RSA Debate
Round 5, Part 1b (Death Star Firepower)
(Posted Thursday, October 17, 2002) ... yes, 5 days after my reply
> > Once again, I am going to snip out your off-topic material, as per my statements in the EU post. Your off-topic claims do not have merit or relevance.
> Pot calling the kettle black.
An intriguing claim, though it makes no sense whatsoever. Recall, if you will, my snipping of your sniping, editorial dislodging of your irrelevancies, and so on.
This post will also benefit from snipping out your irrelevancies, since there are so very many this time around, as you attempt to justify with the following:
> > (And, again, how do you hope to disprove anything I might say?
> > Subspace shockwaves? Sure, why not. Trillions of flaming gnomes? Hey,
> > that's great, too. Death Star flatulence? Fantastic. Trillions of
> > flaming flatulating subspace shockwave gnomes? Superb.)
>
> Thank you for being the first to appeal to mockery in round 4,
> despite your own pre-debate stipulation to not do so. This
> pre-emptively nullifies any "concession accepted" sophistry
> you use if I return the favour in round 5.
Well, well, well.
This is entertaining on so many levels simultaneously.
1. You've been attempting to employ mockery since your first post.
That
constitutes a great deal of the snipe-snipping I engaged in.
2. The quoted text above is not an "appeal to mockery", as if there is
no
counterargument present. As per the "again" which you seem not to have
noticed, this is a continuation of previous statements wherein I point
out
the absurdity of your demands for speculation in the absence of data,
pointing out that any effort to make a counterargument to such
speculation
would itself be speculation.
2a. I was, however, mocking you.
3. You erroneously claimed in your third post that I had mocked you in
my
very first reply, and yet now claim that mockery by me *in the fourth
post*
is grounds for the absolutely pitiful behavior you display in your fifth
and
final post.
(Why the sudden change of heart? Most likely, you figured you could
get
away with it this time, now that the debate is just about over.
Further,
such pitiful behavior can serve as a smokescreen for your lack of valid
arguments, which is a part of standard Wongian tactics.
In other words, you'd been dying to engage in your standard childish
antics,
and found something you could try to mangle into an excuse for it (now
that
you thought you could get away with it at the end).
Concession accepted.)
> I believe the audience can look at my posts and see for themselves that
> arguments are MUCH easier to follow BEFORE being dismantled into
> sentence and paragraph fragments.
The sentences link better in the original configuration (due to the
natural
segues), but given your sniping habit I'd have had to remove such segues
anyway. The point which you utterly missed is that the ideas and
concepts
you were trying to refer to were haphazardly strewn about in your post.
Then again, it's unlikely you know what I did to help you, given this:
> > Did you even read my last post?
>
> Of course not! Did I ever CLAIM to? Do I look like the kind of person
> who would ENJOY reading thousands of words of your tedious and defensive
> monologues?
Thank you for coming to this debate, Mike. I'll be accepting your
concession at the door.
> > Also, I note with displeasure that you *continue* to use your
> > prejudicial term "MCR" to refer to the Superlaser Effect, while I
> > still have not used what you considered to be the similarly
> > prejudicial "DET theorist".
>
> Sorry,
Doubtful.
> but MCR is more accurate than "Superlaser Effect"
Even if that were so . . . which it isn't . . . it would still be
prejudicial language, as previously stated.
Your claim about "DET theorist" was that it was improper because it
suggested a monolithic group of individuals with a peculiar belief.
Given
the parroting of you by your 'disciples', mixed with the illogic of your
position, that's hardly an incorrect assessment even if it had been what
was
meant.
>
> Point 1: Parsimony
>
> > This is an example of what I just referred to. I could quote the
next
> > 37 lines and only afterward point out the fact that there is a
> > difference between Occam's Razor and the more rigid Principle of
> > Parsimony, but why should I wait to point out flaws?
> > http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html
>
> In other words, you cannot defend your argument on the basis of
> parsimony OR Occam's Razor,
No, Mike. I can and have defended it just fine . . . Occam and
Parsimony
support my view, due to the reduction of your thousands of different
mechanisms that still don't serve to give even the slightest explanation
to
canon events.
What I do not understand is how you could so horribly mangle a
correction of
your flawed definition into your flawed notion that I somehow suggested
a
weakness in my theory.
> >> And this is where we come to the single biggest problem with your
> >> so-called "theory": it replaces the planetary shield with your MCR,
> >> so the number of terms is the same,
>
> > No Mike, the number of terms is not the same, because the Superlaser
> > Effect does not replace the planetary shield.
>
> Wrong. Your MCR is an extra mechanism which you introduce into the
> equation.
No, Mike. The SF is in the place of DET, not the shield.
(If you refuse to understand the basics of a theory, your argument
against
it will be preposterous . . . remember this in your next debate.)
> > You must (1) have a beam type which operates on the target surface via
> > DET, and (2) a shield which covers the planet and can hold the beam's
> > energy at bay.
>
> > My theory involves (1) a beam type which can induce the Superlaser
> > Effect on relatively dense concentrations of matter.
>
> Wrong yet again. The conventional theory involves a beam which exists,
> and therefore carries mass/energy. It also accepts the laws of
> thermodynamics, which tell us that mass/energy will be exchanged between
> the planet and the beam.
1. I was being kind wrapping it all into one idea, but if you insist on
a
split of (1), go right ahead.
2. You have repeatedly evaded the question of just what you think the
superlaser beam is composed of. As you demonstrate here, you're not
even
sure if it's a particle beam or an energy beam. I find this
entertaining,
given your claim that your theory is better-defined.
