entire post.

No it does not. That post is not related to the quote in question.

It is. Heck, even if it came from another book, it still would be related.

Which is not asking to be taken literally, and which actually doesn't tell how much of that raw power it has, if we go down the literal route.

“Raw” is in direct contradiction to the chain reaction theory, literal or not. Figurative “raw” is still in direct contradiction to a technobabble M/AM chain reaction.

No, because raw doesn't automatically translate into "enough joules". It's a turn of phrase that can just mean it produces a shit ton of energy.
Look up the definition of raw as an adjective and you'll see that.

Modern nukes don't go that high. Now, could we build a gigaton nuke? In theory, yes. We could even build a teraton one, assuming we'd get a large enough cluster of high multi-megaton warheads, with enough reactants for fusion and fission.

My point is that in the cold war, the United States considered using teraton level packs of nukes. Gigaton and teraton level energy by no means fits with the idea of unthinkable amounts of energy; e32 joules does.

What? Teraton level packs of nukes? During the Cold War?

. . .

The Chain Reaction Theory has never denied that there's still a large amount of energy involved there, provided by the Death Star, no matter what you think.
The CRT largely exists to point out that the effects observed don't match those expected of a DET.

Please try to stick that somewhere in your mind.

And what is this undefined “large amount of energy” that you so speak of? Is it any less than e32 joules?

Anything that would stick with what is observed. That is, for starters, the fact that the area at the point of impact doesn't show any evidence of being injected with anything between e32 to e38 J.
Plus all the problems related to the delayed and more massive explosion.
For more than a decade, Wong and his accolytes managed to completely IGNORE the fact that there should have never been any delayed and secondary explosion.
As far as DET is concerned... there can be only one.

So you know how fast the Death Star entered the system? Do you realize that Yavin's gravity alone could have accelerated the DS?

The Death Star hyperjumped into the system, and Yavin’s gravity could not have accelerated the Death Star at 64/km/s^2

Since you didn't answer the first question, you're stuck at the conjectural level regarding the second one.

Who ever said that Alderaan was a huge nuclear bomb? Not to say that the DET theory totally fails to explain the rings either, so I don't see where you're going with that.

There are those who make the claim that the superlaser caused Alderaan to undergo nuclear fusion/fission, causing it to explode.

Okay. Didn't know about that one.
Fission, eventually, but that would still require a copious pressure, which gravity alone couldn't provide. You'd need some constricting force (nod to Andrew Tse) or some huge amount of collapsium, and then you may eventually end with a short timed black hole that annihilates matter instead of fusion.

The rings are totally unrelated to any explanation thus far. They're simply the evidence that something funky goes on. It doesn't prevent anyone from arguing that the rest of the destruction is done with X or Y, CRT or DET.
No theory explains the rings, and we don't need one, because the book says it's due to some hyperspace reflux, and that's fine enough.

And what makes you think that this hyperspace reflux precludes the need to overcome planetary gravitational binding energy?

I didn't claim anything like that.

So your theory, any theory, needs to take the hyperspace part of it into account.

And the hyperspace part of it contradicts the A/M chain reaction theory of the Death Star.

Not necessarily. Although I'm not too hot on this explanation because even if the novelization alludes to some form of annihilation going on, I don't recall antimatter being specifically related to hyperspace.
Or perhaps until you start using Saxton's own spin of what hypermatter is.

It's still enough to lower the figure if you're calculating how much the Death Star provided in sheer DET.

Even 1% of the matter still remaining in real space requires e30 joules of energy.

But since we don't know how much went off...
My position on this has always been simple. We can't get a sure figure.

That quote speaks of a jump, and as far as I know, nothing is said about the duration and distance of said jump. It says so just like one says a car's trip will consume X gallons of fuel. It never says it consumes them all from the moment it starts moving.

Besides, Alderaan didn't have a hyperdrive as far as I know. Not to say that there's no evidence that there's much energy needed if you're not going to make the matter move through hyperspace.
For all we know, the part of Alderaan that went into hyperspace may have just remained where it was once there.

Obviously the matter moved, since when the Falcon reached Alderaan, nothing was there except for an asteroid field.

You don't know if the matter moved, since it was shunted into hyperspace. The hyperdrive's sensors would still act normally by detecting a huge planetary shadow mass and do what they always do, tell to the hyperdrive that it's time to slow down and get back to realspace.

That is some shit you pulled out of your hole.
Actually, it's nothing short of a lie since there's ample evidence that if ships aren't protected while in hyperpsace, they will shatter/explode and be destroyed.

What evidence? Where? How much protection is needed?

I'll go picking for the sources later on. Mostly WEG though, iirc. Perhaps some references from the Thrawn trilogy as well. I'll tell you.
If I can't find those quotes, you'll get the point.

Huh, no. Because the matter is shunted into hyperspace, so fuck GBE.
Do you even try or what?

And matter in hyperspace is still affected by gravity, so the superlaser still had to overcome GBE.

Assuming that gravity affects hyperspace, and not that gravity just leaves a shadow in hyperspace which has no effect on hyperspace itself, but on the ships moving through hyperspace... why has the superlaser to overcome the GBE again?

Unsurprisingly, cherry picking, baseless claims and even lies lead you to such an erroneous conclusion.

Another problem with the chain reaction theory is that it assumes that the hyperspace aspect described in Death Star lowers the activation energy needed to blow up Alderaan instead of providing more energy so that it can destroy Alderaan.

It's not a problem considering what we've seen happen with Despayre and the test firing of the weapon. 1/3 against a shielded planet didn't produce the expected effects of 1/3 of a beam worth of 2 e32 J or a million times more.

From the same paragraph, the fancy technobabble of the hypermatter reactor allows for greater power generation than mass-energy conversion in real-space; meaning that the hypermatter reactor is more potent than an antimatter reactor.

Combustion, fission and fusion are mass-energy conversions. They're just not as perfect as M/AM, assuming you manage to have every single bit of M react with AM though.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Damn, you also completely ignored all the points relative to the Death Star in the following thread. Points made as far as during early April for crissake!