The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[Mr. Oragahn]

Many guides never paid much attention to what happened on screen. Yet all of them were going with the fusion core idea.

All? What about the ICS?

All of the "many guides".
Not all guides.

The bestest fusion mechanism could release 6.3 e14 J/kg.
So to get to 2.4 e32 J, you need 3.75 e17 kg (3.75 e14 tonnes) of fuel. That's hundred of trillions tonnes of fuel.
Of course, to meet the real objectives set by Saxton, you actually need a million times more fuel.
3.75 e23 kg.
Almost a sixteenth of Earth's entire mass (5.9736 e24 kg) in stellar fuel.

You're assuming the use of nuclear fusion.

I'm hardly assuming anything. As pointed out a gazillion times now, the vast majority of sources, even the database, say the core is fusion based.
Nice to see you repeatedly ignore those facts.
Oh, of course. You'd first have to read those quotes.

As I recall, merely the term 'fusion' is used; a term that technically applies to M/AM conversion.

What Saxton claims is not a random claim of transformation of matter to energy, which even mere combustion is, but a very specific one; that of annihilation, which is a whole different beast than fusion.

As far as we know, hypermatter may very well require fusion.

Only in Saxton's own addition to the ICS.
In the database and the EU novel "Rogue Planet", hypermatter is identified as fusion; directly in the first, and absolutely logically in the second, since the fuel is clearly identified as ice asteroids (rich for water, and thus pretty good for fusion), and nothing else is said about another reactor or type of fuel.

The OT:ICS didn't claim anything about the nature of hypermatter. It only said hypermatter and that was all.
In fact, only the Death Star used hypermatter, instead of the claims that it was actually found in a wide variety of warships, as per the Saxtonian entries in the last two prequels' ICSes.

Hypermatter = fusion is therefore clearly defined in two novels.

It's identified as tachyonic in both the AOTC:ICS and the novel "Death Star".

The Saxtonian view is that hypermatter is annihilated, so the energy produced is simply derived from E=mc².

The Death Star novel does not make any direct relation to the working of a hypermatter core and the power output.

We have two different quotes:

His nephew, Hora Graneet, had been a navy spacer on the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Mark
II class vessel, which had been selected for a shakedown cruise testing one of the improved
prototype hypermatter reactors. Tenn didn't know the specifics of what had happened, and
didn't have anything close to the math needed to understand it anyway. He knew that
hypermatter existed only in hyperspace, that it was composed of tachyonic particles, and that
charged tachyons, when constrained by the lower dimensions of realspace, produced
near-limitless energy. How this "null-point energy" had become unstable he didn't know. He
only knew it had been powerful enough to turn an ISD-II and its crew of thirty-seven thousand
people into floating wisps of ionized gas in a microsecond.

The author may have been inspired by Saxton's page:

acceleration of tachyons

If “hypermatter” consists of intrinsically faster-than-light particles (tachyons) in some harnessed (perhaps gyrating) form then they could in principle be used as a power source. The act of accelerating a tachyon from c up to infinite speed (considering the complex, supra-light Lorentz-transformations) unleashes all of the particle's mass-energy. This is analogous to the deceleration of ordinary sub-light particles, which however have a lower energy limit mc². A tachyon accelerated to infinite speed and zero energy becomes less like matter and more effectively an omnipresent wave of zero intensity — intangible to the ordinary world. Such a process would achieve complete mass-energy conversion without needing to react this exotic fuel with any antiparticle. The power output would depend on the rate at which the “reactor” can decelerate available fuel, and not upon any reaction process.

... but decided to go on their own and define the constriction of hypermatter to real space is what produced the energies.
It actually pulls the idea that the dimension of hyperspace is higher, while this is not necessary when dealing with tachyons as far as I get it.
Anyway, I doubt the authors explored the question that much, and in the end we're dealing with something that is not sounding exactly like what Saxton may have gone with.

Actually, it would be up to you, SWST, to prove that it is.

Still, the limit remains at the mass of the particle.
So when we read this:

It took no more than an instant. Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much
bigger than matter-energy conversions limited to realspace. At full charge, the hyper-matter
reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted
immediately into hyperspace. As a result, Alderaan exploded into a fiery ball of eye-smiting
light almost instantaneously, and a planar ring of energy reflux-the "shadow" of a hyperspatial
ripple-spread rapidly outward.

It is literally telling us that we're dealing with something that doesn't even work with annihilation as we get it.
It is actually very easy to understand the term "power" as capacity here, as it conveniently means that the beam has the capacity to end producing energy, in some way, that is vaster than the energy the beam itself could have carried after being generated by the best power generation method belonging to realspace.

See, it even goes against the former paragraph, because the former paragraph said that the energy was produced when hypermatter was bound to the lower dimension of real space.
In this later paragraph, we're told that the reaction is not bounds to the limitations of real space: it happens outside of them.
Even more proof that what goes on does not directly originate from the core.

Still, annihilation or not, the masses needed to achieve that much energy, if they were to be totally carried by starships, are simply asburd. We're talking about something like a tenth of the Moon's mass, when that object is like 3474 km wide. All that cramped into fuel bottles occupying a fraction of a station either 120 or 160 km wide.
In AOTC:ICS, the "annihilation reactant" (fuel) held in silos of the Acclamator is "denser than the ship's bulk by many orders of magnitude."

I just have to wonder what the tidal effects would have been on Endor with having such a mass in close orbit of the sanctuary planet/moon...

However, when we are encountered with a contradiction, the best bet is to rationalize them. Some sources imply hypermatter, others imply fusion; the AOTC ICS gives us the rationalization that fusion is used in conjunction with hypermatter. Case closed.

How do you want to close that case? We have a clear contradiction.
All sources saying that the Death Star is powered by fusion, plus those liken hypermatter to fusion, and the two that make hypermatter be tachyonic based, with one declaring annihilation while the other remains silent on the question. Let's also note that the one that makes the declaration is extremely suspicious, for all reasons known. Would you rely on a source that's known to sprout as much bullshit as possible per paragraph, or one that thus far never really acted in such a confrontational way as to be so problematic?
Most reasonable people try to stay away from the books written or influenced by Saxton. That's more than thus two ICSes by the way.

Darkstar is not understanding the fact that the burden of proof lies on him.

No, you don't understand that a theory like that doesn't need to explain the intricate physics of it. You just need to find clues and links. Here, the fact that energy is clearly not provided by the core (it couldn't, it's fusion based, and didn't do enough damage to Despayre at the first two shots), and the fact that hyperspace was involved.
It's that simple.

You have hardly provided any rationalization at all. Instead, you focus on bits from a few sources and limit yourself to that, denying everything else.

Wrong. The only sources you use are one part from the Death Star novel (even though that very novel confirms blatantly that the Death Star uses hypermatter) and some sections from the database that point to fusion as the power source.

Bull.
I provided several quotes from several sources describing the Death Star or the working of superlasers, either from the Death Star or the Eclipse. Those are quotes which you completely ignored.
And there again, you project your denial.

Occam's razor and common sense.

They work for me.
The DET simply fails even before Occam's razor comes into play!
Hint: you don't appeal to Occam's razor when your theory doesn't even fit with the fact to begin with, as the OR is made to sorsst out theories that work.
You should know how to use OR better.

Already covered by JMS and I provided the link to his post several times. I also pointed out the same thing. The layperson knows nothing about what a main sequence star is. The layperson doesn't even use the term star to begin with. They often say "a sun".