3. You appear to be suggesting that the beam type of the Superlaser
Effect
does not exist, and/or does not subscribe to thermodynamics. This is
absurd. Thermodynamics forms the underpinning of my theory, and the
superlaser beam does not cease to exist merely because it is evidently
not
electromagnetic or composed of common particles (i.e. protons,
electrons,
neutrons).
> And finally, it includes a shield which covers at least the facing
> hemisphere and which can briefly block the energy.
Ah . . . now you are backpedaling from a full planetary shield to one
that
conveniently happens to cover the hemisphere facing the observation
point
(albeit, strangely, not the Death Star). That's just another peculiar
convolution of your theory which still doesn't work, for the same
reasons as
have been repeatedly provided regarding a planetary shield.
> All three of these terms are known quantities; the superlaser beam
> exists,
Which works for both.
> the laws of thermodynamics are valid,
And work for both.
> and planetary theatre and global shields are known to exist.
And this is simply your standard planetary shield claim, demonstrated
repeatedly to be incorrect. It is mere dishonesty on your part to
continue
to try to slip planetary shielding in as a known fact. Canonically,
they
haven't come anywhere close to planetary shields.
Further, since you have consistently refused to define what the shield
is
and how it interacts with the superlaser (which is understandable, given
that you don't know what the superlaser beam is composed of), your
efforts
to claim superiority with your "better-defined" theory strike me as
hollow,
Mike.
> Your theory replaces the shield with a mysterious chain reaction which
> you have never properly defined, not even with a simple reaction rate.
The above claim is simply more of your incorrect-but-oft-repeated
foolishness. The Superlaser Effect has been defined, and you have been
given the reaction rate information to the best of the ability of anyone
working with the canon.
> > * And then, once we're done there, you still have to contrive
> > mechanisms to explain the other events . . . the DS2 explosion offset,
> > the ship-killer shots, and so on, as previously explained and ignored.
> > Meanwhile, I've still got one theory, going strong. *
>
> The DS2 explosion offset is caused by the fact that a very rapidly
> heated object will tend to expand from its centre of mass
Are you joking again? Mike, in case you hadn't noticed, it was the
reactor
of the Death Star II that was hit and began to explode. According to
your
beliefs, this should've resulted in an explosion which operated along
standard explosion parameters. Given the wide open spaces of incomplete
DS2
near the centrally-placed reactor, this means that the fiery reactor
explosion should've escaped through those areas. (Not to mention that
you
have no explanation for the small primary blast from the DS2 dish.)
Now, as with your ridiculous Alderaan core claims, you are suggesting
that
the entire volume of the DS2 was magically, evenly heated.
You keep throwing around "thermodynamics" as if it were a magical
incantation, some sort of spell that will somehow alter reality and make
the
canon say what you want it to say. Yet, you don't appear to understand
the
basics of how heat works (and, more importantly, how it doesn't).
No, Mike, you can't explain the DS2 explosion offset in such a blatantly
silly way. The Superlaser Effect is the only explanation which makes
sense.
> I mentioned this in a previous post despite your claims that I
> have not.
You mentioned it in relation to Alderaan, not the DS2.
You also claim that the planar aspect of the ship-killer shot explosions
proves nothing. And yet, you do not bother to make any counterargument
to
that planar nature.
You have made the peculiar counterargument that the shields of those
starships must have utterly and completely different operational
parameters
from the shields of the planet. I find your argument specious.
> >> and even planet-encircling systems such as the one at Endor).
>
> >. . . which is not a planetary shield, unless you wish to claim that
> > there is no difference between a 12,000km ball of rock and a ~900km
> > technological monstrosity.
>
> Your lies and desperate attempts to disprove the existence of planetary
> shields only make YOU look bad, not me.
It is not a lie to point out the horrendous flaws in your
repeated-but-unsupported claim that planetary shields must exist, merely
because you believe in them.
> Han could not land on the Endor
> sanctuary moon unless they deactivated the shield, remember?
And where was he landing? Ah, yes, near the shield generator. And was
that
shield generator shielding a significant area around itself, on the
order of
fifty kilometers?
Yes:
http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/archive/Images/Classic_Trilogy/Locations/
Death_Star_II/DS2RebGraphic2_ROTJvcap.jpg
Once again, you have made a claim about shields based on nothing but
your
imagination.
> I pointed this out in my previous post, and you ignored it.
No, I pointed out that the Endor shield was not planetary in the Canon.
> Also see the ROTJ novelization:
>
> *****
> Ackbar looked at the view-screen; the electronically generated web was
> gone. The moon, and the Death Star, now floated in black, empty,
> unprotected space.
> *****
>
> Did you see that? The moon AND the Death Star.
That's it? That's all you've got? Mike, come on. That quote is in no
way
inconsistent with the screen capture I have provided to you above,
except
via your imagination of what it meant in your imaginative view.
> >> So here are my challenges on point 1:
> >> 1. Define the reactants employed by this reaction,
>
> > As has been done repeatedly. But, once more, it is the matter of the
> > planet.
>
> You think "matter of the planet" is an acceptable chemical definition of
> reactants?
Given that we are not told more than that, it is a perfectly acceptable
definition unless and until more data becomes available.
> >> as well as the reaction products.
>
> > Given that it is described as mass-energy conversion, one logical
> > candidate would be energy, wouldn't you say?
>
> You actually think you can define a chain reaction by saying that
> there's "matter of the planet" on one side and "energy" on the
> other side?
Astonishing . . . do you actually think I *must* speculate on what we
are
not given? Further, do you really believe that a refusal constitutes a
weakness?
