Register    Login    Forum    Members   Search    FAQ

Board index » Discussion and Debate » Trek/Wars




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Superlasers and Phasers: Material Disappearance
 Post Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
As most of us are aware, the questions of what the Death Star's superlaser and phasers really do are hotly contested. Equally hotly contested are the energy requirements.

Under question, in general, is the nature of material disappearance. Phasers and superlasers alike tend to make objects mysteriously disappear, not leaving anywhere near enough debris behind. The main body of the object just vanishes. Where it goes is not clear.

I would posit that, in any universe with shared physics, the principles that cause phasers and disruptors to make objects outright vanish are the same that cause portions of Alderaan and the Liberty to phase out of existence. We may examine the visual effects in painstaking detail, or we may rely upon the novelization:

p 106: Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.


This gives us the disappearance of matter from that region of space.

p 146: Theoretically, no weapon could penetrate the exceptionally dense stone of the ancient temple, but Luke had seen the shattered remains of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station the entire moon would simply present another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion.

This tells us that the matter may be presumed to have been converted into some form of energy. The entire moon presents a problem in mass-energy conversion.

I posit the following applies to any shared universe between Trek and Wars:

Geonosian scientists, searching for a superweapon with which to fight the Republic, uncovered or discovered the mechanism by which disruptors and phasers in Star Trek operate - a mechanism that no other Star Wars weapon uses.

While in the Trekverse, disruptor and phase research was concentrated primarily on miniaturizing the awesome destructive power, Geonosian scientists concentrated solely on the maximization of destructive effect. The Death Star's superlaser represents 25 years of refinement in maximizing the amount of planet-cracking force possible; the differences between it and regular disruptors - including a lengthened firing sequence, multiple tributary beams, a sustained beam, and appropriately timed pulses of energy along a potent carrier beam - represent the side effects of this concentration.

While in the later EU we see technology consistent with this pattern (and the eventual shrinkage of Trek-style beam technology to deployment aboard command ships therein), let us for the moment leave discussion in this thread to the novelizations, scripts, and movies. I.e., what some here term the only canon, and others term the "G" canon.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:04 pm 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I would posit that, in any universe with shared physics, the principles that cause phasers and disruptors to make objects outright vanish are the same that cause portions of Alderaan and the Liberty to phase out of existence. We may examine the visual effects in painstaking detail, or we may rely upon the novelization:

Nowhere did superlaser cause material to "phase out of existence". If you are reffering to Darkstar's work let me remind you that Liberties seeming disappearance can easily be explained by saturation of video medium and time discreet nature of the medium.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
p 106: Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.


This gives us the disappearance of matter from that region of space.

Spatial mass is used to denote the actual distribution of mass in a system IIRC. Which means that expansion of the planet will cause that. After say 10 minutes of expansion at the rate of 10,000km/s planet's density would be over 100,000 times lesser than air. Colloquially you could say that planet has dissapeared.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
p 146: Theoretically, no weapon could penetrate the exceptionally dense stone of the ancient temple, but Luke had seen the shattered remains of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station the entire moon would simply present another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion.

This tells us that the matter may be presumed to have been converted into some form of energy. The entire moon presents a problem in mass-energy conversion.

The quote doesn't specify where this mass conversion will take place: on Yavin or inside Death Star. However the film shows us the destrction of Alderaan in it is most ceartainly not converted into energy. When you convert matter into energy you wind up with pure light and that did not happen to Alderaan. Alderaan was blown up and his mass was clearly seen being scattered at some 10,000km/s.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I posit the following applies to any shared universe between Trek and Wars:

Geonosian scientists, searching for a superweapon with which to fight the Republic, uncovered or discovered the mechanism by which disruptors and phasers in Star Trek operate - a mechanism that no other Star Wars weapon uses.

Superlaser has nothing in common with either phasers or disruptors. Furthermore your theory is self contradictory. First you claim that superlaser causes matter to "vansih" like phasers do and then you claim it converts matter to energy. Those are not the same things. If phasers converted targets to energy we would see gigaton level gamma ray bursts after a human is hit with a phaser.
Not to mention that we are dealing with a huge problem of size and speed. A merley 1km wide superlaser is supposed to create a "material dissapearance" reaction that propgates through thousands of km of planetary material in less than a second. How?

Any scientific theory also has to observe energy requirements. Not a single theory that claimed that energy (or at least most of the energy) does not come from Death Star has has ever succeded in explaining or even hinting at how this energy might be obtained from the planet itself.
Not only that but recent theories are even worse than older ones. While older actually tried to explain how the energy might come from planet (fission or fusion) the newer offer nothing but meaningless technobabble.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I would posit that, in any universe with shared physics, the principles that cause phasers and disruptors to make objects outright vanish are the same that cause portions of Alderaan and the Liberty to phase out of existence. We may examine the visual effects in painstaking detail, or we may rely upon the novelization:

Nowhere did superlaser cause material to "phase out of existence". If you are reffering to Darkstar's work let me remind you that Liberties seeming disappearance can easily be explained by saturation of video medium and time discreet nature of the medium.

Actually, it can't. For that matter, there is no saturation of the video medium here. You may choose, of course, to suggest that the sudden disappearance is a VFX bug caused by the methodology used for the shot (overlaying an explosion and then subtracting the Liberty, or the wingless Rebel ship).
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
p 106: Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.


This gives us the disappearance of matter from that region of space.

Spatial mass is used to denote the actual distribution of mass in a system IIRC. Which means that expansion of the planet will cause that. After say 10 minutes of expansion at the rate of 10,000km/s planet's density would be over 100,000 times lesser than air. Colloquially you could say that planet has dissapeared.

You do not "recall correctly."

Spatial mass denotes mass in a space. The spatial mass density, or density of the spatial mass, is reduced by expansion; the distribution of spatial mass changes; however, the only way to actually reduce spatial mass is by converting it into something that isn't spatial mass. E.g., photons.

It is also worthwhile to note that if you broke down the map to the resolution necessary for even a 10,000 km/s scatter to be noticed in this short time after Alderaan blew up, the reduction would not be slight. This particular quote is, in other words, stubbornly incompatible with the notion that Alderaan is still there, merely in chunks and fragments.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
p 146: Theoretically, no weapon could penetrate the exceptionally dense stone of the ancient temple, but Luke had seen the shattered remains of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station the entire moon would simply present another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion.

This tells us that the matter may be presumed to have been converted into some form of energy. The entire moon presents a problem in mass-energy conversion.

The quote doesn't specify where this mass conversion will take place: on Yavin or inside Death Star. However the film shows us the destrction of Alderaan in it is most ceartainly not converted into energy. When you convert matter into energy you wind up with pure light and that did not happen to Alderaan. Alderaan was blown up and his mass was clearly seen being scattered at some 10,000km/s.

Was Alderaan necessarily converted entirely to energy? No. The debris seen leave plenty of room for doubt as to how much of Alderaan could have disappeared. Was the entire moon and the ancient temple necessarily the location for mass-energy conversion?

Unless no other weapon was powered by mass-energy conversion, then it is the only reasonable interpretation of passage.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I posit the following applies to any shared universe between Trek and Wars:

Geonosian scientists, searching for a superweapon with which to fight the Republic, uncovered or discovered the mechanism by which disruptors and phasers in Star Trek operate - a mechanism that no other Star Wars weapon uses.