On the contrary, the layperson with at least high school science is going have heard of main sequence stars, in which case they will assume a G class star.

And lol @ laypeople not using the term star.

*sigh*
You're just pure gold in comedy, you know that? How can anyone take you seriously after such asinine claims. This is pathetic.
The layperson says solar system all the time for example. Drop that disturbing nonsense about the average joe knowing what a main sequence star is supposed to be, or the even more ludicrous idea that said person would know anything about the ratios relative to each star type.

Already addressed. I even did it again, in detail, in my former post (to which you replied with a very erroneous dodge, as we'll see).

What? Saying that the database implies the use of fusion? Then take fusion and the raw power statement. One supports me, another supports you.

1. You just blatanly ignored an entire section of my post that has shown that there's no such implication. It's a direct statement. You didn't even read what I wrote.
2. I proved that based on fusion, you couldn't carry around enough mass to produce the energy necessary to meet the lowest of Saxton's figures. You even quote the calculation at the top of the post.

And you dare claim you're not trolling?

Never denied that Alderaan was reduced to rubble/pebbles/rock bits. But that's the same database from which you cherry pick your evidence.

The amount of energy needed to do that is 5.9 * 10^31 joules.

Yeah, good thing that providing this figure hardly changes anything.

So? Who denied that? And ANH's novelization says the second Death Star, ready to shoot (at full) exploded and released "the energy of a small artificial sun", which is just too detailed to pass as mere equivocation. Even if for some reason, the capacitors didn't release their energy, we know that upon firing, the main reactor is online and works at full.
We will certainly notice that when it exploded, the spaceships in space didn't blow up.
Yet, at best, just like for Alderaan, the Death Star has a range of 6 planetary diameters.
Assuming Yavin IV was like Alderaan or Earth (radius: 6371 km), we get a maximum distance of 76,452 km.
Applied to a sphere, that's a maximum surface area of 7.345 e16 m².
Okay, let's work with 2.4 e32 J,

Why? The visual footage clearly shows that the planet's mass was scattered at more than escape velocity.

I'm speaking of the Death Star's destruction.

and say that the core generally works for 12 hours (43,200 seconds) to store that much energy.
That is still 5.556 e27 W.

Which scales down to about 5e22 joules for an ISD. What was your point?

You literally butcher my paragraph, fail to correctly read it, post some unrelated figure about scaling down the power based on volume -a figure I know but which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm explaining- and you ask what my point is?
Ok, let's just pretend that you're honest and that you really missed the point. See below:

Now let's divide that by our sphere's surface area, and we get an intensity of 75.65 e9 J/m² at the known superlaser's maximum range.
In other words, we already are at the limit of an intensity level which we know has taken down X-wing sized fighters in movies.
Of course, it only gets worse if we start to take into account the release of energy from the capacitors, and if we work with Saxton's upper limit, which was 3.4 e38 J. Or with the fact that the ships were nowhere close to Yavin IV when the Death Star exploded, as a matter of fact.
Heck, the very explosion of the Death Star was far from being impressive at all. Certainly nowhere close to anything like the power of a star like Sol, which is still "capped" at 3.839 e26 W.
An attempt at solving this issue would be to argue that most of the Death Star's ionized mass got sucked into hyperspace as well. The rings would tend to prove that something like that may have happened.

Maybe I am not reading this well enough, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

It's rather obvious. I'm calculating how much the core released when the whole battle station blew up. We can obtain very solid figures which go against DET, and the only rationalization is to have the vast majority of the battle station -and I mean a majority that's like half a dozen orders of magnitude or more- got sucked into hyperspace.
Which would prove, then, that there's so much of matter that gets sucked into hyperspace that there's no reason this wouldn't happen to Alderaan as well, and therefore continue to molest Saxton's figures.

Oh I know, you'll continue to complain with that 0.9999999% percentage or whatever, but facts are facts. Your protests are vain.

You know what? What you are doing is not citing 7 diffrent sources. You've splitted "Death Star" into two. You only provided 6 different sources.

Seven different quotes. You haven't provided anywhere near that number supporting your stance.

Ah, now it's "quotes" instead of sources. No, sorry dude, you fail again. I already proved that if I dissected a source like you did, I could pop the quotes counter very easily. Like by using the database's article, allowing me 4 or 5 different "quotes" right off the bat.
And things would just get ugly if I were to apply the same method to all the quotes I provided about the DS core and superlasers -those you deny the very existence of.
I would pretty much appreciate if I had not to repeat myself about his on and on and on.

- Just one core, and it's said a "hypermatter reactor".

...and?

And, to the risk of repeating myself for another round of ten strikes, it's said to be fusion based. Can't compute, little SWST?

- This reactor is described as being "fusion based" (so hypermatter = fusion, and that's also in agreement with another source we rarely cite, here, from the ICS thread you didn't really read).

No, that's not true.

Yes, it is, in this article.

The book Star Wars: Death Star explicitly states that hypermatter reactors exceed M/AM conversion in energy potential.

We're not talking about that book but taking a look at the very article you keep pretending goes your way, merely because in reality you cherry pick it, as I have proven in my former post (and which you didn't even read).

And even if hypermatter = fusion, it does not mean nuclear fusion.

...
The only other broad meaning of fusion is melting. Oh, yes, so the core is based on melting.
It all makes sense!

...
Why am I losing my time with you again?

- Uses "stellar fuel".

And? A large chemical explosion was more powerful than the photon torpedo payload of the Enterprise.

WTF?
More Star Drek red herring?

- Fuel is carried in "bottles lining [the core's] periphery" (meaning most likely that only a moderate fraction of the Death Star volume is dedicated to fuel storage).

And?

And it's stellar fuel for fusion (nuclear fusion, in case you keep wondering).
No, I think you just don't know enough about the basics of science. I wouldn't claim to be a genius in the domain, but there clearly are some basics you don't have there.
It's sad, but one needs to know a thing or two about physics before attempting to seriously debate a versus topic.
You obviously don't pass.

- The tributary beams coalesce "into one single blast with the intensity of a stellar core", for which you'd need to aim at hypergiant stars (millions of solar luminosities) to hope reach the 2.4 e32 J mark. Needless to say, you will never get above that, and yet we know it's extremely necessary for DETists.
In other words, go suck your sore thumb.

In other words, you're claiming that the clear, onscreen footage showing the planet visibly being scattered at extreme velocities is just an illusion.

Strawman.

In other words, you think that e32 joules is not impressive, and that it somehow helps your argument.

Strawjuice.

Oh see, at least 4 safe, perhaps 5.
Want me to look at other sources? Like, all the quotes I provided which you repeatedly fail to consider?
No, so stop that nonsense. Your evidence is outnumbered. Period.

Why don't you actually send your quotes, instead of threatening to do so?

Because I already did it multiple times.
I posted the quotes, then posted links to the post that contains them several times, everytime when you denied their existence.
At some point I just grew tired of doing it again and again.
So go read the thread.
Now!

Yes, addressed, since that's exactly what the database leads us to. Fusion based reactor, not magic based reactor, and stellar fuel. You know, the bits you ignore. So I don't care if that hurts your preconceptions.
It's not like you completely failed to debunk my conclusions based on the first Despayrean shot, yes? ;)

Once again, you have no idea what the word fusion means.

Obviously. :|

...
Wait!
You were serious?

Once again, you fail to actually rationalize or explain the ICS quote, instead of just waving it away by citing another equal canon status quote.

You mean SEVERAL other canon sources (books, guides) of equal level, plus the novelization, plus the analysis of the movie.