That's absurd, Mike. I am being perfectly honest by telling you what we
do
and do not know. Your position requires grand speculations that are
contrary to fact . . . I assume that is why you expect similarly grand
speculation in my theory. However, that is not a reasonable way of
doing
things.
> what we DO know of the explosion
> indicates a wildly inconsistent reaction rate under your "theory". As
> per YOUR theory, it takes more than 1 second for your imaginary "bands
> of brightness" (which you define as the chief indicator of the reaction)
> to reach the opposite side of the planet.
1. Mike, it is still "band", and has always been singular. Your
continuing
ignorance of my theory is sad.
2. The band is the "chief indicator" because that is all that is
visible.
3. If you believe that the band is a figment of my imagination, how the
hell did you manage to figure out how long it took to circle the planet?
> This indicates that the reaction moves around the surface of the
> planet at less than 20,000 km/s.
Or that the visible band effect does, Mike. I realize, based on your
DET
theory, that you prefer to assume what you do not know, but you really
ought
not do so with other people's theories.
> However, I refer you once more to exhibit A:
>
> http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast3.jpg
>
> Roughly 0.08 seconds after impact, one entire hemisphere is already
> glowing white-hot.
In your first post, you suggested that the extent of the glow was
"saturated
video medium". Would you please make up your mind?
> You claim that this is mere light-diffusion from a 23.5 gigaton blast
> at the point of impact,
Get real, Mike. Such an obvious straw man? The 23.5 gigaton figure is
a
limitation which applies to the shot through the clouds, whether from a
Superlaser Effect beam or a DET variety. After the clouds become
invisible,
that limitation no longer applies.
What's amusing here is that you continue to harp on 23.5 gigatons after
the
clouds become invisible. With DET, that's a valid requirement, since
there
could be no additional energy . . . however, my theory deals with energy
release from the target. You seem to have forgotten that fact.
> the atmosphere cannot refract light by more than 90 degrees around
> the curvature of the planet,
Nor have I suggested such a light refraction, since the observed
refraction
is not 90 degrees, but on the order of 45. With the weak natural
sunlight,
Alderaan has already demonstrated a refraction of a couple of dozen
degrees.
Why should we expect it to suddenly be unable to refract very much
brighter
light to a similar if not grander degree?
(For future reference, obvious exaggeration of the visual evidence is
not
helpful to your position, Mike.)
> This shot shows that IF there is no shield (as per YOUR theory), then
> the "reaction" must have initially shot around the planet at a rate of
> nearly half the speed of light!
An absurd conclusion, since it is based on your straw men and
exaggerations.
In my theory, the band should already be some distance from the impact
site,
though we can't directly observe it until Frame 4. Assuming an
Earth-like
planet, it takes at least two frames for the band to travel from zero to
a
point ~3000km from the impact site. That's
36,000km/sec. At the equator, Earth's circumference is 40,000km.
Assuming
you managed to time the band you don't believe in correctly, then it
works
out just fine, thank you.
This actual speed (as opposed to your fanciful version) means that your
claim of a pause in Frame 4 is absurd.
> There are similar reaction-rate inconsistencies in your story about your
> imaginary "bands" moving slowly around the planet and then abruptly and
> violently causing the rest of the planet to explode in one frame later
> on, but I trust that the audience has gotten the point by now.
Oh, I'm sure they have, given that you still insist that the bands are
the
*cause* of the secondary explosion . . . I've already corrected you on
that
several times.
> >> Here is my challenge on point 2: explain how your MCR produces the
> >> fire rings. Do not dismiss the challenge by pretending that you have
> >> already done so (hint: you can't just say "it creates planar
> >> shockwaves" and call that an explanation).
>
> > Once again, you demand an unrequired and illogical specificity of me
> > (and which you obviously do not require of yourself or your own
> > theory).
>
> In other words, you cannot explain how your MCR produces the fire rings,
> just as I cannot explain how a conventional process might produce the
> fire rings.
Absurd, Mike . . . you're choosing to ignore the profound difference:
The
existence of the planar effect is consistent with my theory, and is
shown to
be valid by the evidence of other examples.
Meanwhile, the planar effect is grossly inconsistent with DET theory in
regards to Alderaan, which has no explanation for its presence
elsewhere.
Your claim that it doesn't support either theory is absurd . . . mine is
the
only one consistent with the planar aspect.
> > The planar effects are produced by the Superlaser Effect, and the
> > nuts-and-bolts of this are not known. There is something of a scale
> > factor involved . . . larger converted objects/ more energetic effects
> > create planar effects of a higher order. However, we are not told what
> > the rings are composed of, and it is futile to speculate about the
> > nuts-and-bolts of their origins in the absence of data, and improper
> > to demand it.
>
> Circular logic: stating your conclusion as a fact.
Are you even reading what you reply to? I was not coming to a
conclusion .
. . I was pointing out how improper your argument was (just as I
previously
pointed out how inconsistent your use of it has been).
> > Unlike some people, I go precisely as far as the evidence allows, and
> > no further . . . I don't make wild guesses and hope they stick.
>
> Your MCR is a wild guess.
No, Mike. It is a hypothesis based on the Alderaan evidence,
demonstrated
as valid by the additional discoveries relating to Alderaan and the
evidence
provided by the many other examples.
> It is not supported by the evidence in any
> way, since your only proofs thereof are attacks on the conventional
> theory rather than demonstrating how the MCR can do better
An absurd and oft-repeated lie on your part.
> Point 3: Imaginary "Bands of Brightness"
Yet you magically saw the band earlier. How odd.
> you still managed to snip out the main
> point of the paragraph, so I will repeat it: "Try lighting a book of
> matches at one end. Watch what happens: an exothermal chain reaction
> shoots along the row of matches (which don't glow until it REACHES them)
> until it reaches the end, whereupon it closes in upon itself and ...