Superlaser has nothing in common with either phasers or disruptors. Furthermore your theory is self contradictory. First you claim that superlaser causes matter to "vansih" like phasers do and then you claim it converts matter to energy. Those are not the same things.

They are in any universe that obeys conservation of mass-energy.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
If phasers converted targets to energy we would see gigaton level gamma ray bursts after a human is hit with a phaser.

Again, not necessarily. Everything depends on the form of energy phasers convert matter to, and how much matter is converted. See above about obeying conservation of mass-energy.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Not to mention that we are dealing with a huge problem of size and speed. A merley 1km wide superlaser is supposed to create a "material dissapearance" reaction that propgates through thousands of km of planetary material in less than a second. How?

Propagating through 6,000 km in one second is a total propagation speed of 0.02c. This is not a problem.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Any scientific theory also has to observe energy requirements. Not a single theory that claimed that energy (or at least most of the energy) does not come from Death Star has has ever succeded in explaining or even hinting at how this energy might be obtained from the planet itself.

If any theory could, it would be a relatively easy matter to build the Death Star's superweapon. It isn't. As with phasers, disruptors, subspace comms, transporters, and similar "future" technologies seen in the series, we will have to take it on faith that there is some mechanism by which these can work.

However, that the Death Star was an untested technology whose yield - although clearly not power requirements, as they were met adequately - was unknown is made perfectly clear in the radio drama:

VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Not only that but recent theories are even worse than older ones. While older actually tried to explain how the energy might come from planet (fission or fusion) the newer offer nothing but meaningless technobabble.

Analogizing phasers and superlasers is particularly useful for a crossover debate, because a crossover entails a shared universe. A shared universe means shared physics - and to minimize the disruption to real physics, as many common principles of operation between the two sides being crossed over as is possible.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:41 pm 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Actually, it can't. For that matter, there is no saturation of the video medium here. You may choose, of course, to suggest that the sudden disappearance is a VFX bug caused by the methodology used for the shot (overlaying an explosion and then subtracting the Liberty, or the wingless Rebel ship).

Sure it can. The brightness of the explosion obscured the part of the ship due to the contrast. Secondly even if we assume that the rear of the ship really was gone we don't see how the ship vanishes between frames. The blast could've simply be so energetic as to expell the vaporized ship's hull quickly enough to leave the view before the next frame. At 24 frames per second the time delay betwee each frame is 0.04 seconds. Plenty of time.
In any case you'll need far more evidence than a single case in which we don't even see what happened to claim that superlaser mimic that funky phaser vanishing act.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
You do not "recall correctly."

Spatial mass denotes mass in a space. The spatial mass density, or density of the spatial mass, is reduced by expansion; the distribution of spatial mass changes; however, the only way to actually reduce spatial mass is by converting it into something that isn't spatial mass. E.g., photons.

It is also worthwhile to note that if you broke down the map to the resolution necessary for even a 10,000 km/s scatter to be noticed in this short time after Alderaan blew up, the reduction would not be slight. This particular quote is, in other words, stubbornly incompatible with the notion that Alderaan is still there, merely in chunks and fragments.

Of course you insist in taking the quote literaly even though it states that the entire Alderaan "disappeared". Fortunatley we all saw the film and that is not what happened: the planet simply expanded.
You can provide quotes from novels and interpret them literaly until the cows come home, the movie is clear.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Was Alderaan necessarily converted entirely to energy? No. The debris seen leave plenty of room for doubt as to how much of Alderaan could have disappeared. Was the entire moon and the ancient temple necessarily the location for mass-energy conversion?

Unless no other weapon was powered by mass-energy conversion, then it is the only reasonable interpretation of passage.

The only way to convert mass into energy is to hit it with antimatter. That or hit it so hard that energy of impact exceeds the annihilation energy of the target matter. Either way Death Star's energy requirement is not significantly changed.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
They are in any universe that obeys conservation of mass-energy.

Phasers and superlaser never showed any even remotely similar effects no matter how much you'd like to pretend that they have. Superlaser violently blows up it's targets. Phaser slowly "dissapear" them away.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Again, not necessarily. Everything depends on the form of energy phasers convert matter to, and how much matter is converted. See above about obeying conservation of mass-energy.

The only form of energy that will result in mass reduction as you are claiming is pure energy.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Propagating through 6,000 km in one second is a total propagation speed of 0.02c. This is not a problem.

Really so the superlaser has no problem penetrating 6000 km in a fraction of a second? So why would it be deflected throughout the planetary interior? If it travels so easily through planetary mass then it should continue through the planet.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
If any theory could, it would be a relatively easy matter to build the Death Star's superweapon. It isn't. As with phasers, disruptors, subspace comms, transporters, and similar "future" technologies seen in the series, we will have to take it on faith that there is some mechanism by which these can work.

Yes and we have to accept that we don't know how those mechanisms work. Not try to bluff our way into creating half-assed theories which have no grounds in evidence. Like this superlaser is like phaser theory.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
However, that the Death Star was an untested technology whose yield - although clearly not power requirements, as they were met adequately - was unknown is made perfectly clear in the radio drama:

VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.

Even more powerful? How much more powerful? How large was their calculation error? And why should it point to Death Star being an untested technology? We have seen superlasers on LAAT's in AOTC. They obviously weren't experimental by the time of AOTC and they obviously shared no common property with phasers.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Analogizing phasers and superlasers is particularly useful for a crossover debate, because a crossover entails a shared universe. A shared universe means shared physics - and to minimize the disruption to real physics, as many common principles of operation between the two sides being crossed over as is possible.

Nonsense. The point is to examine each technology and determine it's capabilities. Phasers and superlaser are two completley different technologies and should be evaluated as such.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Actually, it can't. For that matter, there is no saturation of the video medium here. You may choose, of course, to suggest that the sudden disappearance is a VFX bug caused by the methodology used for the shot (overlaying an explosion and then subtracting the Liberty, or the wingless Rebel ship).

Sure it can. The brightness of the explosion obscured the part of the ship due to the contrast. Secondly even if we assume that the rear of the ship really was gone we don't see how the ship vanishes between frames. The blast could've simply be so energetic as to expell the vaporized ship's hull quickly enough to leave the view before the next frame. At 24 frames per second the time delay betwee each frame is 0.04 seconds. Plenty of time.
In any case you'll need far more evidence than a single case in which we don't even see what happened to claim that superlaser mimic that funky phaser vanishing act.

One? We have several clear cases of visual disappearance, and two descriptions of disappearance.

In the case of the Liberty, the explosion is not bright enough to obscure the ship by contrast, nor is the leading edge of the explosion fast enough to justify claims that the blast expelledthe hull before the next frame. Other ships visible in both frames make it clear that the ship is not being obscured through contrast, but simply gone.

In the case of the wingless Rebel cruiser, the explosion is, in fact, crystal clear, showing the hull overlaid with the transparent explosion effect in one frame, and the transparent explosion with an empty spot in the middle in the next frame. Again, the speed of the leading edge of the explosion is insufficient to justify this sudden disappearance.

In the case of Alderaan, the compression of the outer curve of Alderaan is inexplicable by any explosive means.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Of course you insist in taking the quote literaly even though it states that the entire Alderaan "disappeared". Fortunatley we all saw the film and that is not what happened: the planet simply expanded.
You can provide quotes from novels and interpret them literaly until the cows come home, the movie is clear.