You think I'm new to this?
See above. What the ICS and the database describe are two different cats.

Listen Mr. O; when two equal canon status sources collide, you rationalize both sources together. Your idea is to just wave away mine because you feel like it. The AOTC ICS provides a rationalization for this.

No. The AOTC rationalizes nothing because it claims hypermatter cores are encased in fusion cores. It's absolutely alone in claiming that, and several other sources outright contradict this (including your beloved database article which I returned against you).

No, I mean the many sources that say it's fusion based, including the very database you cherry pick your evidence from.

The database is the only source you've provided so far; meanwhile, four seperate sources imply or state the use of hypermatter.

Could you cram more lies into one single line?

"The database is the only source you've provided so far" -- false. Besides, it were you who provided it to begin with. Oh, wait, I guess that means I provided no source at all!!!!1!!!

" meanwhile, four seperate sources imply or state the use of hypermatter." -- see earlier half of this post. The ICS claims a different kind of hypermatter based on annihilation instead of fusion, and the "Death Star" novel doesn't really tell anything aside from the fact that it's tachyon based, which is the only point thus far that it shares with the ICS. The OT:ICS stays mute on the question. The database goes against it, so does the note about the EBP in "Rogue Planet".

It's certainly not elegant, granted. It's not like the ICS is absolutely perfect.

Stupid strawman attempt. Whether or not it's perfect, it just oh so happens to blatantly support DET FAR more smoothly than it does fit with chain reaction.

lol.
So you don't even know what a strawman is? Where the fuck am I putting words into your putrid mouth, pray tell?

See the way it depicts the destruction of Alderaan, despite the fact that it was the easiest bit not to mess up.

It was an artistic drawing. Is this the best poisoning the well fallacy you can attempt?

Just putting the accuracy of the OT:ICS into perspective, that's all.
Funny how they fucked up one of the easiest things to put into that book.

By what? The films clearly show at least an e32 joule event, part of the database supports it, SW: DS supports it, where is this imaginary army of sources that you claim? Why don't you clearly list out all of the sources that overrule a blatant statement?

You would be correct if you had not proved that you constantly ignored how I pointed out the database disagreed with you, as well as ignored all the quotations I already provided about superlasers and the Death Star's reactor design.

Oh, that portion of the database is among the only sources that supports you, and even then it's in a sketchy angle; the term fusion can apply to more than just nuclear fusion.

EGVV: ""heavy metals, liquid reactants, or virtually any substance" is what fusion reactors in SW use.

Damn. Heavy metals... for fusion?
No, listen suzie, just post the entire quote from that EGVV, and we'll see by how much you just shot your own foot there.

We'll also see how you use just one shrunk screen capture instead of the whole sequence.
The one that shows the explosion actually slowing down.

No it doesn't. And if it did, using a stopwatch you could time the debris velocity to be at hypersonic to relativistic speeds. There is no denying this; it's on screen, irrefutable evidence.

See, there are those big orange plumes. Those are clearly expanding fast for a very few frames, then come to a form of near-halt. Magic? Yaaaaaay!

Or the delayed secondary explosion, which no DETist has been able to ever explain.
How can it get more dishonest than that, I don't know.

And the superlaser theory cannot explain this either. Stop applying double standards.

What "superlaser theory"?
What I'm saying is relatively simple. The DET camp has always failed to explain the delay. Actually, Wong has simply denied it. So no need for any explanation.

Clearly, the electrochemical signal between your eyes and your brain gets lost en route.

Ah, you think that you're so clever, eh? Talking smack on the internet?

Why don't you rationalize and explain how a planet's mass is accelerated at escape velocity or more without said energy being imparted at it.

When did I say that there wasn't that much energy?
It's like the hundredth time I'm correcting you on this strawman.

Explain where such stellar amounts of energy came from. Explain why NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THIS in ANY tech novel, nor does any character EVER mention this, but has no problem with MARVELING at the reactor, which is apparently only 0.00000000001% of the power.

Explain why the DS novel explicitly states that hypermatter EXCEEDS MASS-ENERGY CONVERSION IN REAL SPACE.

It doesn't state that the reactor does that. It states that the beam's power does that.
Which fits with what non-DETists claim : the beam, which is funky, clearly has the capability to trigger a reaction that releases that much energy. It has that power, indeed, and it does so by violating rules of realspace, which goes against what the same book said earlier on about how hypermatter reactors would work (by constraining hypermatter to realspace, and therefore its rules, which produces energy).

Besides, there's that funny bit from "Death Star";


The smuggler smiled. "Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the battle station under
construction is large enough to hold, oh, six or eight such weapons, as well as a hypermatter
reactor that could power a small planet. And that it is possible to focus all of this energy into a
single beam-by the largest and most powerful magnetic ring ever made." He looked
expectantly at Ratua.

Mmm... apparently, powering a small planet requires a huuuuge reactor. Doesn't really bode well for those who love to claim incredible power production densities.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And? A large chemical explosion was more powerful than the photon torpedo payload of the Enterprise.

Source? You keep repeating these things like a mantra, yet provide no citation of an episode, and very seldom do you provide dialog. When you do provide dialog you leave out the episode citation!

At any rate, it doesn't really matter since technobabble chemicals in Star Trek, like the ultritium explosives used in "A Time to Stand" have demonstrated some insanely powerful yeilds:

O'BRIEN: Ninety isotons of enriched ultritium should take out the entire storage facility and everything else within eight hundred kilometres.

SISKO: Which means we have to be nine hundred kilometres away before the bomb goes off.

This amount of explosives on it's own would be impressive if not for the fact that it nearly vaporized a multi-km asteroid and the facility on it as well:


The before (note the little JH battlebug for some sense of scale)...


...And after

So given what we know, this would be a yeild at least in the hundreds of gigatons range.
-Mike

Or Sisko knew that the chemicals would blow up the station and most likely generate a huge explosion due to the fuel, used for the shield generator among other things, would just make a huge firework. It's quite logical when you have the equivalent of perhaps days or fuel if not weeks, to power a shield which can repel typical Dominion ships.
If they used antimatter, they could logically house countless teratons worth of fuel.
Besides, the explosion during the episode don't fit with the super yield. The explosions were very tame, so clearly what blew up was something else in the asteroid, and it is that something else, which Sisko counted on, which was responsible of the giganormous splosion.

Mmm... I noticed that you also failed prey to one of SWST's baits.
I suggest we cut this part of the thread into one uniquely devoted to this event (and eventually ultritium as large), both to make for an easy point of reference and to keep that one clean.

That said, you can also warn STST once more. ;)

[StarWarsStarTrek]

All of the "many guides".
Not all guides.

Really? Quantify how many of these "many guides" you have and list them out please.

I'm hardly assuming anything. As pointed out a gazillion times now, the vast majority of sources, even the database, say the core is fusion based.
Nice to see you repeatedly ignore those facts.
Oh, of course. You'd first have to read those quotes.

Fusion =/= nuclear fusion. How hard is this for you to understand?

What Saxton claims is not a random claim of transformation of matter to energy, which even mere combustion is, but a very specific one; that of annihilation, which is a whole different beast than fusion.

No, it's not. M/AM annihilation involves the JOINING of matter and antimatter. The difference is that theoretically all of the mass is converted into energy.

Only in Saxton's own addition to the ICS.

...which is canon.

In the database and the EU novel "Rogue Planet", hypermatter is identified as fusion; directly in the first, and absolutely logically in the second, since the fuel is clearly identified as ice asteroids (rich for water, and thus pretty good for fusion), and nothing else is said about another reactor or type of fuel.