> fizzles out."
That was your main point? An analogy which has nothing to do with what
we're talking about? Mike, that's preposterous. Your specious
analogy is
based on your continuing false claim that the band causes the secondary
explosion, but you have already been corrected on this numerous times.
Your
false analogy doesn't prove anything but your own
desperation.
Way to avoid answering my statements regarding Point 3, by the way.
> Point 4: Unsolved Mystery Fallacy 2: Secondary Blast
>
> >> You claim that the "secondary blast" is explained by your MCR.
> >> Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, as I have shown above.
>
> > When? With the strawman argument? Straw men show absolutely
> > nothing, Mike, except what might be very kindly referred to
> > as 'creativity'.
>
> Ah, so you finally admit that you cannot explain the secondary blast
> with your MCR?
Wow. Your leaps beyond logic are truly amazing. Here's a little logic
primer, Mike: if you try to prove X with a straw man, X is *not*
proven.
If I point out that you have failed to prove X with the aforementioned
straw
man, it means X is *still* not proven.
It does *not* mean that I admit X or agree with your peculiar opinion
regarding X.
For the last time, the band *did not* cause the secondary blast in my
theory. It would be illogical to assume a causal relationship of
events in
the absence of data and in light of the many other possibilities, so I
have
not made that claim.
You have continued to insist that I *have* made that claim (in spite of
the
evidence to the contrary and my multiple corrections of you on that
point),
and it served as the bedrock of your claim to the contrary.
Can you not understand that your premises are false, and thus your
conclusion?
> >> For all we know, the superlaser is so intense that it creates
> >> gravitational distortions, and part of the core becomes a short-lived
> >> singularity (which spontaneously detonates in a massive burst of
> >> gamma rays).
>
> > I already created and destroyed this basic concept back in May on ASVS
> > in a lovely brainstorming thread (actually, I was pondering trying to
> > make the core a spinning pulsar to explain the rings, but concluded
> > that it wouldn't work at all). As my brainstorming partner put it:
> > "Hmm, you're right, that is insane. Keen, but insane."
>
> Evading the point, which is NOT to propose a specific explanation
> but to simply point out that there are virtually infinite
> possibilities,
And, so far, they are all hopelessly ridiculous (such as the one you
stated).
> so there is no need to assume that your MCR must be the only
> solution
. . . except for the fact that it's the only explanation that makes
sense
and provides rational causes to what DET theory must chalk up as an
unexplained and unexplainable mystery.
> (particularly since you admit that it does not solve
> the mystery at all).
Riiiiiight.
> > First, the planetary core isn't going to be even remotely massive
> > enough to create a genuine singularity. Second, gravitational
> > distortions of that calibre would create an implosion effect on the
> > planetary debris, if even due to the simple fact that the core would
> > suddenly have to shrink to a diameter measured in meters. Third, you'd
> > be looking at some profound angular momentum increases which are
> > magically able to avoid translating to the rest of the planet, or the
> > material therefrom. Fourth, this is your inertial confinement thing
> > gone haywire, failing due to the same basic problem . . . you're
> > shooting the core with a comparatively small beam; why would the
> > entire core compress in such an orderly fashion, leaving everything
> > else untouched? Finally, why the secondary blast delay, mixed with the
> > explosion offset?
>
> First, it IS possible for low-mass singularities to exist; a planet's
> core is not massive enough to form one NATURALLY, but that is
> irrelevant and you know it.
No, it isn't irrelevant at all. To make a singularity out of Earth,
you'd
have to shrink it down to pea size . . . about .88 cm. That's Earth's
Schwarzschild radius.
So, roughly, you want the entire ~7,000km core of Alderaan to shrink
down to
less than half a centimeter. Pointing out the fact that this is damn
near
impossible (naturally or unnaturally) is a mark against your absurd
claim.
> Second, a low-mass singularity would not cause an implosion
> effect; outside its event horizon, the gravity of a singularity is
> unremarkable,
Unremarkable??? You do realize what the event horizon is, right? It's
that whole "not even light can escape" thing, since the gravity is so
intense that even lightspeed particles cannot avoid capture.
As I said . . . implosion. You'll have a gravitational source pulling
on
that which has nothing holding it up. What's worse, you snipped your
claim
about the Death Star . . . I was responding to your claim that it was
possible for the superlaser to be "so intense that it creates
gravitational
distortions, and part of the core becomes a short-lived singularity".
You don't think a deathray that can squish a planetary core into a pea
with
gravitational distortions will affect the remainder of the planet at
all?
> and it would produce no more gravity than the corresponding
> mass did before.
But, you ignore the fact that now there's nothing holding the rest of
the
planet up.
> Third, since the beam itself does not introduce any angular
> momentum, the angular momentum of the system CANNOT "increase".
> Conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical law!
It demonstrates the inherent weakness of your arguments for you to
expend
such energy on an obvious slip of the fingers. Anyone with common sense
would realize that velocity was being referred to.
> Fourth, the physics of ICF are well-known and observed; rapid
> expansion of outer layers from a laser creates enormous pressure in the
> core, which is how laser-based fusion works;
Yes, and there are numerous lasers, contraptions, and/or techniques used
to
make this a uniform process. One testbed uses approximately 100 lasers,
all
focused on the same tiny target.
Your claim is that one beam, five kilometers in width, can magically
compress the entire ~7,000km core all by itself. Did it not occur to
you
that your claim is absurd, or are you just hoping it might slip by?