From the visuals of the movie, 99+% of Alderaan's mass could easily have been converted into massless energy. We do not have an accounting for the debris of Alderaan in visual entirety; your appeal, claiming contradiction with the visuals of the movie itself, is therefore unfounded. A reduction in spatial mass means one and only one thing:

Spatial mass (matter) was converted into some other form of energy (such as EM waves). You have no choice but to either accept that at least some portion of Alderaan's mass was converted into energy, or deny the accuracy of the novel (i.e., the canon). This you may only do on personal grounds or on the basis of lower-level sources, as the movies most certainly do not contradict this. In fact, they visually confirm it, as in the case of the transparent disappearance of the wingless Rebel cruiser.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The only way to convert mass into energy is to hit it with antimatter. That or hit it so hard that energy of impact exceeds the annihilation energy of the target matter. Either way Death Star's energy requirement is not significantly changed.

Incorrect, Kane. There are myriad known ways to convert between mass and energy.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Phasers and superlaser never showed any even remotely similar effects no matter how much you'd like to pretend that they have. Superlaser violently blows up it's targets. Phaser slowly "dissapear" them away.

Slowly? Once in a long while it is slow. Sometimes we have violent explosions
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The only form of energy that will result in mass reduction as you are claiming is pure energy.

There is no such thing as "pure" energy in physics, so I recommend you stop using the term. In real life, our options for storing energy in a non-mass form include a small variety of fields and waves; primarily, we would be describing these as electromagnetic waves.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Propagating through 6,000 km in one second is a total propagation speed of 0.02c. This is not a problem.

Really so the superlaser has no problem penetrating 6000 km in a fraction of a second? So why would it be deflected throughout the planetary interior? If it travels so easily through planetary mass then it should continue through the planet.

Kane, if you can't keep track of the argument at hand, I recommend you keep longer quote trees. We were not talking about the superlaser beam, but whatever reaction it began. After all, we already know the superlaser itself can travel a substantial fraction of the speed of light, as was exhibited in its reaching Alderaan so swiftly.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes and we have to accept that we don't know how those mechanisms work. Not try to bluff our way into creating half-assed theories which have no grounds in evidence. Like this superlaser is like phaser theory.

This "superlaser is like phaser" theory, as you call it, is fully grounded by the evidence. If you like, try to find a problem with it. Something other than "we don't know the exact mechanism behind this," which is a required feature of any non-contradicted theory by the nature of Alderaan's explosion.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
However, that the Death Star was an untested technology whose yield - although clearly not power requirements, as they were met adequately - was unknown is made perfectly clear in the radio drama:

VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.

Even more powerful? How much more powerful? How large was their calculation error? And why should it point to Death Star being an untested technology? We have seen superlasers on LAAT's in AOTC. They obviously weren't experimental by the time of AOTC and they obviously shared no common property with phasers.

While it is possible that those utilized a related technology [tributary beam focusing], it is highly unlikely that they were actually superlasers. We unfortunately do not see their destructive powers exhibited clearly enough to in any way differentiate them from the general family of phasers and disruptors.

Now, let me tell you what happens when you make a calculation error of any measurable significance in how much energy you're pouring down a firing barrel:

You destroy your own weapon. On the scale where it would be easily noticed in the destruction of Alderaan, shunting more power than anticipated through the Death Star's conduits should blow something. It is simply not plausible that the Death Star's generator ramped up and produced a remarkable degree more power than expected.

It is quite plausible that the superlaser effect turned out to be more violent than anticipated - an archetype set forever in the minds of the world with the success of the Trinity test, clearly being repeated in the NPR radio drama.

[Should you be too young to be familiar with the Trinity test itself - perhaps no longer considered as important in the post-Cold War era - I quote from the official report made to the Secretary of War: "The test was successful beyond the most optimistic expectations of anyone." Most estimations of Trinity's direct yield fell short.]

As far as this being the first Death Star test, this was confirmed in another quote that I have already provided:

p106:Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.


VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Nonsense. The point is to examine each technology and determine it's capabilities. Phasers and superlaser are two completley different technologies and should be evaluated as such.

Obviously they aren't as different as you thought.

I'll speak more on this later, but think of it this way:

Is it more plausible that two entirely different unknown (and, in truth, impossible) physical mechanisms have been arrived at independently to produce similar results, or that the same mechanism - utilitized slightly differently for different purposes - is responsible for both? Occam's Razor is quite useful.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:40 pm 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
In the case of the Liberty, the explosion is not bright enough to obscure the ship by contrast, nor is the leading edge of the explosion fast enough to justify claims that the blast expelledthe hull before the next frame. Other ships visible in both frames make it clear that the ship is not being obscured through contrast, but simply gone.


Strange when we look at the two frames here it is seems that the stars have also dissapeared in the second frame. Must be that the stars are also gone. Damn this superlaser must be even more powerful than I thought.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
In the case of the wingless Rebel cruiser, the explosion is, in fact, crystal clear, showing the hull overlaid with the transparent explosion effect in one frame, and the transparent explosion with an empty spot in the middle in the next frame. Again, the speed of the leading edge of the explosion is insufficient to justify this sudden disappearance.

Oh oh of course. We see the two frames taken at a sampling rate which is obviously insufficient to accuratley present the explosion which is way too violent but you have a theory all worked out eh?
Naturally a far simpler solution is possible: the superlaser hits the target and in the first frame the shield seems to hold. By the next frame the superlaser vaporized the rear of the ship and the cloud of vapour has already expanded by several ship widths in all directions and obscured the ship. By the time the next frame is taken the superlaser proceeded to vaporize the rest of the ship while the could of vapor has doubled in diameter.
As with Liberty destruction the 24 1/s sampling rate is simply insufficient to accuratley portray the explosion of such violence hence the "jumps" betwen event in certain frames.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
In the case of Alderaan, the compression of the outer curve of Alderaan is inexplicable by any explosive means.

There are no "compression of outer curve" present in Alderaan explosion. All points on Alderaan expand after each frame.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
From the visuals of the movie, 99+% of Alderaan's mass could easily have been converted into massless energy. We do not have an accounting for the debris of Alderaan in visual entirety; your appeal, claiming contradiction with the visuals of the movie itself, is therefore unfounded. A reduction in spatial mass means one and only one thing:

Spatial mass (matter) was converted into some other form of energy (such as EM waves). You have no choice but to either accept that at least some portion of Alderaan's mass was converted into energy, or deny the accuracy of the novel (i.e., the canon). This you may only do on personal grounds or on the basis of lower-level sources, as the movies most certainly do not contradict this. In fact, they visually confirm it, as in the case of the transparent disappearance of the wingless Rebel cruiser.

There is no material disappearance in Alderaans explosion as showed on the film. Anyone with a working set of eyes can see that the planetary mass begins expanding from all points and no matter has disappeared.
You are now inventing observations out of thin air and mixing them with selective interpretation of semantics. The novel states that "Alderran has disappeared" even though it hasn't. Your weak attempt to rationalize the quote with only a part of Alderaan actually vanishing only proves that the quote shouldn't be taken literaly. After all if a child disappears that hardly means it's mass has been converted to energy.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Incorrect, Kane. There are myriad known ways to convert between mass and energy.