Except that there are a host of sources that explicitly differentiate hypermatter from fusion, and do not rely on a sketchy logical link like your argument does. We have no idea what hypermatter requires, so for all we know it may require water too. However, the idea that this is somehow sufficient to negate explicit, canon descriptions of hypermatter is stupid.

The OT:ICS didn't claim anything about the nature of hypermatter. It only said hypermatter and that was all.

And why would it use the term hypermatter if it were really just nuclear fusion, despite the fact that 'fusion' is used casually in SW within the same context that we use it?

In fact, only the Death Star used hypermatter,

Where is this stated?

instead of the claims that it was actually found in a wide variety of warships, as per the Saxtonian entries in the last two prequels' ICSes.

And it's still canon, however much you may want to whine and complain about it.

Hypermatter = fusion is therefore clearly defined in two novels.

What type of fusion? Oh, you can't answer that; you just assume that all fusion is nuclear.

It's identified as tachyonic in both the AOTC:ICS and the novel "Death Star".

Right, you're getting there!

The Saxtonian view is that hypermatter is annihilated, so the energy produced is simply derived from E=mc².

The ICS does not explain HOW this matter is "annihilated", or in what state it is in. I think that Saxton intentionally made the description vague so as to not have to devolve into technobabble.

The Death Star novel does not make any direct relation to the working of a hypermatter core and the power output.

BS:

"Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much bigger than matter-energy conversions limited to realspace." pg 291

We have two different quotes:

His nephew, Hora Graneet, had been a navy spacer on the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Mark
II class vessel, which had been selected for a shakedown cruise testing one of the improved
prototype hypermatter reactors. Tenn didn't know the specifics of what had happened, and
didn't have anything close to the math needed to understand it anyway. He knew that
hypermatter existed only in hyperspace, that it was composed of tachyonic particles, and that
charged tachyons, when constrained by the lower dimensions of realspace, produced
near-limitless energy. How this "null-point energy" had become unstable he didn't know. He
only knew it had been powerful enough to turn an ISD-II and its crew of thirty-seven thousand
people into floating wisps of ionized gas in a microsecond.

Right, what's this supposed this to mean?

The author may have been inspired by Saxton's page:

acceleration of tachyons

If “hypermatter” consists of intrinsically faster-than-light particles (tachyons) in some harnessed (perhaps gyrating) form then they could in principle be used as a power source. The act of accelerating a tachyon from c up to infinite speed (considering the complex, supra-light Lorentz-transformations) unleashes all of the particle's mass-energy. This is analogous to the deceleration of ordinary sub-light particles, which however have a lower energy limit mc². A tachyon accelerated to infinite speed and zero energy becomes less like matter and more effectively an omnipresent wave of zero intensity — intangible to the ordinary world. Such a process would achieve complete mass-energy conversion without needing to react this exotic fuel with any antiparticle. The power output would depend on the rate at which the “reactor” can decelerate available fuel, and not upon any reaction process.

... but decided to go on their own and define the constriction of hypermatter to real space is what produced the energies.
It actually pulls the idea that the dimension of hyperspace is higher, while this is not necessary when dealing with tachyons as far as I get it.
Anyway, I doubt the authors explored the question that much, and in the end we're dealing with something that is not sounding exactly like what Saxton may have gone with.

"but decided to go on their own and define the constriction of hypermatter to real space is what produced the energies" - and? What's wrong with this?

Actually, it would be up to you, SWST, to prove that it is.

Still, the limit remains at the mass of the particle.
So when we read this:

It took no more than an instant. Tenn knew that the beam's total destructive power was much
bigger than matter-energy conversions limited to realspace. At full charge, the hyper-matter
reactor provided a superluminal "boost" that caused much of the planet's mass to be shifted
immediately into hyperspace. As a result, Alderaan exploded into a fiery ball of eye-smiting
light almost instantaneously, and a planar ring of energy reflux-the "shadow" of a hyperspatial
ripple-spread rapidly outward.

It is literally telling us that we're dealing with something that doesn't even work with annihilation as we get it.
It is actually very easy to understand the term "power" as capacity here, as it conveniently means that the beam has the capacity to end producing energy, in some way, that is vaster than the energy the beam itself could have carried after being generated by the best power generation method belonging to realspace.

See, it even goes against the former paragraph, because the former paragraph said that the energy was produced when hypermatter was bound to the lower dimension of real space.
In this later paragraph, we're told that the reaction is not bounds to the limitations of real space: it happens outside of them.
Even more proof that what goes on does not directly originate from the core.

Still, annihilation or not, the masses needed to achieve that much energy, if they were to be totally carried by starships, are simply asburd. We're talking about something like a tenth of the Moon's mass, when that object is like 3474 km wide. All that cramped into fuel bottles occupying a fraction of a station either 120 or 160 km wide.
In AOTC:ICS, the "annihilation reactant" (fuel) held in silos of the Acclamator is "denser than the ship's bulk by many orders of magnitude."

I just have to wonder what the tidal effects would have been on Endor with having such a mass in close orbit of the sanctuary planet/moon...

Wall of text! And semantics; whether or not the energy the hypermatter gets is "inside" of it or "outside" of it, in "realspace" or in some upper dimension, the hypermatter reactor is still the one supplying the energy whether directly or indirectly and the ship is still able to use that amount of energy to, for example, blow the Enterprise to bits, and ISD's use hypermatter. The only way for you to win this is to prove that the hypermatter reactor did not supply the energy; that the superlaser itself somehow drew it from somewhere else, which you have failed to do.

How do you want to close that case? We have a clear contradiction.
All sources saying that the Death Star is powered by fusion, plus those liken hypermatter to fusion,

Explain how fusion is likened to hypermatter, and explain why you cannot grasp the fact that:

1. Fusion =/= nuclear fusion

2. Hypermatter is used to conjunction with fusion to confine it to real space

and the two that make hypermatter be tachyonic based, with one declaring annihilation while the other remains silent on the question.

Remaining silent on the issue =/= a contradiction. The ANH novel doesn't mention Mace Windu; I guess that means that there's a contradiction!

Let's also note that the one that makes the declaration is extremely suspicious, for all reasons known. Would you rely on a source that's known to sprout as much bullshit as possible per paragraph, or one that thus far never really acted in such a confrontational way as to be so problematic?

Are you referring to the database or the AotC ICS? The database is not completely reliable, I agree, but neither are many SW tech books; yet they are still canon sources. The AotC ICS is completely internally consistent, and I doubt that you can attribute that to any other source, or even the films themselves.

Most reasonable people try to stay away from the books written or influenced by Saxton. That's more than thus two ICSes by the way.

Stupid red herring. Apparently, you think that most reasonable people shouldn't listen to a PhD astrophysicist. Instead, you go to some tech novel written by a random author that knows little to nothing about science and doesn't even bother to do the most basic of math (AT-AT sizes, anyone?)

No, you don't understand that a theory like that doesn't need to explain the intricate physics of it. You just need to find clues and links. Here, the fact that energy is clearly not provided by the core (it couldn't, it's fusion based, and didn't do enough damage to Despayre at the first two shots), and the fact that hyperspace was involved.
It's that simple.

If it's fusion based, explain why the SW: DS mentions several times the hypermatter reactor in rather explicit detail. I suppose that the protagonists were just bullshitting themselves in their minds.

Your circular reasoning of "fusion -> not DET -> fusion" is ridiculous.