> (although it would take some kind of unconventional mechanism in the
> superlaser to produce a singularity, hence the need to point out that
> this is a competitor for your low-energy MCR rather than a component
> of the basic conventional theory).
It doesn't work no matter what you try to add it to. No gravitational
effects are seen, it cannot be expected to cause rings, et cetera, et
cetera.
Wrong again, Mike.
> >> So here is my challenge on point 4: explain why your imaginary "bands
> >> of brightness" would create a massive explosion AFTER running out of
> >> reactant.
>
> > Your challenge is illogical, since it is based on a straw man. My
> > challenge to you would be to explain it via DET theory. You've
> > abandoned the rings as unknown unknowables, and simply ignore the
> > band, but surely you realize you can't ignore every basic fact of the
> > event and still declare your theory about it sound.
>
> Concession accepted.
What, because I refused to take your straw man bait? That's crazy,
Mike.
> You admit that you have no more explanation for the secondary burst
> than I do.
A lie. It is the final, massive energy release of the Superlaser
Effect,
from the material of the planet which fuels it.
What I'm surprised at is that you have admitted that DET can't explain
the
rings or planar effects of any example, and now you're adding the
secondary
blast to the list of things DET fails to explain.
Tell me again why this is your article of faith?
>
> Point 5: Fear of Evidence
>
> > "!"? Why the exclamation? You're *supposed* to dismiss the original
> > versions . . . that's what the Special Editions are for! The Special
> > Editions are the way Lucas wanted it to be, and so he corrected the
> > originals accordingly.
>
> > You insist on the Star Wars Encyclopedia quote elsewhere . . . why
> > ignore its dictate that only the Special Editions are canon?
>
> The SWE states that everything but the Special Editions either "comes in
> second" or is quasi-canon, Robert.
Uh huh. Mike, stop mangling quotes that you yourself previously posted:
"Which brings us to the often-asked question: Just what is Star Wars
canon,
and what is not? The one sure answer: the Star Wars Trilogy Special
Edition-
the three films themselves ... in a close second we have the authorized
adaptations of the films: the novels, radio dramas, and comics. After
that,
almost everything falls into a category of "quasi-canon"."
There's not a single mention of the original films anywhere near canon
territory, just as I told you.
And yet, you want to take the original films, which possibly would be
quasi-canon at best, and have them override the true Canon of the
Special
Editions?
I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.
> Moreover, the fact is that Lucas IS engaging in historical revisionism;
Which he can do, given that whole "he makes the canon" thing.
> Greedo did NOT shoot first.
Much as you deny other quite visible things, you deny the first shot in
the
Absolute Canon. What was it? A suicidal firefly?
> You are the ONLY person out there who insists that Greedo really did
> shoot first.
Like I've said, I don't like it any more than you do . . . I think it
was a
horrendous storytelling error, actually.
That being said, though . . . it's canon. If you want to talk about
canon,
you'll have to deal with it.
> Point 6: Inconsistency (ie- hypocrisy)
>
> > Speaking of extrapolation and 'inconsistency (ie- hypocrisy)': <snip
> > quote from my website about the unreliability of technological
> > extrapolation>
>
> How does that quote mean that we cannot say that a large number of
> theatre shields would constitute a planetary shield?
Like your helicopter example, you do not know that the theatre shield
technology of the time could be linked in such a manner. After all, it
is
your own argument which suggests that shield tech cannot be compared at
face
value.
> > ... What I find absurd is that you seem to be under the impression
> > that the entire DET theory must be tested all at once, and its
> > multiple individual parts are not subject to testing. Even more: when
> > they fail the test, they still cannot be removed from the theory, or
> > else it is a straw man ...
>
> Yadda yadda yadda. In other words, your idea of a "test" is your
> assumption that it cannot possibly exist in the first place,
Counterarguments to your claims have been repeatedly provided, with
Canon
evidence backing me up. A demonstration that your claim is
self-contradictory (Frame 2 vs. Frame 5, etc.) has been provided. None
of
these have been answered, and yet you claim it is a mere assumption on
my
part that there is no shield. How odd.
> Point 7: Alderaan Planetary Shield
> >> Rather than see the visible manifestations of a shield as
> >> evidence of that shield, you insist that there is NO shield and
> >> then challenge us to explain the shield-like manifestations
> >> WITHOUT it!
>
> > Your "visible manifestations" change with the wind. At one point,
> > it's shield . . . in the next frame, it's vaporized surface material.
> > And then you expect me to *disprove* a shield that is only
> > sporadically argued for in the first place, while demanding that I
> > not shift the burden of proof to you.
>
> Yes, at one point it's a shield and then it's vapourized
> surface material; that would represent the moment of shield failure!
That is pitiful, Mike. Your shield argument is self-contradictory, and
you
have no problem with that. Well, sorry, but I do.
When you have a shield argument that does not require completely
different
causes for the exact same effect (seen on the left side of the planet in
Frame 2 and Frame 5, or near the impact zone in Frames 1 and 2), then
you
are at liberty to request another debate.
Until that time, I accept your concession regarding shields, and
therefore
DET.
> > Our level playing field is reality, and the bedrock is canon fact.
> > There is nothing in support of the shield claim, and the shield claim
> > is self-contradictory. It simply doesn't get to play.
>
> In other words, you admit that you refuse to test the conventional
> theory on a level playing field, complete with the shield.
It's been tested. Observations of the canon do not support it, and in
fact
rebuke such a claim. Your arguments for it are self-defeating.
It's been tested. It failed. With it goes DET.
> Point 8: A Candidate for your MCR
>
> >> It is based on simple thermodynamics, and it is known as
> >> mass/heat transfer.
>
> > Astonishing.
> > Your attempt at humor (at least, that's what I hope it is, for your
> > sake) is entertaining, but not seriously capable of matching the
> > Superlaser Effect. As demonstrated, DET does not serve to explain
> > anything, and its demands are contradictory to observed fact.
>
> I see. You dismiss it as a joke, in order to hide the fact that you
> cannot refute it.
?!?
That's what I've been refuting the entire time, Mike. With DET refuted,
you're trotting out the new and improved explanation . . . DET.
Sorry, Mike, but that doesn't cut it.
> Point 9: Energy Level
>
> > Let's look at www.m-w.com (the Merriam-Webster website) and see what
> > else they have to say:
> >
> > "1 a often capitalized : the luminous celestial body around which the
> > earth and other planets revolve, from which they receive heat and
> > light, and which has a mean distance from earth of 93,000,000 miles
> > (150,000,000 kilometers), a linear diameter of 864,000 miles
> > (1,390,000 kilometers), a mass 332,000 times greater than earth, and
> > a mean density about one fourth that of earth b : a celestial body
> > like the sun
> > 2 : the heat or light radiated from the sun
> > 3 : one resembling the sun (as in warmth or brilliance)
> > 4 : the rising or setting of the sun <from sun to sun>"
> >
> > You decided to partially quote #3, and insert your own meaning into it
> > by stripping out "one" (i.e. a person) and inserting the idea of a
> > celestial body instead. However, the only Merriam-Webster implication
> > regarding a celestial body comes in definition 1b: "a celestial body
> > like the sun".
> >
> > I'm not impressed, Mike.
>
> Is that kind of transparent sophistry the best you can do?
Sophistry? You lied about a dictionary quote . . . I corrected your
lie,
and pointed out what the dictionary actually said (which, lo and behold,
did
not support your position one iota).
> I showed that the definition of "sun" merely refers to celestial
> objects which are very luminous, and does not necessarily require
> nuclear fusion.
when did THAT happen? Certainly not with your liberal modifications of
Merriam-Webster. Again, note 1b . . . "a celestial body like the sun".
Are all bright celestial objects like the sun? No. Is your
definition of
bright non-fusion objects supported by your own dictionary source? No.
> You attacked my incomplete quoting of Merriam-Webster but failed to
> refute the point: NOWHERE IN THE FULL DEFINITION IS NUCLEAR FUSION EVEN
> MENTIONED.
How many other objects *not* undergoing fusion are huge hot and bright
spheres around 1.4 million kilometers in diameter, with a density of
around
one quarter of Earth's, and a mass around 300,000 times greater than
Earth?
Note: Neutron stars and white dwarf stars are far too dense to qualify
as
sun-like objects, using your own preferred dictionary source.
> There are lots of ways to be "like" our Sun besides using
> nuclear fusion; the dictionary SPECIFICALLY mentions
> "warmth and brilliance"; it does NOT mention nuclear fusion.
Mike!!! I just explained your lie to you, and now you continue it by
again
quoting the third definition as if it applies to celestial objects!
Is there no end to your dishonesty?
> >> Moreover, this entire line of reasoning is inherently
> >> self-contradictory. I have already pointed out that your theory calls
> >> for the Death Star to be able to convert any arbitrary piece of
> >> matter into energy with its superlaser, but NOT its power reactor.
>
> > This again? I already answered this silly claim last time . . . it's
> > sitting there on your un-formatted reprint, halfway down the page.
> > And I quote:
> >
> > "I was wondering when you were going to attempt that silly argument.
> > What you have failed to consider is one of the basic facts of science
> > and history . . . employing a potentially vast energy source as a
> > weapon is a helluva lot easier than making it into a generator. Making
> > fusion bombs was easy . . . controlled fusion for a reactor is not.
> > Add to that the fact that to make this superweapon, they evidently had
> > to build ridiculously huge starships with massive internal systems
> > dedicated to the weapon. Assuming they could even control the reaction
> > when it is in progress and/or make it controllably self-sustaining
> > (two awfully huge assumptions), the smallest known example of the
> > technology is still enormous, and requires similarly huge fusion
> > reactors just to get it going.
>
> Ah, I see now what your objection was. You should have left it buried,
(Why do you call things "buried" when they're right in front of you?)
> because you are completely wrong on all counts. Nuclear fusion has been
> used as a natural power source for billions of years,
I had to read that twice to make sure my eyes did not deceive me . . .
you
seriously just tried to use the existence of natural stellar fusion to
disprove a concept about technological applications of fusion.
Did it not occur to you how specious and irrelevant that argument was?
That's about the most absurd attempt at a counterargument I've seen from
you
in the past few paragraphs. Are you even trying this time?
> Nuclear fission was also found in a natural fission reactor,
> this time much closer to home, at Oslo.
And now you've done it again!
> Chemical combustion was used for warmth long before it was used for
> weaponry.
We hardly have records regarding fire, Mike. Besides, lightning strikes
have started fires . . . according to your unusual argument, that
somehow
manages to disprove everything I've said.
> Moreover, the "basic facts of science and history" will reveal
> that any given mechanism will be researched under controlled
> conditions LONG before it is implemented on a large scale; that
> is how scientists and engineers work
Research /= generator
I can understand how you missed the distinction, given that you aren't
reading the debate, but it might be helpful for you if you had read it.
> Ah, but what about MAN-MADE nuclear reacitons? Glad you asked.
> Controlled nuclear fission was produced in an atomic "pile" on
> December 2, 1942 in Stagg Field, Chicago,
I assume you're trying to respond to the following:
"Making fusion bombs was easy . . . controlled fusion for a
reactor is not."
In response, you bring up a *fission* reactor which, for one million
dollars, produced half a watt of power.
I'm curious to know just what you thought this had to do with my point,
or
your claim that the Death Star and other space vessels would be powered
by
the Superlaser Effect.
> The only difficulty with nuclear fusion has historically been
> commercial viability, ie- making net-positive energy.
Bingo . . . you're getting closer to figuring it out.
> In the case of your mysterious chain reaction (which requires
> no special confinement and no special materials),
No confinement!? I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty nervous
standing next to a Superlaser Effect reaction, whether it was behind a
thick
wall or not. After all, that wall just so happens to be made of
matter.
> And finally, your argument rests upon the absurd assumption that
> superlaser technology is so new and exotic that the leading
> scientists of the Republic and the Empire were unable to devise
> a weapon from it.
The Republic had no need of it . . . the Empire already had it. Why
would
either of them need to devise a weapon?
> Did it ever occur to you that if a bunch of Geonosians in the Outer
> Rim
Your attempt to play down the Geonosians is absurd. Whether they were
on
the Outer Rim of the Republic is irrelevant . . . they were
weapons-makers
in bed with the Trade Federation, Dooku and the Separatists, et cetera,
et
cetera.
> can design massive-scale implementations on their own,
On their own?
Attack Of The Clones --
Geonosian: "The Jedi must not find our designs for the ultimate
weapon. If
they find out what we are planning to build, we're doomed."
Dooku: "I will take the designs with me to Coruscant. They will be
much safer there, with my master."
Ah, I see . . . you're *assuming* that the Geonosians designed it all by
themselves. I suppose the fact that they handed the design over to
their
partner/leader (not a Geonosian) and that Trade Federation personnel
(also
not Geonosian) were in the room while the thing was displayed on the
wall
means that they knew nothing of it and had no part in it?
I find that assumption rather odd. It was being designed on Geonosis,
but
the idea that the Geonosians were the sole designers is quite a leap.
> decades before ANH, then it is obviously NOT some kind of exotic
> new undeveloped science?
Your argument rests on the assumption of a free exchange of information
among all parties in a "scientific community" format, as opposed to
something akin to the U.S. government's censorship of all things nuclear
during WW2. Further, you're making strange assumptions about the
scientific culture of the time, given that these are people who have
been us
ing fusion for ages.
> Did it occur to you that compound turbolaser technology was
> already widely deployed in AOTC, on the gunships and the
> self-propelled artillery pieces?
So, because it's green and long (no Yoda jokes, please), we are to
assume
that the superlaser is a compound turbolaser? That's crazy, Mike.
Show me
a green beam from a turbolaser-type weapon capable of the Superlaser
Effect,
or anything like it.
> Did it occur to you that the very FIRST prototype of
> an untested piece of technology is invariably a small-scale device,
> rather than an enormous weapon?
Really?
"Gadget", the Trinity test bomb:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/GadgetB339c10.jpg
A replica of "Fat Man" (the technology Gadget tested):
http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/LA_2/LAP-102.jpg
And, for fun, the Stagg Field experiment:
http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/programs/dept/chem/abomb/CP12.jpg
> As an aside, I like the part at the end where you claim that they
> need fusion reactors in order to "get it going".
How else did they power the thing? Magic? I find it more likely they
used
the Death Star reactors, Mike. But, then, I'm not you.
> Here's a hint: they have these things called "spaceships" which could
> obviously use high-density power sources
The first known spaceship to do *anything* with the Superlaser Effect
was
100+ kilometers in diameter, and it wasn't even controlling the reaction
after it was set off.
> Your Weak-Kneed Summary
>
> > In Summary
> > 1. The Principle of Parsimony awards its points to the Superlaser
> > Effect.
> > 2. The existence of the rings and planar effects across the board
> > constitutes proof of SF.
> > 3. Your denial of the bands constitutes an awarding of points to the
> > Superlaser Effect.
> > 4. The existence of the secondary blast points to the SF.
> > 5. The proper acceptance of canon fact (whether or not EU override is
> > required) points to the SF.
> > 6 & 7. The lack of evidence for a planetary shield, the evidence
> > against it, et cetera points to SF.
> > 9. The energy limitations of the Death Star fusion reactor point to
> > SF.
>
> Parsimony rejects extra mechanisms,
In which case, my mechanism stands while your multiple mechanisms (DET +
non-existent shield + that which makes unnecessary Rings + that which
makes
the secondary-blast + Ring-maker for DS explosions, et cetera) fall.
Further, given that my theory actually attempts to explain the
observations,
it is light-years beyond any theory which doesn't even try to do so (and
fails when it does), such as yours.
> particularly undefined ones which have no predictive power.
My theory is defined, and predicted almost every observation made since
that
time (or, as in the case where I was suprised, was consistent with the
observation).
Your DET theory is defined in regards to DET, but not in regards to the
shields, ring-makers, secondary-blast-producer, et cetera. Indeed, you
don't even bother to touch those, preferring to chalk them up to
unexplainable mysteries.
> You have CONCEDED that you cannot explain the fire
> rings and secondary blast any better than I can,
A lie.
> Your ridiculous claims about the nonexistence of planetary shields
> at Alderaan (or even the POSSIBILITY thereof) are based on
. . . canon fact.
> horrible fallacies of syllogism, and you have CONCEDED that you
> refuse to test a shield against the Alderaan observations,
Another lie.
> showing how much you fear it. Your "bands" exist only in
> your fevered wet dreams.
Though you were able to make observations of the band and its speed.
> And finally, your claims about Death Star energy limits are based
> on
. . . that damn canon fact again.
> some of the worst examples of sophistry
Such as "words have meaning".
> and scientific ignorance
Such as "the sun operates via fusion".
> that I have ever seen (I particularly enjoyed the part where you
> proudly quoted the full Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
Someone had to, for honesty's sake.
> of "sun" as proof of your argument, even though it says
> NOTHING about nuclear fusion
. . . except when it refers to those celestial objects which are like
the
sun.
> > Further, I note that you have failed to answer questions of the
> > same class you illogically demand answers to in regards to SF,
> > yet you still claim that DET is a better-defined theory.
>
> For the umpteenth time, DET is a better-defined theory because it has
> a defined mechanism which is known to work (laws of thermodynamics).
However, these cannot be the cause of Alderaan's destruction, given the
canon evidence, and DET does not serve to explain the "mysteries" you so
happily ignore.
> As for the two unsolved mysteries, I never CLAIMED to be able
> to answer those questions.
I have answered those questions, Mike. Concession accepted.
> > As I've said, I do not understand why the argument continues
> > . . . or, more precisely, the reason you continue to argue
> > for your theory is what I do not understand. It fails
> > logically, scientifically, canonically, et cetera, and no
> > matter how many desperate and contrived additions you pile
> > on top of it (or denials of the evidence allowing
> > you to make it simpler), it simply isn't going to work, and
> > the fact that it appears to be an article of faith doesn't
> > make it work, either. Star Wars may be fantasy, but that
> > doesn't mean our attempts to understand it should be.
>
> Pure grandstanding.
Mayhaps it was, mayhaps it wasn't. But it was right.
> While most debaters soften their stance if it appears that their
> position has been weakened in any way, your reaction is the
> opposite: you HARDEN your stance, dig in your heels, and use even
> STRONGER rhetoric.
Incorrect. If it appears, objectively, that my position has been
weakened,
I will soften my stance. However, if someone such as yourself tries to
fling "pernicious falsehoods" at my stance and proclaim it wrong,
subjectively, according to those falsehoods, I will respond by pointing
out
the error of your ways.
***********************************************************
Concluding remarks:
The outcome of this topic of the rational discussion should be as
obvious as
the outcome of the other.
**** The Superlaser Effect:
1. Explains the canon evidence.
2. Demonstrates the link between rings and other superlaser-related
planar
events.
3. Unites and harmonizes all of the canon evidence in a
non-contradictory
fashion.
**** The Direct Energy Transfer concept:
1. Requires that canon evidence be ignored wholesale.
2. It's an Alderaan-specific ad-hoc theory.
3. Doesn't bother to explain the canon evidence that is acknowledged.
****
Mike's effort to argue for DET can be broken down into the following
components:
1. Denial of canon evidence
The band, supposedly a figment of my imagination, was given a speed
measurement by Mike. The polar surface was said not to exist.
2. Denial of canon supremacy
Mike considers the non-canon original versions of the movies a higher
source
than the Special Editions, in direct opposition to Lucas, Sansweet, etc.
3. Self-contradictory arguments
Frame 2 shows a shield, he says. Frame 5 does not. Any brighter blue
area
is vaporization, he asserts. Unless it occurs before Frame 5, he
corrects.
4. Wild unsupported assertions
Invisible shields exist because Mike says so. Invisible beams exist
because
Mike says so.
5. Purposeful ignoring of evidence
The rings and secondary explosion are held to be unexplainable mysteries
by
Mike . . . instead of seeking an answer, he simply ignores these major
elements, holding to a theory which does not explain them.
6. Bald-faced lies
Mike claims I haven't defined my theory. Mike says Parsimony supports
his
theory. Mike feels that planetary shields exist in the canon. Mike
proclaims that according to the dictionary, suns and nuclear fusion have
nothing in common.
7. Ridiculous straw men
Mike says the band caused the secondary blast. He claims that the flash
of
impact is a 23.5 gigaton explosion. He argues that I am assuming no
shield.
8. Just plain stupid arguments (and other contrived absurdities)
The superlaser moves at lightspeed, he says. The Wingless's hull
vaporized
all by itself for no apparent reason. The DS2 ring should've been
visible.
The superlaser could have caused the core to magically collapse a la
ICF.
DET is not required to explain any observation of canon.
9. Illogical and ignoble tactics
Everything DarkStar says is a fallacy, Mike claims. The Superlaser
Effect
is to be referred to by prejudicial language. DarkStar's arguments
need
not be read to be attacked. The Superlaser Effect requires a higher
degree
of proof and elucidation than DET. DET is not required to explain any
observation of canon. And, of course, let's not forget the attempts at
mockery, insults, and so on that he's engaged in since his first post.
****
Once again, the horse has been led to water. Not only is he pissing in
it,
but he's insulting the person who took him to the water in the first
place.
Naturally, Mike Wong's opinion has not changed . . . it will not change.
The Death Star DET concept is an article of faith, and no amount of
logic
will change the mind of the leader of the faithful. Even if every
character
in Episode III mentions "the Death Star's chain reaction", he'll still
choose to ignore it . . . "damn that Lucas anyway, with his
revisionism".
Riiiiight.
"As I've said, I do not understand why the argument continues . . . or,
more
precisely, the reason you continue to argue for your theory is what I do
not
understand. It fails logically, scientifically, canonically, et cetera,
and
no matter how many desperate and contrived additions you pile on top of
it
(or denials of the evidence allowing you to make it simpler), it simply
isn't going to work, and the fact that it appears to be an article of
faith
doesn't make it work, either. Star Wars may be fantasy, but that doesn't
mean our attempts to understand it should be."
DSG2k
So ... did you bother reading all of it? If you have read all of his posts in their entirety, I congratulate you for your endurance.