So it would result in reduction of mass and energy release strong enough to scatter the planetary mass at 10,000km/s? Name them.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
There is no such thing as "pure" energy in physics, so I recommend you stop using the term. In real life, our options for storing energy in a non-mass form include a small variety of fields and waves; primarily, we would be describing these as electromagnetic waves.

That's what I meant non mass. I know that your entire argument lives or dies based on semantics but really do you have to nitpick every little thing?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Kane, if you can't keep track of the argument at hand, I recommend you keep longer quote trees. We were not talking about the superlaser beam, but whatever reaction it began. After all, we already know the superlaser itself can travel a substantial fraction of the speed of light, as was exhibited in its reaching Alderaan so swiftly.

Ah so it was the "reaction" that it began. And what reaction is that? What kind of reaction releases 10^38J from the planet?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
This "superlaser is like phaser" theory, as you call it, is fully grounded by the evidence. If you like, try to find a problem with it. Something other than "we don't know the exact mechanism behind this," which is a required feature of any non-contradicted theory by the nature of Alderaan's explosion.

Uhuh sure two scenes of two-frame explosions in which you interpret various explosion artifacts so they just happen to suit your theory. Try again.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
While it is possible that those utilized a related technology [tributary beam focusing], it is highly unlikely that they were actually superlasers. We unfortunately do not see their destructive powers exhibited clearly enough to in any way differentiate them from the general family of phasers and disruptors.

And now you are outright lying. The LAAT superlasers caused violent vaporization of every droid and ground it hit. Not even a hint of "material disappearance" a la phasers and disruptors.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Now, let me tell you what happens when you make a calculation error of any measurable significance in how much energy you're pouring down a firing barrel:

You destroy your own weapon. On the scale where it would be easily noticed in the destruction of Alderaan, shunting more power than anticipated through the Death Star's conduits should blow something. It is simply not plausible that the Death Star's generator ramped up and produced a remarkable degree more power than expected.

Who said they produced a remarkable degree more power than expected? They just commented on the fact that it was more powerful not by what margin. Besides if they didn't know preciesly what firepower would be produced it is reasonable to assume that they simply built Death Star's systems with a safety margin in mind.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
It is quite plausible that the superlaser effect turned out to be more violent than anticipated - an archetype set forever in the minds of the world with the success of the Trinity test, clearly being repeated in the NPR radio drama.

[Should you be too young to be familiar with the Trinity test itself - perhaps no longer considered as important in the post-Cold War era - I quote from the official report made to the Secretary of War: "The test was successful beyond the most optimistic expectations of anyone." Most estimations of Trinity's direct yield fell short.]

Thank you for proving my point. Even with a "DET weapon" miscalculations are possible.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
As far as this being the first Death Star test, this was confirmed in another quote that I have already provided:

p106:Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.

VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.

Yes the first usage of the "most destructive macchine ever" meaning the Death Star not the superlaser itself.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Obviously they aren't as different as you thought.

They don't have a single common characteristic.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Is it more plausible that two entirely different unknown (and, in truth, impossible) physical mechanisms have been arrived at independently to produce similar results, or that the same mechanism - utilitized slightly differently for different purposes - is responsible for both? Occam's Razor is quite useful.

They don't produce even remotely similar results but regardless of that your logic is completley flawed. Hyperdrive from B5, hyperdrive from SW and warp are all FTL. Are they the same technology? Both 10GW laser and 10GW proton beam would vaporize a 10kg piece of metal. Are they the same technology?



I am of course aware that your next rebuttal will consist of more justifications as to why we should interpret various ambiguous footage and dialouge to support your theory.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
In the case of the Liberty, the explosion is not bright enough to obscure the ship by contrast, nor is the leading edge of the explosion fast enough to justify claims that the blast expelledthe hull before the next frame. Other ships visible in both frames make it clear that the ship is not being obscured through contrast, but simply gone.


Strange when we look at the two frames here it is seems that the stars have also dissapeared in the second frame. Must be that the stars are also gone. Damn this superlaser must be even more powerful than I thought.

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.

Just I said, the ships remaining visible in the background make it absolutely clear that the ship is not simple "contrasted" out of visibility.

But you won't take my word for it, and I won't take yours. That the ship simply was contrasted out of visibility is, I would guess, a long-held opinion of yours, and you will not give it up lightly.


So let's take a look. Thus, I offer you definitive analysis.

We can see the running lights of one of the ships in both shots. This allows us to calibrate with certainty any shift of camera settings between the two frames - the reflection from the running lights will be negligible.

Sample the brightest 9 pixels on the larger running light, and 4 on the smaller. Sample random pixels around, run a quick regression on the hue distribution, we find that the "original" image and anything in it should be faded by no more than 51%.

Upon close analysis of the image, I do find there is a suspiciously well placed line, leaving room to support your conjecture that the cruiser is present.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Oh oh of course. We see the two frames taken at a sampling rate which is obviously insufficient to accuratley present the explosion which is way too violent but you have a theory all worked out eh?
Naturally a far simpler solution is possible: the superlaser hits the target and in the first frame the shield seems to hold. By the next frame the superlaser vaporized the rear of the ship and the cloud of vapour has already expanded by several ship widths in all directions and obscured the ship. By the time the next frame is taken the superlaser proceeded to vaporize the rest of the ship while the could of vapor has doubled in diameter.
As with Liberty destruction the 24 1/s sampling rate is simply insufficient to accuratley portray the explosion of such violence hence the "jumps" betwen event in certain frames.

Claiming that there was a shield still holding while the explosion began does not hold water. If the ship is exploding already, the shield is not holding up.

Claiming the frame rate is insufficient to show the ship doesn't hold water when it takes multiple frames for the leading edge of debris to reach the edge of the scereen.

The problem is not merely that the cloud of vapor pre-exists the main destruction of the ship, and that the debris lacks chunks, and that the cloud of vapor continues expanding at the same rate and in the same fashion; it is also that a pale transparent hole with relatively sharp edges opens where the ship was when it disappears.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
In the case of Alderaan, the compression of the outer curve of Alderaan is inexplicable by any explosive means.

There are no "compression of outer curve" present in Alderaan explosion. All points on Alderaan expand after each frame.

Yes there is.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
From the visuals of the movie, 99+% of Alderaan's mass could easily have been converted into massless energy. We do not have an accounting for the debris of Alderaan in visual entirety; your appeal, claiming contradiction with the visuals of the movie itself, is therefore unfounded. A reduction in spatial mass means one and only one thing:

Spatial mass (matter) was converted into some other form of energy (such as EM waves). You have no choice but to either accept that at least some portion of Alderaan's mass was converted into energy, or deny the accuracy of the novel (i.e., the canon). This you may only do on personal grounds or on the basis of lower-level sources, as the movies most certainly do not contradict this. In fact, they visually confirm it, as in the case of the transparent disappearance of the wingless Rebel cruiser.

There is no material disappearance in Alderaans explosion as showed on the film. Anyone with a working set of eyes can see that the planetary mass begins expanding from all points and no matter has disappeared.
You are now inventing observations out of thin air and mixing them with selective interpretation of semantics. The novel states that "Alderran has disappeared" even though it hasn't. Your weak attempt to rationalize the quote with only a part of Alderaan actually vanishing only proves that the quote shouldn't be taken literaly. After all if a child disappears that hardly means it's mass has been converted to energy.