Bull.
I provided several quotes from several sources describing the Death Star or the working of superlasers, either from the Death Star or the Eclipse. Those are quotes which you completely ignored.
And there again, you project your denial.

What several other quotes? Surely, without sarcasm, I must have missed them; bring them forward again please.

They work for me.
The DET simply fails even before Occam's razor comes into play!
Hint: you don't appeal to Occam's razor when your theory doesn't even fit with the fact to begin with, as the OR is made to sorsst out theories that work.
You should know how to use OR better.

The DET theory fits with the facts (including the laws of thermodynamics) better than any other theory you can sprout.

*sigh*
You're just pure gold in comedy, you know that? How can anyone take you seriously after such asinine claims. This is pathetic.
The layperson says solar system all the time for example. Drop that disturbing nonsense about the average joe knowing what a main sequence star is supposed to be, or the even more ludicrous idea that said person would know anything about the ratios relative to each star type.

Let's be completely honest:

If somebody stated that the Federation Starfleet could produce the power of a main sequence star (which is not true, BTW), what would be the first thing that would come to your mind in "main sequence"?

1. You just blatanly ignored an entire section of my post that has shown that there's no such implication. It's a direct statement. You didn't even read what I wrote.

And you still ignore the obvious link between hypermatter and fusion as described in the AotC ICS: they work together.

2. I proved that based on fusion, you couldn't carry around enough mass to produce the energy necessary to meet the lowest of Saxton's figures. You even quote the calculation at the top of the post.

And your circular reasoning goes like this:

"they run on fusion, so they could not possibly be DET" (apparently, Tenn and the other protagonists in SW: DS were just having mental delusions, and the author of the ICS decided to make up a term that meant the same thing as fusion just for the shits and giggles)

"they are not DET, so they have to be fusion"

And you dare claim you're not trolling?

I don't have to "claim" a negative. You have to provide proof that I am intentionally messing with you for the laughs.

Yeah, good thing that providing this figure hardly changes anything.

Yes it does. The planet is fine. Then, a green laser hits it, and it gains a huge amount of energy and is blasted apart. Where does this energy come from? The superlaser, as logic would dictate? No, it comes from some "other source"! What other source? A wizard?

I'm speaking of the Death Star's destruction.

Which shows the planet being shattered and scattered omnidirectionaly at near-relativistic speeds.

You literally butcher my paragraph, fail to correctly read it, post some unrelated figure about scaling down the power based on volume -a figure I know but which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm explaining- and you ask what my point is?
Ok, let's just pretend that you're honest and that you really missed the point. See below:

It does. You see, that e27 watts you mention comes from the reactor; the fact that you use "watts" supports this (unless if this magical "other source" you mention continually produces energy).

And although scaling power down by volume is imperfect, it provides a good rough estimate of the scaled power; especially if you scale it downwards, in which case the calculation becomes conservative.

It's rather obvious. I'm calculating how much the core released when the whole battle station blew up. We can obtain very solid figures which go against DET, and the only rationalization is to have the vast majority of the battle station -and I mean a majority that's like half a dozen orders of magnitude or more- got sucked into hyperspace.
Which would prove, then, that there's so much of matter that gets sucked into hyperspace that there's no reason this wouldn't happen to Alderaan as well, and therefore continue to molest Saxton's figures.

The ANH novel describes just this. Except that unlike your claim that such an event somehow implies a lower power generation, it was described as the "most impressive tombstone in this corner of the cosmos", which would include tombstones such as black holes.

Oh I know, you'll continue to complain with that 0.9999999% percentage or whatever, but facts are facts. Your protests are vain.

"facts are facts"?

What's so silly is that several sources; the two Saxton ICS's and the DS novel, as well as the original ICS quite explicitly and canonically support stellar level power generation levels. Your response? To argue that we should outright ignore these, and citing your own personal, subjective logical chain that takes you several paragraphs to write as evidence to this.

Apparently, you are eager to rationalize figures when they don't agree...unless if they support a high end SW, in which case you are eager to completely dismiss them with every possible "contradiction" that takes you several paragraphs to explain.

Ah, now it's "quotes" instead of sources. No, sorry dude, you fail again. I already proved that if I dissected a source like you did, I could pop the quotes counter very easily. Like by using the database's article, allowing me 4 or 5 different "quotes" right off the bat.
And things would just get ugly if I were to apply the same method to all the quotes I provided about the DS core and superlasers -those you deny the very existence of.
I would pretty much appreciate if I had not to repeat myself about his on and on and on.

Fine then; reduce the number by one. Do you really wish to argue semantics?

And do you actually have a list of sources supporting your side that outnumbers mine? Post all of your sources in order; do they outnumber my six?

And, to the risk of repeating myself for another round of ten strikes, it's said to be fusion based. Can't compute, little SWST?

And according to the explicit statements of the SW: DS novel, hypermatter involves the use of tachyonic particles that exceeds M/AM conversion in real space.

Yes, it is, in this article.

What part of fusion being needed to confine hypermatter to real space don't you understand?

We're not talking about that book but taking a look at the very article you keep pretending goes your way, merely because in reality you cherry pick it, as I have proven in my former post (and which you didn't even read).

On the contrary, I was using the superlaser article, you were using the DS article.

...
The only other broad meaning of fusion is melting. Oh, yes, so the core is based on melting.
It all makes sense!

Maybe wikipedia can help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion

...
Why am I losing my time with you again?

Because you are ardent on claiming that 99.9999999999% of the energy imparted on Alderaan came from some unknown source of magical energy?

Because you think that you can dismiss canon statements that support my side simply because you found another equal status source that might contradict it, instead of rationalizing the two to form a cohesive picture?

WTF?
More Star Drek red herring?

It's what happens when you use stupid semantics to support your argument.

And it's stellar fuel for fusion (nuclear fusion, in case you keep wondering).
No, I think you just don't know enough about the basics of science. I wouldn't claim to be a genius in the domain, but there clearly are some basics you don't have there.
It's sad, but one needs to know a thing or two about physics before attempting to seriously debate a versus topic.
You obviously don't pass.

And this is insufficient to outright dismiss FOUR canon sources! What part of this don't you understand? Maybe it requires "stellar fuel" because it's needed to confine it to real space, or because they can convert hydrogen to tachyons somehow. We don't know, and this does absolutely nothing to contradict four separate sources all supporting DET.

Strawman.

If you did not claim that, then you must admit that e32 joules was imparted at Alderaan. If you want to claim that this came from anywhere other than the superlaser (even though the effect happens right after the superlaser hits it), you can at least explain where this magical energy source is.

Strawjuice.

If you do not claim this, then you must admit that e32 joules was imparted at Alderaan right when the superlaser strikes, and that the superlaser is powered by the hypermatter reactor/whatever reactor.

Because I already did it multiple times.
I posted the quotes, then posted links to the post that contains them several times, everytime when you denied their existence.
At some point I just grew tired of doing it again and again.
So go read the thread.
Now!

No you didn't. Every time I ask you to repeat your sources, you claim that "you already did it".

What's more, your sources are completely unable to warrant outright dismissing the AotC/ROTS ICS's, the SW: DS description of hypermatter, the laws of thermodynamics, the visual footage of the mass of Alderaan being scattered at relativistic speeds, the SW ICS, and the superlaser database.

Obviously. :|

...
Wait!
You were serious?

Fusion does not mean nuclear fusion. What's more, fusion is needed to confine hypermatter to real space.