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.

Having this mass be on-board the Death Star produces untenable consequences in combination with a DET model. The Death Star, which has at least two full power shots unrefueled, would have significant gravity as a celestial body.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
So it would result in reduction of mass and energy release strong enough to scatter the planetary mass at 10,000km/s? Name them.

Any are strong enough if applied on a large enough scale.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
That's what I meant non mass. I know that your entire argument lives or dies based on semantics but really do you have to nitpick every little thing?

Kane, I care more about teaching "every little thing" (i.e., real physics, here) than getting the general thrust of my arguments about Star Trek and Star Wars across.

Further, don't complain about semantics; you are, in effect, complaining that the very meanings of the words is stacked against you. I don't like to encourage persecution complexes like that; the words mean what they mean.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Ah so it was the "reaction" that it began. And what reaction is that? What kind of reaction releases 10^38J from the planet?

Any of a host of fictitious and non-fictitious possibilities. However, I see you are committing a further error...

The famous 1e38 joules estimate - never too firm at the best of times - is on particularly shaky ground when we know that a significant fraction of Alderaan's mass has disappeared.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Uhuh sure two scenes of two-frame explosions in which you interpret various explosion artifacts so they just happen to suit your theory. Try again.

(a) Stop misrepresenting my argument and "forgetting" evidence I've brought up.
(b) Offer material counter-arguments, not flat denials.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
And now you are outright lying. The LAAT superlasers caused violent vaporization of every droid and ground it hit. Not even a hint of "material disappearance" a la phasers and disruptors.

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.

Second, phaser and disruptor fire has a wide range of apparent effects - ranging from mortar-like to strange.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Who said they produced a remarkable degree more power than expected? They just commented on the fact that it was more powerful not by what margin. Besides if they didn't know preciesly what firepower would be produced it is reasonable to assume that they simply built Death Star's systems with a safety margin in mind.

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.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
It is quite plausible that the superlaser effect turned out to be more violent than anticipated - an archetype set forever in the minds of the world with the success of the Trinity test, clearly being repeated in the NPR radio drama.

[Should you be too young to be familiar with the Trinity test itself - perhaps no longer considered as important in the post-Cold War era - I quote from the official report made to the Secretary of War: "The test was successful beyond the most optimistic expectations of anyone." Most estimations of Trinity's direct yield fell short.]

Thank you for proving my point. Even with a "DET weapon" miscalculations are possible.

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."
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
As far as this being the first Death Star test, this was confirmed in another quote that I have already provided:

p106:Interestingly, the first use of the most destructive machine ever had seemingly had no impact at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of a modest-sized galaxy.

It would take a micro-breakdown of a portion of this map to reveal a slight reduction in spatial mass, caused by the disappearance of Alderaan.

VADER: Our Prime Weapon is even more powerful than we'd calculated, Lord Tarkin.
TARKIN: Indeed.

Yes the first usage of the "most destructive macchine ever" meaning the Death Star not the superlaser itself.

And now there are other planet-busting superlasers? That would make the Empire's miscalculations a sign of scientific incapability.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
They don't have a single common characteristic.

They have many - ranging from the highly curious (material disappearance) to the basic characteristics of energy beam weapons in soft sci-fi series.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
They don't produce even remotely similar results but regardless of that your logic is completley flawed. Hyperdrive from B5, hyperdrive from SW and warp are all FTL. Are they the same technology? Both 10GW laser and 10GW proton beam would vaporize a 10kg piece of metal. Are they the same technology?

I am of course aware that your next rebuttal will consist of more justifications as to why we should interpret various ambiguous footage and dialouge to support your theory.

And those hyperdrives and warp drives - although not necessarily the same technology - should be founded on similar principles as much as possible. The greater number of curious factors they share in common, the more plausible it is that they operate on similar principles.

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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:20 pm 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Just I said, the ships remaining visible in the background make it absolutely clear that the ship is not simple "contrasted" out of visibility.

But you won't take my word for it, and I won't take yours. That the ship simply was contrasted out of visibility is, I would guess, a long-held opinion of yours, and you will not give it up lightly.

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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Upon close analysis of the image, I do find there is a suspiciously well placed line, leaving room to support your conjecture that the cruiser is present.

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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Claiming that there was a shield still holding while the explosion began does not hold water. If the ship is exploding already, the shield is not holding up.

Claiming the frame rate is insufficient to show the ship doesn't hold water when it takes multiple frames for the leading edge of debris to reach the edge of the scereen.

The problem is not merely that the cloud of vapor pre-exists the main destruction of the ship, and that the debris lacks chunks, and that the cloud of vapor continues expanding at the same rate and in the same fashion; it is also that a pale transparent hole with relatively sharp edges opens where the ship was when it disappears.

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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Yes there is.

Then provide screenshots as I have demonstrating those "compression curves" whatever they are.

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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Having this mass be on-board the Death Star produces untenable consequences in combination with a DET model. The Death Star, which has at least two full power shots unrefueled, would have significant gravity as a celestial body.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
They have many - ranging from the highly curious (material disappearance) to the basic characteristics of energy beam weapons in soft sci-fi series.

There is no material disapperance no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. And please elaborate further on those basic characteristics.

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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
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:
Image
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:
Image
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:20 pm 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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).

Not true. Even the stars that are not obscured by the explosion itself are not visible. I'm talking about stars just above the rear of the ship. The stars that were not obscured by the actual debris.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Do you do much photography? Any shift in sensitivity of the film to brightness is going to be applied equally to the entire frame.

And how does this change the fact that explosion is still brightest at the center and will cause most contrast problems there?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

It is you who must provide evidence for you claims for phaser like behaviour of superlaser not me.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Yes I should've said partially obscured. And this transparent hole in frame 3 supports your theory how exactly? As the vaporized material expands it will become less dense and transparent.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

What outer cloud? The debris simply expands between frames 2 and 3. It doesn't maintain a "distinct" shape.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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

There is no "sharply defined" hole. What hole? Is this frame 3 you are talking about?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Two distinct "outer edges" from the explosion. The larger one is from the fourth frame.

So what? There is no atmosphere in space and therefoere no air firction which would cause the shape of the explosion to change.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Two distinct Falcon positions superimposed on each other.

AND? What does Falcon have to do with anything?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

This quote is an invention of yours. Is that the best you can do? Find a single two-frame explosion and then creatively interpret explosion artifacts to somehow support your theory?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
For all these reasons, it's perfectly clear that the wingless Rebel cruiser disappeared. It didn't explode super-fast.

Actually according to CANON ROTJ novelization it did:
page 146 wrote:
Luke watched with impotent horror, as the unbelievably huge laser beam radiated out from the muzzle of the Death Star. It touched- for only an instant- one of the Rebel Star Cruisers surging in the midst of the heaviest fighting. And in the next instant, the Star Cruiser was vaporized. Blown to dust. Returned to its most elemental particles, in a single burst of light.

Did you get that? VAPORIZED in an instant. Blown to dust. Atomized.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

It doesn't vanish. It expanded. There is not a single pixel of Alderaan that was "compressed".