You see, when you have a "contradiction", you rationalize them. You do not immediately throw out the various sources aligned against you because you do not like them.

You mean SEVERAL other canon sources (books, guides) of equal level, plus the novelization, plus the analysis of the movie.

And I have several sources supporting me too. The obvious rationalization is:

The DS uses a hypermatter reactor, but fusion is needed to confine it to real space. This fusion may or may not be nuclear fusion (SW DS, AotC ICS). All of the superlaser's energy comes from the reactor (SW ICS), and has the energy of the weekly output of several main sequence stars (SW DS).

But I challenge you: go ahead and fine a better rationalization that combines ALL of the sources into a cohesive explanation.

No. The AOTC rationalizes nothing because it claims hypermatter cores are encased in fusion cores. It's absolutely alone in claiming that, and several other sources outright contradict this (including your beloved database article which I returned against you).

What other sources "outright contradict this"? None; some mention the use of fusion reactors, but the AotC ICS supports this too, only that it claims, along with the SW: DS novel and the original ICS, that the DS also uses a hypermatter reactor.

Could you cram more lies into one single line?

"The database is the only source you've provided so far" -- false. Besides, it were you who provided it to begin with. Oh, wait, I guess that means I provided no source at all!!!!1!!!

I used the superlaser database entry. You used the DS database entry. Unlike your method, I try and combine both pieces of evidence; that the DS uses a hypermatter reactor, confined to real space by a fusion reactor (which may or may not be nuclear in nature) to unleash "unthinkable amounts of raw power" capable of destroying a planet.

" meanwhile, four seperate sources imply or state the use of hypermatter." -- see earlier half of this post. The ICS claims a different kind of hypermatter based on annihilation instead of fusion,

Annihilation is a type of fusion. Gosh, what part of this don't you understand?

and the "Death Star" novel doesn't really tell anything aside from the fact that it's tachyon based, which is the only point thus far that it shares with the ICS. The OT:ICS stays mute on the question. The database goes against it, so does the note about the EBP in "Rogue Planet".

The database is explained with a fusion core encasing the hypermatter reactor, meaning that it is almost retconned in a way.

The DS novel's clear description of hypermatter being very different from nuclear fusion is not to be dismissed out of hand, nor is the claim that it exceeds M/AM conversion in real space.

lol.
So you don't even know what a strawman is? Where the fuck am I putting words into your putrid mouth, pray tell?

Your claim that the ICS is "hardly perfect". If it's not a strawman, then it's a stupid tautology. You are attempting to dismiss a canon source simply because it's "hardly perfect".

Just putting the accuracy of the OT:ICS into perspective, that's all.
Funny how they fucked up one of the easiest things to put into that book.

Accuracy of it? It's a canon fact, and it's supported by the two Saxton ICS's, the DS novel and the visual footage of the films depending on how you interpret it. You are attempting to outright dismiss these instead of rationalizing them.

That's a common fallacy that you guys seem to use whenever a source supporting high end SW is used; you think that finding any sketchy, obscure contradiction automatically invalidates it. You especially do this with the AotC ICS, where you use long leaps in logic to attempt to COMPLETELY DISMISS a canon source.

Your failure to grasp the facts is beginning to annoy me.

I have several sources supporting:

1. The use of hypermatter (but also confined by a fusion reactor)
2. Hypermatter > M/AM conversion
3. ALL of the power from the superlaser comes from the hypermatter reactor (SW: ICS)
4. Superlaser has the energy of several main sequence stars

Damn. Heavy metals... for fusion?
No, listen suzie, just post the entire quote from that EGVV, and we'll see by how much you just shot your own foot there.

I don't have the entire quote from it, but it hardly matters. The quote clearly states that the fusion reactors in SW can use pretty much any reactant and fuse it; perhaps by breaking it down first. It's obviously not nuclear fusion.

See, there are those big orange plumes. Those are clearly expanding fast for a very few frames, then come to a form of near-halt. Magic? Yaaaaaay!

Hypocrisy. You want us DET-ers to explain these effects (and use the same "magic" mockery that I use) yet at the same time admit to not knowing where the energy comes from if not from the DS itself, yet claiming that you do not have to explain this, that it could just be from "techno-magic".

What "superlaser theory"?

Your ability to play dumb fails.

What I'm saying is relatively simple. The DET camp has always failed to explain the delay. Actually, Wong has simply denied it. So no need for any explanation.

The DET theory fits with the facts better than any other theory you can think of. The exotic happenings on Alderaan can be attributed to the exotic nature of hypermatter, which does not in any way imply that being exotic means that it produces less energy than it should.

Nowhere in the SW continuity is the energy ever stated to come from somewhere else. I just see Alderaan and a bunch of space; explain to me where this somewhere else could be.

When did I say that there wasn't that much energy?
It's like the hundredth time I'm correcting you on this strawman.

And you still have not explained where this energy comes from, if not from the GIANT GREEN LASER HITING IT.

Go ahead. I'm not even asking you to explain HOW it gets this energy yet; just WHERE IT COMES FROM. Space? Magic? Some super dimension?

It doesn't state that the reactor does that. It states that the beam's power does that.

The SW ICS explicitly states that the power comes from the hypermatter reactor, and the SW: DS states that the hypermatter reactor is needed to power the superlaser.

[quote\
Which fits with what non-DETists claim : the beam, which is funky, clearly has the capability to trigger a reaction that releases that much energy. It has that power, indeed, and it does so by violating rules of realspace, which goes against what the same book said earlier on about how hypermatter reactors would work (by constraining hypermatter to realspace, and therefore its rules, which produces energy).

This completely dodges the question. That is, if 99.9999999999% of the energy did not come from the DS itself but from some other source (which you describe as "techno-magic"), explain why so many sources marvel at and hype the power of the reactor/of the superlaser, yet never mention the super, physics defying chain reaction that is quintillions of times more powerful.

You're claiming that there's some invisible chain reaction going on that is never stated or implied by anyone in all of SW canon.

Besides, there's that funny bit from "Death Star";


The smuggler smiled. "Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the battle station under
construction is large enough to hold, oh, six or eight such weapons, as well as a hypermatter
reactor that could power a small planet. And that it is possible to focus all of this energy into a
single beam-by the largest and most powerful magnetic ring ever made." He looked
expectantly at Ratua.

Mmm... apparently, powering a small planet requires a huuuuge reactor. Doesn't really bode well for those who love to claim incredible power production densities.

Jeez, you must be desperate. Tenn later contradicts this smuggler with information he learns from, presumably, the engineers on the DS that are working on the damn thing, and expresses no doubt over it. But apparently, you think that some random smuggler on a prison planet overrides this?



To sum it up.

1. You feel that the SW: ICS, parts of the SW: DS, the superlaser database entry and all of the Saxton ICS's should be outright dismissed because he found an apparent contradiction, instead of simply rationalizing them.

2. You feel that that only other definition of fusion is melting, for some reason.

3. You feel that "fusion" and "hypermatter" are mutually exclusive contradictions (and fusion wins out, because you like it better), and do not bother trying to combine them together, as the canon AotC ICS does by having them work in conjunction together.

4. You think that 99.9999999999% of the energy imparted onto Alderaan (which you agree was imparted onto it by something) comes from somewhere other than the giant superlaser that hits it. You refuse to explain

a) where this somewhere else is
b) how the hypermatter accesses it
c) why several sources hype the awesome power of the battlestation while never mentioning the physics defying chain reaction that's quintillions of times more powerful
d) why Star Wars does not use this to essentially produce free energy, as superlaser technology is nothing new, and by your logic it magically draws absurd amounts of energy from "somewhere else".

5. You think that occam's razor supports your undefined theory, in which the destruction of Alderaan comes mostly from "somewhere else", and that this somehow explains the exotic effects of the explosion any better than DET.

6. You have not come up with a source directly supporting a chain reaction. An no, an unknown type of fusion being used (which is confirmed in the AotC ICS to be used IN CONJUNCTION WITH HYPERMATTER) is not proof of this.

7. You attempt to claim that hypermatter is fusion despite the explicit descriptions of it in the SW: DS novel. You implicitly dismiss these descriptions, despite being canon.

8. You think that the band of rings and the secondary explosions means that the DS used less energy than physics determines, instead of simply getting that energy in an exotic way. Notice that the latter conforms to the laws of physics far better than the former, which needs to include some magical bundle of energy coming from nowhere.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Please, first edit your post because your citation tags are all messed up. Thank you.
I'll leave you one day to do so before I take your refusal to edit your post as a whole concession. I'm already a split hair away from not bothering to reply to the huge amount of asinine things and other strawmen you've typed, so act quickly.

[Mike DiCenso]

Or Sisko knew that the chemicals would blow up the station and most likely generate a huge explosion due to the fuel, used for the shield generator among other things, would just make a huge firework. It's quite logical when you have the equivalent of perhaps days or fuel if not weeks, to power a shield which can repel typical Dominion ships.
If they used antimatter, they could logically house countless teratons worth of fuel.
Besides, the explosion during the episode don't fit with the super yield. The explosions were very tame, so clearly what blew up was something else in the asteroid, and it is that something else, which Sisko counted on, which was responsible of the giganormous splosion.

Mmm... I noticed that you also failed prey to one of SWST's baits.
I suggest we cut this part of the thread into one uniquely devoted to this event (and eventually ultritium as large), both to make for an easy point of reference and to keep that one clean.

The problem with your theory is that it does not match up with anything that O'Brien or Sisko or anyone else says. The facility they were bombing was a ketracell white resupply depot, not a starship repair and refueling one. The possibility that it could serve both purposes is not entirely out of consideration, but we get nothing that says that is the case:

GARAK: The ship ahead just transmitted a message to the asteroid storage facility. They're requesting to be resupplied with ketracel-white.

DAX: Looks like we've come to the right place.

This also ignores the statements from "The Ship", where a single hit from ultritium shells from the Jem'Hadar could destroy an attack ship that slammed into 90 meters of solid rock at hypersonic speeds, and still remained nearly perfectly intact.

But this is all academic as we've gone over most of this in the isotons thread anyway.

That said, you can also warn STST once more. ;)

Do me a favor and send JMS, Praeothmin, and I the specific instance here by PM. I think I know what you're talking about, but I'd like some good documentation, and with the weekend being a far busier one than expected, it would help us out enormously. Thanks.
-Mike

[Picard]

7. You attempt to claim that hypermatter is fusion despite the explicit descriptions of it in the SW: DS novel. You implicitly dismiss these descriptions, despite being canon.

It is not canon in any way, and canon gives us this:

Children on Tatooine tell each other of the dragons that live inside the suns; smaller cousins of the sun-dragons are supposed to live inside the fusion furnaces that power everything from starships to Podracers.

and this:

Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun.

It's quite clear that Death Star is fusion-powered faliure.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Mike, it would be nice if you showed more objectivity than what you are showing now. Your blatant support of one side of the argument while showing sympathy for people who accuse me of beating off to Wong's wife is highly unsettling.

And Mr O, I take it that you're dropping out. Your aribitrary time limit of a day is pointless and very inconsiderate of the busy scedules of other people. What's more, it is over something as trivial as a small quote mistype...something you could correct in your rebuttal just by deleting a quote tag or adding in an end quote!

[Mike DiCenso]

Mike, it would be nice if you showed more objectivity than what you are showing now. Your blatant support of one side of the argument while showing sympathy for people who accuse me of beating off to Wong's wife is highly unsettling.

Pointing out the errors in your argument is hardly being biased. You made an unsubstantiated claim, and I brought up the canon fact that certain technobabble chemical weapons in Star Trek have insanely high yields.

As for the rest, who is accusing you of this, and when? Please don't just toss something out without a citation. I've asked Mr. O and others accusing you of wrongdoing to document the behavior on your part extensively, and I expect no less of you.

And Mr O, I take it that you're dropping out. Your arbitrary time limit of a day is pointless and very inconsiderate of the busy schedules of other people. What's more, it is over something as trivial as a small quote mistype...something you could correct in your rebuttal just by deleting a quote tag or adding in an end quote!

None of that is being enforced unless you both agree to a formal debate with rules. So until you two do that, I'm not going to enforce any such deadlines, and until then I expect you both to not bring up such things, and claim a concession, or you'll both be issued a warning. JMS has said that claiming a concession is against the rules. So this one is directed to both of you. No more claiming concessions, especially by arbitrary rules neither one of you has agreed upon in the first place.
-Mike

[Admiral Breetai]

he's talking about Mojo or KSW one of them brought up something about Wongs sexual life and then made a jab at SWST

he's been deliberately or other wise twisting it to mean that he was accused of fapping to wongs women..when in fact he was accused of fapping off to wongs doctrine and nothing more if memory serves

basically he's just repeating a distorted comment enough times he hopes it'll become true

[mojo]

...showing sympathy for people who accuse me of beating off to Wong's wife is highly unsettling.

oh man
HOLY SHIT
THANK YOU SWST
i just about fell off my chair
that is DEFINITELY worth being banned for a few days

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

As for the rest, who is accusing you of this, and when? Please don't just toss something out without a citation. I've asked Mr. O and others accusing you of wrongdoing to document the behavior on your part extensively, and I expect no less of you.

Heh sounds more like accusations of WONG "doing" if you ask me lol..:).

[Mr. Oragahn]

And Mr O, I take it that you're dropping out. Your aribitrary time limit of a day is pointless and very inconsiderate of the busy scedules of other people. What's more, it is over something as trivial as a small quote mistype...something you could correct in your rebuttal just by deleting a quote tag or adding in an end quote!

I have no wish to continue this farce. I have highlighted your dishonest methods, I have highlighted some of the most very silly points you made (and yet I didn't use that as an excuse to ignore you, but it still shows that there obviously was something missing there).
I know those debates. I know how it looks like when dealing with people who obviously don't even read quotes or don't watch visual evidence, or have real issues to grasp some of the most simple concepts out there. Your endless deaf repetition and ripping off of Wong's own claims, most of which are really that outdated, just shows that you're arguing for the sake of not coming out of this thread as a loser. For every main point you think you had in your favour, I demonstrated that you were clearly wrong. So you had to lie as well as to go look for new arguments to keep the ball rolling, but quite clearly, the Death Star's power output has been confirmed and is certainly nowhere close to what "you" (read Saxton/Wong) claimed. I presented all too numerous sources showing that there was a stellar fusion core inside the Death Star. You ignored them.
I proved that, again, with the same batch of quotations, full thirds of the superlaser didn't have anywhere the real firepower to even scatter a whole fraction of a planet, which would then give us precious information about the core's output.
I took a look at the Despayre shots and what you did was nothing more than just posting nonsense, only to avoid dealing with the fact that you had no idea how to even begin dent my conclusions. So you also guessed that you could deny the posting of the quotes instead.
We've seen that thus far, only a few sources like the Saxtonian ICSes and the novel "Death Star" make hypermatter clearly not fusion related, and yet both don't necessarily support each other beyond the involvement of tachyonic matter.
You tried to pick two separate descriptions from the novel "Death Star" and conflate them into having them say that the hypermatter core produced more energy than possible within the possibilities of real space, while this is certainly what the descriptions go for: one clearly describes what a hypermatter core generates when such a core, as it happened when a prototype was mounted on an ISD-II, does in real space (when hypermatter is constrained to realspace and thus its rules), and another one, when talking about the superlaser beam (and not the core) and the beam's capacity to actually violate the limitations of real space maximum power production per ounce of matter.
Heck, even Saxton went with the idea that tachyonic matter is annihilated, and thus produces as much energy as antimatter, but with the difference that the annihilation didn't require matter to interact with. What makes Saxton's figures absurd, among other things, is the quantity of such raw fuel that is annihilated per second.

As for my "theory" (big name for what it is), it was certainly superior, like many others, against the old DET one, which is well known for completely disregarding essential elements. Elements such as the delayed explosion. It's baffling how your side has always had refused to compute that part. I never denied that we saw matter ejected very fact, but I pointed out that we also saw matter slow down and a pole caving in (as shown on RSA's website), and I pointed out the remaining asteroid field.
I also repeated myself, in each fucking post, that I didn't deny that there was a large amount of energy that was provided by the core. I even provided several clues as to help quantify this part.
Plus with hyperspace involved and matter sucked into it, we cannot be sure that what we saw is not affected by wonky phenomena relative to hyperspace. Someone here, perhaps KSW but I'm not sure, even suggested that the fast spreading of some matter might be a temporary effect of that interaction with hyperspace.
Oh, and your absurd and desperate rejection of astrophysical facts about the distribution of star in the main sequence branch. That one was funny too, when you went claiming that the lay person would both ignore what the distribution of star types in the main sequence would be, yet would know about the very concept of "main sequence". I had to point out that as far as stars are concerned, the layperson generally stops at a level that has him say solar system for any stellar or star system in space. Yeah, that's about how far they know of space in general. Small stars, big ones, that's all. They know shit about the crucial details, the 400 billion stars count and so on.
What we could see is that you simply didn't have any solid grounds at all, no real clue of what you were dealing with, and just a very vague idea of some key basics of physics. The perpetual motion episode was just too laughable to begin with, just as much as when you appealed to thermodynamics! like if it were some magic instawin trump card or else, and yet would claim about the existence of a type of fusion that wasn't nuclear and would fuse heavy elements directly.

So as far as I'm concerned, it ends there.

[Lucky]

Mike, it would be nice if you showed more objectivity than what you are showing now. Your blatant support of one side of the argument while showing sympathy for people who accuse me of beating off to Wong's wife is highly unsettling.

And Mr O, I take it that you're dropping out. Your aribitrary time limit of a day is pointless and very inconsiderate of the busy scedules of other people. What's more, it is over something as trivial as a small quote mistype...something you could correct in your rebuttal just by deleting a quote tag or adding in an end quote!

If you could take a few minutes to post this why are you so against taking the same amount of time, and correcting your mistake with the quote tags? It's something you should have though to do when you posted the reply in the first place, or requested a moderator do it if you don't know how yourself.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It was during the weekend and we've seen that he'd multi-post several times between Friday's noon and Sunday. I was not going to bother correcting his long post back and forth to see if I had removed the right superfluous quote tags. A simple preview of it, or simply checking his post, would have shown him that there was that problem. No seriously, I also had other things to attend to. Anyway, considering the value of his claims, I'm pretty sure nothing truly substantial was missed.

In retrospect, if I were an EU writer, with all the garbage introduced since Saxton's additions to the EU, I wouldn't know how to deal with the concept of hypermatter.
Perhaps I'd ignore it entirely, and just keep the term hypermatter like if it used a form of condensed fuel with still a low mass per atom which could still be fused in the end.
Or, if I really had to go on with tachyons, I'd certainly limit hypermatter tech to the Death Star, instead of trying to have all large ships in SW use such cores.
All this shit happens because Saxton decided to ignore countless previous sources in order to enforce a ridiculous vision. I wouldn't see any point giving him any respect and would rather stick with the hard work put by countless former EU authors whose treatment of Star Wars didn't involve small starfighters with kilotons of firepower.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

To sum up the flaws in your arguments (unlike what you may claim, the fact that SDN and much of SB does not take you seriously is not a part of the Evil Warsie Conspiracy, nor is the absence of any PHD credential members supporting ST):

1. You use silly false dilemmas. When you find some sources saying hypermatter and others saying fusion, you assume that the contradiction cannot be rationalized and that one must be right. You say this despite the canon rationalization found in the AotC ICS that fusion reactors are used to confine hypermatter reactors to normal space.

2. You assume that your sources showing fusion reaction is more valid than those showing hypermatter reaction, even though both sides are equal level canon. Your support of this is that your sources outnumber mine; even though you have yet to meet my request of you listing out in order your sources, as I have done for mine. Prove that your sources outnumber mine.

3. You tarnish and twist Occam's Razor. For your chain reaction to be true, you have to add in that there is a magical energy source lying somewhere, and that all of the tech books and character never mentioned this* for some reason, and that whenever somebody marvels at the firepower of the superlaser, they are just marveling at the DET portion and forgetting about the quintillions of times more powerful chain reaction. You are also adding on an unexplained chain reaction mechanism that is never stated nor implied in SW continuity.

4. You use the argument that DET would not explain the exotic happenings in the Alderaan destruction event. For one, you think that the superlaser showing exotic components somehow means that the superlaser itself isn't the sole energy being imparted, as if whether the energy is "normal" or "exotic" matters to the debate. You also fail to explain how your theory explains the events any better than DET.

5. You think that the only other definition of fusion other than nuclear fusion is melting.

6. Your theory is undefined.

7. Your theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

8. You take the Saxton ICS's to a far, far higher standard than any other source you use. You think that you can completely, OUTRIGHT DISMISS anything it says by using a vague "this doesn't make sense because...insert several paragraphs of educated but still subjective speculation". You fail to apply this standard to anything else.

9. I may have already said this, but WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR THEORY ABOVE DET? When did you disprove DET? That the superlaser/hypermatter is exotic? Yeah, we know that. Here's something:

The hypermatter reactor being very exotic and the superlaser being even more exotic does NOT, in any way shape or form, mean that 99.999999999999% of the energy for the explosion is coming elsewhere. Exotic energy source is still energy. This is perhaps one of the biggest leaps in logic in the pro ST side. Somehow, you make the connection that "the superlaser is funky" equates to "it is really a billion billion billion trillion times weaker than it would otherwise be"

*Note that the galaxy gun is a chain reaction, and IS EXPLICITLY STATED SO. No character ever disguises this fact with thinly veiled statements like they supposedly do with the superlaser. They state it up front and clearly that it is a chain reaction. Ditto with the sun crusher being a chain reaction, and a device that was planned to destroy the universe or something crazy like that. The characters and tech manuals clearly state when something is a funky chain reaction that it is one; yet according to you, they mysteriously don't say anything when it comes to the superlaser.

Even more, notice how the galaxy gun projectiles are soooo much smaller than the components of the superlaser and the hypermatter reactor, and yet are able to destroy a planet? If the superlaser were a chain reaction, are you saying that they came up with a far, far, far more efficient chain reaction within a few decades?