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

In other words you have absolutley no information about what amount of planetary mass was reduced. Which means that some mass reductions can easily explain by a 10^38J beam annihilating a portion of the planet near the impact beacuse of energy imput that greatly exceeds the annihilation energy for that part. Secondly the temperature of the planet would be millions of K for a few moments and the expansion would create enormous pressure thus making it possible for lighter elements like silicon and oxygen to undergo fusion thus further causing some mass reduction. Therefore there is absolutely no need for magical material disapperance.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Assuming of course that all of the fuel is stored near the center instead of dispersed throughout the Death Star thus causing their gravitational pull to cancel each other out. As for artifical repulsion field yes it's continued operation is of vital importance which can be said about any ship that routinely accelerates at a rate of 10g and above.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Yes neutrino beam fired in an opposite direction. Others have already theorized about this.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Even if the Death Star's mass is 10^23kg the gravtiational acceleration at the distance of 1000km would be 6.7m/s2. Not nearly enough to rip out the atmosphere. And what makes you think that Vader's fighter flowing into space didn't have anything to do with Vader's actions? We saw him trying to stabilize the fighter, there is no reason to assume he didn't point it into space.
On a side note it's amusing to watch you raise all these real world concerns (which are all relevant mind you) but when we reach the ultimate problem of blowing up a planet then real world science goes through the window and you mumble something about magical "SLE".

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Gravity has an infinite range which means thatit's operation would depend on the actual strength of the gravitational field and the power of the hyperdrive. I don't see why we should assume that Death Star engines are not more powerful than Falcon's. And how would sensor reading the exceptional mass of an unknown object magically reveal it's true nature?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
"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.

Why are you repeating what I already said? I mentioned fission and fision and matter/antimatter annihilation.
And chemical reactions? What chemical reactions? Explain yourself. Are you always this evasive?
I'm not even going to comment on Hawking radiation which can only be created inside the event horizen and cannot be applicable to this situation.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
As I've mentioned... any crossover between the two universes presumes a shared universe with shared physics. So I promise nothing.

Yes and that shared universe is the REAL universe. All of the equations we are performing come from the real universe and we try to explain all of the technology with the real universe. We don't try to explain one mysterious technology with other mysterious technology.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
As I said... remarkably unimpressive, and not something we could say there is no material disappearance in, or no relation to phasers/disruptors.

Unimpressive? Compared to what? Dune buggy from Nemesis? Bazooka from Insurrection? Pitifuly skyhoppers who need wounded soldiers to provide fire cover for them?
And the burden of proof is on you to show material disappearance not on me to disprove it. We saw the screenshots, saw the cloud of superheated vapour therefore the things were vaporized.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Sarcasm is unbecoming.

The difference is simply size. Which, for a DET weapon, would not matter.

And yet Trinity which is a DET weapon was miscalculated. How strange. The fact that it's inner workings involved chain reaction means nothing. Death Star's inner workings might involve chain reactions but that doesn't change the fact that the weapon was still DET.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

And you completley ignored the fact that actuall annihilation reaction and it's efficiency may not be predicted because of sheer number of particles that are involved in the reaction. You still haven't explained why does this mean that the superlaser beam itself was some kind of magic chain reaction.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

That's it? You just described every single beam ind SF series.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

We have seen the planet expand at the rate of 10,000km/s. In order to do that you need 10^38J of energy. This requirement is dictated by planet's mass and doesn't have anything to do with the mechanism of the weapon.
Wether you fire photon, electron, neutron beam or wooden sticks you need to supply 10^38J of energy.
Any additional effects like fire rings can only increase the actual energy requirement since they were created in addition to the mass scattering. I don't have to explain the exact mechanisam of the superlaser to claim it needed 10^38J any more than you need to explain the mechanism of carrying a 1kg lump of metal 10m straigth up in order to claim you need at least 9.81J. It doesn't matter wether you carry it up the stairs, an escalator or if you simply throw it up you need to imput at least 9.81J of energy. If the lump of metal started glowing green you still need 9.81J of energy. If you pick it up with shiny purple glow and use the shiny glow to move it 10m upwards you still need 9.81J of energy.

Let me be clear: Energy reqirements are dictated by the target matter and not the mechanism of the weapon. If you wish to claim that due to it's mechanism weapon could somehow "cheat" then it is up to you and only you to prove it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
For the most part, Kane, your arguments have degenerated into an insistence that I prove something.

I already have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's up to you to produce counter-evidence as well as provide reasons my evidence doesn't apply; your claims don't gain any "default" position simply because you cannot or will not argue constructively in favor of them.

I still have seven firm pillars of evidence left (you have at this point managed to make the Liberty murky enough), and you have but just introduced your first positive piece of evidence to try and favor your claim.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes I should've said partially obscured. And this transparent hole in frame 3 supports your theory how exactly? As the vaporized material expands it will become less dense and transparent.

It would (a) not be present at all as a "hole," and further (b) would not be the least bit . It does not do so in the transition from frame 3 to frame 4.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What outer cloud? The debris simply expands between frames 2 and 3. It doesn't maintain a "distinct" shape.

It does. From frame 1 to frame 4, the rate of expansion is constant and the shape remains of the same type.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
There is no "sharply defined" hole. What hole? Is this frame 3 you are talking about?

3 and 4. More sharply defined in 4, of course.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
So what? There is no atmosphere in space and therefoere no air firction which would cause the shape of the explosion to change.

Any sudden superblast of debris moving through it from within would. Ergo, there was no such blast.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
AND? What does Falcon have to do with anything?

It's a feature. A benchmark. Something you can use to orient yourself and make sure it's really two frames superimposed.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
This quote is an invention of yours. Is that the best you can do? Find a single two-frame explosion and then creatively interpret explosion artifacts to somehow support your theory?

Kane, the four-frame explosion sequence is crystal clear.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Actually according to CANON ROTJ novelization it did:
page 146 wrote:
Luke watched with impotent horror, as the unbelievably huge laser beam radiated out from the muzzle of the Death Star. It touched- for only an instant- one of the Rebel Star Cruisers surging in the midst of the heaviest fighting. And in the next instant, the Star Cruiser was vaporized. Blown to dust. Returned to its most elemental particles, in a single burst of light.

Did you get that? VAPORIZED in an instant. Blown to dust. Atomized.

Congratulations! You have made a positive contribution to this discussion, adding to the evidence. However, if the majority of the cruiser was converted into a single burst of light, the same description would apply, and the four-frame long explosion is quite short enough to qualify as an "instant."
Kane Starkiller wrote:
It doesn't vanish. It expanded. There is not a single pixel of Alderaan that was "compressed".

Watch carefully.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Assuming of course that all of the fuel is stored near the center instead of dispersed throughout the Death Star thus causing their gravitational pull to cancel each other out. As for artifical repulsion field yes it's continued operation is of vital importance which can be said about any ship that routinely accelerates at a rate of 10g and above.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes neutrino beam fired in an opposite direction. Others have already theorized about this.

At a minimum, this doubles (again) the problem. Of course, there is an additional problem: The Death Star's hull is unbroken. A 1e38 joule neutrino beam would produce a teraton-range explosion even if the Death Star only has its outer hull in the way. Neutrinos do not interact that weakly with matter.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Even if the Death Star's mass is 10^23kg the gravtiational acceleration at the distance of 1000km would be 6.7m/s2. Not nearly enough to rip out the atmosphere. And what makes you think that Vader's fighter flowing into space didn't have anything to do with Vader's actions? We saw him trying to stabilize the fighter, there is no reason to assume he didn't point it into space.

Actually, there is plenty of reason:

p175: "Completely out of control, the tiny ship continued spinning in the opposite direction from the wingman - out into the endless reaches of space."
Kane Starkiller wrote:
On a side note it's amusing to watch you raise all these real world concerns (which are all relevant mind you) but when we reach the ultimate problem of blowing up a planet then real world science goes through the window and you mumble something about magical "SLE".

A "magical" SLE that must somehow bypass all these problems. Let's face it: We know nothing about how the Death Star operates, except for what we can logically deduce.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

Gravity has an infinite range which means thatit's operation would depend on the actual strength of the gravitational field and the power of the hyperdrive. I don't see why we should assume that Death Star engines are not more powerful than Falcon's. And how would sensor reading the exceptional mass of an unknown object magically reveal it's true nature?

It's not a question of the Death Star itself being able to move, but other ships around it. Gravity having indefinite range is one of the things that makes it particularly hard to conceal the presence of your theorized supermassive Death Star, which is by now in the neighborhood of 0.1% of Earth's mass.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Why are you repeating what I already said? I mentioned fission and fision and matter/antimatter annihilation.
And chemical reactions? What chemical reactions? Explain yourself. Are you always this evasive?
I'm not even going to comment on Hawking radiation which can only be created inside the event horizen and cannot be applicable to this situation.

Actually, it can. It would, however, take a lot of work to model the operation of such a weapon.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes and that shared universe is the REAL universe. All of the equations we are performing come from the real universe and we try to explain all of the technology with the real universe. We don't try to explain one mysterious technology with other mysterious technology.

Why not? It's a good idea to minimize the number of mysterious technologies.-
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Unimpressive? Compared to what? Dune buggy from Nemesis? Bazooka from Insurrection? Pitifuly skyhoppers who need wounded soldiers to provide fire cover for them?
And the burden of proof is on you to show material disappearance not on me to disprove it. We saw the screenshots, saw the cloud of superheated vapour therefore the things were vaporized.

The burden of proof is on you, Kane. As a matter of fact, the observed area of effect is similar to the bazooka from Insurrection. I don't see a "cloud of superheated vapor" there; I see a glowing blast.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
And yet Trinity which is a DET weapon was miscalculated. How strange. The fact that it's inner workings involved chain reaction means nothing. Death Star's inner workings might involve chain reactions but that doesn't change the fact that the weapon was still DET.

When the Death Star's reactor kicks off a chain reaction, it blows up. We've seen this. Twice. That's a demonstration of what happens when your reactor behaves out of spec.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
And you completley ignored the fact that actuall annihilation reaction and it's efficiency may not be predicted because of sheer number of particles that are involved in the reaction. You still haven't explained why does this mean that the superlaser beam itself was some kind of magic chain reaction.

I have not ignored that, and I have explained why the beam must necessarily be a chain reaction.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
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.

That's it? You just described every single beam ind SF series.

Hence why those are "basic characteristics" that are "also common to many SF energy beam weapons."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:58 am 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
For the most part, Kane, your arguments have degenerated into an insistence that I prove something.

That's how a reasonable discussion is supposed to work: you propose a theory and then back it up with evidence.

Regarding the wingless cruiser: there is no "hole". What hole are you talking about? There is a cloud of vapor that exists after the ship is vaporized.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Any sudden superblast of debris moving through it from within would. Ergo, there was no such blast.

What are you talking about? The superlaser hit the rear of the ship and then vaporized it from rear to front. There was no sudden explosion between frames 2 and 3.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Kane, the four-frame explosion sequence is crystal clear.

There is no hole. The hole is an invention of yours. But perhaps your definition of hole differs from mine. Here is a screenshot of explosion just after the wingless is gone, draw me an edge of this supposed hole:Link

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Congratulations! You have made a positive contribution to this discussion, adding to the evidence. However, if the majority of the cruiser was converted into a single burst of light, the same description would apply, and the four-frame long explosion is quite short enough to qualify as an "instant."

The "burst of light" referred to the superlaser beam as it is obvious to any eight year old. And you continue to mix and match "disappearing matter a la phasers" and "converting matter to light". These are not even remotely similar events. Decide what your theory is. Does superlaser convert matter to light or simply makes it "vanish".

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Watch carefully.

I have. Full resolution sequence not the 120x50px two-frame gif Darkstar has posted. There is no compression.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
At a minimum, this doubles (again) the problem. Of course, there is an additional problem: The Death Star's hull is unbroken. A 1e38 joule neutrino beam would produce a teraton-range explosion even if the Death Star only has its outer hull in the way. Neutrinos do not interact that weakly with matter.

Who says there is anything on their way? Neutrino beams could be led all the way to the surface's emitters and then released.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Actually, there is plenty of reason:

p175: "Completely out of control, the tiny ship continued spinning in the opposite direction from the wingman - out into the endless reaches of space."

Yes and? Even today's fighters have emergency programs that cause them to turn upwards sharply when they are too close to the ground. TIE fighter could have the same thing.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
A "magical" SLE that must somehow bypass all these problems. Let's face it: We know nothing about how the Death Star operates, except for what we can logically deduce.

Thank you for admiting that you have no explanation for it. In other words no theory.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
It's not a question of the Death Star itself being able to move, but other ships around it. Gravity having indefinite range is one of the things that makes it particularly hard to conceal the presence of your theorized supermassive Death Star, which is by now in the neighborhood of 0.1% of Earth's mass.

What about the other ships around it? I never saw anyone engaging hyperdrive near the surface. And what kind of concealement are you talking about? The very fact that it exists or to somehow cloack it in combat situations?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Actually, it can. It would, however, take a lot of work to model the operation of such a weapon.

"It"? What, Hawking radiation, chemical reactions what? Jesus will you stop with this evasion game and explain yourself already? If you have a mechanism through which Death Star can blow up a planet at the rate of one diameter per second then show it already or concede.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Why not? It's a good idea to minimize the number of mysterious technologies.-

No it isn't. Myteries are best left untouched until you can produce a know mechanism.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
The burden of proof is on you, Kane. As a matter of fact, the observed area of effect is similar to the bazooka from Insurrection. I don't see a "cloud of superheated vapor" there; I see a glowing blast.

I have proved it: there is no material disappearance on the screenshots.
The observed area is greater than the bazooka even if we disregard the fact that superlaser is a continuous weapon.
And you are flat out lying about don't seeing a cloud of vaporized droids and ground.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
When the Death Star's reactor kicks off a chain reaction, it blows up. We've seen this. Twice. That's a demonstration of what happens when your reactor behaves out of spec.

Don't spread this around but a torpedo blowing up inside a reactor is not a part of the specs.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I have not ignored that, and I have explained why the beam must necessarily be a chain reaction.

You have tried to explain why a reactor might be producing the neccesary energy via chain reaction. Nothing about the actual superlaser beam. And you ignored my point about inherent difficulty of calculating the exact efficiency of large scale matter annihilation, AGAIN.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Hence why those are "basic characteristics" that are "also common to many SF energy beam weapons."

So now every single beam in SF works on the same principles? Get real.

And you ignored my point about the independence of energy requirements and mechanisms of the targed weapons.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
For the most part, Kane, your arguments have degenerated into an insistence that I prove something.

That's how a reasonable discussion is supposed to work: you propose a theory and then back it up with evidence.

And I have. Which means that it's up to you to develop the alternate theory, refinements of the original theory, etc.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Regarding the wingless cruiser: there is no "hole". What hole are you talking about? There is a cloud of vapor that exists after the ship is vaporized.

You can call it a separate small cloud within the debris cloud rather than a "hole" if you like; however, the fact that it is a non-expanding cloud of vapor (see frames 3-4) within the debris means that it can't account for the vanished bulk of the original wingless cruiser.

It's fixed in space, lingering as if a blurred version of the ship itself - a similar effect can be seen in STII during Captain Terrel's suicide.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
What are you talking about? The superlaser hit the rear of the ship and then vaporized it from rear to front. There was no sudden explosion between frames 2 and 3.

Kane, did you forget?
Kane Starkiller wrote:
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.

You were the one suggesting it was a sudden explosion. Perhaps you did not mean between frames 2 and 3...

... but we can clearly see the rear of the ship in frame 2. Ironically, we are not able to make out the nose of the ship - it is obscured - but the outline of the end nearest the superlaser impact is visible and clearly intact.

The notion the superlaser continuously ripped through the ship, starting with the rear in frame 2 and finishing before frame 3, still doesn't succeed in explaining the feature I have referred to as the visible "hole" in the middle of frames 3 and 4.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
There is no hole. The hole is an invention of yours. But perhaps your definition of hole differs from mine. Here is a screenshot of explosion just after the wingless is gone, draw me an edge of this supposed hole:Link

Frame 3 again. Kane, I pointed the hole out to you using contrast enhancement before, just in case your vision was not up to distinguishing the hole at normal video settings. I posted such a picture before, and I told you the hole was much sharper in frame 4 - a key point that allows us to say what we can say about the hole.

It takes about ten seconds to open up an editor and roughly trace the edges of the hole. Not even worth wasting bandwidth on:
Image
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The "burst of light" referred to the superlaser beam as it is obvious to any eight year old. And you continue to mix and match "disappearing matter a la phasers" and "converting matter to light". These are not even remotely similar events. Decide what your theory is. Does superlaser convert matter to light or simply makes it "vanish".

As is obvious to anyone watching the movie, the burst of light referred to the destruction itself, not the superlaser itself; the superlaser bolts were not particularly bright in and of themselves.

If you would care to dispute that phasers' disappearance effects are also correlated with bright bursts of light, I can start showing you screencaps demonstrating that.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I have. Full resolution sequence not the 120x50px two-frame gif Darkstar has posted. There is no compression.

I see we have nothing more to say to each other on the topic.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Who says there is anything on their way? Neutrino beams could be led all the way to the surface's emitters and then released.

What emitters? There are no emitter structures on the Death Star surface - this is why neutrino beams were proposed in the first place rather than a regular old EM or matter based recoil compensation system. Those proposing them simply neglected that neutrinos really do interact with matter.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes and? Even today's fighters have emergency programs that cause them to turn upwards sharply when they are too close to the ground. TIE fighter could have the same thing.

An out of control spinning craft intended for use in deep space may not be expected to reasonably have such a capability in its state. You're really stretching here.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Thank you for admiting that you have no explanation for it. In other words no theory.

And you now have a detailed mechanism for how to operate an artificial gravity system?

Of course not. We take what we can know, and what can be logically deduced.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What about the other ships around it? I never saw anyone engaging hyperdrive near the surface. And what kind of concealement are you talking about? The very fact that it exists or to somehow cloack it in combat situations?

Near as in within a few thousand miles? Please. Remember, you usually need to put several planetary diameters between you and a planet to launch.

I'm talking about instant recognition of its existence and nature - something we see the lack of in ANH.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
"It"? What, Hawking radiation, chemical reactions what? Jesus will you stop with this evasion game and explain yourself already? If you have a mechanism through which Death Star can blow up a planet at the rate of one diameter per second then show it already or concede.

Hawking radiation, of course. That would be what you claimed couldn't possibly be involved.

As I said, it's a pain in the tail to model that sort of weapon. IMO, it's beyond the capabilities of the Empire to design a weapon that uses packets of micro-singularities in any case.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
No it isn't. Myteries are best left untouched until you can produce a know mechanism.

My apologies, but if you take that attitude, you can get literally nowhere with any of the technologies of Star Trek and Star Wars.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I have proved it: there is no material disappearance on the screenshots.
The observed area is greater than the bazooka even if we disregard the fact that superlaser is a continuous weapon.
And you are flat out lying about don't seeing a cloud of vaporized droids and ground.

No, I really don't see a cloud. I see a bright glowing blob.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
When the Death Star's reactor kicks off a chain reaction, it blows up. We've seen this. Twice. That's a demonstration of what happens when your reactor behaves out of spec.

Don't spread this around but a torpedo blowing up inside a reactor is not a part of the specs.

Exactly. Ordinary use of the Death Star's reactor is controlled.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
You have tried to explain why a reactor might be producing the neccesary energy via chain reaction. Nothing about the actual superlaser beam. And you ignored my point about inherent difficulty of calculating the exact efficiency of large scale matter annihilation, AGAIN.

Back up here. I have not in this thread supported the notion that the Death Star is ordinarily fueled by a chain reaction. That was simply your available alternative when you interpret Vader and Tarkin's exchange about the weapon being more powerful than calculated as applying somehow to the amount of power generated, rather than the weapon's effect on the end target.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
So now every single beam in SF works on the same principles? Get real.

I have said nothing of the sort. Why do you persist in misinterpreting what I say?
Kane Starkiller wrote:
And you ignored my point about the independence of energy requirements and mechanisms of the targed weapons.

You mean your unsupported claim - which, as a matter of fact, is patently false in the fashion you are trying to push it? The claim you argued for by claiming that there was no burden of proof applying to your own claims, only mine?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:56 am 
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I see we have nothing more to say to each other on the topic.

You are goddamed right:
Image
Image
There is no hole and you are a liar. If you are willing to lie to my face like that then obviously there is no reason to continue the discussion.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2084
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I see we have nothing more to say to each other on the topic.

You are goddamed right:
There is no hole and you are a liar. If you are willing to lie to my face like that then obviously there is no reason to continue the discussion.


Kane. First, keep your cool. You can't get in hot water for saying you can't see the hole; you can for losing your temper. This is an official warning to you in my capacity as a board administrator.

Second, as a poster, look at a contrast-enhanced version if you can't make out the hole. I already posted a contrast-enhanced piece from frame 3 that shows the hole very clearly.

And please look at the fourth frame. You seem to be completely ignoring the fourth frame. I think you'll have a much easier time if you do - it's much easier to see.

Here. Look at a contrast-enhanced version of the frame (and its color inverse) as well as the original (and its color inverse). Look for the bright yellowish-orange part on the original, the dark blue on the inverse.

Image

You owe me an apology here - and if you really can't see that hole staring you in the face, ask for a third opinion. Because to me, it's as obvious as the nose on my face. Now look back at frame 3. See the same shape? The edges aren't as distinct, but they're there if you know to look for them.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Discussion and Debate » Trek/Wars


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: