---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:49:45 -0400 Subject: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D8287A9.9060201@stardestroyer.net> -------- OK, here's the opening round. I disagree with Darkstar on so many subjects that I could fill a book, but I don't have the kind of free time that he has, so I'll restrict myself to a couple of topics. The following post is also on my website at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round1a.html with full screenshots. Since this is a binary newsgroup, I can't post those screenshots here, but I can post all of the text, as follows: RSA Debate Round 1, Part 1 Darkstar, we have many disagreements on many, many, many subjects, but for this debate, I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction theory". However, as a matter of basic principle, it is impossible to hold a rational discussion based on the evidence without first determining what the evidence is, ie- what is admissible. Therefore, we must deal with the issue of Star Wars continuity first. STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION When we try to rationalize a fictional universe, any fan can arguably use any rules of admissibility that he likes, and as long as he is CONSISTENT in the use of that definition, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. I have even dealt with fans who refuse to recognize the Star Wars prequel trilogy! However, objective discussion and analysis is impossible without a widely accepted standard, so we generally defer to the copyright holder. There are TWO kinds of legal copyright: property rights and so-called "moral rights", which go to the legal owner and original creator respectively. In the case of Star Wars, the intellectual property rights are held by Lucasfilm, and moral rights reside with George Lucas. This is a trivial distinction since Mr. Lucas owns Lucasfilm, but it's a much bigger issue with some other sci-fi series. In any case, you have the following to say on your Canon page: "Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use. LucasBooks tries to use the events in the Canon universe in the parallel universe, but the fact that it is a parallel universe explains why Lucas isn't bound by it (as stated by Sansweet)." You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". Unfortunately for you, this is a non sequitur. Yes, official material is not canon, but the overall continuity includes more than just the canon! It also includes most of the official materials, as stated clearly by the Lucasfilm continuity editors: "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." Therefore, if you want to dismiss the EU, you must do more than merely show that it is non-canon; you must show that it is NOT part of the larger OVERALL CONTINUITY, whose existence you seem to deny. Of course, you feel that you can appeal to a higher power than Lucasfilm's continuity editors: George Lucas himself. To this end, you chose to reference "Lucas in Cinescape" with phrases taken out of context rather than the full quote. Luckily, I happen to have the full quote here. Mr. Lucas said: "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] THEY DO INTRUDE IN BETWEEN THE MOVIES. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." (emphasis added) It's pretty obvious why you chose to take the phrase "parallel universe" out of context rather than providing the full quote, isn't it? Once we look at the full quote, we can see that he's actually saying that the official material is valid for all points in the Star Wars timeline other than the movies themselves! Your entire argument is based on a quote which, when viewed in its entirety, directly CONTRADICTS you! Let us review. You said: "the Expanded Universe is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". George Lucas said: "They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they DO intrude in between the movies." Sorry, but George's opinion counts for more than yours. Of course, EU material isn't 100% reliable, but the same could be said of ANY historical source, which is why they must be evaluated as such. The canon films can be thought of as footage of "real" events, while the EU is relegated to the status of historical source (equivalent to books, government records, etc. in real life), but it cannot be discarded out of hand the way you would like, because George made it quite clear that the world of the books DOES "intrude" into his continuity. DEATH STAR FIREPOWER I will refrain from going over old arguments. You have whined for days that it would be unfair to use your own history against you, and many observers will be unfamiliar with them anyway, so I will make a fresh start. Your basic claim is that the Death Star induces an exothermal chain reaction of unknown properties in Alderaan, rather than simply transferring a huge amount of power into it and destroying it. This strikes most people as absurd; after all, the opening crawl of ANH states quite clearly that the Death Star is "an armored space station with enough POWER to destroy an entire planet" (perhaps you've never watched the film). In any case, you claim to have conclusive evidence that the opening crawl of the canon movie is wrong. According to you, the superlaser strikes Alderaan (and you deny the existence of its shield) but damages very little of the planet (you picked an arbitrary 20-30% figure out of thin air, as I recall). Instead of heating the planet or directly causing it to expand, you claim that the superlaser creates an "anti-Genesis effect" which moves over the surface of the planet, spreading outward from the point of contact until it eventually covers the entire surface (I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by introducing Trek-based red herrings, but there it is). As evidence for your bizarre sci-fi technological cross-pollination theory, you cite the fact that the explosion of the far side of the planet lags behind that of the near side, thus implying that the heating/expansion effect of the superlaser's energy transfer is not instantaneously uniform throughout the entire planet's mass and proving the existence of your mysterious exothermal chain reaction (there are some monstrous logical and scientific problems with this "reasoning", but this post will be long enough as it is, so I will restrict myself to discussion of the evidence itself for now). Note: all frames are digitized from my CLV laserdiscs and then inverse-telecined to the original 24fps theatrical framerate for timebase correction. The screenshots are taken from my best-quality Divx-encoded version of the film, not the lower-resolution low-bandwidth version which I made available for download from the Alderaan page (that one was transcoded from the master copy). If it should turn out that you have misrepresented the evidence, then any conclusions you have drawn from your analyses would be judged accordingly. You only made comments on a handful of frames, but I will include a large number of them for the sake of comprehensiveness, and to demonstrate some phenomena which apparently slipped under your radar: Frame 0 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg Frame 1 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg According to you: "The white flash of the superlaser strike." Yes, there's a white flash, but you neglect to mention the "halo effect" outside the atmosphere on the right-hand side, and the unaffected oceans and clouds underneath. Perhaps you weren't paying close attention? Frame 2 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg Rapid propagation of halo effect, which now covers nearly the entire hemisphere despite visibly unaffected oceans underneath. Note rapid propagation of halo effect (perhaps one quarter of the planet's circumference in 1/24 second, which is roughly 0.8c). The halo effect is probably a visible manifestation of the planetary shield's reradiation mechanism. According to you: "The firey explosion begins, mostly near the beam." Again, I must ask: were you paying attention? There is no fiery explosion; there is luminescence but nothing is being thrown away from the planet, and we can clearly see unaffected oceans underneath. Moreover, your contention that it is "mostly near the beam" is simply absurd; the planetary shield is now visibly glowing over nearly a full hemisphere. Frame 3 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-3.jpg Dramatic intensification of halo effect, which is now so bright that it saturates the video medium. Note that the effect intensifies but does not travel much farther around the planet, which is typical of shield absorption/re-radiation characteristics as seen in TPM; they can only dissipate the energy over a limited surface area around the point of contact. The enormous rate of energy dissipation is obviously going to overload the shield's energy handling limits shortly. Without a planetary shield, it would be extremely difficult to explain why the propagation rate starts off so quickly and then slows down so dramatically. Frame 4 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-4.jpg Slight change in the halo effect's physical appearance, although the coverage area has not dramatically changed (note that the far side is still blue). However, the sudden unevenness and colour changes may indicate that the shield has failed. This would imply that the superlaser is drilling into the planet's mass already, although the sheer scale means that there will be a measurable time lag before the surface expands (even at 5% of c, it would take 1 frame for a lower mantle expansion to breach the surface and 5 frames for a core expansion to breach the surface). Intensification without forward progress is consistent with a shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level chain reaction. Frame 5 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg Planetary explosion begins outright. The fire rings must have appeared somewhere between frames 4 and 5, and they are already 1500 km away from surface. Note that they are centred around the planet's core and aligned with the camera angle, not the superlaser. According to you: "The rings and a band of brightness around the center of the beam appear. The band will encircle the globe". What is this band, Darkstar? I don't see any "band"; at best, there are irregularities in the brightness, which are hardly inexplicable in a chaotic explosion. You also say: "the first ring has appeared all the way around the planet, even though that left side (with atmosphere, even) still seems to be stable. (That's the last frame of the superlaser.) Assuming anyone was still alive at this point on the other side of the planet, they must've wondered what the hell was going on." In short, there is a blue tinge at the far side which you use as proof that the far side is completely unaffected. However, one should not read too much into a blue tinge, as we can see in the screenshot below: Frame 5 with frame 0 inverted and superimposed http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg We can see that the planet has already been heated up to such an extent that glowing material has been hurled at least 100-200 km away from the surface at all points around the planet, INCLUDING the far side. I doubt anyone would be lazily "wondering what the hell was going on" when the ground beneath his feet has been heated up to such an extent that it has shot up into the sky and out of the atmosphere! Frame 6 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-6.jpg Continued expansion. Rings expand another 4600 km, thus indicating average velocity of more than 1/3c. Planetary mass continues to expand and heat dramatically, which would be consistent with a blast that expands its mass from within. According to you: "The next frame shows the superlaser target point much darker, with a band of greater brightness around it that reminds me of the Genesis Effect." I must ask: are you watching a different version of the film than the rest of us? Where is this "band of greater brightness" around the superlaser contact point? Are you referring to the fact that the entire planet is glowing and expanding, with two thirds of it expanding at a slightly greater rate? And did you notice that the reddish, or "darkened" region is centred around the MIDDLE of the planet, and not the superlaser contact point as you claim, which was well to the right? Your analysis is certainly starting off on the wrong foot when you seem to develop a case of hysterical blindness while examining the evidence! And what is this "Anti-Genesis Effect"? I don't see any "Anti-Genesis Effect!" All I see is a planet which is rapidly expanding, albeit with a slight asymmetry that is easily explained by energy propagation delay through the planet's mass. Frame 7 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-7.jpg Frame 8 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-8.jpg According to you: "A couple of frames later, the band of brightness has expanded, as have the rings, and the dark patch where the superlaser hit is darker." Again, you seem to be inventing observations out of thin air. The dark patch is now well to the left, while the superlaser was well to the right. And the "band" is white-hot matter shooting into space around the entire planet. Frame 9 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-9.jpg Frame 10 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-10.jpg Frame 11 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg According to you: "It is only when the leftmost section of the ring almost leaves the frame that the band of brightness seems to reach the leftmost horizon of the planet." You go on to conclude that the far side of the planet was basically untouched until this point! However, when we superimpose the colour-inverted planet on the frame, we get: Frame 11, with frame 0 inverted and superimposed http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11a.jpg In this view, it is clear that while there is SOME asymmetry in the explosion, it is easily explained through propagation delays, which are measurable on a planetary scale even at significant fractions of c. Perhaps you have a modified version of the film in your imagination? That is not a "band of brightness"; it is countless billions upon billions of tons of superheated debris flying away from the planet in all directions! The debris field is already 500 km away from the surface at the closest point, and thousands of km away at the farthest point. Again, I must ask if you have some kind of vision problem. This expansion continues for a while, so we skip ahead a few frames to: Frame 27 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-27.jpg Secondary burst begins (you can see that the initial burst is slightly up and to the left, although it is difficult to discern what's going on through the light and debris). Note that the fire ring has slowed down dramatically. After expanding at a rate of more than 1/3 c between frames 5 and 6, it has covered only 22,000 km in the 21 frames since then, for an average velocity of only 25,000 km/s. This indicates that it is SLOWING DOWN despite the lack of a natural braking mechanism in space! It would be a gross understatement to say that the fire rings are a curious phenomenon. Of course, you didn't notice that, but you DID have enough time to say "This secondary explosion is apparently much larger than the first, though it doesn't appear as bright in the first moments (it may have on the opposite side of the planet). It appears to be centered somewhere behind the core of the planet. The second ring is also larger and much faster than the first. The secondary explosion also gives us our first observation of large debris material, appearing to come from the former location of the center of the planet, headed in the general direction the superlaser had come from." Again, I must ask: are you inventing observations in your imagination now? If the second explosion is off-centre, why does its fire ring line up with the first one? And where is this debris heading TOWARD the Death Star that you describe? The next few frames clearly show an explosion that is skewed to the LEFT, not the right: Frame 28 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-28.jpg Frame 29 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-29.jpg Second "fire ring" appears. Note that it matches the first one in both location and alignment, thus indicating that despite the irregular appearance of the "secondary burst", it is still roughly centred on the planet's original core location. Frame 30 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-30.jpg The second fire ring continues to expand, rapidly catching up to the first one which is mysteriously continuing to lose velocity. Frame 31 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-31.jpg Frame 32 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-32.jpg The second fire ring has nearly caught up to the first fire ring. Frame 33 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-33.jpg The second fire ring meets the first ring. Frame 34 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-34.jpg The second fire ring has merged with the first fire ring and both are continuing outward. Note the lack of violent interactions between the two fire rings. After apparently mutilating the evidence in your mind, you conclude: "This suggests that the superlaser only directly destroyed the part of the planet facing it in those first few milliseconds, since there would be no particular reason for a higher concentration of bulk material (from the core or otherwise) to head toward the original location of the beam. It would have to be either because that area of the planet no longer existed (providing no resistance), and/or because something (the secondary explosion, produced somehow by the bands) was giving it a good shove from behind. This also serves to explain why so much of the material of the secondary explosion seemed to fly away and behind the planet, while larger pieces flew forward." However, since the explosion does NOT hurl any more material back toward the Death Star than it does in any other direction, your "observation" turns out to be a fabrication, along with any conclusions reliant upon it. Of course, I recognize that you hang your hat mostly upon the "fire rings" rather than these grossly mistaken observations of yours, but we must deal with one point at a time, in a linear progression. Your analysis of the Alderaan blast appears to be based on either serious vision problems, dishonesty, or perhaps a seriously corrupted version of the film (perhaps you watched it on VHS and were unable to distinguish the well-known colour-bleed problems of the format from the underlying movie). Are you willing to concede that you have either misrepresented the evidence or seen an extremely poor-quality copy of it? I have presented clear evidence that the entire planet is ALREADY expanding in frame 5, its asymmetry is actually skewed AWAY from the superlaser and not toward it as you say, there is NOT an unusual concentration of debris heading back toward the Death Star, the "dark spot" is NOT located at the superlaser contact point, and the two explosions are NOT significantly off-centre from one another. To contest these points would be nearly absurd, since the evidence is in plain view, from the highest-quality available source. If you are willing to concede that your observations are faulty, we can move onto your "fire ring" fallacies in our next exchange (assuming that you pick up this challenge and continue this debate). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris O'Farrell" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:00:21 +1000 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3d8324d8$0$16695$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> -------- Just a question, WHY are you bothering to debate with this guy? I've only followed the whole thing from a distance, but you could throw him into a deep hole and fill it with copies of dozens of sources showing (for example) that the DS operates in DET....and he would still ignore it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <4%Mg9.29462$gf6.916905@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- Game on. "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D8287A9.9060201@stardestroyer.net... > OK, here's the opening round. In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness, your post is relatively on-topic, though there are several slips. As such, I shall reply to the pertinent and/or contested elements of our respective arguments, in keeping with the precepts of rational discussion. > I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction theory". "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. > STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) > However, objective discussion and analysis is > impossible without a widely accepted standard Correct. > In any case, you have the following to say on your Canon page: > > "Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the > books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another > world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, > the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his > movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with > events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use. LucasBooks tries > to use the events in the Canon universe in the parallel universe, but > the fact that it is a parallel universe explains why Lucas isn't bound > by it (as stated by Sansweet)." > > You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe is NOT part > of the official story of Star Wars". Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. > Unfortunately for you, this is a > non sequitur. Yes, official material is not canon, but the overall > continuity includes more than just the canon! It also includes most of > the official materials, as stated clearly by the Lucasfilm continuity > editors: > > "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the > films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of > George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. > However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into > account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works > comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and > tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." > > Therefore, if you want to dismiss the EU, you must do more than merely > show that it is non-canon; you must show that it is NOT part of the > larger OVERALL CONTINUITY, whose existence you seem to deny. Unfortunately, your Insider #23 quote from unnamed "continuity editors" and the interpretation thereof are contrary to the view espoused by George Lucas (dealt with below) and Steve Sansweet, who quotes the following from Chris Cerasi: "There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." (Original emphasis his, in italics) August 17, 2001 http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html He goes on to say that the novelisations of the films, despite the minor differences, "should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies". I assign the 2001 Sansweet-Cerasi quote, as stated on the official Star Wars website, greater weight than the 1994 Insider #23 quote, the speaker(s) of which have never been named or identified to my knowledge. However, I accept the historical significance of the Insider #23 quote, which for seven years constituted the only semi-definitive statement of Canon Policy available. With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the Absolute Canon. *** However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the EU: "The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* Source: Dalton, ASVS - (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&out put=gplain)) I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the films, and *only* the films. Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit are rationalized or discarded. The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to expand in new EU works) is ignored. Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the Canon. Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most reasonable course to determine fact. *** Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. *** Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: (from http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html) "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible." "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event happens in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe." "LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." "Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity." This "in-house" LucasBooks continuity (which I refer to in other places as Continuity, to avoid confusion) is further supported by the following, wherein book-to-book contradictions are discussed: "In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes." Star Wars Insider - quoted by Graeme Dice, and referred to as coming from more recent editions than #23. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2975799602d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF8&selm=3D162313.22ECE20F%40sk.sympatico.ca The aforementioned Sue Rostoni also refers to the in-house continuity of books and material therefrom in a couple of quotes, though she has an annoying habit of referring to this as "the canon", in a manner contradictory to all other usage (thereby proving Cerasi's comment that such terms get thrown around casually): "Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon." -Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001) (N.B. In the following, Rostoni refers to LucasFilms. She had no choice in doing so, since her division, LucasBooks, was not created until 1998.) "To keep it all straight there is 'the Canon,' a time line of major events and the life span of characters prepared by the continuity editors at Lucasfilm and considered the in-house bible of the Star Wars universe. When further reference is needed, there are also stacks of binders listing everything from starship blueprints to the biographies of characters..." -Sue Rostoni, preface to Secrets of Shadows of the Empire, 1996. So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account. *** And now, to Lucas: > Of course, > you feel that you can appeal to a higher power than Lucasfilm's > continuity editors: George Lucas himself. To this end, you chose to > reference "Lucas in Cinescape" with phrases taken out of context rather > than the full quote. Luckily, I happen to have the full quote here. Luck should have had nothing to do with it, and the implication that I attempted to hide the full quote is incorrect. On my site, the full quote from Lucas was first offerred via link to the SpaceBattles thread where the quote was first reported by WatchDog. This was the state of affairs from the inception of the page until shortly thereafter, when I chose to put the full quote on my own site for ease of reference. In both cases, the full quote was accessible via link in the "References" section for all to see. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWEU.html links to: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWLuc.html The only thing missing at present is the slightly-modified version of the Cinescape magazine article which appears on Cinescape's website. Lucas's quote remains the same, but the introductory paragraph is modified. I recently reported this to Cromag in the "A Debate" thread at bbs.stardestroyer.net's Star Wars vs. Star Trek forum, where I offerred the following link: http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=pag e&obj_id=34918 At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding. Lucas is quoted as follows in the July, 2002 Cinescape: ""There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."" Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films. Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a. "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials. Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense, especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU continuity, as per Cerasi. (A listing of Marvel comics appears here (http://www.theforce.net/comics/marvel/mvlMonthly.shtml). Cerasi's confirmation appears within the oft-referenced Sansweet quoting.) The only concept which does make sense is that Lucas is referring to the content of the licensing world, and the Expanded Universe which is a part of it. Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the EU in such a manner: "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the same characters and extending their stories. George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a lot of different people. It works without me." -TV Guide Interview with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe", which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films. > Once we > look at the full quote, we can see that he's actually saying that the > official material is valid for all points in the Star Wars timeline > other than the movies themselves! No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so. > DEATH STAR FIREPOWER > > Your basic claim is that the Death Star induces an exothermal > chain reaction of unknown properties in Alderaan, rather than simply > transferring a huge amount of power into it and destroying it. This > strikes most people as absurd; after all, the opening crawl of ANH > states quite clearly that the Death Star is "an armored space station > with enough POWER to destroy an entire planet" If the quote had stated "firepower", there might be a worthwhile argument to make based on the opening crawl. As it stands, however, there is not. The Superlaser Effect also grants the Death Star the power to destroy an entire planet . . . merely in a different way. The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does this imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. Vader also uses the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." I trust you realize that Vader was not claiming that the Force would allow him to destroy entire solar systems, or entire galaxies, merely by thinking about it. He referred to the capabilities it offerred . . . precognition and so on . . . which could allow control in a way that fear of the Death Star could not. > In any case, you claim to have conclusive evidence that the opening > crawl of the canon movie is wrong. According to you, the superlaser > strikes Alderaan (and you deny the existence of its shield) but damages > very little of the planet Substantially accurate, so far. > Instead of heating the planet or directly > causing it to expand, you claim that the superlaser creates an > "anti-Genesis effect" which moves over the surface of the planet, > spreading outward from the point of contact until it eventually covers > the entire surface Still substantially accurate. The "anti-Genesis" effect you refer to is evident by the band which encircles the globe, meeting itself on the far side at a moment coinciding with the secondary blast, which occurs after the superlaser beam has ceased. > Frame 0 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg > Just before the superlaser makes contact. Note well the white (or, more correctly, brighter blue) cloud pattern which the superlaser beam is about to make contact with. > Frame 1 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg > > According to you: "The white flash of the superlaser strike." Yes, > there's a white flash, but you neglect to mention the "halo effect" > outside the atmosphere on the right-hand side, I neglect to mention a halo effect outside the atmosphere because there is no evidence for it being outside the atmosphere. If one assumes that all planets are approximately spherical, one might notice that Alderaan does not appear to be spherical in your Cap 0. That is because we are seeing part of Alderaan's night side on the right side of the planet, past the terminator. To illuminate this point, I have drawn a circle over Alderaan, using part of your AlderaanBlast-1.jpg screen capture. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-1rsa1.JPG The circle is 103 pixels tall, and 103 pixels wide. You'll note that the entire planet, plus your halo effect, are contained within the circle, with room to spare. Contrary to your interpretation, I see no reason to assume that the halo is extra-atmospheric. It would appear to be caused by atmospheric scattering from a bright light source (i.e. the superlaser point of impact). > and the unaffected oceans and clouds underneath Indeed, this constitutes a severe problem for your Direct Energy Transfer (DET) theory. Without any evidence for a planetary shield, one must assume that the planet was laid bare for the superlaser hit. If that is so, then an energy beam with your calculated energy of 1e38J should have produced severe atmospheric disruption, including but not limited to cloud burn-off, profound ionization effects, and so on. In a prior calculation, I have estimated the energy density per unit volume of a 5 kilometer diameter superlaser beam traveling through the troposphere. The troposphere is the lower 12 kilometers of atmosphere (the rough limit of cloud-tops on Earth, because the stratosphere above is far drier). Assuming that a mere 3.5e24J of energy (about 1/28,570,000,000,000th, or 1/28-trillionth, of your 1e38J figure) would be absorbed evenly throughout that volume of atmosphere (235.6km^3), we have an energy density per volume of 14.6e12J/m^3. That's almost 3.5 kilotons of TNT per cubic meter of Earth-like tropospheric atmosphere. Given that the density at sea level is about four times what it is at the top of the troposphere, it would be a "mere" .9 kilotons or so per cubic meter at the likely height of the thick Alderaan cloud-tops. Some . . . and now, evidently, yourself included . . . have argued that a planetary shield is the explanation. In a way, you are correct . . . it is the only explanation that can possibly explain the situation. However, the attempted explanation does not work in light of the canon facts. When the Death Star II fired on and destroyed Rebel starships, the hulls of those vessels did not show the sort of bright-white illumination Alderaan shows until actual impact of the superlaser against the ships' hulls occurred. (The following screencaps were created from a vidcap, DSCalamari.mpg, graciously provided by Phil Skayhan.) Rebel Starship #1: The Liberty http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari105.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari111.jpg In the second image, the superlaser is one frame away from hitting the hull. There is an unusual delay of the superlaser beam . . . half of what can be seen here appears in one frame (106), takes several additional frames to travel a short distance, then it finally impacts at Frame 112. If the Liberty was shielded, this slowing of the superlaser beam is the only observable effect, with the possible exception of a small green streamer in front of the superlaser beam in frame 107. But, I digress. As you can see (by comparison to 105, if needed) there is no apparent extra light illuminating the hull in frame 111. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari112.jpg In frame 112, impact has occurred. The hull is beginning the explosion which will continue from the exact same point in frame 113, and which will result in the total destruction of the ship. As you can see, a flare of light is finally appearing over the hull, now that destruction is beginning. Rebel Starship #2: Unknown Wingless http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari227.jpg Again, the superlaser one frame before impact. There is no peculiar slowing of the beam on this occasion. The Rebel starship is apparently illuminated only by the sun in frame 227. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari228.jpg Impact. The underbelly of the vessel is now brighter than the planetary clouds beneath, suggesting a hit in the aft ventral region. By the next frame, the ship's outline is still visible, but the vessel is engulfed . . . but we'll come back to that one later. If we are to assume that the Death Star was firing lower-energy shots (which presumably follows from the beams' similar intensity to the Alderaan shot, but with a much smaller beam diameter), it may have been possible for the starship shields to resist for an instant. In any case, this is not seen . . . what is seen is that there is no flash or other evidence of superlaser-shield interaction. Translate back to Alderaan, and the extreme brightness at the targeted area can only be explained as a direct hit to the solid surface. Since no atmospheric effects are observed, we must assume that the atmospherically-absorbed DET was far, far, far less than 3.5e24J, 1/28-trillionth of the 1e38J figure. How much less? Well, even if we assumed that the atmosphere was pure liquid water near the freeze point and at normal sea-level conditions, simply to avoid raising the entire 235.6km^3 volume (a mass of 235,600,000,000,000,000g) 100 degrees Celsius would require that the DET superlaser deposit no more than 98,575,040 TJ into the atmosphere. That is simply to avoid vaporization of the near-freezing water. Converting from terajoules, that is no more than 23.5 gigatons. Naturally, clouds contain much less than that amount of water. A rough estimate from perusing online suggests that the droplets of clouds are in the micron range, and that these have a density of around 100 per cm^3. Ice crystals in clouds would be of similar proportions. "Bulk" water will require far more energy to vaporize than this vapor. In short, DET requires the planetary shield, and badly. However, without canon evidence for a planetary shield, and canon evidence against one working and looking the way it is required by DET for it to look, DET fails. > Frame 2 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg > > The halo effect is > probably a visible manifestation of the planetary shield's reradiation > mechanism. Or simple atmospheric refraction of such incredible brightness occurring at a point on or near the surface where the superlaser hits. Note that we can now see a continuation of the cloud pattern where the superlaser hits, extending past the terminator to the lower right. However, note also that the ground below is still semi-shaded, in keeping with the terminator. This also suggests a simple atmospheric effect, since a point-source of extreme brightness at or very near the surface would directly light up the distant clouds, but could not be expected to directly light the planet's surface over the horizon from the point-source. > According to you: "The firey explosion begins, mostly near the beam." Incorrect. I do not make that comment in reference to the frame (Frame 2) you have provided. Instead, your quote applies to the fourth frame. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html > Frame 3 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-3.jpg > > Dramatic intensification of halo effect, which is now so bright that it > saturates the video medium. Unfortunately, there is no shield halo effect in play. However, the video medium is saturated . . . to the point that even the space around the planet exhibits an increase in brightness of several planetary diameters. The "Superlaser Effect"-proper has now begun in earnest. In the next frame, we will see a more orange color, a characteristic of fire. Hence my comment about a firey explosion. The saturation of the medium will also reduce somewhat, manifesting as a temporarily-lessened 'glow' of the empty space around Alderaan. > > Frame 4 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-4.jpg > > Slight change in the halo effect's physical appearance, although the > coverage area has not dramatically changed (note that the far side is > still blue). Quite correct. Not only does the left side of the planet remain visibly unaffected (besides a possible brightness increase in the area) as I have made reference to previously, but the polar regions also do not appear to have disassembled at all. > This would imply that the > superlaser is drilling into the planet's mass already, although the > sheer scale means that there will be a measurable time lag before the > surface expands (even at 5% of c, it would take 1 frame for a lower > mantle expansion to breach the surface and 5 frames for a core expansion > to breach the surface). Intensification without forward progress is > consistent with a shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level > chain reaction. I disagree. Besides the fact that there is no evidence for a shield, there is also the problem for DET wherein shield failure should not provide for the exact same area to be affected as observed. If a shield had failed, and if the superlaser is indeed "drilling into the planet's mass already" using DET, the expansion perils you mention can only apply to DET, alone. Why? Because the beam must be depositing its energy into a relatively small patch of planet, drilling its way down. Disastrous surface and atmospheric effects would be expected, of course, but the expansion you speak of is only necessary at this time with DET. Meanwhile, the Superlaser Effect theory does not require core or inner/lower mantle effects or visible ejecta from those regions at this point. The crust, upper mantle, and mantle (a.k.a. transition region, down to 650km) are sufficient. Even if one were to argue that we needed to see parts of the mantle as visible ejecta, then at your suggested 5% lightspeed, this would be just barely over a frame at 24fps. Note also that the approximate point of superlaser impact is now a much darker region. I believe this represents the coalescence of the band which will shortly begin to encircle the globe. > Frame 5 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg > > Planetary explosion begins outright. More or less. The left side of the planet definitely remains unaffected, but it looks like the poles are not as cozy as they once were. However, it is hard to tell exactly. > The fire rings must have appeared > somewhere between frames 4 and 5, and they are already 1500 km away from > surface. Note that they are centred around the planet's core and aligned > with the camera angle, not the superlaser. Correct. > According to you: "The rings and a band of brightness around the center > of the beam appear. The band will encircle the globe". What is this > band, Darkstar? I don't see any "band"; at best, there are > irregularities in the brightness, which are hardly inexplicable in a > chaotic explosion. Blank: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband.jpg Marked: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband1.jpg In the above two links, I have attempted, in spite of my utter lack of artistry, to roughly illustrate what I refer to as the globe-encircling band. It is easier to see if you advance the video at about one frame per second, but the bright band is there in any case. As you continue to look at the frames, pay attention to the fact that the surface remains substantially intact until the band passes. > You also say: "the first ring has appeared all the > way around the planet, even though that left side (with atmosphere, > even) still seems to be stable. (That's the last frame of the > superlaser.) Assuming anyone was still alive at this point on the other > side of the planet, they must've wondered what the hell was going on." > > In short, there is a blue tinge at the far side which you use as proof > that the far side is completely unaffected. No, not "completely unaffected" . . . just "stable". In other words, it isn't currently in the process of blowing to smithereens (though I can't imagine the stable surface areas were having a field day at this point). In any case, the surface appears to be holding. However, the area is significantly brighter than it previously was. > However, one should not read > too much into a blue tinge, as we can see in the screenshot below: Actually, one should not read too much into "stable". > Frame 5 with frame 0 inverted and superimposed > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5a.jpg > > We can see that the planet has already been heated up to such an extent > that glowing material has been hurled at least 100-200 km away from the > surface at all points around the planet, INCLUDING the far side. I doubt > anyone would be lazily "wondering what the hell was going on" when the > ground beneath his feet has been heated up to such an extent that it has > shot up into the sky and out of the atmosphere! I have attempted, with questionable success, to replicate your inversion and superimposition technique. However, my abilities at copy-cat image inversion and superimposing are irrelevant. What is relevant is that I have applied the technique to AlderaanBlast-0.jpg and AlderaanBlast-2.jpg. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-0&2invert.jpg As you can see, the same atmospheric brightening on the left is in play here, as is in play in your superimposing of Frame Five. Understandably, it is not to the same extent, but the white sliver of the effect is there. You'll note that according to your argument, Frame Two represents a frame in which a shield is up. However, applying your Frame Five argument to Frame Two must also suggest that "the planet has already been heated to such an extent" that material, mysteriously glowing blue, is being hurled away from the left side of the planet, in spite of the shield, and in spite of the fact that all ejecta observed thus far is orange. I submit that what we are seeing is atmosphere in both cases, especially given that the surface appears stable (i.e. blowing to smithereens not in progress). > Frame 6 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-6.jpg The superlaser beam is no longer visible. > And did you notice that the > reddish, or "darkened" region is centred around the MIDDLE of the > planet, and not the superlaser contact point as you claim, which was > well to the right? First, it should be noted that the reddish-orange region is closer to superlaser-center in Frame Five. Second, A two-dimensional analysis might lead one to come to the conclusion that the reddish-orange area is horribly off-center. However: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-6&1rsa.jpg The above is a partial superimposing of Frame Six, the frame in question, and Frame One, the first frame to show the superlaser hitting the planet. You'll note that the cloud formation which the superlaser struck the central lower half of is positioned at the lower right of the reddish-orange area. Given the location and the curvature on the planetary sphere, some of the reddish-orange area further toward the right may be brightened by the band beyond (i.e. further to the right), as compared to the material we get to see dead-on. In any case, what little deviation there may be does not significantly affect the findings. Now to the DET attempt to explain the same: > All I see is a planet which is rapidly > expanding, albeit with a slight asymmetry that is easily explained by > energy propagation delay through the planet's mass. Why should there be an asymmetry of this type? I do not see how propagation delay would explain an explosion/expansion which, by your own statements, is leaning a little to the left of the superlaser impact point. > Frame 7 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-7.jpg Note that the surface is still just visible on the lower left of the planet. > Frame 8 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-8.jpg > > According to you: "A couple of frames later, the band of brightness has > expanded, as have the rings, and the dark patch where the superlaser hit > is darker." "...as has the ring..." Thank you for pointing out the grammar error, if even inadvertently. As I mention on the page, it is a cut-and-paste from ASVS with pics attached, and I've mentioned the severe need of an update. > Again, you seem to be inventing observations out of thin > air. The dark patch is now well to the left, Which, given that it is the material we are seeing dead-on, makes sense. > Frame 9 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-9.jpg > > Frame 10 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-10.jpg > > Frame 11 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-11.jpg > > According to you: "It is only when the leftmost section of the ring > almost leaves the frame that the band of brightness seems to reach the > leftmost horizon of the planet." This is not accurate. The comments you quote above associate with Frame Nine. By Frame Eleven, the leftmost section of the ring has *already* left the frame, not "almost". > You go on to conclude that the far side > of the planet was basically untouched until this point! I draw no such conclusion on my page. Instead, immediately after the sentence you quote above, I state: "Our view of whatever might remain of the planet is obscured by the mysterious ring and the expanding debris." However, I do not consider the conclusion that the far side of the planet had a relatively stable surface to be improper, given that we do not see surface destruction on a grand scale occurring until the band passes over/through. Prior to the passing of the band, the surface appears stable. Hence my use of the term "destructive band" in prior discussions. > However, when we > superimpose the colour-inverted planet on the frame, we get: ... something irrelevant, since the association of text and frame is in error. > Again, I must ask if you have some kind of vision problem. (Sigh) Concession accepted, again. Carrying on . . . > Frame 27 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-27.jpg > > Secondary burst begins (you can see that the initial burst is slightly > up and to the left, although it is difficult to discern what's going on > through the light and debris). Note: I disagree with the placement of Frame 27 as the beginning of the secondary explosion. The first visible sign should occur at Frame 23, assuming your present version and the DeathStar-SE.avi from your page are paced the same. Further, in the process of watching DeathStar-SE.avi frame-by-frame in that section to determine the proper start point, I have noticed something very unexpected and very unusual which no one else seems to have noticed before. In fact, it is so unexpected and unusual that I may need to revise the admittedly-limited theoretical background of the Superlaser Effect theory to account for it. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DeathStar-SE-Polar.jpg The above is a series of cropped screencaps of the northern polar region of Alderaan. The frames are numbered in the pic according to the frame numbering in DeathStar-SE.avi, but on the version you've been using, DS-SE frame 68 should equal Frame Two. Make note, if you will, that "Santa survives", at least temporarily. There is a planetary surface remaining in the polar region at least until shortly before the secondary explosion. The last frame, 93, is a frame or two before your screencap Frame 27 above. In the frame marked 68, we see the northern polar region just as the superlaser is striking near the equator. In 72, we see the pole partially obscured by the band which is approaching it. In 77, the band is over the polar region, the surface of which is partially obscured by the dark funk over on the left, and quite obscured by the bright band. In 82 you get to see how the band finally becomes obscured by the polar surface as it rounds the pole. The polar surface is still visible in 87, albeit even more obscured by funk. In 91, a firey cloud begins to obscure the polar surface on the right, just as the funk obscures it on th eleft, but it is still visible even into the frame marked 93. I confess to being excited. I thought I'd seen everything there was to see in the clip, but here's new information all of the sudden, yet another piece of data about Alderaan's destruction that no one else has noticed. "Vision problem", my butt. In regards to DET arguments, several revisions would seem to be in order. Most notably, the claim that the band is merely the entire planet glowing and expanding, "white-hot matter shooting into space", makes no sense. I think all DET theorists are left with as an option to explain the bands is total atmosphere burn-off, but since the superlaser couldn't have deposited more than 23.5 gigatons of energy into the atmosphere as mentioned previously, it sounds like you need an energy increase to begin at the surface upon superlaser impact. Sort of a "superlaser effect", if you will. Also, with the left side and now the polar surfaces remaining visibly intact for so long after the termination of the beam, I think it very difficult for DET theorists to maintain their argument. After all, the superlaser beam actually did very little when it struck the planet . . . but it is readily apparent that something else happened afterward. Of course, any DET theory at this point, as before, is an exercise in ad hoc rationalizations. For the Superlaser Effect theory, the new facts will require some sort of revision of some of my earlier hypotheses, which were based on the previously available data. I'm not quite sure what to make of things . . . there may be a similarity with DSCalamari.mpg frames 228 and 229: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari228.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari229.jpg ...where the superlaser hits the Wingless and, though the ship's outline is still visible in the frame, it is absolutely engulfed with a quick, gassy-looking puff that expands and dissipates rapidly, while the ship's actual exploding process occurs in a much smaller area. (Also, I had already planned to point out the possible connection between the secondary blast of Alderaan and the secondary blast which finally wiped out the Liberty after her long, slow primary explosion. Frames 127 and 128 of the DSCalamari clip show the immediately before and immediately after the secondary blast: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari127.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari128.jpg ) In short, the main problem would seem to be that the bands are not as destructive as I thought. With the surface obscured and the debris flying every-which-way, it wasn't too much to conclude that the surface of the planet was so much debris, with that matter being converted into the energy source for the bands. But, this may be contrary to that. Alternately, they're just as destructive as I thought, the "surface" that is still visible is merely mantle of some sort, with the upper layers having been consumed. I'll have to go back and look at some of the alternatives I had previously considered but discarded due to insufficient data. Anyway, there's still enough to go on at the moment to deal with the rest of your claims, so . . . > Note that the fire ring has slowed down > dramatically. After expanding at a rate of more than 1/3 c between > frames 5 and 6, it has covered only 22,000 km in the 21 frames since > then, for an average velocity of only 25,000 km/s. This indicates that > it is SLOWING DOWN despite the lack of a natural braking mechanism in > space! Which suggests that they are not vaporized ejecta, unless gravity took steroids that day. But, I'll come back to that. > It would be a gross understatement to say that the fire rings are > a curious phenomenon. Yes, and they are impossible phenomena for DET to explain. Several theories . . . indeed, several main theories and perhaps two dozen variations . . . have been put forward to explain the rings. The frontrunners (from what I have been able to tell . . . feel free to add more) are: 1. Alderaan shield failure. 1a. Alderaan shield generator overload and destruct. 2. Alderaan hypermatter reactors overloading. 3. A blast wave of vaporized material, ordered into a planar ring by magnetic fields or the planet's rotational energies. Now, two approaches to counterarguments, regarding each particular theory about the rings: A. Alderaan-specific counterarguments: 1. No shield has been observed. Further, the starship examples provide further evidence that not only is their no evidence for a shield, but there is evidence against a shield. Finally, your own argument suggests that shield failure occurred one frame prior to ring formation. 1a. See above. 2. This may explain the origin of Ring One, but not the position . . . the ring's center is the center of the planet. Further, it does not explain Ring Two. Finally, hypermatter is not canon. 3. Does not explain the position of Ring One, nor its origin, since this would require vaporized material to magically encircle the globe, and then depart the surface at significant fractions of lightspeed, carrying (assuming it is a millionth of the mass of Alderaan) no less than 11% of the rotational KE from the planet, instantaneous acceleration to .3c notwithstanding. Further, they apparently aren't vaporized material, judging by the slow-down you mentioned. B. All-Ring-specific counterarguments: 1. The DS2 had no shield upon its destruction, and yet still produced a ring. 1a. see above 2. Hypermatter is not canon, but even if we allow for it the DS2 explosion and ring-formation would seem to disprove it, given that the explosion was not centered at the center of the Death Star II, where the reactor was, but was instead centered on the DS2's center of mass. 3. It is unlikely the DS1 was engaging in rotation . . . they were prepared to fire. DS2 may or may not have been rotating, depending on your opinion of the Jerjerrod story from the novel fitting into the movie. Also, just as a general concept, note the fact that the DET-Alderaan theory has absolutely nothing to offer in regards to the Death Star rings. It is yet another weakness of the DET theory. > Of course, you didn't notice that, but you DID have enough time to say > "This secondary explosion is apparently much larger than the first, > though it doesn't appear as bright in the first moments (it may have on > the opposite side of the planet). It appears to be centered somewhere > behind the core of the planet. The second ring is also larger and much > faster than the first. The secondary explosion also gives us our first > observation of large debris material, appearing to come from the former > location of the center of the planet, headed in the general direction > the superlaser had come from." > > If the second explosion is off-centre, why does its fire ring line > up with the first one? Probably the same reason the first one lined up the way it did, even though the superlaser did not strike the center of the world, but the surface. > And where is this debris heading TOWARD the Death > Star that you describe? They . . . or, more properly, the first one . . . appears in frame 103 of DeathStar-SE.avi, which should translate into frame 35 of your variant. I'm referring to those bigger dark masses of material. Several are visible both above and below the ring seven frames later, hence my use of the term "general direction". Example: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/blind.jpg > The next few frames clearly show an explosion > that is skewed to the LEFT, not the right: I didn't say it skewed to the right, now did I . . . so, why the emphasis? > Frame 28 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-28.jpg > > Frame 29 > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-29.jpg > > Second "fire ring" appears. Note that it matches the first one in both > location and alignment, thus indicating that despite the irregular > appearance of the "secondary burst", it is still roughly centred on the > planet's original core location. And in the region of the center of mass, as with the DS2. But, then, it is rather difficult to precisely determine the position of odd, irregular, luminescent, 500km-deep ring sections. > "This suggests that the superlaser only directly destroyed the part of > the planet facing it in those first few milliseconds, since there would > be no particular reason for a higher concentration of bulk material > (from the core or otherwise) to head toward the original location of the > beam. And, as can be observed by the continued existence of the left side and the pole, I was correct. > It would have to be either because that area of the planet no > longer existed (providing no resistance), and/or because something (the > secondary explosion, produced somehow by the bands) was giving it a good > shove from behind. This also serves to explain why so much of the > material of the secondary explosion seemed to fly away and behind the > planet, while larger pieces flew forward." > > However, since the explosion does NOT hurl any more material back toward > the Death Star than it does in any other direction, Did you see bulk material flying every which way? Didn't think so. All we see is that which heads in the general direction of the Death Star. Sure, there's probably *more* material flying backward (as I said), but the larger pieces flew forward (as I said). > your "observation" > turns out to be a fabrication, along with any conclusions reliant upon it. It is taking a bit of effort to maintain self-restraint against such petty attacks, but not a great amount. Self-control: use it. > Are you willing to concede that you have either misrepresented the > evidence or seen an extremely poor-quality copy of it? I have not misrepresented the evidence, and the only "extremely poor-quality copy" of it that I have is the one I downloaded from your site, and which you earlier admitted to creating. > I have presented > clear evidence that the entire planet is ALREADY expanding in frame 5, Where "entire" does not equal "left side, north pole, etc." > its asymmetry is actually skewed AWAY from the superlaser and not toward > it as you say, Clear evidence, clearly observed from "two-dimensional thinking". > there is NOT an unusual concentration of debris heading > back toward the Death Star, Except for all that dark bulk material I was referring to . . . > the "dark spot" is NOT located at the > superlaser contact point, Not dead-center, but not so far away as to present a problem. > and the two explosions are NOT significantly > off-centre from one another. What? > If you are willing to concede that your observations are faulty, we can > move onto your "fire ring" fallacies in our next exchange My observations *were* faulty . . . I failed to notice the polar region. Besides that little bawble, however, my observations are spot-on. I'll be looking into the surviving-surface evidence, and will be revising my theory accordingly, if required. You and your associates can go gang up on trying to keep the DET theory, and revising the claims about the evidence accordingly. You may also wish to prepare yourself for the attack on DET from the Principle of Parsimony. I do not know what valid defense can be employed by DET theorists, but I'll be curious to see what is attempted. DarkStar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:32:35 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:4%Mg9.29462$gf6.916905@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > relationships > between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other words, "Canon > Policy" > is a blanket term for official dictates of what is and is not fact. You > disagree with this definition here > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), > but such terminology is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) Oops: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Canon.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:20:37 -0500 Subject: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does >this >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it dies. Your point is therefore mooted. >Vader also uses >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next >to >the power of the Force." The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to destroy a planet." Fuckwad. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:16:30 +0800 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message news:pek7oug54n1p89o4d6mj98ao7c4gr7km07@4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" > wrote: > > >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to > >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does > >this > >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can direct > >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. > > If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the > power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate > enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it > dies. Your point is therefore mooted. > > >Vader also uses > >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next > >to > >the power of the Force." > > The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to > destroy a planet." Fuckwad. 1) You really shouldn't interfere, no matter how much you're tempted. You've just blocked off something Wong can use. Now Wong can't use this without looking like he copied it (even though it is a good rebuttal.) 2) I've got him KFed completely, but THOSE are the nits he's picking? Sigh... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:31:53 -0500 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:16:30 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >"Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message >news:pek7oug54n1p89o4d6mj98ao7c4gr7km07@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:29:52 GMT, "DarkStar" >> wrote: >> >> >The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also to >> >capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. Does >> >this >> >imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix which can >direct >> >raw energy toward another person? No. It implies ability. >> >> If you're reasonably trained in hand to hand combat, you have the >> power to take another person's life. As in, your muscles can generate >> enough force to damage somebody else's body to the point where it >> dies. Your point is therefore mooted. >> >> >Vader also uses >> >the term in this way: "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant >next >> >to >> >the power of the Force." >> >> The line is, "The *ability* to destroy a planet," not "The *power* to >> destroy a planet." Fuckwad. > >1) You really shouldn't interfere, no matter how much you're tempted. You've >just blocked off something Wong can use. Now Wong can't use this without >looking like he copied it (even though it is a good rebuttal.) >2) I've got him KFed completely, but THOSE are the nits he's picking? >Sigh... That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:29:19 +0800 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote in message news:i6l7ouo3e68dcgf6auv0i2af3eg7bebb04@4ax.com... > That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only > grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did DarkStar not quote Wong at all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:14:00 -0500 Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:29:19 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has >to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted >parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did >DarkStar not quote Wong at all? It includes quoted parts - his post is roughly 900 lines or so without the Wong parts. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 06:58:46 GMT Subject: Re: DorkStar, you retard (was Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre!) Message-ID: <3D842F56.8090103@shaw.ca> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: > "Iceberg the Dancing Black Mage" wrote: >>That's just a tiny sample. He posted over 1300 lines, and I only >>grabbed about 10 that particularly offended me near the beginning. > > Too bad Wong won't have that option. I really feel sorry for anyone that has > to wade through 1300 lines of RSA Essay. Does 1300+ lines include quoted > parts of Wong's arguments, or is it just DarkStar's Addition, or did > DarkStar not quote Wong at all? Some of it is quoted material. But even if all of Mike's message is there it still means Darkstar's original material is more than twice as long. What was that quote about brevity and wit? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mikewongisgod@hotmail.com (RayCav) Date: 14 Sep 2002 22:03:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- I know this isn't my fight, but.... I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit out of DorkStar now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:22:10 -0700 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "RayCav" wrote in message news:aa319b42.0209142103.2ff7ceab@posting.google.com... > I know this isn't my fight, but.... > > I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit > out of DorkStar now. *Begins calculating if I have enough frequent flyer miles to send a ticket from Arizona to Mississippi* DAMN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:53:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D842E50.7268DA71@daltonator.net> -------- Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz wrote: > > "RayCav" wrote in message > news:aa319b42.0209142103.2ff7ceab@posting.google.com... > > I know this isn't my fight, but.... > > > > I just wanna make it clear that I really wanna beat the living shit > > out of DorkStar now. > > *Begins calculating if I have enough frequent flyer miles to send a ticket from > Arizona to Mississippi* > > DAMN! *psst* Take it to the commentary thread. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:16:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D893376.5010301@stardestroyer.net> -------- Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round2a-1.html, with in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces because of the rapidly expanding length. DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1A: EU INCLUSION ---------------------------------------------- > In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness > Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even mentioning any of my arguments. I thought you said you wanted this debate to focus on the argument, not the man. Concession accepted. > > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction > > theory". > "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. Accepted by whom? By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate, rather than the usual free-for-all. Did you realize what you were asking for? STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other > words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what > is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology > is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) Accepted by whom? > > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe > > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". > Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate. > with the novels coming in second> > With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very > accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their > Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the > Absolute Canon. Red herring fallacy. Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary canon. How does this address my point that something NEED NOT BE CANON in order to be included in the "overall continuity," which is larger than the canon? > However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze > in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the > EU: > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more > interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works > diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive > and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." > "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit > foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a > nugget of truth to them." > Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of > non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted > doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from > the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* > Source: Dalton, ASVS - >(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&output=gplain)) Red herring fallacy. We are currently debating the question of whether the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed. Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons. While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate. All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy". And since the same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written on my Canon page) rather than observation. Thank you for supporting my longstanding conclusion so clearly, albeit inadvertently. > I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: > First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the > films, and *only* the films. Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then using it to justify your conclusion. > Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or > abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If > we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true > or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and "totally useless". By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and history are ALSO useless, since you can't look at any particular data point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc. that we gain some measure of reliability. The situation is similar with historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies. Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation > rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples > and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar > data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally > considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest > themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit > are rationalized or discarded. Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters. > The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization > efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption > the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with > the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. > Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and > therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to > expand in new EU works) is ignored. > Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the > Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we > would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU > "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials > with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the > wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some > abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life scientific and historical documents, many of which are "self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life science and history should be ignored. > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the > Canon. Non sequitur. If one determines the accuracy of an EU statement by "referencing" the canon, it does NOT follow that everything in the EU is invalid except for that which is "borrowed straight from the canon". If canon is "observation" and EU is "history" as I have long maintained, then any EU material which is in direct contradiction with canon is obviously wrong, just as any historical document which describes events that are scientifically impossible is obviously wrong. However, it does NOT follow that everything in every historical document which is not drawn directly from scientific observation is useless. > Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by > definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU > according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore > Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, > but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and > distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such > distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are > contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. Quasi-religious mentality. You seem to think it is possible to analyze something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use invalidates any analysis. This is simply absurd; it is IMPOSSIBLE to analyze ANYTHING without a certain amount of "interpretation and speculation". Did it occur to you that ALL of science is an interpretive and speculative exercise? We take observations, interpret them into numbers and units, construct hypotheses (ie- speculate), etc. We can then verify those hypotheses via more interpretation of new observations. For the THIRD time, I must point out that you have effectively denied the validity of all science and history. > (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as > you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such > a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it > appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our > purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most > reasonable course to determine fact. "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, in an obvious attempt to generate prejudicial feeling against them. This might be somewhat excusable if you could actually show that A leads to B, but you don't even TRY; how on Earth does "interpretation and speculation" lead to "everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught?" Instead of explaining this HIGHLY dubious connection, you merely present some grandstanding. > Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a > statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term > "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire > EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the > Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact > that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise (the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which is then used to support the conclusion. > Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use > term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears > in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating > to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several > references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he > refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: > (from > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html) > "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to > know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. > Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the > comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are > referenced in newer material whenever possible." > "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities > label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This > means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars > timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity ... You are projecting your own behaviour onto me. Unlike you, I do NOT base my argument upon sentence fragments, the way you have analyzed Lucas' choice of the words "parallel universe". The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument; a continuity of some sort must exist, and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating the question of what is included in that continuity, and you have failed to present a shred of evidence that the EU is NOT included. Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go directly AGAINST your case, such as the Cerasi "foggy window" quote and now this: "LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity". Case closed. The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity). > continuity which includes the EU with the exception of material with > the "Infinities logo" and "Star Wars Tales", which they sometimes > erroneously refer to as the "canon" but which is obviously the > "overall continuity" mentioned in SWI> > So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by > the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear > a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, > insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account. Red herring fallacy. The fact that the "overall continuity" is the "in-house continuity of LucasBooks" has nothing to do with the fact that this continuity DOES exist, and that EU material (with a few clearly marked exceptions) is included in that continuity. > pointing out that you have the full quote on a separate, unrelated > page> > At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on > the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding. I am not insinuating; I am stating fact. You chose to analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT on your canon page rather than the full quote. The fact that the full quote is buried somewhere else on your website does not excuse this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of context" fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his continuity despite its obvious relevance. > > Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel > universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films. You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. It does you no good to repeat an argument which proves nothing. > Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as > being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead > only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company > operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say > Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. > However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a. > "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to > be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of > time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go > inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar > to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of > anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a > movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such > as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials. Red herring fallacy (or possibly strawman fallacy, depending on how one wishes to interpret your intent). I don't know who these anonymous people are whose arguments you wish to refute in our debate, but they are not ME, so drop it. If you had bothered reading my original post instead of ignoring it and attacking these mysterious, anonymous people, you would have seen that I obviously think when Lucas says his movies occupy a "select period of time", he's referring to the fictional timeline of the Star Wars universe, not the real-life 1970's and 1980's in which he made the original trilogy. > Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his > reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the > fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part > of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense, > especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I > "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic > adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly > "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and > the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU > continuity, as per Cerasi. Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another. George Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with varying precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is inherently fallacious, to say nothing of a sentence fragment from a verbal interview, in which he could not have chosen his words so carefully as to permit such semantic analysis. One can only derive very general statements from such interviews, such as his clear statement that the EU and canon are separate, and that they cover different points in the same timeline. Rather than trying to analyze PRECISELY what he means by "parallel universe" or "intrude", you should recognize that in a general sense, he obviously made it clear that the EU definitely has SOME validity, which is more than enough to disprove your assertion that it should be completely ignored. If you are going to wrangle over its precise boundaries, then you are already implicitly accepting that it does have validity. Concession accepted. > Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the > EU in such a manner: > "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the > same characters and extending their stories. > George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star > Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a > lot of different people. It works without me."- TV Guide Interview > with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 > Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe", > which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon > . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films. Again, you analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT rather than the full quote. Again, you make a daring leap in logic from "EU is outside canon" to "there is no continuity outside canon". George does NOT say that his "little universe" (ie- canon) is the TOTALITY of Star Wars continuity; that is an inference which you derive by analyzing the semantics of SENTENCE FRAGMENTS. When any one of his quotes is viewed in full, it is obvious that he's saying precisely the OPPOSITE of what you're saying; he's saying that Star Wars is larger than his "little universe" of the canon. > No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU > continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is > acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is > not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars > history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel > universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so. Non sequitur. So Lucas is not "bound" by the EU; how does it follow that the EU is worthless? Star Trek's writers routinely ignored precedent set by previous episodes or series; does that make previous series worthless? He and his licensing firm have publicly stated that the EU is included in the continuity. How we analyze it is a separate question, but its inclusion is indisputable. Summary You argue on your website that the EU and canon are separate. I agree that they are separate, but I argue that they are BOTH included in the overall continuity, which is larger than the canon, and I point out that you are relying upon a Lucas sentence fragment rather than the full quote. You retort that they are separate, and provide many quotes to support this claim, totally ignoring the fact that I've already agreed that they are separate. Then, you attempt to analyze another Lucas sentence FRAGMENT in order to support your standing non sequitur. Are you capable of recognizing how you utterly failed to address the point? Worse yet, you contradict yourself by inadvertently providing quotes such as Cerasi's "foggy windows" quote which show that the EU is valid, albeit imperfect, and then you pile logical fallacies on top of that mistake by employing "black and white" fallacies to argue that "valid but imperfect" is the same as being totally excluded! By admitting that the EU represents a window onto the Star Wars universe according to LucasBooks (and failing to provide anything more subtantive than a Lucas sentence FRAGMENT to contradict them), you have admitted that you were wrong about the EU not being a part of the story at all. You are attempting to cover for this concession by making the utterly outlandish argument that imperfection makes useful analysis impossible, but that does not change the fact that you quietly conceded the point. Are you capable of admitting this? ------------------------ Part 2 to follow shortly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:35:50 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D893376.5010301@stardestroyer.net... > Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round2a-1.html, with > in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces > because of the rapidly expanding length. > > > > DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1A: EU INCLUSION > ---------------------------------------------- > > > In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness > > > > Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even > mentioning any of my arguments. 1. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/index.html 2. I said: "In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness, your post is relatively on-topic, though there are several slips. As such, I shall reply to the pertinent and/or contested elements of our respective arguments, in keeping with the precepts of rational discussion." That means that I did not attempt to claim that your behavior had a bearing on the truth value of your arguments (the definition of ad hominem) . . . indeed, I indicated that I was about to reply to the arguments, in answer to your statement "assuming that you pick up this challenge and continue this debate" which appeared at the end of your first post. Once again, I intend to reply to the on-topic matters. All else is irrelevant. ************** Advance summary (for any who feel my length and verbosity are overwhelming): re: Canon Policy - Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, etc. 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the canon exists for Lucas. 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon. 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks. *************** And now, the reply: > > > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction > > > theory". > > "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term. > > Accepted by whom? The creator of the theory, certain members of your message board, and those I have corresponded with via e-mail and website feedback on the subject. > By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick. It is a correction of your terminology. It does not imply or suggest a claim about the truth-value of your argument, nor is it an effort to draw attention away from the topic. > > STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION > > > (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and > > relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other > > words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what > > is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here > > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology > > is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.) > > Accepted by whom? Myself, along with members of various message boards, ASVS, and so on. > > > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe > > > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars". > > Emphasis yours. Please be more careful. > > Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate. > Misquotations have no place in rational debate. As before, it was a correction, and not a claim as to the truth or falsehood of your arguments, nor was it an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand. > > > with the novels coming in second> No, I think it is important to have that quote readily available and in one's mind, lest misunderstanding occur: "There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." (Original emphasis his, in italics) - Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks, as quoted by Steve Sansweet, Fan Relations, LFL. > > With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very > > accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their > > Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the > > Absolute Canon. > > Red herring fallacy. This third accusation of a red herring is also inaccurate. In this case, I was explaining my position on intra-canonical relationships for the sake of clarity, lest my position be misunderstood or open to misrepresentation. Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is not a red herring. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html > Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary > canon. Actually, this is not readily apparent from the Cerasi quote, hence my brief exposition. Remember, he said that "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon films, "and *only* the films". Sansweet may have cleared this issue up a bit for Australian fans during a convention there: "Steven Sansweet said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict his creativity in any way."" http://www.peak.org/peak_info/mlists/info/prequels.html > > However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze > > in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the > > EU: > > > "The further one branches away from the movies, the more > > interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works > > diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive > > and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation." > > > "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a > > window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit > > foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a > > nugget of truth to them." > > > Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of > > non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted > > doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from > > the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (* > > Source: Dalton, ASVS - > >(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D38B610.C1BC60E4%40daltonator.net&ou tput=gplain)) > > Red herring fallacy. Incorrect, for the fourth time (see below): > We are currently debating the question of whether > the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed. We are not debating in a vacuum. The present beliefs on the EU are valid segues toward understanding the Canon Policy as it should be understood, if only as negative examples. It is not an argument on the manner of analysis, but on the treatment of the data in regards to its perceived truth-value. > Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons. Nor was such a thing suggested in the quote of me provided above. > While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous > red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate. Similarly, claims against your opponent, such as "gratuitous red-herring attacks", are also irrelevant, and have no place in what is ostensibly a rational discussion. > All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more > evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy". Incorrect: I have provided the quote and the analysis as to why it cannot be used to suggest that the EU is valid, on the grounds that it cannot accurately represent the real story of Star Wars, owing to the fact that it is (a) not the real story of Star Wars and (b) capable of grave errors. > And since the > same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have > helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material > should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written > on my Canon page) rather than observation. A. "Historical literature and narrative" is not generally considered a valid primary source for such things as firepower estimates, materials strength, and so on. B. You may consider the following an ad hominem, and it is your right to do so . . . I am about to point out that what is preached is not practiced. You just mentioned your website . . . it contains the claim that the EU materials are historical literature and are to be treated as such (including considering them "highly suspect" works "written from the point of view of the New Republic", possibly capable of being "coloured by the author's bias, competence, and data-gathering limitations"(as stated here), and that it cannot be analyzed as scientific data). http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html#Analyze However, it cannot be left unsaid that this is not the observed approach on your pages, or in Vs. Debates in general. For instance, in spite of canon ANH novel quotes of the Empire having a million systems, you give them twelve million inhabited systems, as per Dark Empire's non-canon figures (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Industry/Industry2.html). According to Dark Horse Comics (http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_starwars/zp_timeline/index.html), Dark Empire was only 10 years after ANH, in which case you're suggesting that a million-system society suddenly decided to colonize 1.1 million systems per year on average, during a time of civil war and the aftermath thereof. Your page also includes the argument that the Empire is galaxy-wide, as per "Behind the Magic" maps, whereas Kamino, canonically stated to be "beyond the outer rim" in Episode II, is shown to be well within the galaxy, very near or possibly within the core (http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWkamino.html). > > I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds: > > First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the > > films, and *only* the films. > > Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then > using it to justify your conclusion. Incorrect: what you believe to be my conclusion is in fact the statement by Cerasi and Sansweet, which I quoted again at the start of this post for just this reason. > > Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or > > abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If > > we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true > > or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer. > > Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and > "totally useless". I presume you refer to the fallacy of the false dilemma. Again, this is yet another incorrect accusation of fallacy, for two reasons: 1. Cerasi uses the term "only", which is logically exclusive. If A is only A, then it cannot also be not-A, nor can B, C, or D be allowed to try to masquerade as A. 2. The practice of using the rule "canon unless contradicted" (or, in some cases, "canon even if contradicted") is not a middle-ground position. EU data is perceived and used as either true or false . . . the 'provisional' truth-value does not affect the fact that it is considered true, and that EU data points are offerred as canon statements of fact when not contradicted. > By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and > history are ALSO useless, Incorrect anyway, but even if it were it would be irrelevant: "slippery slope fallacy". > since you can't look at any particular data > point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely > accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher > error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through > looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc. > that we gain some measure of reliability. False analogy: Science involves gathering the best, most reliable data possible and formulating or testing hypotheses from that evidence. There is no such thing as canon evidence to work with . . . there are no numbers, figures, or formulas dropped into a scientist's lap from on high, except those discovered by an objective, empirical analysis of nature. In the case of the EU, we are told that there is error. "Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract." In other words, over and above measurement errors, researcher error, incompetence, or dishonesty in reference to the facts contained in the EU, because some of *the facts themselves* are errors and lies. We are also told where to find the only "real story of Star Wars" . . . the absolute canon of the films. That is the best, most reliable data possible. So, to allow EU speculation into one's evidence set wholesale invites error in one's conclusions. > The situation is similar with > historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies. And, in keeping with your statements that the EU should be treated as historical documents, the EU is rendered a worse data set for use in determining fact. > Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute > certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > True. However, evidence which is known to be certain by definition is a superior source than a historical document known to be riddled with error. > > The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation > > rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples > > and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar > > data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally > > considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest > > themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit > > are rationalized or discarded. > > Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of > preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU > material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting > to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in > OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters. Incorrect, for the fifth time, on multiple counts. First, your own web pages are an example, meaning I do not refer solely to any "OTHER"s. Second, the way in which EU data is treated under current Canon Policy misconceptions is a valid segue toward understanding how it should be treated. > > The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization > > efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption > > the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with > > the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example. > > Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and > > therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to > > expand in new EU works) is ignored. > > > Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the > > Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we > > would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU > > "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials > > with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the > > wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some > > abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth. > > Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life > scientific and historical documents, many of which are > "self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your > bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life > science and history should be ignored. Incorrect: your statement is based on a continuing false analogy, mixed with a slippery slope fallacy. Further, science is not self-referential in the way the EU is. The only real story of Star Wars is the films . . . it is the best, most reliable data from which to draw conclusions. The "historical literature" of the EU does not limit itself to these facts, but instead creates its own and references them frequently. > > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue > > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is > > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a > > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where > > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated > > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a > > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand > > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of > > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the > > Canon. > > Non sequitur. Incorrect: your claim of a non sequitur is based on misunderstanding, caused by slicing through the argument in the middle of it. > > Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by > > definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU > > according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore > > Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, > > but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and > > distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such > > distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are > > contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. > > Quasi-religious mentality. Prejudicial language is irrelevant, and given our opinions on religious mentality, that's a thinly-veiled ad hominem. Joke -> Of course, we *are* sitting here talking about canon-this and canon-that. Let's just randomly pick 66 books of EU material, call it divine, and be done with it. :) > You seem to think it is possible to analyze > something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use > invalidates any analysis. Misrepresentation: I stated that "it is to allow 'interpretation and speculation' and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking." Nowhere does that statement imply or require what you claim it does. What the statement does imply and require is the fact that the interpretation and speculation -- Cerasi's foggy windows -- place an additional layer of potential error between the one doing analysis and the Canon data to be analyzed. The EU distorts the Canon . . . nowhere is this more evident than your own use of non-canon distance and time figures in reference to Canon journeys. > > (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as > > you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such > > a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it > > appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our > > purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most > > reasonable course to determine fact. > > "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who > would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, No, I used an analogy in reference to the "questionable intellectual honesty" sentence, where I discussed the practice of allowing the EU to guide one's thinking. I expected the reader to have comprehended the previous point that allowing the EU was to engage in the practice of considering EU materials canon unless contradicted. > > Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a > > statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term > > "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire > > EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the > > Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact > > that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films. > > Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise > (the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which > is then used to support the conclusion. Incorrect: my statement is based on the Cerasi quote. Further, I note that there is no response in regards to the insufficient evidence for formal inclusion of the EU materials based on the Insider #23 quote. Also, it is quite interesting that the previously unnamed individuals phrased the Insider #23 quote that way. The two individuals were none other than Sue Rostoni of the book department, and Allan Kausch of Lucas Licensing. This adds an additional measure of certainty to the fact that they referred to the in-house continuity that is an acknowledge part of the EU. > > Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use > > term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears > > in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating > > to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several > > references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he > > refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel: > > > (from > > http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc20010817.html) > > "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to > > know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. > > Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the > > comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are > > referenced in newer material whenever possible." > > > "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities > > label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This > > means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars > > timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity ... > > The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument; Then why use it in all-caps and assert that I deny its existence? > a continuity of some sort must exist, Correct: a continuity of some sort must exist if we are to assume that Star Wars has a consistency and story that is to make sense. > and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating the question > of what is included in that continuity, and you have failed to present a > shred of evidence that the EU is NOT included. Contrary to fact: we know what the real story of Star Wars is . . . it is the films, "and *only* the films"(Cerasi, quoted by Sansweet). > > Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go > directly AGAINST your case, such as the Cerasi "foggy window" quote and > now this: "LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity". > Case closed. Illogical: LucasBooks' internal position on the EU's Continuity does not override Lucas or LucasFilm. > The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a > particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that > the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special > label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything > not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity). And here we arrive at the peculiar notion that I have previously labelled the "Continuity Whiplash Theory". You say that the Infinities label does not imply EU non-canonicity, yet then choose to assume the reverse, that the EU moves closer to canonicity because it places some of its own works outside its own Continuity. This makes no sense. If A is A and X is X, then just because some former X is turned into not-X does not make X A or closer to being A. > > > continuity which includes the EU with the exception of material with > > the "Infinities logo" and "Star Wars Tales", which they sometimes > > erroneously refer to as the "canon" but which is obviously the > > "overall continuity" mentioned in SWI> > > So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by > > the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear > > a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, > > insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account. > > Red herring fallacy. The fact that the "overall continuity" is the > "in-house continuity of LucasBooks" has nothing to do with the fact that > this continuity DOES exist, and that EU material (with a few clearly > marked exceptions) is included in that continuity. Your sixth incorrect accusation of a fallacy is joined by the admission that LucasBooks' continuity is an in-house affair. LucasBooks *does not* override Lucas or LucasFilm. Therefore, the existence or non-existence of an in-house continuity by another group is irrelevant. Further, it constitutes additional evidence that the EU is part of a parallel universe, as per Lucas, since his canon universe is not obligated to follow the EU stories or LucasBooks' policies in reference to them. > > > pointing out that you have the full quote on a separate, unrelated > > page> False: the "unrelated page" is part of the references section of that page, referred to in the introduction to that page. > > At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on > > the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding. > > I am not insinuating; I am stating fact. No, you are not. You have been corrected on this point already. Continuation of your attempt at a red herring is improper. > You chose to analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT on your canon page rather than > the full quote. Blatantly, scandalously untrue. You should have noted the introduction, wherein I make reference to the fact that what follows is a compilation of various quotes, with references below . . . that means that anyone can check the argument against the primary sources if they so desire. At no point do I place quotation marks around any particular sentence, because it is a compilation from the various sources. Further, I not only make reference to Lucas's parallel universe sentences, but I also comment on the sentences dealing with intrusion, which continues to point out the flaw in your reasoning. > The fact that > the full quote is buried somewhere else on your website Prejudicial language: the quote is directly linked from that page in the references section, and the references section is referred to in the introduction. You can't miss it. > does not excuse > this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of context" > fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his > continuity despite its obvious relevance. Another blatantly untrue statement. "Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use." "This also explains why Lucas does not allow the parallel universe to intrude on the time periods and events he wants to work with in his universe. If someone retold his tales, these events of another world might confuse Star Wars fans and violate the integrity of his work, and his vision for his universe." http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWEU.html Google's Archive of the page (so as to avoid the potential for false accusations that it was altered): http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oOyJsF1288sC:ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers 2/STSWEU.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 I suggest you drop your red herring accusation of dishonesty . . . it is blatantly untrue. > > > > Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel > > universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films. > > You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be > separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. That makes no sense whatsoever. If the EU is a parallel universe, it is not only separate . . . it is different. This is demonstrated by the in-house Continuity which the EU is expected to maintain. > > Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as > > being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead > > only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company > > operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say > > Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues. > > > However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a. > > "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to > > be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of > > time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go > > inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar > > to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of > > anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a > > movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such > > as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials. > > Red herring fallacy (or possibly strawman fallacy, depending on how one > wishes to interpret your intent). This seventh accusation of a red herring is as incorrect as the prior six. Providing counterarguments for all possible misinterpretations of the quote is not a red herring, nor is it a straw man. It is a pre-emptive strike, designed to keep us from going down well-trodden paths toward the graves of previously attempted counter-arguments. > you would have seen that I obviously think when Lucas says his movies > occupy a "select period of time", he's referring to the fictional > timeline of the Star Wars universe, not the real-life 1970's and 1980's > in which he made the original trilogy. This is also addressed: > > > Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his > > reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the > > fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part > > of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense, > > especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I > > "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic > > adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly > > "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and > > the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU > > continuity, as per Cerasi. > > Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another. Incorrect: you yourself are claiming that the "intrude" comment makes the EU have a measure of canonicity, in spite of the fact that Lucas has referred to the licensing world (EU included) as an "other world" and "parallel universe". > George > Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with varying > precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is inherently > fallacious, In which case your attempt to analyze the "intrude" fragment to override the "other world" and "parallel universe" comment is inherently fallacious. My argument is that the entire sentence is a cohesive whole. > to say nothing of a sentence fragment from a verbal > interview, in which he could not have chosen his words so carefully as > to permit such semantic analysis. Since he has used the "universe" comment on more than one occasion (TV Guide and Cinescape), the logical implication is that he means it. Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it could only apply to the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment. > One can only derive very general > statements from such interviews, such as his clear statement that the EU > and canon are separate, and that they cover different points in the same > timeline. Your interpretation contradicts the quote. A "parallel universe" is, by definition, not part of the same timeline. > Rather than trying to analyze PRECISELY what he means by > "parallel universe" or "intrude", you should recognize that in a general > sense, he obviously made it clear that the EU definitely has SOME > validity, Why? There is nothing in his quote to support your contention. He has referred to the EU as "outside my little universe" and as a "parallel universe". Your appeal to whatever "general sense" you're appealing to makes no sense. > which is more than enough to disprove your assertion that it > should be completely ignored. If you are going to wrangle over its > precise boundaries, then you are already implicitly accepting that it > does have validity. What? That is completely illogical. Please explain. > > Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the > > EU in such a manner: > > > "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the > > same characters and extending their stories. > > > George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star > > Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a > > lot of different people. It works without me."- TV Guide Interview > > with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01 > > > Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe", > > which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon > > . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films. > > Again, you analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT rather than the full quote. No, I analyzed the entire sentence, and the rest of the quote along with it. Your claim to the contrary is false. > Again, you make a daring leap in logic from "EU is outside canon" to > "there is no continuity outside canon". Blatantly untrue. This is directly contradictory to my position. Remember, the EU has an in-house continuity . . . you agreed with me about this earlier. > George does NOT say that his > "little universe" (ie- canon) is the TOTALITY of Star Wars continuity; George puts the EU outside his universe and into a parallel one, and Sansweet (quoting Cerasi) assert that George's universe is the only source for the real story of Star Wars. I do not understand the basis of your claim to the contrary. > When any one of his quotes is viewed in full, it is > obvious that he's saying precisely the OPPOSITE of what you're saying; > he's saying that Star Wars is larger than his "little universe" of the > canon. "Star Wars" is larger than his "little universe", but his universe is the only true version of Star Wars. The parallel universes of Star Wars, and any in-house LucasBooks assertions about those universes, are irrelevant. > > No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU > > continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is > > acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is > > not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars > > history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel > > universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so. > > Non sequitur. Incorrect: > So Lucas is not "bound" by the EU; how does it follow that > the EU is worthless? It means that Lucas's canon universe is not in any way shaped or bound by the EU parallel universe. That, along with the fact that the canon is the only source for the real story of Star Wars, should be more than sufficient. > Star Trek's writers routinely ignored precedent set > by previous episodes or series; does that make previous series > worthless? Red herring, and incorrect. Unlike the Lucas/LFL Canon Policy, Star Trek's canon policy clearly places the previous series within the realm of canon fact. > He and his licensing firm have publicly stated that the EU is > included in the continuity. Your statement is incorrect: Lucas has made no such comment and has stated the inverse. LucasFilm's Sansweet has stated (quoting LucasBooks' Cerasi) that only the films constitute the real story of Star Wars. > Worse yet, you contradict yourself by inadvertently providing quotes > such as Cerasi's "foggy windows" quote which show that the EU is valid, > albeit imperfect, and then you pile logical fallacies on top of that > mistake by employing "black and white" fallacies to argue that "valid > but imperfect" is the same as being totally excluded! Incorrect on multiple counts: 1. No self-contradiction has occurred. The quotes do not show the EU is valid . . . indeed, they show the reverse. 2. No logical fallacies have been employed by me, despite claims to the contrary. 3. I have not argued that the EU is valid but imperfect. That is a straw man. > By admitting that > the EU represents a window onto the Star Wars universe according to > LucasBooks (and failing to provide anything more subtantive than a Lucas > sentence FRAGMENT to contradict them), Incorrect: sentence FRAGMENTS were not employed, but instead THE ENTIRE QUOTES. > you have admitted that you were > wrong about the EU not being a part of the story at all. Flagrantly untrue. > You are > attempting to cover for this concession Flagrantly untrue. > by making the utterly outlandish > argument that imperfection makes useful analysis impossible, It is one of many reasons the EU is improper as a source of data. > but that > does not change the fact that you quietly conceded the point. Still flagrantly untrue. > Are you capable of admitting this? I do not admit what is not true. ******** To sum up: re: Canon Policy - Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, etc. 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the canon exists for Lucas. 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon. 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks. ********* I really don't understand why the disagreement continues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:27:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D893617.5070203@stardestroyer.net> -------- DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1B: DEATH STAR FIREPOWER ------------------------------------------------------ Robert, I would like to point out that in my estimate, only a miniscule percentage of the viewing public will be willing to slog through your voluminous posts on this subject, or even my replies unless I snip out most of the bulk (which you might interpret as concessions). Since most of the viewing public already accepts the conventional interpretation, you have more of a vested interest in keeping their attention than I do, and you won't do that with posts of this length. I urge you to heed your own stipulation about brevity and cut it down. > If the quote had stated "firepower", there might be a worthwhile > argument to make based on the opening crawl. As it stands, however, > there is not. The Superlaser Effect also grants the Death Star the > power to destroy an entire planet . . . merely in a different way. No, it doesn't. Your mysterious chain reaction (henceforth referred to as MCR) grants the Death Star the ability to set off some mysterious unexplained chain reaction WITHOUT possessing the necessary power. > The word "power" is used not only to refer to raw firepower, but also > to capability. For instance, one man has the power to kill another. > Does this imply that he has some weapon hidden away near the appendix > which can direct raw energy toward another person? No. It implies > ability. Vader also uses the term in this way: "The power to destroy a > planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." > I trust you realize that Vader was not claiming that the Force would > allow him to destroy entire solar systems, or entire galaxies, merely > by thinking about it. He referred to the capabilities it offerred . . > . precognition and so on . . . which could allow control in a way that > fear of the Death Star could not. Actually, Vader said "the ABILITY to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force". When the term "power" is applied to machinery or weapons, it has an entirely different meaning than when it is applied to people or their institutions. If I say that Bill Gates is the most powerful man in the computer industry, that has an entirely different meaning than saying that a .44 Magnum is the most powerful handgun in the world. > The "anti-Genesis" effect you refer to is evident by the band which > encircles the globe, meeting itself on the far side at a moment > coinciding with the secondary blast, which occurs after the superlaser > beam has ceased. This "band" of yours is a fiction. Moreover, even if it were not, it is an unsupported leap in logic to conclude that a shockwave emanating from the impact point would be proof that conventional energy transfer (or "DET", to use your odd terminology even though "direct energy transfer" is dictated by the laws of thermodynamics) is impossible, thus forcing us to resort to your undefined MCR. From basic scientific methodology, there is NO CONCEIVABLE TYPE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CAN POSSIBLY SUPPORT AN UNDEFINED THEORY. Unless you can define your theory well enough that it has predictive properties, it is impossible for it to emerge victorious over ANY properly defined theory. As an analogy, consider the "intelligent design" theory of creationism; it is worthless because it is not defined. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg > Just before the superlaser makes contact. Note well the white (or, > more correctly, brighter blue) cloud pattern which the superlaser beam > is about to make contact with. I presume you are referring to the fact that the "halo" in frame 1 and 2 will skip across those clouds, which obviously indicates an irregular propagation pattern. This might be indicative of a shield/cloud interaction of some kind. So what? > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg > I neglect to mention a halo effect outside the atmosphere because > there is no evidence for it being outside the atmosphere. If one > assumes that all planets are approximately spherical, one might notice > that Alderaan does not appear to be spherical in your Cap 0. That is > because we are seeing part of Alderaan's night side on the right side > of the planet, past the terminator. To illuminate this point, I have > drawn a circle over Alderaan, using part of your AlderaanBlast-1.jpg > screen capture. > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-1rsa1.JPG > The circle is 103 pixels tall, and 103 pixels wide. You'll note that > the entire planet, plus your halo effect, are contained within the > circle, with room to spare. Contrary to your interpretation, I see no > reason to assume that the halo is extra-atmospheric. It would appear > to be caused by atmospheric scattering from a bright light source > (i.e. the superlaser point of impact). Not quite, Robert. You are obviously assuming that you can disprove the extra-atmospheric nature of the halo by showing that it's not many hundreds of km away from the surface (even though the atmosphere thins to inconsequential densities beyond 100km altitude, so it would only be 1 pixel "wide" at this range, and your red circle is actually extra-atmospheric!). However, its extra-atmospheric nature is known because of its lack of consistency, not its altitude, which would be virtually indistinguishable from the surface. If it's an atmospheric effect, then there is no reason why you would see patches of blue ocean between the impact point and the "halo" to the right. Atmospheric heating from an intense radiation release does not "skip" hundreds of kilometres. It generates a fireball in all directions moving outward from the point of energy release, with no patches or open holes whatsoever. Since we see blue in between regions of illumination, it is obviously NOT simple atmospheric heating (see the accompanying marked-up screenshot, with white lines pointing out areas which have become more luminescent, and red lines pointing out intervening regions of unaffected blue. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Halo.jpg Moreover, you have neglected to consider a fairly simple concept known as "line of sight". This principle dictates that atmospheric transmission of light will not occur if there is an opaque obstruction, such as the curvature of a planet. You see, the Earth happens to be round, and this tends to limit the range of direct transmissions, hence the need for communications satellites. It also means that if the beam is heating up a portion of the atmosphere rather than an extra-atmospheric shield , any direct light transmission from the effect will be limited to a radius of 1000-1500km even if it occurs at 100km altitude, where there is little atmosphere to speak of. At 50km altitude (still well outside the useful atmosphere), line of sight is limited to just 800km. But the illuminated areas stretch out for at least 4000km! Therefore, this is obviously not mere light transmission through the atmosphere. The only possible explanations are: 1. The surface has already been disrupted to such a degree that line of sight has changed. However, the visibility of blue ocean under the intermittent "halo effect" renders this option impossible. 2. The energy is conducting around the planet in an arcing direction rather than a direct line of sight. Shields can do this, as we saw in TPM. Atmospheres cannot. There is only one possible explanation for the halo, and that is a planetary energy shield. This is also supported by the ANH novelization, on p.129: ******* "The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough." ******* Tarkin bragged that the destruction of Alderaan would be impressive because Alderaan's defense systems were as strong as ANY IN THE EMPIRE (and we know from TESB how easy it is to set up a theatre shield). Think about that; the difficulty of overcoming Alderaan's defense systems was such that he expected THAT feat to impress people, as if simply obliterating an unprotected planet would not be demonstration enough! Moreover, the existence of Alderaan's planetary shield is well-established in the official literature (which you completely ignore, of course). > Indeed, this constitutes a severe problem for your Direct Energy > Transfer (DET) theory. Without any evidence for a planetary shield, > one must assume that the planet was laid bare for the superlaser hit. > If that is so, then an energy beam with your calculated energy of > 1e38J should have produced severe atmospheric disruption, including > but not limited to cloud burn-off, profound ionization effects, and > so on. "No evidence for a planetary shield?" I am surprised to see you resorting to blatant falsehoods so quickly. 1. Planetary shield technology is known to exist (from TESB and ROTJ). 2. Visible "halo effect" which extends far beyond line-of-sight from the impact point and which passes over underlying unaffected oceans, thus indicating extra-atmospheric, arcing movement. 3. Tarkin obviously thought Alderaan was heavily defended (from the canon ANH novelization). 4. We know their sensor technology can detect shield status (from TESB and ROTJ), so Tarkin had no reason to go on assumptions; he could simply scan the planet and see whether its defenses were operational, so his assessment of Alderaan's defenses was most likely based on direct observation. 5. Alderaan's military people had plenty of time to spot the Death Star approaching and raise a shield if they had one None of this is news to you; it has been mentioned before, by other people in other places. You are committing the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, in which you claim that because we cannot absolutely prove the existence of Alderaan's shield, it must not exist. The fact that the existence of a shield is the most reasonable explanation for the evidence at hand seems to escape you. Moreover, you are generating a false dilemma. You ask us to choose between DET/no shield and MCR/no shield, when the third option of DET/shield (ie- the conventional theory) is perfectly viable. > In a prior calculation, I have estimated the energy density per unit > volume of a 5 kilometer diameter superlaser beam traveling through the > troposphere. > The troposphere is the lower 12 kilometers of atmosphere (the rough > limit of cloud-tops on Earth, because the stratosphere above is far > drier). Assuming that a mere 3.5e24J of energy (about > 1/28,570,000,000,000th, or 1/28-trillionth, of your 1e38J figure) > would be absorbed evenly throughout that volume of atmosphere > (235.6km^3), we have an energy density per volume of 14.6e12J/m^3. > That's almost 3.5 kilotons of TNT per cubic meter of Earth-like > tropospheric atmosphere. Given that the density at sea level is about > four times what it is at the top of the troposphere, it would be a > "mere" .9 kilotons or so per cubic meter at the likely height of the > thick Alderaan cloud-tops. > Some . . . and now, evidently, yourself included . . . have argued > that a planetary shield is the explanation. In a way, you are correct > . . . it is the only explanation that can possibly explain the > situation. So you admit that the conventional explanation works, which means that it's a perfectly viable theory. Concession accepted. Since the conventional explanation relies ONLY UPON PHENOMENA WHICH ARE KNOWN TO EXIST, and you concede that it works, it is intrinsically superior to any theory which introduces extra phenomena (particularly undefined ones such as your undefined MCR), regardless of whether that alternate explanation also works (which it cannot in your case, since your MCR is undefined and therefore has no predictive capabilities). See Occam's Razor. > However, the attempted explanation does not work in light of the canon > facts. When the Death Star II fired on and destroyed Rebel starships, > the hulls of those vessels did not show the sort of bright-white > illumination Alderaan shows until actual impact of the superlaser > against the ships' hulls occurred. > "Weak analogy" fallacy: You assume that since A and B perform similar functions, then ANY property of A must also apply to B. To be more specific, you assume that since a planetary shield and a starship shield are both shields, then ALL of their outward characteristics must be identical. This fallacy ignores the fact that there are many underlying differences between A and B (eg- sheer scale, the fact that one operates in or near an upper atmosphere while the other doesn't, the fact that one is projected thousands of kilometres away from its base while the other is a "hull-hugger", etc), so not all properties of A are guaranteed to apply to B. A real-life example of this fallacy would be to assume that since a rear-projection TV and a CRT TV are both TV's, and CRT TV's are known to employ powerful magnetic fields, rear-projection TV's must employ powerful magnetic fields too. Therefore, if we were to use your "reasoning", we could prove that a rear-projection TV is not a TV by simply observing the absence of the strong magnetic field. Please try to avoid this kind of broken logic in future. You have proven quite nicely that the Alderaan planetary shield is not 100% identical in every respect to a Rebel starship shield (a trivial proof, since there are so many known differences already). However, you have NOT proven that the Alderaan planetary shield did not EXIST. > Translate back to Alderaan, and the extreme brightness at the targeted > area can only be explained as a direct hit to the solid surface. Since > no atmospheric effects are observed, we must assume that the > atmospherically-absorbed DET was far, far, far less than 3.5e24J, > 1/28-trillionth of the 1e38J figure. > You are claiming that a direct hit to the SURFACE would create atmospheric luminescence which skips across the clouds and ignores everything else, including the oceans which happen to be on that surface? And how would it do this, particularly with your 12km altitude, at which the line of sight is less than 400km? We all know that it looks like this because the Lucasfilm special-effects people digitally brightened the cloud patterns rather than drawing an explosion (ie- they were deliberately delaying the explosion), but even if we stick to suspension of disbelief and ignore such off-screen facts, you still must deal with such issues as line of sight, the established nature of radiation/atmospheric interactions, etc. You present this bizarre and physically nonsensical theory as a superior alternative to the conventional explanation (whose viability you have already CONCEDED) based solely on your INSISTENCE that there is no shield. In short, you admit that your theory is not intrinsically superior to the conventional theory, so your theory is worthless unless you can prove that Alderaan has no planetary shield despite the escalating political tensions, the Empire's increasing belligerence, the fact that the technology is known to exist, Tarkin's quote, etc. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg > > The halo effect is probably a visible manifestation of the > > planetary shield's reradiation mechanism. > Or simple atmospheric refraction of such incredible brightness > occurring at a point on or near the surface where the superlaser hits. > Note that we can now see a continuation of the cloud pattern where the > superlaser hits, extending past the terminator to the lower right. > However, note also that the ground below is still semi-shaded, in > keeping with the terminator. This also suggests a simple atmospheric > effect, since a point-source of extreme brightness at or very near the > surface would directly light up the distant clouds, but could not be > expected to directly light the planet's surface over the horizon from > the point-source. Wrong. The physics of high-energy atmospheric interactions are well-known after decades of research on nuclear weapons, plasma, interactions of radiation with atmosphere, etc. They propagate outward in all directions. They do NOT skip across clouds and ignore material in-between, nor do they ignore line-of-sight. > Incorrect. I do not make that comment in reference to the frame (Frame > 2) you have provided. Instead, your quote applies to the fourth frame. > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWdeathstar2.html Correction noted. I was unable to verify the correct captions because of a 403 (permission denied) error that appeared on the relevant page on your site last week and disappeared after I uploaded my post (too much to be a coincidence; I imagine you denied access to the file deliberately). This also applies to your OTHER red-herring nitpicks about me not matching your captions to the correct frame number later on in this post, so I will refrain from repeating myself and simply skip those in my reply. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-3.jpg > > Dramatic intensification of halo effect, which is now so bright that > > it saturates the video medium. > Unfortunately, there is no shield halo effect in play. However, the > video medium is saturated . . . to the point that even the space > around the planet exhibits an increase in brightness of several > planetary diameters. The "Superlaser Effect"-proper has now begun in > earnest. In the next frame, we will see a more orange color, a > characteristic of fire. Hence my comment about a firey explosion. The > saturation of the medium will also reduce somewhat, manifesting as > temporarily-lessened 'glow' of the empty space around Alderaan. Red herring fallacy. Unless you can show HOW AND WHY these phenomena make the conventional explanation unworkable (and you have already conceded that you can't, unless you remove the shield from the equation), they are not important. The only other possible reason to mention them (apart from the "smokescreen of superfluous detail") is if they are consistent with the predictions generated from your undefined MCR theory. Unfortunately, since your undefined theory makes no concrete predictions, this is impossible. Please review basic scientific method. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-4.jpg > > Slight change in the halo effect's physical appearance, although the > > coverage area has not dramatically changed (note that the far side > > is still blue). > Quite correct. Not only does the left side of the planet remain > visibly unaffected (besides a possible brightness increase in the > area) as I have made reference to previously, but the polar regions > also do not appear to have disassembled at all. The conventional theory explains it via the simple fact that there hasn't been enough time for a core or mantle expansion to breach the surface. Explain how your undefined MCR predicts this, particularly since you claim that your MCR propagates along the SURFACE layers. > > This would imply that the superlaser is drilling into the planet's > > mass already, although the sheer scale means that there will be a > > measurable time lag before the surface expands (even at 5% of c, it > > would take 1 frame for a lower mantle expansion to breach the > > surface and 5 frames for a core expansion to breach the surface). > > Intensification without forward progress is consistent with a > > shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level chain reaction. > I disagree. Besides the fact that there is no evidence for a shield, > there is also the problem for DET wherein shield failure should not > provide for the exact same area to be affected as observed. Scientific ignorance: by assuming that the superlaser must start from zero at the moment it breaches the shield, you neglect conservation of energy. You see, there is a principle in basic physics which tells us that the total amount of mass/energy in a closed system must remain constant. Some like to phrase it as "mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed". This principle is also known as the First Law of Thermodynamics. In this case, the conventional theory calls for the superlaser to have deposited an enormous amount of energy into the shield, which could not re-radiate this energy at anywhere near the necessary rates. In other words, the shield is accumulating energy, hence its failure. But when the shield fails, the accumulated energy MUST GO SOMEWHERE, hence it hits the surface of the planet over an area roughly equal to the halo. Do you believe it simply vanishes without a trace? > If a shield had failed, and if the superlaser is indeed "drilling into > the planet's mass already" using DET, the expansion perils you mention > can only apply to DET, alone. Why? Because the beam must be depositing > its energy into a relatively small patch of planet, drilling its way > down. Disastrous surface and atmospheric effects would be expected, of > course, but the expansion you speak of is only necessary at this time > with DET. Meanwhile, the Superlaser Effect theory does not require > core or inner/lower mantle effects or visible ejecta from those > regions at this point. The crust, upper mantle, and mantle (a.k.a. > transition region, down to 650km) are sufficient. Even if one were to > argue that we needed to see parts of the mantle as visible ejecta, > then at your suggested 5% lightspeed, this would be just barely over a > frame at 24fps. Slothful induction fallacy. I provided numbers to show that a core or mantle expansion would take between 1 and 5 frames to breach the surface even at 5% of c, thus explaining why the planet is not yet expanding without having to resort to undefined theories. Your retort that conventional physics cannot explain the lack of "expansion perils" completely misses the point. > Note also that the approximate point of superlaser impact is now a > much darker region. I believe this represents the coalescence of the > band which will shortly begin to encircle the globe. Show how your undefined MCR predicts a dark spot which is up and to the left of the superlaser impact point (see screenshot below). Show how your undefined MCR predicts these imaginary bands of yours. Show how your undefined MCR predicts the "coalescence" of these imaginary "bands". Show how your MCR predicts a dark spot mysteriously turning into a destructive "band". http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg > Blank: > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband.jpg > Marked: > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband1.jpg > In the above two links, I have attempted, in spite of my utter lack of > artistry, to roughly illustrate what I refer to as the > globe-encircling band. It is easier to see if you advance the video at > about one frame per second, but the bright band is there in any case. > As you continue to look at the frames, pay attention to the fact that > the surface remains substantially intact until the band passes. The bands are a figment of your imagination. Nothing more. No one sees these glowing "bands" but you. You simply drew a circle around the reddish portion of the explosion and called it a "band", even though the white-hot portion of the planet is already a full hemisphere in the very first frame! Worse yet, you make the audacious claim that the surface remains "substantially intact" until the band passes, even though everyone in the world can see that in the first frame, the surface has already been vapourized into WHITE-HOT GAS over the ENTIRE HEMISPHERE! Do you seriously expect anyone to agree that the surface is still "substantially intact" ahead of your imaginary "band" even though it's already glowing like the Sun? Thank you for finally showing exactly where you imagine these "bands" to be, and in so doing, proving that A) they do not exist, and B) your theory that the destruction lags behind them is clearly wrong. > No, not "completely unaffected" . . . just "stable". In other words, > it isn't currently in the process of blowing to smithereens (though I > can't imagine the stable surface areas were having a field day at this > point). In any case, the surface appears to be holding. However, the > area is significantly brighter than it previously was. > > As you can see, the same atmospheric brightening on the left is in > play here, as is in play in your superimposing of Frame Five. > Understandably, it is not to the same extent, but the white sliver of > the effect is there. So you admit that it is "not to the same extent", ie- that the glowing area is noticeably larger in frame 5 than it is in frame 2. As we can clearly see by comparing your overlay and mine (below), there is already glowing material several pixels (ie- several hundred kilometres at this magnification) away from the far sideof the planet by frame5, whereas there was nothing but a mild halo in frame 2. Concession accepted. Your Frame2 overlay and my Frame5 overlay http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Comparison.jpg > You'll note that according to your argument, Frame Two represents a > frame in which a shield is up. However, applying your Frame Five > argument to Frame Two must also suggest that "the planet has already > been heated to such an extent" that material, mysteriously glowing > blue, is being hurled away from the left side of the planet, in spite > of the shield, and in spite of the fact that all ejecta observed thus > far is orange. I submit that what we are seeing is atmosphere in both > cases, especially given that the surface appears stable (i.e. blowing > to smithereens not in progress). Wrong. As everyone can see by looking at the screenshots, the glow is marginally distinguishable from the edge of the planet in frame2 but it has expanded by several hundred kilometres in frame5, PRECISELY as we would expect for the far side of a shield which has just been struck by a superlaser versus a shield which has already collapsed. The conventional theory is unaffected by your attempts to misrepresent the evidence. As for your belief that we are seeing "atmosphere", you seem to be implying that there is usably dense atmosphere up to an altitude of several hundred kilometres, and that it would be heated to luminescence by an undefined MCR which has not yet reached it, and which does not even have a clear line of sight (according to your own "band" drawings). > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-6&1rsa.jpg > The above is a partial superimposing of Frame Six, the frame in > question, and Frame One, the first frame to show the superlaser > hitting the planet. You'll note that the cloud formation which the > superlaser struck the central lower half of is positioned at the lower > right of the reddish-orange area. Given the location and the curvature > on the planetary sphere, some of the reddish-orange area further > toward the right may be brightened by the band beyond (i.e. further to > the right), as compared to the material we get to see dead-on. In any > case, what little deviation there may be does not significantly affect > the findings. "Little deviation"? Your own overlay shows that the centre of the dark spot is at least 3500 KILOMETRES away from the impact point (and more if you account for the third dimension). I don't see how you can claim to conduct a "rational, evidence-based debate" when you explicitly deny that which can be easily seen by all. > > [Quoted] All I see is a planet which is rapidly expanding, albeit > > with a slight asymmetry that is easily explained by energy > > propagation delay through the planet's mass. > Why should there be an asymmetry of this type? I do not see how > propagation delay would explain an explosion/expansion which, by your > own statements, is leaning a little to the left of the superlaser > impact point. Wrong. At THIS point in the explosion (frame5), the asymmetry is clearly skewed to the RIGHT, hence my comment. However, as the explosion progresses, much of the cooler bulk will be pushed to the left by the asymmetrical plasma ejection on the right-hand side. > > Again, you seem to be inventing observations out of thin air. The > > dark patch is now well to the left, > Which, given that it is the material we are seeing dead-on, makes > sense. Wrong. The superlaser impact point is well over to the right side of the planet, so ejecta from the point of impact SHOULD be moving to the right, not directly toward us. The dark patch is NOT centred around the superlaser impact point. > > Note: I disagree with the placement of Frame 27 as the beginning of > the secondary explosion. The first visible sign should occur at Frame > 23, assuming your present version and the DeathStar-SE.avi from your > page are paced the same. Red-herring nitpick. > Further, in the process of watching DeathStar-SE.avi frame-by-frame in > that section to determine the proper start point, I have noticed > something very unexpected and very unusual which no one else seems to > have noticed before. In fact, it is so unexpected and unusual that I > may need to revise the admittedly-limited theoretical background of > the Superlaser Effect theory to account for it. You have a "theoretical background" for your undefined MCR? Please, by all means, share it with us. > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DeathStar-SE-Polar.jpg > > Make note, if you will, that "Santa survives", at least temporarily. > There is a planetary surface remaining in the polar region at least > until shortly before the secondary explosion. The last frame, 93, is > a frame or two before your screencap Frame 27 above. > In the frame marked 68, we see the northern polar region just as the > superlaser is striking near the equator. In 72, we see the pole > partially obscured by the band which is approaching it. In 77, the > band is over the polar region, the surface of which is partially > obscured by the dark funk over on the left, and quite obscured by the > bright band. In 82 you get to see how the band finally becomes > obscured by the polar surface as it rounds the pole. > The polar surface is still visible in 87, albeit even more obscured by > funk. In 91, a firey cloud begins to obscure the polar surface on the > right, just as the funk obscures it on th eleft, but it is still > visible even into the frame marked 93. Not possible. By frame 5, the polar regions have ALREADY expanded beyond the atmosphere. You are taking chaotic, debris-filled screenshots and using them to "disprove" a conclusion drawn from a relatively clean, clear screenshot. You have a hazy, greyish area and you assume it must be a solid "polar surface"? Does it occur to you that this might be a mere insubstantial planet-shaped haze, like the one that's left over at the END of the explosion? See the accompanying screenshot: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-end.jpg Even when there's nothing left but a hazy cloud, you could still very easily point to a spot on the periphery of the cloud and (if it's sufficiently obscured) pretend that it represents solid surface. You are using the chaos of the explosion to misrepresent vague shapes as an intact, solid planetary surface. > I confess to being excited. I thought I'd seen everything there was to > see in the clip, but here's new information all of the sudden, yet > another piece of data about Alderaan's destruction that no one else > has noticed. "Vision problem", my butt. Your state of excitement is of no interest to me or anyone else. A brief period of inertial confinement might tend to sustain a dense mass at the centre of the explosion for some time; this is well known from ICF experiments. However, your bizarre leap in logic (that the appearance of any persistent shape, glow, or mass in the planet's location must represent the original intact, solid surface of the planet still in place) is simply absurd; the sheer velocity of ejecta from the planet precludes any possibility of an intact surface. > In regards to DET arguments, several revisions would seem to be in > order. Most notably, the claim that the band is merely the entire > planet glowing and expanding, "white-hot matter shooting into space", > makes no sense. I think all DET theorists are left with as an option > to explain the bands is total atmosphere burn-off, but since the > superlaser couldn't have deposited more than 23.5 gigatons of energy > into the atmosphere as mentioned previously, it sounds like you need > an energy increase to begin at the surface upon superlaser impact. > Sort of a "superlaser effect", if you will. Your 23.5 gigaton figure is dependent upon your claim that there's no shield. You cannot use this to disprove the validity of the conventional theory which DOES include a shield. This is sophistry of the highest order; even if there is only the POSSIBILITY of a shield, that's more than enough to evaluate the DET/shield theory as-is, rather than forcibly stripping away the shield component as if it has been proven impossible. By the way, please refrain from the use of prejudicial language such as "DET theorists", which makes it appear as if the application of conventional thermodynamic heat transfer physics is a peculiar doctrine, and/or that those who subscribe to it are some kind of monolithic group. This is not the case, and if you sincerely wanted a rational argument, you should avoid using these kinds of prejudicial characterizations (it is analogous to the way creationists label anyone who accepts mainstream science as "evolutionists"). > Also, with the left side and now the polar surfaces remaining visibly > intact for so long after the termination of the beam, I think it very > difficult for DET theorists to maintain their argument. After all, the > superlaser beam actually did very little when it struck the planet . . > . but it is readily apparent that something else happened afterward. Yet again, I must point out that the sides and polar surfaces are NOT intact. They were very clearly blown past the atmosphere by frame 5. I will not humour this repetitive argument technique of yours again. As for the termination of the beam, you are assuming that the visible portion of the beam is the entire beam. TESB proved that this is not the case, and the SW2ICS clearly indicates that the visible pulse is a mere carrier on the underlying invisible beam. Therefore, your assumption is known to be false, as are all conclusions derived from that assumption. > Of course, any DET theory at this point, as before, is an exercise in > ad hoc rationalizations. If a rationalization works, it does not matter whether it is "ad hoc" or not. The source of an idea does not have any bearing on the validity of that idea. Please review basic scientific method and elementary logic. Unless, of course, that statement was mere grandstanding, in which case you should be mindful of your OWN request for a strictly rational debate. > For the Superlaser Effect theory, the new facts will require some sort > of revision of some of my earlier hypotheses, which were based on the > previously available data. For the second time, please define this superlaser effect, and describe the physical processes it induces in the target. You have repeatedly referenced a hypothesis, but you have yet to provide anything more than its name. > I'm not quite sure what to make of things . . . there may be a > similarity with DSCalamari.mpg frames 228 and 229: > > ...where the superlaser hits the Wingless and, though the ship's > outline is still visible in the frame, it is absolutely engulfed with > a quick, gassy-looking puff that expands and dissipates rapidly, while > the ship's actual exploding process occurs in a much smaller area. Correct. This is analogous to the shield collapse effect at Alderaan, where a thin surface layer is superheated and blown off by energy released when the shield collapses. Thank you for providing a useful correlation between the Alderaan shield and the Rebel shield (although I'm not sure how it's supposed to support your undefined MCR theory). > (Also, I had already planned to point out the possible connection > between the secondary blast of Alderaan and the secondary blast which > finally wiped out the Liberty after her long, slow primary explosion. > Frames 127 and 128 of the DSCalamari clip show the immediately before > and immediately after the secondary blast: Yes, the Liberty experiences a non-linear explosion. Explain how your undefined MCR theory predicts this. > In short, the main problem would seem to be that the bands are not as > destructive as I thought. With the surface obscured and the debris > flying every-which-way, it wasn't too much to conclude that the > surface of the planet was so much debris, with that matter being > converted into the energy source for the bands. But, this may be > contrary to that. Alternately, they're just as destructive as I > thought, the "surface" that is still visible is merely mantle of some > sort, with the upper layers having been consumed. I'll have to go back > and look at some of the alternatives I had previously considered but > discarded due to insufficient data. Anyway, there's still enough to go > on at the moment to deal with the rest of your claims, so . . . You can wax poetic about all the possibilities opened up by your undefined MCR (and those possibilities are infinite, hence the great convenience of an undefined theory), but as it is still undefined, it DOES NOT EXIST as a viable theory. Period. Define this theory. Explain exactly HOW it can accurately predict all of the phenomena you insist on describing as de facto disproof of the conventional explanation. > > It would be a gross understatement to say that the fire rings are a > > curious phenomenon. > Yes, and they are impossible phenomena for DET to explain. > . > Also, just as a general concept, note the fact that the DET-Alderaan > theory has absolutely nothing to offer in regards to the Death Star > rings. It is yet another weakness of the DET theory. Alternative syllogism fallacy (A or B; if not A, then B). The fact that the conventional explanation cannot explain the non-physical behaviour of the fire rings does not lend weight to your undefined MCR. If it does not lend weight to your undefined MCR, it does not weaken the conventional explanation, since one can only topple a theory by providing a better one, not by showing that the existing one is imperfect and expecting your undefined alternate to win by default (note that this might be classified as a false dilemma fallacy instead, depending on how your MCR is defined). > > And where is this debris heading TOWARD the Death Star that you > > describe? > They . . . or, more properly, the first one . . . appears in frame 103 > of DeathStar-SE.avi, which should translate into frame 35 of your > variant. I'm referring to those bigger dark masses of material. > Several are visible both above and below the ring seven frames later, > hence my use of the term "general direction". > Example: > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/blind.jpg > Interesting. And you conclude that these chunks of debris support your undefined MCR, eh? What makes you think they are remarkably large, or represent a significant variation in explosion mechanics? What makes you think that equally large pieces are not flying in OTHER directions, eg- away from the camera? Have you ever heard of a concept known as "perspective correction?" It has to do with the fact that objects which are closer to you tend to appear larger, and it is a function of simple trigonometry: the subtended angle of an object is a function of the ratio of its width to its distance from you. I suggest you consider this concept before making any more bold statements on significant fractions of the planet's mass heading toward the Death Star. > > your "observation" turns out to be a fabrication, along with any > > conclusions reliant upon it. > It is taking a bit of effort to maintain self-restraint against such > petty attacks, but not a great amount. Self-control: use it. An attack upon your arguments and claims is hardly a "petty attack"; on the contrary, it is PRECISELY what a rational debate is for. Do not attempt to overplay your well-worn "victim" card. Logic: use it. > I have not misrepresented the evidence, and the only "extremely > poor-quality copy" of it that I have is the one I downloaded from > your site, and which you earlier admitted to creating boasting about your victory, not to mention some gratuitous > prejudicial grandstanding about how me and my "associates" will > now be "revising claims about the evidence">. It serves no logical purpose to tell people that you believe you are decisively winning. The audience can judge the truth or falsehood of that for themselves. > You may also wish to prepare yourself for the attack on DET from the > Principle of Parsimony. I do not know what valid defense can be > employed by DET theorists, but I'll be curious to see what is > attempted. The principle of parsimony is intrinsically hostile to any theory which introduces extra or undefined mechanisms. Therefore, any attack made by you against this station would be a useless gesture. Summary In the end, the logical failings of your argument (as opposed to its dubious factual claims such as the "bands" which nobody else can see even after you showed us your marked-up images) fall into two broad categories: strawman and alternative syllogism. 100% of your arguments against the conventional theory are strawman distortions, because the conventional explanation includes a shield, and you insist on REMOVING the shield from that theory before attacking it. You would no doubt retort that there is no evidence for the shield, but you seem to have forgotten the definition of scientific evidence: by your own admission, the visible characteristics of the initial impact can be explained with a shield. THAT IS EVIDENCE OF THE SHIELD'S EXISTENCE! Please review basic scientific method. You fail to recognize that even the POSSIBILITY of a shield is enough to allow its use in a theory. 100% of your attempts to generate evidence for your undefined MCR are examples of the alternative syllogism fallacy (if not A, then B). You assume that if you can damage the credibility of the conventional explanation in any way, this automatically supports YOUR undefined MCR. This is completely irrational; it is possible for A to have weaknesses without B necessarily being stronger than A. The ultimate explanation may be only a small variation upon A; there is no logical reason to assume that if A is shown to be less than perfect, B wins by default. Your "evidence" is invariably an attempt to undermine the conventional explanation without even TRYING to define your theory or explain how it predicts the minutely detailed (and often questionable) observations you describe. Please refrain from such strawman attacks and alternative syllogism fallacies in your next post (and yes, I recognize that this would cut down your post to nothing; you'll have to think of something new). I thought you said you wanted a rational debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:45:45 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D893617.5070203@stardestroyer.net... > DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1B: DEATH STAR FIREPOWER > ------------------------------------------------------ > I urge you to heed your > own stipulation about brevity and cut it down. My post length is roughly proportional to the number of 'disagreeables' in that which I reply to, but thank you for your suggestion. Given the vast increase in belligerent remarks in your post, I'll try to take you up on that suggestion in order to avoid confusion from the amount of snipping which would be required. One suggestion I do not agree with, however, is your attempted renaming of the Superlaser Effect. Insertion of "mysterious" into that MCR title is an obvious instance of prejudicial language use, made worse by the fact that you were already apprised of the correct terminology in my prior reply. "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term, and that is what shall be used. Also, you have asserted that "DET theorists" is prejudicial. I do not see how that phrasing could possibly color one's views in a negative fashion, since I was aiming for the least colorful phrasing possible. However, should the concept come up again, I'll use some alternative phrasing which, it is hoped, will be found even less colorful. Finally, I take issue with the incorrect but repeated assertion that the Superlaser Effect is an undefined, creationist-like theory. You had access to all the arguments relating to the Death Star on your own forums and had help in locating the relevant threads, where it was defined in a far superior fashion than within the older material on my website. (And yes, the 403 error you received was an intentional denial of access to relevant materials, in response to your own.) Finally, creationist theories are not just worthless due to a lack of definition . . . they are worthless due to a lack of testability, appealing to the invisible and unknowable. At any rate, for the sake of ease of reference, I shall again provide the relevant observations (Section I) and the definition of the theory (Section II). I'll also refer to the newer supporting evidence, the advantages over DET theory, and I'll also refer to your counterarguments from your last post where appropriate, with main reference to your shield arguments occurring in Section III. I. Observations With the advent of the Special Edition, many changes were made in the Alderaan destruction event. The differences include the removal of the green "shield" effect (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar6.jpg), completely altered explosion effects, and the addition of the rings. 1. The Beam One thing that hasn't changed between the OE and SE is the fact that the green superlaser beam is, by whatever method, the cause of the destruction of Alderaan. You have suggested that there is an invisible beam component in the following: "As for the termination of the beam, you are assuming that the visible portion of the beam is the entire beam. TESB proved that this is not the case, and the SW2ICS clearly indicates that the visible pulse is a mere carrier on the underlying invisible beam." First, resorting to invoking invisible beams is very questionable in its own right. Next, there is no canon evidence for a damaging invisible beam component that exists *after* the visible bolt or beam, and I can think of no instance when this could be inferred. There are a couple of canon occasions when damage occurs *before* the bolt strikes, but these instances are exceedingly rare in comparison to bolt=damage episodes. Further, your effort to employ the non-canon ICS fails not only due to its lack of canonicity, but also in regards to the argument it presents wherein turbolaser bolts are *preceded* by an invisible, lightspeed, laser-beam component, not followed by it. In the diffuse matter of the Alderaan blast, one would have also expected to see some evidence of beam-matter interaction, but none occurs. Also, Saxton, author of the ICS, would seem to disagree with this interpretation for the superlaser, given his comment on the matter: "When the eight tributary beams meet at the weapon's focal point they do not pass through each other as genuine light beams would. Instead they come to a halt and energy apparently builds at that point until a critical moment when the final outbound beam is spontaneously released. Whatever force is involved in the "superlaser", it cannot be mere electromagnetism because non-disruptive superposition of beams is ruled out by the focal point behavior." http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds.html#superlaser Also, any attempt to use the ICS theory can only detract from your shield interaction argument, owing to the fact that there is nothing visibly occurring at or near the planet prior to the green beam's impact. The superlaser beam takes 38 frames to reach Alderaan, at 24fps and from a stated distance of 6 planetary diameters (or about 77,000km). Even rounding the time down and the distance up, that's still 1.5 seconds to traverse 100,000 kilometers, which would still only be 67,000 km/s, or just under one-quarter lightspeed. Any energy traveling at lightspeed would have been affecting the planet well before we see the superlaser hit the planet. And last but not least, employing the non-canon would also include such things as the Sun Crusher or Galaxy Gun, other devices which employed fancy non-DET maneuvers to blow things up. (Then, of course, there's the Galileo argument. When Galileo noticed that the moon had mountains, church-men were shocked and appalled . . . according to their beliefs, the moon was a perfect sphere. So, they argued that there was an invisible crystal over the moon, thereby making it spherical. Galileo, in his wit, replied that the invisible crystals were arranged into even taller mountains . . . I suppose I could argue that the superlaser released billions of invisible flying gnomes that dismantled Alderaan piece by piece, but I really don't see the point of such claims.) 2. The Band and the Surface (includes new polar data) A circular white area expands over the entire visible surface of the globe: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband.jpg The band itself does not noticeably diminish during this journey, suggesting that it is maintaining or increasing in energy, as opposed to the natural dissipation with increasing area that one would expect of a common shockwave. The band outer boundary is also visible in your Frame 4 and moves further in Frame 5, and one can see that it is obviously unrelated to any pre-existing surface or atmospheric object (frames 0 and 2 included for reference): http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AldBlastBand4&5.jpg You have chosen to deny the existence of the white band encircling the globe outright: "The bands are a figment of your imagination. Nothing more." This is incorrect, as the canon visuals demonstrate in two separate ways. You have also claimed that they are not grounds to conclude that some Superlaser Effect occurs. You are partially correct . . . alone, they are not. However, they are not the sole piece of evidence. *** You have also claimed that the surface is vaporized into white-hot gas ahead of the band, and is not substantially intact, despite the readily apparent intact-ness of the surface both before the passage of the band: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/RSAband2.jpg . . . and the intact material remaining afterward (one can even see the band disappear behind surviving planetary material as it rounds the globe circa Frame 82 of your own DeathStar-SE.avi vidcap: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DeathStar-SE-Polar.jpg You have chosen to deny the existence of the clearly visible intact polar material on the following grounds: "You are using the chaos of the explosion to misrepresent vague shapes as an intact, solid planetary surface." Incorrect. There is obviously something there, maintaining its location and orientation after the band passes. There is mobile material around it (including a mobile fireball which eventually obscures the right side of it), but to claim that there is nothing there is, quite simply, to deny the canon evidence. Nevertheless, you claim that "the sheer velocity of ejecta from the planet precludes any possibility of an intact surface". And yet, it is there . . . we can see it. It is even more visible when the frames are put into motion (the following is an animated gif of particular frames . . . I recommend viewing DeathStar-SE.avi for the full motion and framecount): http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Polarani.gif It is also interesting to compare what is seen to later frames of the same area during and after the secondary explosion, where absolutely nothing is visible: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DeathStar-SE-nopolar.jpg "Does it occur to you that this might be a mere insubstantial planet-shaped haze, like the one that's left over at the END of the explosion?" As evidence for "the one that's left over", you point to a screenshot showing a box-shaped debris cloud which is not at the planet's location, with scattering debris everywhere. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-end.jpg I do not see how a box-shaped debris cloud away from the planet's location helps your case. In any event, the notion that what we see in the polar region is destroyed and immobilized planetary material is not supported by the canon evidence or by reason. *** In spite of the intact left side of the planet, and intact polar material, you say: "Yet again, I must point out that the sides and polar surfaces are NOT intact. They were very clearly blown past the atmosphere by frame 5." http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-5.jpg Regarding the polar region, the erroneous conclusion can be explained by virtue of the fact that the pole is obscured by the band which, from our perspective, is in front of it, and will not pass over and behind it for a few more frames. However, I do not understand how it can be said that the left side of the planet is blown past the atmosphere. You use two screenshot overlays side-by-side. (The two are created by different methods, no less, whereas it would have been better to repeat your method for the purposes of comparison.) You argue that the brightened, possibly expanding atmosphere is, in fact, vaporized surface material departing the planet . . . albeit without the characteristic fireball effect observed in all the rest of the vaporized planetary material. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Comparison.jpg However, you argue that it is vaporized material *only* for the second modified screenshot, and *not* the first. For the first, you argue that it is a shield effect, "PRECISELY as we would expect for the far side of a shield which has just been struck by a superlaser versus a shield which has already collapsed." This is a gross inconsistency: you ascribe two separate causes to what is a visually identical phenomenon, claiming that one is vaporized material (even though this makes no sense without a fireball) and claiming the other is a shield effect (even though there is no evidence for a shield, but I'll be coming back to that shortly). *** http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-6&1rsa.jpg (Overlay of Frames 6 and 1) You also deny the bands based on your perception that they are not centered on the superlaser's impact point. As evidence, you claim that the above shot shows that the center of the dark spot is at least 3500 kilometers away from the impact point. First, and most importantly, it should be noted that the dark spot is not the basis of band location, contrary to your assertion. Second, the radius of Earth is 7000 kilometers, but I see no valid centerpoint which could be half that radius distant from the point of impact, as illustrated below: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-6&1rsa2.jpg Third, I believe you are also miscounting the large dark debris area toward the left as part of the dark area, which will cause your centerpoint to be offset. Finally, your assertion fails to take into consideration the fact that the planet is three-dimensional. We would expect to see any ejecta which heads from the surface directly toward the observation point as somewhat less luminescent, given that there wouldn't be so much luminescent material behind it and adding to the luminescence. This can also be seen in the large dark debris area's explosion, where you'll note the rightmost side of it is darker than the left side. 3. The Secondary Blast Almost a full second after the termination of the superlaser, and therefore after the energy influx has ceased, what remains of the planet explodes in a tremendous blast. I don't think you make any argument against the existence of the secondary blast . . . on your Alderaan page, you say: "Strangely enough, there appears to be a second stage of the explosion at this point, even more violent than the first one." The only argument I've seen you make which could possibly have anything to do with the secondary blast is your reference to inertial confinement fusion (which, granted, was made in reference to the polar region, and not the planetary core). However, inertial confinement fusion is based on even, uniform target heating, whether it is done by almost 200 lasers focused on the target surface, or by even heating of a container which heats the target via radiation. I do not see how a lone superlaser beam could be expected to produce this effect for the core or polar region. 4. The Rings Your Frame 5 and Frame 29 show the appearance of the first and second rings, respectively. You refer to them as "fire rings", though they are not planetary material of any sort. Both rings completely encircle the planet's location, and there is some correlation between the rings' speed and size, and the violence of the particular blast they are associated with. Saxton's measurements place the speed of Ring One at .29c, and Ring Two at approximately .91c, with the possibility that it may be supra-light. You suggest that Ring One slows down from better than .33c to a more leisurely pace, in spite of any natural braking mechanism, adding yet another oddity in regards to the rings. You have been shown the fact that DET cannot explain the rings, and does not explain the Death Star rings, either. You dismiss that argument with the following: "Alternative syllogism fallacy (A or B; if not A, then B). The fact that the conventional explanation cannot explain the non-physical behaviour of the fire rings does not lend weight to your undefined MCR." However, that is incorrect . . . you have mistaken my argument for one that falls victim to that fallacy. You see, DET not only fails to explain the rings of Alderaan and the Death Stars, but it also stands opposed to those rings by virtue of the predictions one would expect from DET. It is a failed prediction. Meanwhile, my theory is based on the observations. As it stood from the beginning would suggest that all of the fire rings should have as their centerpoint the approximate center of mass of the object being destroyed. This prediction was rendered true by the following discovery: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Rings421-4.jpg Superimposition of the DS2 one frame before detonation and at the start of its ring formation. Note, if you will, that the center of the Death Star II sphere (where the reactor was located) is not the centerpoint of the ring. However, taking into account the incomplete section, the center of mass of the DS2 is the centerpoint of the ring. It is, therefore, not a matter of a fallacy of any sort. It is a matter of false predictions of one theory, as opposed to true predictions of another. 5. The Novel Evidence A. "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun"(ANH Novel). This describes the power source of the Death Star as having the energy of a small sun, and/or being a small artificial sun. In either case, we have a Death Star powerplant that cannot be described as being more than around 1e26W, the power output of our mid-sized natural sun. Further, suns operate off of nuclear fusion, and the quote above suggests the same of the Death Star. You've argued previously that this is akin to Khan's comment that the Enterprise would "flare up like an exploding sun", but that is a simile: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=simile Further, we also cannot ascribe the "liberated energy of a small artificial sun" comment to metaphor, because it is too specific, and too precise: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=metaphor However, even if there were a way to argue that the reactor description was a metaphor and make that argument stick, there would still be the issue of the quantifiable energy output given in the quote. This puts limits on the possible reactor energy of the Death Star, and therefore limits the possible energy output of the superlaser. B. "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"(ANH novel, p. 178). The way in which the superlaser does its job is defined above. Some have argued that this somehow refers to the reactor of the Death Star, but that claim does not fit the context of the quote. Luke is pondering the incredibly tough temple and the remains of Alderaan, along with the (possible) destruction of the moon. II. The Definition of the Superlaser Effect "The true nature of the "superlaser" remains an undescribed piece of superphysics . . . Questions of "how" the superlaser functions may be unanswerable, but we can determine useful limits on the capabilities of the technology." - Saxton The Death Star employs the Superlaser Effect. This effect is based on some form of mass-energy conversion against relatively dense (i.e. solid) matter to create the required energy effect, with direct energy transfer effects being non-existent or extremely limited. This effect is not instantaneous, which would suggest a chain-reaction or propagation time for the effect. The mass-energy conversion is almost certainly not achieved by way of combustion, fission, fusion, or antimatter means, since none of these can provide the required energy output in a reasonable fashion, and/or reasonable timeframe, and/or in a manner consistent with the Death Star's stated and observed capabilities. The estimates of how energetic the Alderaan blast appears to have been seem to hover around 1e38J. Assuming 100% efficiency of a mass-energy conversion effect, this would require only 1/5000th of the material of Alderaan. Alternately, 100% of the material of Alderaan could undergo conversion, at 0.02% efficiency. Given the debris which remains (and which the Falcon later bumps into), a higher-efficiency mass-energy conversion is more likely. The precise nuts-and-bolts of the how the Superlaser Effect is achieved are not stated in the canon, just as hyperdrive and other advanced or exotic technologies are left unexplained. However, we know it to be a mass-energy conversion, and we know the limitations of the Death Star reactor, so we have certain logical and physical constraints which must be maintained. The Superlaser Effect creates a planar shockwave after a certain amount of matter conversion takes place, though the precise appearance and orientation are variable. The lack of band dissipation supports the concept of mass-energy conversion, provided the remnant polar material observed is subsurface (i.e. mantle or upper mantle). The notion of chain-reaction or propagation related to the band is supported by the timing . . . the secondary blast begins concurrent to when the band would meet itself. The secondary blast occurring after the superlaser has terminated also supports the idea, since no additional energy input was occurring from the superlaser. The planar aspect to superlaser and superlaser-related explosion events is a constant. In the case of Alderaan, we have two rings. DS1 gives us a ring-and-a-half, while the DS2 gives us only one ring. The theory as originally created successfully linked the planar effects to a single cause, as opposed to the random ad hoc hypotheses which existed previously. Further, even though the expectation that a theory have predictive powers is a questionable one given the untestability of any theories regarding sci-fi technology, the theory did successfully predict the mass-centered nature of the DS2 ring prior to this theorist's noticing of that effect. Further, the ship-killer shots from DS2 also both show planar effects as one would expect (with the Liberty even showing a "secondary" blast effect) though the planar effects are different from one another. It is not known with certainty what variables cause the difference, but the only known variables between the two ships and their destructions would be orientation, ship mass and distribution, and beam velocity on impact. Unknown but possible variables would include ship damage, energy utilization, and shield status. In any event, the fact that both show a planar effect when struck by the superlaser is a confirmation of theory. Finally, though the original state of the theory left open the question of how much DET was involved in the superlaser beam, I eventually came down on the side that there was none or virtually none. My discovery of the lack of atmospheric effect served as confirmation of that hypothesis. III. Counterarguments 0. DS2 ship shot against the Wingless You claim that the planar puff is a thin surface layer superheated and blown off. This claim makes no sense, and is contrary to the evidence. Please explain. 1. Chain Reaction You have previously claimed that all chain-reactions are dependent on certain materials . . . fire burning better than steel, hydrogen fusing better than iron, and so on. However, you have pointed out only those chain reactions which are based on particular sorts of particles, and have failed to acknowledge the existence of reactions which are not dependent on a certain element or compound. One such chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online at Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists were nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, but two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another, leading to the destruction of the planet. As you might guess, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might have happened given the energy levels employed at RHIC would be a positively-charged strangelet being created, lasting long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, non-material-dependent chain reaction even in our comparatively-backwards physics. 2. Opening Crawl You claim that the opening crawl, because it says the Death Star had the *power* to destroy a planet, is saying that the Death Star had the firepower to destroy a planet via DET with the superlaser. From your post: > Actually, Vader said "the ABILITY to destroy a planet is insignificant > next to the power of the Force". Thank you, correction noted, even if that is the sort of thing you would call a "red herring nitpick". > When the term "power" is applied to > machinery or weapons, it has an entirely different meaning than when it > is applied to people or their institutions. This is an assumption on your part, unsubstantiated in the canon or by the term's denotation. Vader's description of "ability" as opposed to the term "power" speaks to this point canonically. As to the word not lending itself to the assumption you place on it, I have extracted the relevant definitions from http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=power . You are at liberty to add to the list if you feel other definitions apply. "Power: 1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively. (The Webster's Revised Unabridged on the page goes into further detail on this point) 9. a. The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated: turbines turned by steam power; a sailing ship driven by wind power. b. The capacity of a system or machine to operate: a vehicle that runs under its own power. c. Electrical or mechanical energy, especially as used to assist or replace human energy. d. Electricity supplied to a home, building, or community: a storm that cut off power to the whole region. 10. Physics. The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower." Now, you'll note that the use of the word which you assume to be the only accurate one given the context is the tenth approach, which for our purposes would be the same as "firepower". However, there is no reason to make this assumption. I find it questionable that the opening crawl of Star Wars was making a foray into physics and weapons yield data, as opposed to simply describing the awesome capabilities of the Death Star. 3. Shield logic First, let me take a moment to point out that you have attempted to misconstrue a statement of mine regarding your shield theory and claim some sort of victory as a result of your misunderstanding: > > Some . . . and now, evidently, yourself included . . . have argued > > that a planetary shield is the explanation. In a way, you are correct > > . . . it is the only explanation that can possibly explain the > > situation. > > So you admit that the conventional explanation works, which means that > it's a perfectly viable theory. Concession accepted. What you have failed to notice (besides my comment immediately after what you quoted regarding how your pro-shield argument ignores canon facts) is that I was not acknowledging the validity of the shield idea . . . I was acknowledging that you require it to be valid, and badly. The Superlaser Effect theory can stand regardless of Alderaan's shield status. However, without a shield, DET fails miserably in yet another way. > 100% of your arguments against the conventional theory are strawman > distortions, because the conventional explanation includes a shield, and you > insist on REMOVING the shield from that theory before attacking it. Incorrect . . . there is no straw man in play, because there is no evidence for a shield. 3B. Outside Evidence for Planetary Shields You claim that there is outside evidence for the existence of planetary shields in Star Wars: > ******* > "The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations to > the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think that > our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough." > ******* > > Tarkin bragged that the destruction of Alderaan would be impressive > because Alderaan's defense systems were as strong as ANY IN THE EMPIRE Unfortunately, we are not told what this refers to. Orbital defenses, anti-ship surface weaponry, fighter craft, jamming equipment, and/or a naked guy with a sharp stick could all be defined as a planetary defense system, and would logically have been the expected sort of defense in a pre-superlaser universe. Naboo seemed to have little more than luck and fighters as its defense system. They were, as Panaka pointed out, a non-violent people. Similarly, Leia described Alderaan as being a planet of peaceful people . . . I see no reason to assume that Alderaan would suddenly have planetary shields when no other Republic or Imperial planet has been seen to have them. Your claim in regards to that is that escalating tensions help prove that Alderaan had a shield. The problem with that notion is that the technology itself is not known to exist. Though military powers would, I'm sure, love if a technology could appear when a problem appeared, it unfortunately doesn't work that way. > (and we know from TESB how easy it is to set up a theatre shield). Well, we don't know it's easy from TESB, but we did see quick placement in TPM. However, a theatre shield does not make for a planetary shield. > > 1. Planetary shield technology is known to exist (from TESB and ROTJ). Incorrect. *Theatre* shielding is known to exist from TESB and TPM, and we know that shield energies can be projected to the Death Star in RoTJ. However, the Death Star is an artificial construct, not a planet . . . given that we have never observed shields which are not line-of-sight phenomena, we must assume that the battlestation was aiding in the projection of the shield around itself. Further, even the 900 kilometer size estimates leave the Death Star II shields too small to be considered planetary in scale. Over and above that fact, though, is the matter regarding height. You claim a shield thousands of kilometers away from Alderaan, when nothing of the sort has ever been observed. The most distant *representation* of a shield ever observed was this one: http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/archive/Images/Classic_Trilogy/Locations/ Death_Star_II/DS2RebGraphic2 . . . but we know that representation was not perfectly to scale, given that the projector on Endor was far smaller than what is seen in the representation. > Think > about that; the difficulty of overcoming Alderaan's defense systems was > such that he expected THAT feat to impress people, as if simply > obliterating an unprotected planet would not be demonstration enough! You're drawing a peculiar comparison. Again, enemy ships would be expected to make orbit and try to attack a planet, meaning that defense systems would be rigged against such a threat. A tremendous battle-station wielding a superlaser would not be an expected attack method. 3C. "Shield Halo" As the superlaser hits, the cloud bank above the impact site is unaffected. This suggests that there is no DET-style interaction with the atmosphere. You claim that the planet is protected by a shield which repels the superlaser until around Frame 4. As evidence for your claim, you point to a "halo" of atmospheric brightening effects which appear on the right side of the planet, past the terminator. > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AlderaanBlast-1rsa1.JPG > > The circle is 103 pixels tall, and 103 pixels wide. You'll note that > > the entire planet, plus your halo effect, are contained within the > > circle, with room to spare. Contrary to your interpretation, I see no > > reason to assume that the halo is extra-atmospheric. It would appear > > to be caused by atmospheric scattering from a bright light source > > (i.e. the superlaser point of impact). > > Not quite, Robert. You are obviously assuming that you can disprove the > extra-atmospheric nature of the halo by showing that it's not many > hundreds of km away from the surface Incorrect. "Extra-atmospheric" does not require such an assumption, nor is it implicit in my argument. > (even though the atmosphere thins > to inconsequential densities beyond 100km altitude, so it would only be > 1 pixel "wide" at this range, and your red circle is actually > extra-atmospheric!). The red circle is in contact with the planet on the lower left. Note that this may suggest the equator of Alderaan is actually slanted from our perspective, given the flattening of an Earth-like rotating body. In this case, the equator would be at a ~30 degree angle in this direction: / In any case, the glow which you claimed to be extra-atmospheric off to the right is well-contained by the circle, with room to spare. > However, its extra-atmospheric nature is known > because of its lack of consistency, not its altitude, which would be > virtually indistinguishable from the surface. If it's an atmospheric > effect, then there is no reason why you would see patches of blue ocean > between the impact point and the "halo" to the right. Illogical: a light source producing a diffused brightness in the atmosphere need not automatically obscure everything below it. A clear sky, though appearing blue and virtually opaque to us, does not appear that way from orbit. http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/lores.cgi?PHOTO=STS074-735-007 > It generates a fireball in all directions moving outward > from the point of energy release, with no patches or open holes > whatsoever. Then why the claim of fireball-free vaporization in regards to Frame 5? > Since we see blue in between regions of illumination, it is > obviously NOT simple atmospheric heating (see the accompanying marked-up > screenshot, with white lines pointing out areas which have become more > luminescent, and red lines pointing out intervening regions of > unaffected blue. > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Halo.jpg 1. Again, your argument is nullified due to the counterfactual nature of the assertion in regards to what one should expect from a brightly lit atmosphere. 2. The blue areas pointed out by the red lines are not at all unaffected . . . they are significantly brighter than they were prior to superlaser impact, which is in keeping with the idea of atmospheric brightening. Frame 0 and Frame 1, cropped and zoomed: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Aldblue-x.jpg 3. The upper right area marked with a white line is a cloud bank. This is visible in the frame prior to superlaser impact . . . you can also see it in the upper middle of the pic above. Its appearance is to be expected from a point-source of light . . . note the brightness gradient with further distance from the superlaser, also seen below the impact point. 4. The lower right area marked with a white line is not brightened to the extent of the cloud bank (with the esception of one cloud), but is instead of similar brightness to the rest of the atmosphere, including the "unaffected blue" areas you mentioned. This implies atmospheric brightening in an area without clouds that can show the brightest whiteness. > Moreover, you have neglected to consider a fairly simple concept known > as "line of sight". This principle dictates that atmospheric > transmission of light will not occur if there is an opaque obstruction, > such as the curvature of a planet. In the presence of an atmosphere, you must consider factors such as diffusion and haze. This atmospheric scattering of light can cause a point source to produce brightness in an area 'around the bend' from what would otherwise be the horizon limit. For example, note this picture from Earth orbit. The sun is not visible, but the high clouds are, as is the atmospheric haze above said clouds. http://www.solarviews.com/raw/earth/sunrise.gif In the case of the Superlaser Effect, we are dealing with a brightness which is several times that being created naturally from the sun. For example, if Alderaan is like Earth, then the Death Star was approximately 77,000 kilometers distant from it when the superlaser was fired. However, instead of looking like this: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/data/ev13/ev1328_PIA00432_md.jpg ... it looked like this: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg Note the gray clouds, and the diffuse surface details. This suggests one of several things . . . either the cap is too dim, or the planet receives very little sunlight, or the atmosphere is much thicker or denser than that of Earth. > It also means that if the beam > is heating up a portion of the atmosphere rather than an > extra-atmospheric shield , any direct light transmission from the effect > will be limited to a radius of 1000-1500km even if it occurs at 100km > altitude, where there is little atmosphere to speak of. At 50km altitude > (still well outside the useful atmosphere), line of sight is limited to > just 800km. Straw man: your argument is based on *direct* light transmission, whereas I have never claimed direct light transmission from the point of impact as the source of the atmospheric brightening. Further, it is interesting to note here the fact that Alderaan, despite appearing quite dim overall, is surprisingly well-lit past the terminator. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Ald-0-0-bright.jpg Note the visible atmosphere past the terminator in the brightness and contrast-enhanced shot to the right. The same result occurs no matter which frame you look at prior to the superlaser hit. This suggests a natural atmospheric diffraction of light far greater than what one would expect from a planet such as Earth, as one can observe much more closely in the following shot: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg > 2. The energy is conducting around the planet in an arcing direction > rather than a direct line of sight. Shields can do this, as we saw in > TPM. Atmospheres cannot. Incorrect: Alderaan demonstrates this "light conduction" prior to superlaser impact with anything whatsoever. Further, the Gungan shields to which I assume you refer did not produce the sort of brightening effects over their surface that you require. Note in the following that weapons impact brightening is limited to the target area: http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/archive/Images/Episode_1/Screen_Captures/ Wdscrn239.jpg (For reference, shields when not hit: http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/archive/Images/Episode_1/Screen_Captures/ Wdscrn241.jpg ) 3D. "Shield burn-off" > > > This would imply that the superlaser is drilling into the planet's > > > mass already, although the sheer scale means that there will be a > > > measurable time lag before the surface expands (even at 5% of c, it > > > would take 1 frame for a lower mantle expansion to breach the > > > surface and 5 frames for a core expansion to breach the surface). > > > Intensification without forward progress is consistent with a > > > shield, but not with your mysterious surface-level chain reaction. > > > I disagree. Besides the fact that there is no evidence for a shield, > > there is also the problem for DET wherein shield failure should not > > provide for the exact same area to be affected as observed. > > Scientific ignorance: by assuming that the superlaser must start from > zero at the moment it breaches the shield, you neglect conservation of > energy. Completely untrue. I do not assume it must start at zero, but by your own argument regarding the shield re-radiating the energy around the planet, there is no need to assume that all of the sudden a shield failure would make that energy zip down and burn off the surface layers of the planet, either. However, that is what your theory requires. > You see, there is a principle in basic physics which tells us > that the total amount of mass/energy in a closed system must remain > constant. Irrelevant . . . a planet is not a closed system. You should know this from arguing with creationists, since the reverse is one of their claims. If it was re-radiating energy into space by use of a shield, there is no reason this energy should suddenly turn inward when the shield fails. > But when the shield fails, the accumulated energy > MUST GO SOMEWHERE, hence it hits the surface of the planet over an area > roughly equal to the halo. Why down? The whole point of the shield is to re-radiate the energy away from the planet, is it not? Why would the shield all of the sudden not only radiate energy away, but actually suck down what it's already trying to re-radiate? 4. Debris Chunks "Interesting. And you conclude that these chunks of debris support your undefined MCR, eh?" Not specifically. I was just correcting your argument that they didn't exist. 5. Alternative and Ignorance > 100% of your attempts to generate evidence for your undefined MCR are > examples of the alternative syllogism fallacy (if not A, then B). Absolutely incorrect. What we are dealing with is not-A AND B. The two arguments are not dependent on one another, though the comparisons are quite telling. > You are committing the "appeal to ignorance" > fallacy, in which you claim that because we cannot absolutely prove the > existence of Alderaan's shield, it must not exist. No, not at all . . . but we'll need some sort of proof besides your say-so. 6. Parsimony (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html) The version of the principle of parsimony I like best is Einstein's: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." But, for our purposes, one of the four given on that page is best, such as: "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." DET is a very simple theory . . . but it is too simple. In order to try to explain away unhelpful facts, additional notions must be piled on top: A. In order to explain away the lack of cloud burn-off, there must be a shield. B. In order to explain away the band, it must be denied. C. In order to explain away the rings, they must be chalked up to ________ (where "blank" is still undetermined). D. In order to explain away the secondary explosion, it must be chalked up to an invisible beam. . . . and so on. Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Indeed. Just above, we have three separate extra entities piled on top of DET. Meanwhile, my theory requires but one, with nothing piled on top. Further, the DET theory fails to address the similar rings around the Death Star I, Death Star II, and so on, and so forth. More ad hoc theories would no doubt have to be employed in order to explain those events. > The principle of parsimony is intrinsically hostile to any theory which > introduces extra or undefined mechanisms." Perhaps, but it is even more hostile toward theories which do not explain the evidence. Remember, something must be explained by a theory before parsimony will even bother with it, and DET not only fails to explain Alderaan without lots of extra ad hoc entities, but also fails to explain the exact same phenomena with reference to the Death Stars. 7. The claim is enough You claim there is a shield, and that the mere existence *of this claim* is proof of shield and DET: "This is sophistry of the highest order; even if there is only the POSSIBILITY of a shield, that's more than enough to evaluate the DET/shield theory as-is, rather than forcibly stripping away the shield component as if it has been proven impossible." That is patently absurd. Even if a shield exists, it does not prove DET . . . you'd still have to explain the rings, band, and so on and so forth. **** Again, as with the Canon argument, I am at a loss to understand why there's an argument going on. There can be only one . . . let's go with the one that sticks to the canon facts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 01:20:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D92992E.2090705@stardestroyer.net> -------- RSA Debate Round 3, Part 1a (EU inclusion) (also available at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round3a-1.html) Robert, your increasingly lengthy posts contain a steadily decreasing ratio of on-topic material to off-topic red herrings and "to quoque" fallacies in defense of previous logical errors. You replied to every identification of a logical fallacy by simply denying it (indeed, at one point you denied committing a logical fallacy anywhere in this debate; an unreasonable and pointlessly obstinate claim since even the best debaters may carelessly commit a fallacy now and then). Your responses make it clear that I must not only identify your fallacies but also explain the definitions of said fallacies, thus making it more difficult for you to simply dismiss logic-based criticism by saying "incorrect" and deny it. From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html: ********* Red Herring This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion. "You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?" ********* You attempt to deflect accusations of red herring fallacies by arguing that the subjects you introduce are related in some tangential way to the subject under discussion. However, that is NOT ENOUGH to avoid being guilty of the red herring fallacy. The red herring fallacy applies whenever anyone brings up subject B in a debate over subject A. It DOESN'T MATTER whether subject B is related in some tangential way to subject A (as it is in the above example); the red herring fallacy applies as long as it is a different subject. By demanding that I make the first post, you allowed me to choose the exact subject, and that subject was the simple question: IS THE EU MATERIAL ADMISSIBLE? It was NOT "does the EU material introduce error", or "can scientific conclusions be drawn from EU sources" or "can you generate valid upper and lower limits from EU-based sources," or any of the other myriad red herrings you have attempted to drag into this debate. All of the "related" questions you raise are completely moot points if the EU material is not admissible in the first place; you introduce them in a transparent attempt to "appeal to consequence" rather than discussing the original subject. Your refusal to recognize the proper definition of the red herring fallacy notwithstanding, you are indeed guilty of that fallacy on many occasions, made all the more flagrant for your refusal to recognize the fallacy even when confronted. A couple of examples follow: > This third accusation of a red herring is also inaccurate. In this > case, I was explaining my position on intra-canonical relationships > for the sake of clarity, lest my position be misunderstood or open to > misrepresentation. Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is > not a red herring. >... > We are not debating in a vacuum. The present beliefs on the EU are > valid segues toward understanding the Canon Policy as it should be > understood, if only as negative examples. It is not an argument on > the manner of analysis, but on the treatment of the data in regards > to its perceived truth-value. In the first example, you defend your red herring of the novel's positioning relative to the movie EVEN THOUGH NEITHER IS EU. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether EU material is admissible; it is related only in the sense that it has something to do with continuity and you happen to discuss the subject in the same portion of your website. In the second example, you defend your discussion of EU analysis methods as a "treatment of the data in regards to its perceived truth-value", which is a long-winded way of saying that you think it's relevant because it relates to how seriously the EU should be taken. In both cases, the subject is different from the simple question: is the EU admissible? Not "good enough for scientific analysis" or "potentially analyzed in a really bad way as shown by these examples" or any of your other red herrings, but simply: is it admissible? In order to avoid the red herring fallacy, your rebuttals must deal with the subject of my post and only the subject of my post, or they are red herrings by definition. If you want to discuss other related subjects such as the proper method of analyzing EU material, the validity of firepower estimation from said sources, or more details of your personal "policy on intra-canonical relationships", you must first either win or concede on the original subject and then request a new discussion on these other subjects (for example, if we agree that the EU is admissible, THEN we can argue over the question of whether it can be analyzed in a scientific manner). I am running out of patience for your endless space-wasting red herrings. I could identify every single example of the red herring fallacy again, but you would undoubtedly repeat your defensive reaction. Instead, I will try to respond only to points made which are directly relevant to the question of whether the EU is admissible, not whether I am using your preferred terminology and not whether you agree with the methods I use for analyzing the EU on my website and not any of your other myriad red herrings. ********* (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) Argumentum ad hominem Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties. The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example: "You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children." This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you." ********* You attempted to defend your repeated use of ad hominems such as your ubiquitous "" rhetorical trick (subtle accusation of misbehaviour without having to bother actually identifying or explaining the offense) and your insistence on repeatedly mentioning my behaviour outside the debate with comments such as the following: > That means that I did not attempt to claim that your behavior had a > bearing on the truth value of your arguments (the definition of ad > hominem). However, one need not explicitly declare that you impugn the validity of someone's argument by discussing his behaviour outside the debate (just as no such explicit declarations are made in the examples given above). I have refrained from commenting on your history during this debate for the same reasons that you SHOULD refrain from commenting on mine. Your refusal to cease and desist (and, indeed, your unapologetic introduction of even MORE comments about my behaviour outside the debate) when confronted belies your claim to be conducting an exclusively rational debate. > > Actually, this is not readily apparent from the Cerasi quote, hence > my brief exposition. Remember, he said that "the real story of Star > Wars" is the Absolute Canon films, "and *only* the films". Once again, real-life historical records are not the "real story" either; they are imperfect descriptions of it, and they might even be wrong. This does not mean they are inadmissible if we want to know what happened at a particular time or place and we lack direct observations. > Sansweet may have cleared this issue up a bit for Australian fans > during a convention there: > "Steven Sansweet said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon > debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are > different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio > plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, > nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict > his creativity in any way."" > http://www.peak.org/peak_info/mlists/info/prequels.html Hearsay. Even if we were to assume that Sansweet was choosing his verbal statements at this convention as carefully as if they were published articles (an assumption you CONSISTENTLY make about such comments), and even if we assume that he is speaking about the entire continuity rather than just the canon, Steven Sansweet is not qualified to testify about the state of "Lucas' mind". The fact that Lucas chose to let an EU author (Timothy Zahn) name the capital world Coruscant (not to mention inserting some EU-based vehicles into the Special Editions of the original trilogy) nullifies your hearsay-based claim that the EU does not exist in his mind. Steven Sansweet is not qualified to testify about Lucas' thoughts. He is, however, qualified to testify on the status of what he HIMSELF works on, and he did so in the preface to the Star Wars Encyclopedia: ********* "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"." ********* You mocked my use of the term "quasi-canon" in your first reply and I did not deign to respond immediately, but your attempt to introduce Sansweet as evidence for your position is simply too egregious to ignore. The term "quasi-canon" is published in the SWE, which was approved by Lucasfilm. Deal with it. > A."Historical literature and narrative" is not generally considered > a valid primary source for such things as firepower estimates, > materials strength, and so on. While this is a red herring, I would deign to address it anyway: historical literature CAN be used for such things as firepower estimates; we have no direct observation of a Roman-era catapult in action, yet we can use historical sources to determine what their capabilities were. Historical sources are not as good as direct observations, but in lieu of direct observations, they are still worthy of analysis. Nevertheless, this subject is a moot point if the EU is not admissible, so it is still a red herring. If you wish to continue asserting your odd beliefs on the uselessness of historical sources, you can debate it elsewhere. > B. You may consider the following an ad hominem, and it is your right > to do so . . . I am about to point out that what is preached is not > practiced. You just mentioned your website . . . it contains the claim > that the EU materials are historical literature and are to be treated > as such (including considering them "highly suspect" works "written > from the point of view of the New Republic", possibly capable of being > "coloured by the author's bias, competence, and data-gathering > limitations"(as stated here), and that it cannot be analyzed as > scientific data). > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html#Analyze > However, it cannot be left unsaid that this is not the observed > approach on your pages, or in Vs. Debates in general. For instance, > in spite of canon ANH novel quotes of the Empire having a million > systems, you give them twelve million inhabited systems, as per Dark > Empire's non-canon figures > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Industry/Industry2.html). This is not only an ad hominem fallacy, it is also a strawman fallacy. On that page, I describe the entire SW civilization as being 12 million systems based on the DE quote, and the Empire as having nominal control over 1 million of those systems, based on the ANH novelization. There is no contradiction and this is hardly a surprise, given the fact that "there are so many uncharted settlements" (Admiral Ozzel). By the way, this is ALSO a red herring fallacy, since it has nothing to do with the question of whether the EU is admissible, despite your irrational assertion that "it cannot be left unsaid". You have efficiently combined THREE fallacies into a single argument (one of which you actually ADMIT to), yet you eventually go on to insist that you have committed no logical fallacies whatsoever. This obstinate refusal to admit ANY kind of error is hardly the sort of "rational debate" you claimed to want. > > By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and history are > > ALSO useless, > Incorrect anyway, but even if it were it would be irrelevant: > "slippery slope fallacy". SLIPPERY SLOPE fallacy? From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html: ********* The slippery slope argument This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana." ********* Please explain how it is a "slippery slope fallacy" to argue that the elimination of all data without guaranteed certainty would eliminate science and history. The logical connection is clearly demarcated: science and history both rely on data which is not guaranteed true (in fact, nothing is guaranteed true; reality does not have a "canon"). Therefore, if we were to use your policy of discarding all data which is not guaranteed true, then science and history would both disappear. In order to classify this as a "slippery slope", you would have to show that my argument depicts a SERIES of harmful events (it only mentions one, so you lose automatically; at worst, it can only be a non sequitur, not a slippery slope), and you would also have to show that the causal connection is invalid (you didn't even try). And why do you say it would be irrelevant due to the slippery slope fallacy? The slippery slope fallacy has nothing to do with relevance; it has to do with unestablished causality. Please stop misusing the definitions of logical fallacies. > False analogy: Science involves gathering the best, most reliable data > possible and formulating or testing hypotheses from that evidence. > There is no such thing as canon evidence to work with . . . there are > no numbers, figures, or formulas dropped into a scientist's lap from > on high, except those discovered by an objective, empirical analysis > of nature. Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that science depends entirely on non-canon data, ie- data which is NOT dropped from "on high", which is NOT guaranteed true, and which requires interpretation and speculation. Therefore, you admit that your philosophy of ignoring all which is not guaranteed true would nullify science in real life. Concession accepted. > > Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute > > certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > True. However, evidence which is known to be certain by definition is > a superior source than a historical document known to be riddled with > error. Yes, the canon is superior to the EU. However, this is yet another red herring fallacy on your part. We are debating the question of whether EU material is admissible AT ALL, not whether it should be elevated all the way up to canon status. You are employing the "false dilemma" fallacy to force us to choose between making the EU equal to the movies or ignoring it completely. > Further, science is not self-referential in the way the EU is. The > only real story of Star Wars is the films . . . it is the best, most > reliable data from which to draw conclusions. The "historical > literature" of the EU does not limit itself to these facts, but > instead creates its own and references them frequently. Wrong. Science is HIGHLY self-referential. It creates its own principles based on the evidence, and then it develops other theories based on those principles. Virtually all observations rely upon technological apparatus whose validity is based upon more scientific principles, and these observations are used in order to generate yet more scientific principles and theories. As for the EU, if George Lucas says that it is part of the saga of Star Wars, then it is part of the saga of Star Wars. You seek to define the EU as worthless speculation, but you have no evidence to back up this characterization; you have only hearsay from Sansweet and your assumption that "EU is separate" = "EU is invalid". > With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue > that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is > borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a > method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where > inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated > as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a > carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand > years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of > possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the > Canon. > > Non sequitur. > quietly snipped> If one determines the accuracy of an EU statement > > by "referencing" the canon, it does NOT follow that everything in > > the EU is invalid except for that which is "borrowed straight from > > the canon". If canon is "observation" and EU is "history" as I have > > long maintained, then any EU material which is in direct > > contradiction with canon is obviously wrong, just as any historical > > document which describes events that are scientifically impossible > > is obviously wrong. However, it does NOT follow that everything in > > every historical document which is not drawn directly from > > scientific observation is useless. > Incorrect: your claim of a non sequitur is based on misunderstanding, > caused by slicing through the argument in the middle of it. Robert, I grow tired of the way you simply make statements of fact without justifying them. If you believe my accusation of a non sequitur is invalid, then you must show HOW I have misinterpreted your argument, rather than simply casting vague aspersions upon my methods (particularly when you attack on the basis of incomplete quoting even though I quote whole paragraphs in my rebuttal while you quote individual sentences or even FRAGMENTS of sentences in your reply). > > Quasi-religious mentality. [adding back the rest of the paragraph > > which you quietly snipped] You seem to think it is possible to > > analyze something without "interpretation and speculation", hence > > their use invalidates any analysis. This is simply absurd; it is > > IMPOSSIBLE to analyze ANYTHING without a certain amount of > > "interpretation and speculation". Did it occur to you that ALL of > > science is an interpretive and speculative exercise? We take > > observations, interpret them into numbers and units, construct > > hypotheses (ie- speculate), etc. We can then verify those hypotheses > > via more interpretation of new observations. For the THIRD time, I > > must point out that you have effectively denied the validity of all > > science and history. > Prejudicial language is irrelevant, and given our opinions on > religious mentality, that's a thinly-veiled ad hominem. A negative term is not fallacious prejudicial language if it is the only accurate term. Again, you accuse me of various fallacies without explaining how and where I have committed the fallacy in question. Is it "prejudicial language" to say that you are employing a religious rather than scientific method by insisting that "interpretation and speculation" invalidates an analysis? Who but the religious fundamentalist believes in a form of evidence which speaks truth from "on high" without the need for interpretation? What ELSE would I call this bizarre mentality, if not "quasi-religious?" > > "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who > > would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, [adding > > back the part you removed] in an obvious attempt to generate > > prejudicial feeling against them. This might be somewhat excusable > > if you could actually show that A leads to B, but you don't even > > TRY; how on Earth does "interpretation and speculation" lead to > > "everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught?" Instead of > > explaining this HIGHLY dubious connection, you merely present some > > grandstanding. > No, I used an analogy in reference to the "questionable intellectual > honesty" sentence, where I discussed the practice of allowing the EU > to guide one's thinking. I expected the reader to have comprehended > the previous point that allowing the EU was to engage in the practice > of considering EU materials canon unless contradicted. Your excuses will fool no one. You tried to equate EU analysis to those who think anything is OK unless they get caught by the authorities, without even bothering to show how one was equivalent to the other. That is a PERFECT example of the "appeal to prejudice" fallacy, and your obstinate refusal to admit that fact will avail you nothing. Your flimsy excuse (to assume that it would be interpreted dishonestly and then equate EU analysis to "intellectual dishonesty" on that basis) is even WORSE. Moreover, I grow weary of your "snipes snipped" rhetorical trick. You deleted the part of my paragraph where I pointed out your failure to establish a connection between A and B; hardly an insignificant part of the criticism. In fact, you CONSISTENTLY delete the strongest parts of my criticisms in your replies. Why bother replying to any given paragraph AT ALL if you're only going to address one sentence in it? > > The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument; > Then why use it in all-caps and assert that I deny its existence? What part of "it would still exist by any other name" did you fail to read? It is the idea, not the name, which is important. > And here we arrive at the peculiar notion that I have previously > labelled the "Continuity Whiplash Theory". > You say that the Infinities label does not imply EU non-canonicity, > yet then choose to assume the reverse, that the EU moves closer to > canonicity because it places some of its own works outside its own > Continuity. This makes no sense. > If A is A and X is X, then just because some former X is turned into > not-X does not make X A or closer to being A. Strawman fallacy. I said nothing whatsoever about the EU being canon or moving closer to canon. I was speaking about the EU being part of the larger continuity which includes both the canon AND the EU, and the fact that special labelling for non-continuity EU obviously implies that the REST of the EU is part of the continuity, as publicly stated by Lucasfilm representatives and in official Lucasfilm publications. > > The fact that the full quote is buried somewhere else on your > > website [restoring the paragraph to a contiguous block] does not > > excuse this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of > > context" fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes > > on his continuity despite its obvious relevance. > Prejudicial language: the quote is directly linked from that page in > the references section, and the references section is referred to in > the introduction. You can't miss it. Hardly. If anything, the language was not harsh ENOUGH; you extensively analyzed the semantics of the sentence fragment "parallel universe" while IGNORING the part of his quote in which he stated that the EU intrudes on his timeline. That is the "quote taken out of context" fallacy, and it was clearly DELIBERATE. The fact that you chose to IGNORE that part of his quote in your article is not mitigated in any way by the fact that you hyperlink to the full quote in your end-notes. > > You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be > > separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. > > > That makes no sense whatsoever. If the EU is a parallel universe, it > is not only separate . . . it is different. This is demonstrated by > the in-house Continuity which the EU is expected to maintain. Irrelevant. We are discussing the question of whether the EU is admissible. Not whether it is parallel, not whether it is separate, not whether it is different, not whether it is equal, and not any of the other red herrings you insist on dragging into this debate. All questions regarding its relative placement in the continuity can be dealt with if and ONLY if we can agree that it is admissible. Until then, those concerns are irrelevant. You have already conceded on the main point, even if you won't admit it; you agreed that Lucasfim Licensing maintains a continuity, and that both the canon and EU are in it. However, you contend that this larger continuity is worthless, by consistently implying that Lucasfilm Licensing's in-house continuity should be given no weight whatsoever by the fans. Please justify this claim. > > Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another. > Incorrect: you yourself are claiming that the "intrude" comment makes > the EU have a measure of canonicity, in spite of the fact that Lucas > has referred to the licensing world (EU included) as an "other world" > and "parallel universe". Yet another strawman fallacy. Nowhere have I ever claimed that the EU material is canon; it is part of the larger continuity, not the canon. Your insistence on defining "canon" and "continuity" as synonymous is a circular logic fallacy; you are presuming the truth of that which you are attempting to prove. > > George Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with > > varying precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is > > inherently fallacious, > In which case your attempt to analyze the "intrude" fragment to > override the "other world" and "parallel universe" comment is > inherently fallacious. My argument is that the entire sentence is a > cohesive whole. Since he has used the "universe" comment on more than > one occasion (TV Guide and Cinescape), the logical implication is that > he means it. Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is > correct, it could only apply to the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as > the "intrude" comment. Are you even TRYING to watch out for self-contradictions in your argument? First, you say that you treat the sentence as a "cohesive whole". Then you IMMEDIATELY turn around and dismiss the second half of the sentence as "ad-libbed parts" and recommend that we ignore it. Worse yet, you claim that we should apply an uneven standard, ie- interpret the sentence word-for-word literally when he says "parallel universe", but NOT when he says "intrude"! You still fail to understand my point: George Lucas is a human being, and you cannot carefully analyze his choice of words. He may have an entirely different interpretation of "parallel universe" than you do, so your literalist method of interpretation is entirely fallacious. The harsh reality is that you cannot reconcile the two halves of his sentence together, and you quietly ADMIT this fact when you recommend that we treat the second half of the sentence differently! Face it: George Lucas said that the EU is separate from his canon, but it still intrudes on his world. You have painted yourself into a corner with this ridiculous literalist style of semantic analysis; you are now claiming that the first half of his sentence should be interpreted literally while the second half is completely ignored as "ad-libbed" nonsense! Tell me, what part of a VERBAL interview is NOT "ad-libbed"? Are you suggesting that he normally reads from a teleprompter in verbal interviews, and then went out on a limb by giving the EU validity so you can freely ignore it? Sorry, but my explanation can explain both halves of his statement. Your explanation clings to a semantic analysis of the first half and completely ignores the second half. An explanation which handles the entire statement is vastly preferable to one that forces you to ignore part of it. > Your interpretation contradicts the quote. A "parallel universe" is, > by definition, not part of the same timeline. My interpretation contradicts your INTERPRETATION of the FIRST HALF of the quote. It does not contradict the quote itself; it is merely an alternate interpretation thereof, which has the added benefit of interpreting the ENTIRE quote rather than dismissing part of it as "ad-libbed". > 2. No logical fallacies have been employed by me, despite claims to > the contrary. Not one logical fallacy in the whole debate, eh? Frankly, this argument is devolving into unconstructive and time-wasting "Did not! Did too!" childishness. You can continue to stubbornly deny ever making a single mistake if you like; I will let the audience decide the truth or falsehood of your denials for themselves. > SUMMARY > 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little > universe. > 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but > the canon exists for Lucas. > 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks > in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of > Star Wars is Lucas's canon. > 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly > identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the > EU material is part of a continuity. > 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of > LucasBooks. You have done a fine job of making a simple issue complex (not to mention long-winded), but here are the only fact which really matters: Exhibit A: the Lucas quote: ********* "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies."- George Lucas ********* Exhibit B: the Sansweet quote: ********* "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"." ********* In both cases, you have shamelessly misrepresented the words of these men to mean the opposite of what they obviously intend, once you look at the larger picture. Moreover, you consistently base your argument upon verbal interviews, while I base my argument largely upon officially sanctioned publications such as Star Wars Insider and the Star Wars Encyclopedia. It is no secret that a published statement is invariably composed with more care than a phrase in a verbal interview. Salient points: 1. You have no explanation WHATSOEVER for George Lucas' statement that the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars. Your flimsy excuse is to call it "ad-libbing" and dismiss it on that basis. You insist that it irreconcilably "contradicts" his statement that the canon and EU are separate even though I have an alternate interpretation which easily ties both comments together. 2. You have no explanation WHATSOEVER for observed intrusions of EU material into the canon movies, particularly in the case of Coruscant's name, not to mention EU-based spaceships appearing in the special editions of the original trilogy. 3. You use the fact that Lucas is willing to contradict the EU as proof that all of the EU is invalid. By that "reasoning", since we have no guarantees that the real-life universe will obey the laws of physics or even mathematics, all of that is invalid too. Moreover, George Lucas has even contradicted CANON on occasion (the infamous Greedo first shot, for example), but that doesn't mean we ignore it. 4. You employ an array of proofs that the EU is not canon, in order to prove that it is not part of continuity either. This is highly fallacious; you cannot use proof of A as proof of B. You could find a THOUSAND statements that the EU is not canon, and none of them would disprove my assertion that the EU and canon are both separate parts of a larger continuity. 5. You quote Steven Sansweet out of context; the fact that George does not worry about contradicting the EU does not mean that the fans can do the same thing. George is in a special position with respect to Star Wars; he is its creator. We, on the other hand, should abide by what he tells us, rather than acting as though HIS freedom of action should somehow translate to us. 6. Your attempts to contradict my comparison between real-life science/history and sci-fi analysis merely undermine your own position. By pointing out that there's no such thing as "canon" for real-life scientists, you inadvertently conceded that real-life scientists ALWAYS work with data which would fail your requirements for admissibility when studying sci-fi. You have conceded that there is a Lucasfilm continuity which includes both the canon and EU. You have conceded that Lucas' quote about the EU intruding on his world contradicts your interpretion of his position, hence your amusing recommendation that we ignore it. You have been reduced to the use of hearsay as evidence. Your only remaining passable argument is your claim that we should IGNORE the Lucasfilm continuity because it is "in-house" (no one ever said "EXCLUSIVELY in-house", but you apparently felt free to consider it a silent implication). However, you have no public statements telling us to ignore the continuity, and I have produced Sansweet's published description of the EU as "quasi-canon". Your refusal to accept defeat prolongs this debate with no conceivable benefit to you, as you will apparently continue to dig yourself deeper into the ground with your obstinate refusal to admit any of your mistakes. DEBATE SUMMARY IN THREE SENTENCES 1. You say that the EU is not part of the story of Star Wars. 2. I say that the EU is not canon, but it is still part of the larger continuity. 3. You retort that the EU is not part of the canon. What part of this do you not understand, Robert? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:35:38 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D92992E.2090705@stardestroyer.net... > RSA Debate > > Round 3, Part 1a (EU inclusion) Since most of your post is focused on attempts at attacking me, grandstanding, and other such silliness, I shall first reply to the small on-topic portion of your reply. ******* On-topic Matters: > > Actually, this is not readily apparent from the Cerasi quote, hence > > my brief exposition. Remember, he said that "the real story of Star > > Wars" is the Absolute Canon films, "and *only* the films". > > Once again, real-life historical records are not the "real story" > either; they are imperfect descriptions of it, and they might even be > wrong. This does not mean they are inadmissible if we want to know what > happened at a particular time or place and we lack direct observations. "*Only* the films" constitute "the real story of Star Wars". Again, your analogy is false. > > > Sansweet may have cleared this issue up a bit for Australian fans > > during a convention there: > > "Steven Sansweet said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon > > debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are > > different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio > > plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, > > nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict > > his creativity in any way."" > > http://www.peak.org/peak_info/mlists/info/prequels.html > > Hearsay. Even if we were to assume that Sansweet was choosing his verbal > statements at this convention as carefully as if they were published > articles (an assumption you CONSISTENTLY make about such comments) "... as carefully as if they were published articles"? In case you hadn't noticed, that's all we've been dealing with, up until the quote above which fits nicely within those published comments. > , and even if we assume that he is speaking about the entire continuity > rather than just the canon, Steven Sansweet is not qualified to testify > about the state of "Lucas' mind". Unfortunately, your argument is nullified as a result of the fact that Sansweet is not 'testifying' as to the "state" of Lucas's mind, as if he were a psychological witness in a court of law. He is telling the audience what Lucas does and does not consider fact, and thereby providing yet another confirmation of the fact that the EU has no canonicity whatsoever. > The fact that Lucas chose to let an EU > author (Timothy Zahn) name the capital world Coruscant (not to mention > inserting some EU-based vehicles into the Special Editions of the > original trilogy) nullifies your hearsay-based claim that the EU does > not exist in his mind. 1. It is not my claim; it is what Sansweet said, and is consistent with other comments. 2. Inclusion of EU elements does not give the entire EU canonicity. Zahn named the world Lucas had described. So? Several "Infinities" elements have found their way directly into the EU's internal Continuity . . . does that mean all Infinities material is valid EU material? No, clearly not. Again, the whiplash idea is incorrect. > He is, however, qualified to testify on the status of what he HIMSELF works > on, "In 1996, Steve joined Lucasfilm Ltd. as Director of Specialty Marketing to help promote Star Wars to fans both old and new. He is currently Director of Content Management and in charge of fan relations in Lucasfilm's Marketing Department." http://www.starwars.com/bio/stevesansweet.html > and he did so in the preface to the Star Wars Encyclopedia: . . . From 1998, when he was part of Specialty Marketing, and not in his 1999-current position of fan relations and Content Management. http://hallentertainment.com/movies/18.shtml > ********* > "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"." > ********* 1. Note, if you will, that this term never appears again, and the concept does not show up in Sansweet's writings or comments since that time. Indeed, by his use of Cerasi in 2001, he has effectively contradicted it himself. Further, a search for "quasi-canon" on StarWars.com gives no hits. 2. The terminology and concept is contradicted by all other statements by other individuals, including Lucas. > You mocked my use of the term "quasi-canon" in your first reply Another completely untrue statement. I never referred to "quasi-canon" (or quasi-anything) in my first reply, nor did I engage in mockery regarding your EU position. > The term "quasi-canon" is published in the SWE, which was > approved by Lucasfilm. The "quasi-canon" statement, however, would not seem to be approved by Lucas, LucasFilms, or LucasBooks, given that no one before or since has agreed with it. > > > Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute > > > certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis. > > > > True. However, evidence which is known to be certain by definition is > > a superior source than a historical document known to be riddled with > > error. > > Yes, the canon is superior to the EU. However, this is yet another red > herring fallacy on your part. We are debating the question of whether EU > material is admissible AT ALL, not whether it should be elevated all the > way up to canon status. You are employing the "false dilemma" fallacy to > force us to choose between making the EU equal to the movies or ignoring > it completely. Both accusations of fallacy are incorrect. Regarding the "false dilemma": Cerasi, via Sansweet, has already made it clear that the real story of Star Wars is *only* the films, and Lucas has placed the EU outside his universe. It is not a false dilemma . . . it's the dilemma placed on us by those in charge of dictating canonicity. Regarding the "red herring": It was you who brought up real-life history and tried to use that as a counter-claim, in spite of the faultiness of the analogy and the off-topic nature of it. Do not cry "red herring" when I *reply* to yours. > > > You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be > > > separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. > > > > > > That makes no sense whatsoever. If the EU is a parallel universe, it > > is not only separate . . . it is different. This is demonstrated by > > the in-house Continuity which the EU is expected to maintain. > > Irrelevant. We are discussing the question of whether the EU is > admissible. Not whether it is parallel, not whether it is separate, not > whether it is different, not whether it is equal, I have no idea how you can attempt to separate the concept of admissibility from the fact that the EU is directly stated to be not a part of the same universe, separate to and different from Lucas's Absolute Canon universe, which is the real story of Star Wars. The concepts are inexorably linked. You cannot "rationalize a fictional universe" (as you stated in your opening statement) with evidence obtained from a parallel, separate, different universe. > You have already conceded on the > main point, even if you won't admit it; you agreed that Lucasfim > Licensing maintains a continuity, and that both the canon and EU are in it. There is no concession. I would agree that *Lucas Licensing* and LucasBooks maintain an *internal* Continuity, and that they do so in a manner subservient to the Canon of Lucas . . . however, they have no control over the Canon, so to attempt to claim that the continuity is inclusive of the Canon is peculiar. Further, their internal continuity bears no relevance to the superior statements by Lucas and LucasFilm. You have clearly misconstrued my statements. > However, you contend that this larger continuity is worthless, by > consistently implying that Lucasfilm Licensing's in-house continuity > should be given no weight whatsoever by the fans. Please justify this claim. 1. There is no "larger continuity". The in-house Continuity is subservient to the Canon, not inclusive of it and in control of it. I again point you toward Rostoni's comments on the matter: "Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays." 2. I have not said that fans cannot enjoy and give weight to the contents of the in-house continuity. There are a few books I wouldn't mind reading, as a fan. But, I'll do so with the understanding, as per Lucas and company, that it is part of an alternate reality to Lucas's Absolute Canon universe. 3. What I do state is that the alternate universe cannot be given any weight insofar as trying to make claims regarding the Absolute Canon universe. It is an alternate reality, a "parallel universe", and not part of "the real story of Star Wars". That is the justification of the claim. To accept that the EU is not part of the same universe, and not part of the real story of Star Wars, and then to try to use its data to add to the Canon's universe is, quite simply, ludicrous. > > > George Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with > > > varying precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is > > > inherently fallacious, > > > In which case your attempt to analyze the "intrude" fragment to > > override the "other world" and "parallel universe" comment is > > inherently fallacious. My argument is that the entire sentence is a > > cohesive whole. Since he has used the "universe" comment on more than > > one occasion (TV Guide and Cinescape), the logical implication is that > > he means it. Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is > > correct, it could only apply to the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as > > the "intrude" comment. > > Are you even TRYING to watch out for self-contradictions in your > argument? First, you say that you treat the sentence as a "cohesive > whole". Then you IMMEDIATELY turn around and dismiss the second half of > the sentence as "ad-libbed parts" and recommend that we ignore it. AS PER YOUR CLAIM. I was demonstrating the logical inconsistency of your position, not making a claim of my own in regards to ad-libbing. > You still fail to understand my point: George Lucas is a human being, > and you cannot carefully analyze his choice of words. All we have to go on are the words of human beings, Mike. To suggest that Lucas completely misspoke and said something he didn't mean in two separate interviews in regards to the exact same idea is preposterous. > He may have an entirely different interpretation of "parallel universe" > than you do, so your literalist method of interpretation is entirely > fallacious. 1. The context of his use refutes your claim. When Lucas says "parallel universe", there is nothing to suggest he means it in a manner not in keeping with the denotation or connotation of the terms. Indeed, his use of "other world", and his statement in TV Guide of "outside my little universe", strongly support my "interpretation". 2. To suggest a fallacious method because X "may" do or be anything is invalid. 3. You can't tell me that the guy who made Star Wars, based on various sci-fi serials and pulp science fiction, and who executive-produced his friend's old pet project based on a parallel universe where ducks evolved instead of humans, didn't know what "universe" and "parallel universe" meant. > Face it: George Lucas said that the EU is separate from his canon, True > but it still intrudes on his world. False. First, Lucas specifically says that the licensed materials do not intrude on "my world, which is a select period of time". However, as already demonstrated in my first reply, this results in a contradiction if you try to use it to claim what you're claiming . . . the licensed materials do intrude in that manner . . . games, toys, the Marvel comics, and so on. That means that you cannot argue that the EU content is part of the same universe. Second, what Lucas did say (i.e. intrusion in between the movies) does not equal validity of content. If the EU materials are "outside my little universe" and part of a "parallel universe", that places their content outside the Absolute Canon . . . which we already knew because Sansweet and Cerasi told us that the Absolute Canon was the only source for the "real story of Star Wars". It is clear that Lucas was placing the content of the EU in a parallel universe. That way, they can't possibly intrude on his universe, though they can squeeze in between the movie time periods in the parallel universe. > Sorry, but my explanation can explain both halves of his statement. Your > explanation clings to a semantic analysis of the first half and > completely ignores the second half. Absolutely incorrect. Your preferred interpretation requires that the entire rest of the quote, other similar quotes, and basic facts be thrown out in favor of your chosen view of what "intrude" means. In other words, your interpretation requires that the context and facts must not only be ignored, but denied. ****** Quasi-topical Matters: > > > The term "overall continuity" is not important for my argument; > > > Then why use it in all-caps and assert that I deny its existence? > > What part of "it would still exist by any other name" did you fail to > read? It is the idea, not the name, which is important. The "idea" is the internal Continuity of the EU. I have never denied the internal Continuity. I do deny the "overall continuity" you argue for and claimed the existence of based on the Insider quote, no matter what you wish to call it now. > > And here we arrive at the peculiar notion that I have previously > > labelled the "Continuity Whiplash Theory". > > > You say that the Infinities label does not imply EU non-canonicity, > > yet then choose to assume the reverse, that the EU moves closer to > > canonicity because it places some of its own works outside its own > > Continuity. This makes no sense. > > > If A is A and X is X, then just because some former X is turned into > > not-X does not make X A or closer to being A. > > Strawman fallacy. I said nothing whatsoever about the EU being canon or > moving closer to canon. There is no straw man in play: Your position is that EU materials and the in-house Continuity of these should have canonicity . . . i.e. that they are admissible as evidence in the canon universe, as part of some "overall continuity" which includes the Canon. (You claim elsewhere that this is a strawman: "Nowhere have I ever claimed that the EU material is canon; it is part of the larger continuity, not the canon." However, this "larger continuity" you speak of requires that the EU data be part of "the real story of Star Wars", which by default requires that they have some degree of canonicity.) My position is that EU materials and the in-house Continuity have no canonicity whatsoever, and are therefore inadmissible. And I quote, from your first reply: "Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go directly AGAINST your case . . . The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity)." It is not a straw man to argue against your parenthetical assertion. You suggested the Continuity Whiplash Theory. > I was speaking about the EU being part of the > larger continuity which includes both the canon AND the EU, and the fact > that special labelling for non-continuity EU obviously implies that the > REST of the EU is part of the continuity, as publicly stated by > Lucasfilm representatives and in official Lucasfilm publications. The EU is not canon, nor does it have any inherent canonicity whatsoever, as stated by Lucas and company. The implication which you claim . . . that somehow the EU materials, because they are not marked with an Infinities label, somehow have the canonicity you wish to ascribe to the Continuity . . . is invalid, as demonstrated. ****** Summary: > > 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little > > universe. > > 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but > > the canon exists for Lucas. > > 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks > > in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of > > Star Wars is Lucas's canon. > > 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly > > identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the > > EU material is part of a continuity. > > 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of > > LucasBooks. > > You have done a fine job of making a simple issue complex (not to > mention long-winded) On the contrary . . . the position is quite simple. It is only the inexplicable continuing denials of that position that require arguments. > , but here are the only fact which really matters: > > Exhibit A: the Lucas quote: > > ********* > "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world > that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the > licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude > on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in > between the movies."- George Lucas > ********* Which is perfectly in keeping with my position. Indeed, when that quote was first reported, it confirmed my position. > > Exhibit B: the Sansweet quote: > > ********* > "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"." > ********* The above is contrary to my position. However, it is also contrary to every other statement of Canon Policy, including Lucas's, Sansweet's (quoting Cerasi), et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Your effort to give it more weight than Lucas's comments, Sansweet's own later position, and so on is illogical in the extreme. > In both cases, you have shamelessly misrepresented the words of these > men to mean the opposite of what they obviously intend, once you look at > the larger picture. Blatantly, "shamelessly" untrue. > Moreover, you consistently base your argument upon > verbal interviews, Also untrue. I base my argument on Lucas's comments, StarWars.Com-published statements, and other published sources. > Salient points: > > 1. You have no explanation WHATSOEVER for George Lucas' statement that > the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars. Completely untrue. > Your flimsy excuse is to call it "ad-libbing" and dismiss it on that basis. Completely untrue. That is what your position requires, as I was demonstrating. > You insist that it irreconcilably "contradicts" his statement that the > canon and EU are separate Only when one attempts to interpret it in the manner you display. > even though I have an alternate interpretation which easily > ties both comments together. Completely untrue. > 2. You have no explanation WHATSOEVER for observed intrusions of EU > material into the canon movies, particularly in the case of Coruscant's > name, not to mention EU-based spaceships appearing in the special > editions of the original trilogy. Thank you for proving my point about the Lucas quote with additional so-called "intrusions" into his Absolute Canon world. The fact of the matter is, Lucas is at liberty to do whatever he wants when creating the canon. If he likes something in the non-canon, he is at liberty to include or exclude it at his whim. The fact that he or his FX artists have included a couple of non-canon bits does not give canonicity to the EU any more than inclusion of Infinities elements in the EU's internal continuity gives Infinities materials Continuity status. To claim otherwise is illogical. > 3. You use the fact that Lucas is willing to contradict the EU as proof > that all of the EU is invalid. It is yet another confirmation of that fact, yes. > By that "reasoning", since we have no > guarantees that the real-life universe will obey the laws of physics or > even mathematics, all of that is invalid too. An utterly false analogy, the same vein as your other similar false analogies. > Moreover, George Lucas has > even contradicted CANON on occasion (the infamous Greedo first shot, for > example), but that doesn't mean we ignore it. Lucas didn't contradict the canon . . . he *changed* the canon, intentionally. He's the creator of it, and he has the power to do that. > 4. You employ an array of proofs that the EU is not canon, in order to > prove that it is not part of continuity either. This is highly > fallacious; you cannot use proof of A as proof of B. Straw man. I've engaged in simultaneous disproof of your "overall continuity" claim while offerring proof of the EU's lack of canonicity. Your attempt to misstate my argument is unsuccessful. > 5. You quote Steven Sansweet out of context; Completely untrue. > the fact that George does > not worry about contradicting the EU does not mean that the fans can do > the same thing. Yes, it does, when Lucas has told everyone that the EU is not part of his universe, and when Sansweet and Cerasi have pointed out that the real story of Star Wars is only the absolute Canon. > George is in a special position with respect to Star > Wars; he is its creator. We, on the other hand, should abide by what he > tells us, rather than acting as though HIS freedom of action should > somehow translate to us. I *am* abiding by what he tells us. > > 6. Your attempts to contradict my comparison between real-life > science/history and sci-fi analysis merely undermine your own position. > By pointing out that there's no such thing as "canon" for real-life > scientists, you inadvertently conceded that real-life scientists ALWAYS > work with data which would fail your requirements for admissibility when > studying sci-fi. Once again, completely untrue. By pointing out that there is no canon knowledge in science, I have shown you that your analogy is false and specious. Your inexplicable effort to claim otherwise is irrelevant. > You have conceded that there is a Lucasfilm continuity which includes > both the canon and EU. Completely untrue. There is a LucasBooks and Lucas Licensing in-house Continuity which is subservient to the canon, but it has no power over the canon and therefore cannot be said to "include" the canon. > You have conceded that Lucas' quote about the EU > intruding on his world contradicts your interpretion of his position, > hence your amusing recommendation that we ignore it. Yet again, completely untrue. It is your own interpretation which contradicts Lucas's quote, not mine. I have shown you the ways in which your interpretation is contradictory . . . that does not imply or require contradiction on my part. > You have been reduced to the use of hearsay as evidence. Incorrect, and prejudicial. I gave yet another piece of evidence that your position was flawed, in addition to the evidence already known. > Your only remaining passable > argument is your claim that we should IGNORE the Lucasfilm continuity > because it is "in-house" No, I say that we should ignore the LucasBooks/Lucas Licensing in-house continuity. The "continuity" of Lucas and LFL is clear, and contrary to your position. > (no one ever said "EXCLUSIVELY in-house", but > you apparently felt free to consider it a silent implication). Of course it is exclusively in-house . . . Rostoni, Sansweet, Cerasi, and Lucas all say so outright and/or strongly imply it. > However, you have no public statements telling us to ignore the > continuity, . . . except for Lucas's statements that the EU's internal continuity is outside his universe, Cerasi (via Sansweet) comments that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is the films, et cetera. > and I have produced Sansweet's published description of > the EU as "quasi-canon". . . . which stands contrary to everything else. > Your refusal to accept defeat prolongs this debate with > no conceivable benefit to you, . . . except for the benefit of resolutely standing against continuing efforts to misconstrue and misrepresent the facts. The facts, again (I'll even remove what you consider to be the "hearsay" of Sansweet, since the facts stand firm without it): 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon. 3. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. 4. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks. I still do not see how you can argue that the EU is part of Lucas's universe, part of the real story of Star Wars, and useful as evidence within Lucas's Absolute Canon universe. So ends the on-topic portion. ****************** ****************** ****************** I'll now take a brief moment (which, because of the amount to deal with, constitutes almost half the post) to comment on some of your off-topic claims, fallacies, personal attacks and snipes, and other irrelevancies. It is hoped that by separating the wheat and chaff in this manner, the main arguments will not be clouded by smokescreen efforts: > DEBATE SUMMARY IN THREE SENTENCES > > 1. You say that the EU is not part of the story of Star Wars. > 2. I say that the EU is not canon, but it is still part of the larger > continuity. > 3. You retort that the EU is not part of the canon. > > What part of this do you not understand, Robert? > I understand it just fine . . . it is a straw man argument, a blatant misrepresentation of the debate and my claims within it. > You replied to every identification of a logical fallacy by simply > denying it (indeed, at one point you denied committing a logical > fallacy anywhere in this debate; an unreasonable and pointlessly > obstinate claim since even the best debaters may carelessly commit > a fallacy now and then). I denied your claims of fallacy because your claims were untrue. Had you pointed out a fallacy I had actually committed, I would have agreed and amended my statements accordingly. > > 2. No logical fallacies have been employed by me, despite claims to > > the contrary. > > Not one logical fallacy in the whole debate, eh? You have not identified one, save for the one I actually made and openly confessed to in advance of engaging in it. > Your responses make it clear that I must not only identify your > fallacies but also explain the definitions of said fallacies, . . . and then you start posting definitions. Mike, this sort of disrespectful grandstanding is just shameful. I understand what a fallacy is, and evidently understand what they are, how to avoid them, and how to identify them better than you do. However, unlike you, I did not try to claim that you were ignorant, as you do above. I pointed out that you were incorrect, and explained why you were incorrect. Please be more careful about following the precepts of a rational discussion. > thus making it more difficult > for you to simply dismiss logic-based criticism by saying "incorrect" > and deny it. Once more, a blatantly untrue statement. At no point did I simply say "incorrect" and not explain to you why you were incorrect or point out that you were incorrect in the same way you'd been incorrect previously. >From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html: > > ********* > Red Herring > > This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to > the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away > from the points made, towards a different conclusion. > > "You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent > against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think > surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their > son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay > for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?" > ********* > > You attempt to deflect accusations of red herring fallacies by arguing > that the subjects you introduce are related in some tangential way to > the subject under discussion. However, that is NOT ENOUGH to avoid being > guilty of the red herring fallacy. Once again, your statements are untrue. Had I failed to address your claims while only bringing up other matters (thereby trying to change the topic away from your claims), your accusation of a fallacy might have had merit. However, I not only addressed your claims, but pointed out the wide variety of other ways in which your arguments failed. That is not a red herring. > The red herring fallacy applies > whenever anyone brings up subject B in a debate over subject A. It > DOESN'T MATTER whether subject B is related in some tangential way to > subject A (as it is in the above example); the red herring fallacy > applies as long as it is a different subject. Also: > In order to avoid the red herring fallacy, your rebuttals must deal with > the subject of my post and only the subject of my post, or they are red > herrings by definition. See, this is what I meant when I said I understand red herrings better than you do. You offer the definition, and then promptly fail to use it. I never threw up subject B *in the absence of* a retort to subject A, and a red herring *is not* "whenever" related subject B is brought up, as you continue to erroneously claim. Further, unlike insults, false accusations, and so on, my so-called "red herrings" are relevant material to the debate, removing the statements another step from the claim you make of them. Please be more careful about such things. > By demanding that I make the first post, you allowed me to choose the > exact subject, Actually, according to your own stated beliefs, the challenged party chooses the topic, rules, et cetera. As I had already stated that the Death Star superlaser debate would be undertaken on strictly canon grounds (i.e. the Lucas/LFL position, as per my so-called "interpretation"), your entire EU gambit was neither necessary nor called for. > and that subject was the simple question: IS THE EU > MATERIAL ADMISSIBLE? It was NOT "does the EU material introduce error", > or "can scientific conclusions be drawn from EU sources" or "can you > generate valid upper and lower limits from EU-based sources," or any of > the other myriad red herrings you have attempted to drag into this > debate. Your exact statement was: "However, as a matter of basic principle, it is impossible to hold a rational discussion based on the evidence without first determining what the evidence is, ie- what is admissible. Therefore, we must deal with the issue of Star Wars continuity first." Dealing with the continuity issue is precisely what I have done. Determining whether the EU material can introduce error (and your multiple rephrasings of that) is a valid part of determining what the evidence is and should be. > All of the "related" questions you raise are completely moot > points if the EU material is not admissible in the first place; you > introduce them in a transparent attempt to "appeal to consequence" > rather than discussing the original subject. Actually, no. In my debate on the subject with Cromag on your forums, I brought up the EU=error issue with the preface that it might be an appeal to consequences, as you no doubt read. In the context of that debate, it was. However, the context of this debate is different . . . you argue that the EU is part of a 'larger overall continuity' which includes the canon. Therefore, by pointing out inconsistency with the Canon and the fact that the EU is not part of "the real story of Star Wars", I am pointing out the error of your claims of a larger overall continuity. > > This third accusation of a red herring is also inaccurate. In this > > case, I was explaining my position on intra-canonical relationships > > for the sake of clarity, lest my position be misunderstood or open to > > misrepresentation. Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is > > not a red herring. > >... > > We are not debating in a vacuum. The present beliefs on the EU are > > valid segues toward understanding the Canon Policy as it should be > > understood, if only as negative examples. It is not an argument on > > the manner of analysis, but on the treatment of the data in regards > > to its perceived truth-value. > > In the first example, you defend your red herring of the novel's > positioning relative to the movie EVEN THOUGH NEITHER IS EU. Stating my position on the Canon Policy issue is *still* not a red herring, Mike. > In the second example, you defend your > discussion of EU analysis methods as a "treatment of the data in regards > to its perceived truth-value", which is a long-winded way of saying that > you think it's relevant because it relates to how seriously the EU > should be taken. No, Mike. Read it again. What I said (in simpler, less "long-winded" language) is that (1) the common misinterpretations of Canon Policy (yours included) and (2) how truthful the EU is considered are valid concepts in the discussion. > In both cases, the subject is different from the simple > question: is the EU admissible? Irrelevant, since I deal with that question both via direct quotation of Lucas and company, and by negative examples (i.e. pointing out the inherent flaws in other ways of thinking, yours included). > I am running out of patience for your endless space-wasting red > herrings. Then stop erroneously claiming I have made them. > ********* (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) > Argumentum ad hominem > > Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; > there are two varieties. > > The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and > justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, > then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example: > > "You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you > abandoned your wife and children." > > This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on > the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad > hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also > asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: > > "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have > agreed with you." > > > ********* > > You attempted to defend your repeated use of ad hominems such as your > ubiquitous "" rhetorical trick (subtle accusation of > misbehaviour without having to bother actually identifying or explaining > the offense) Well, "snipes snipped" is hardly subtle, but it is more subtle than your misbehavior. This, ostensibly, is to be a rational discussion of the issues, not open season on me, or a flame-war. I could have completely stopped the on-topic discussion I was engaging in, and taken several minutes to explain to you in painful detail the error of your ways, but I hardly see that as beneficial to either of us, or the discussion at hand. Further, it would certainly have been irrelevant with regards to the truth value of our claims. And finally, such personal attacks by you are not worthy of my time. For example: > > > "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who > > > would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, [adding > > > back the part you removed] in an obvious attempt to generate > > > prejudicial feeling against them. Now see, this is what I'm talking about. You've already made your claim "the attempt to link those who ..." which I then replied to. But, you felt it necessary to add in the gratuitous attacking comment that I engaged in "an obvious attempt to generate prejudicial feeling", and then to re-add it. Now, would you actually prefer that I stop the presses, identify and call you on your behavior, spend twenty lines make a big grand display for everyone of what you'd done, and then continue with the real argument? Or, would you prefer what I feel to be the better solution: identify the irrelevant remark for your benefit and carry on with my argument, so that you'll know that such childish behavior should be avoided in the future? Naturally, both solutions have their drawbacks, but because of your cheap-shots, the damage is done . . . it can't be a perfect world with a perfect solution. I simply tried to make the best of a bad situation. The best thing that could happen would be for you to simply quit making cheap-shots. Discuss rationally, and I'll have no snipes to snip. > Moreover, I grow weary of your "snipes snipped" rhetorical trick. Uh-huh: > fallacious ad hominem attacks against my website, repetitions > of previous points, etc> > should be discarded> > > > > > [adding back the rest of the paragraph which you quietly snipped] > > Mike, if you actually think "snipes snipped" is such a bad thing, the best thing for you to do would be to set a higher standard, not drop below it. Just a suggestion. And while I'm at it, let me point out that your re-adding of snipped materials (both your snipes and your argument extensions) is highly improper, and of questionable honesty. I deal with all of your claims . . . to re-add a claim dealt with elsewhere is to make it appear as if I did not respond to it. > and your insistence on repeatedly mentioning my behaviour > outside the debate with comments such as the following: > > > That means that I did not attempt to claim that your behavior had a > > bearing on the truth value of your arguments (the definition of ad > > hominem). I was replying to your comment: "Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even mentioning any of my arguments." To refer to my reply as a repeated mentioning of your behavior (as if I wouldn't stop bringing it up) is silly, and a paltry effort at being prejudicial with your language. I'm not sure how I was supposed to reply to your false accusation of an ad hominem regarding your behavior without using your term "behavior", much as I have once again had to use the term in this post. It wasn't an ad hominem. Stop talking about it, and I won't keep having to use the term "behavior". > Your refusal to cease and desist (and, indeed, your unapologetic introduction > of even MORE comments about my behaviour outside the debate) when > confronted belies your claim to be conducting an exclusively rational > debate. If you do not falsely accuse me of an ad hominem, I will not have to defend the point. False accusations of ad hominems have no place in a rational discussion. > > A."Historical literature and narrative" is not generally considered > > a valid primary source for such things as firepower estimates, > > materials strength, and so on. > > While this is a red herring, I would deign to address it anyway: > historical literature CAN be used for such things as firepower > estimates; we have no direct observation of a Roman-era catapult in > action, yet we can use historical sources to determine what their > capabilities were. *In the absence of other evidence*, it can be used to make a guess. However, in the matters we are discussing, we do not need such guesswork. We have the canon, which (to extend your analogy) is akin to having via time-warp a fully-trained Roman crew with a mint-condition ballista or catapult, available for study. > > B. You may consider the following an ad hominem, and it is your right > > to do so . . . I am about to point out that what is preached is not > > practiced. You just mentioned your website . . . it contains the claim > > that the EU materials are historical literature and are to be treated > > as such (including considering them "highly suspect" works "written > > from the point of view of the New Republic", possibly capable of being > > "coloured by the author's bias, competence, and data-gathering > > limitations"(as stated here), and that it cannot be analyzed as > > scientific data). > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html#Analyze > > > However, it cannot be left unsaid that this is not the observed > > approach on your pages, or in Vs. Debates in general. For instance, > > in spite of canon ANH novel quotes of the Empire having a million > > systems, you give them twelve million inhabited systems, as per Dark > > Empire's non-canon figures > > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Industry/Industry2.html). > > This is not only an ad hominem fallacy, it is also a strawman fallacy. > On that page, I describe the entire SW civilization as being 12 million > systems based on the DE quote, and the Empire as having nominal control > over 1 million of those systems, based on the ANH novelization. There is no straw man in play: (ANH) "This station is the final link in the new-forged Imperial chain which will bind the million systems of the Galactic Empire together once and for all." "From Dark Empire, issue #3: Leia: "It's true, Han. The Force is bringing me closer to Luke ... even though he's light years away ... he's in terrible trouble, Han. The dark side is swallowing him whole! We've got to find him!" Han: "Sure, why not? There's only twelve million inhabited star systems out there ... it shouldn't be too hard."" "The DE quote indicates that the number of inhabited star systems is actually greater than twelve million. However, it must be noted that many of these star systems are probably small outposts rather than full member systems, like the one million systems mentioned in the ANH novelization." "The breadth and width of our territory covers the entire galaxy, although there are literally billions of star systems which have yet to be explored." You describe an Empire of one million member worlds and 12 million "small outposts rather than full member systems", all of which are within the territorial bounds of the Empire. Meanwhile, Tarkin states that the Empire has a million systems. That's it. That's as far as the canon goes, yet you accept the EU and therefore take it further, past the canon line. > By the way, > this is ALSO a red herring fallacy, since it has nothing to do with the > question of whether the EU is admissible, despite your irrational > assertion that "it cannot be left unsaid". It is not a red herring. It is yet another point, on top of direct disproof of your claims of EU admissibility. It's validity might be questionable as a result of its unavoidable "you don't practice what you preach" angle, but that does not make it a red herring. > You have efficiently combined THREE fallacies into a single argument > (one of which you actually ADMIT to) Because only "one of which" actually occurs. > > > By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and history are > > > ALSO useless, > > Incorrect anyway, but even if it were it would be irrelevant: > > "slippery slope fallacy". > > SLIPPERY SLOPE fallacy? From > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html: > > ********* > The slippery slope argument > > This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful > events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the > first event. For example: > > "If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack > and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a > nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize > marijuana." > ********* Your preferred definition is rather limited. "Slippery slope" can refer to anything stated to be inevitable, whether logically or chronologically. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.htm > Please explain how it is a "slippery slope fallacy" to argue that the > elimination of all data without guaranteed certainty would eliminate > science and history. Mike, you just made my argument for me. But, in case you don't see it: "If we can't use uncertain EU data, then we can't use uncertain data anywhere, in any situation. Therefore, we can't use uncertain data in science and history, which means that DarkStar's argument requires us to ignore science and history. Therefore, DarkStar's argument is wrong." Perhaps you'll note that at no point have I claimed that we cannot use uncertain data anywhere. That would be a straw man, if it weren't part of a slippery slope fallacy. I have argued that we ought not wantonly use the EU data which is known to be error-laden, because we have error-free canon fact. If you still prefer to define slippery slope as a chronological-only phenomenon, then change to "straw man". > The logical connection is clearly demarcated: > science and history both rely on data which is not guaranteed true (in > fact, nothing is guaranteed true; reality does not have a "canon"). Bingo. Reality doesn't have a canon, and that is the precise reason why it is a false analogy. > > > The fact that the full quote is buried somewhere else on your > > > website [restoring the paragraph to a contiguous block] does not > > > excuse this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of > > > context" fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes > > > on his continuity despite its obvious relevance. > > > Prejudicial language: the quote is directly linked from that page in > > the references section, and the references section is referred to in > > the introduction. You can't miss it. > > Hardly. If anything, the language was not harsh ENOUGH; http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWEU.html Not harsh enough? To claim that the quote is buried, hidden, or otherwise not accessible is, to be blunt, a lie. You have now been corrected three times in regards to this false claim of yours . . . the first time could have been an error on your part, but since you've been corrected twice and yet continue to claim it, your behavior offers no other explanation. This is not a debatable issue . . . you made a claim contrary to fact, and were corrected. You made the claim again, and were corrected. Now you have made it yet again, and even suggested that you were not harsh enough in your claim . . . that is insane. Lies are not a part of a rational discussion. You will desist in employing them. > you extensively > analyzed the semantics of the sentence fragment "parallel universe" > while IGNORING the part of his quote in which he stated that the EU > intrudes on his timeline. That is the "quote taken out of context" > fallacy, and it was clearly DELIBERATE. The fact that you chose to > IGNORE that part of his quote in your article is not mitigated in any > way by the fact that you hyperlink to the full quote in your end-notes. Another exercise in dishonesty, this time regarding the analysis of partial quotes on my site, which you have previously received correction in regards to on more than one occasion. As I showed you, I did not ignore the intrusion angle. Again: Lies are not a part of a rational discussion. You will desist in employing them. > > Further, science is not self-referential in the way the EU is. The > > only real story of Star Wars is the films . . . it is the best, most > > reliable data from which to draw conclusions. The "historical > > literature" of the EU does not limit itself to these facts, but > > instead creates its own and references them frequently. > > Wrong. Science is HIGHLY self-referential. It creates its own principles > based on the evidence, and then it develops other theories based on > those principles. However, those principles are based on the evidence . . . it all references back to the evidence. The EU does not always reference back to the canon . . . it uses itself as evidence. Again, your analogy is faulty. > > Incorrect: your claim of a non sequitur is based on misunderstanding, > > caused by slicing through the argument in the middle of it. > > Robert, I grow tired of the way you simply make statements of fact > without justifying them. You sliced through the argument in the middle of it, arguing against the claim you felt was being made by a section of my argument, when in fact the argument was headed elsewhere. You finally dealt with the point I was coming to later on, but that does not alter the fact that your claim of a non sequitur was false. > > > Quasi-religious mentality. > > > Prejudicial language is irrelevant, and given our opinions on > > religious mentality, that's a thinly-veiled ad hominem. > > A negative term is not fallacious prejudicial language if it is the only > accurate term. That is true, but your terminology not only fails to be the only one available, but is also grossly inaccurate. > What ELSE would I call this bizarre mentality, if not "quasi-religious?" "The Canon Policy", perhaps? > > > "Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who > > > would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, > > > > No, I used an analogy in reference to the "questionable intellectual > > honesty" sentence, where I discussed the practice of allowing the EU > > to guide one's thinking. I expected the reader to have comprehended > > the previous point that allowing the EU was to engage in the practice > > of considering EU materials canon unless contradicted. > > Your excuses will fool no one. There is no "excuse". I have corrected your misinterpretation of what was going on, which led you to erroneously conclude that there was a fallacy in progress. > You tried to equate EU analysis to those > who think anything is OK unless they get caught by the authorities, > without even bothering to show how one was equivalent to the other. That is not at all correct. Not only was the chain of reasoning in place, but it was also the best-fitting analogy available. To allow the non-canon to be canon until the canon says otherwise has as its best analogue the analogy I gave. I considered some modification of an analogy regarding a child getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but the modification would have sounded odd, with the analogy becoming peculiar. Of course, the implication . . . someone doing something wrong and being caught, would be the same. That is what I was going for, in case you hadn't noticed. The EU is a wrong source of information . . . using it until the canon contradicts it (i.e. until the police/mother/etc. show up) doesn't make the non-canon any less wrong. > Your flimsy > excuse (to assume that it would be interpreted dishonestly and then > equate EU analysis to "intellectual dishonesty" on that basis) is even > WORSE. You have once again horrendously misconstrued and misinterpreted my statement. I said: "Thus, to include the EU according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars, but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty. (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most reasonable course to determine fact." Nowhere do I suggest or imply that someone might interpret the non-canon dishonestly, therefore intellectual dishonesty will exist. That's absurd. The analogy relates to what I say above: inclusion of the EU is contrary to policy, and allows distortions of the canon into one's thinking. To knowingly allow those distortions to guide one's thinking on the grounds that it is "canon unless contradicted" is of questionable intellectual honesty. Got it, now? > In fact, you CONSISTENTLY delete the strongest parts of > my criticisms in your replies. Completely untrue. If I think you've made a claim that is false, and then you pile on a personal attack, snipe, etc. on top of it, I'll snip out the latter and point out your error in the former. If you consider that to be the strongest part of your criticism, then the problem does not rest with me. Similarly, if you make a claim that I think is false, and then continue going on and on about variations and extensions of why you think it is false, I'll still snip out the extraneous bits and focus on the basic claim. Otherwise, I'd end up replying to each and every line with something like "false, for the reasons already provided", which you would then complain about. Alternately, I could leave your entire paragraph in, but you are the one who asked me to shorten my posts. ************** Back to the main issues of the debate, though: ******** To sum up: re: Canon Policy - Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, etc. 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm correctly points out that nothing else but the canon exists for Lucas. 3. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon. 4. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. 5. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of the in-house continuity of LucasBooks. ********* I really don't understand why the disagreement continues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 01:41:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D929DF0.4030706@stardestroyer.net> -------- RSA Debate Round 3, Part 1b (Death Star firepower) (also available at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Round3a-2.html) > > I urge you to heed your own stipulation about brevity and cut > > it down. > verbosity> I repeat the request that you cut down the unnecessary verbosity, legalese, nitpicks, and repetitions. If you refuse to do so, I will be forced to compose my next rebuttal in the form of an essay with only the occasional quoted sentence from you (much as you just did, but I'll keep it brief). > I. Observations > With the advent of the Special Edition, many changes were made in the > Alderaan destruction event. The differences include the removal of the > green "shield" effect > (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar6.jpg), > completely altered explosion effects, and the addition of the rings. I notice that you assume the original versions can be completely ignored. Justify this assumption. Keep in mind that in most forms of analysis, original data is always preferable over processed and revised data. Also explain such obviously doctored shots as Greedo shooting first. Your interpretations all tend toward rigid inflexibility; you INSIST upon a particular interpretation of a piece of a Lucas quote even if it contradicts another part of the same quote, and you INSIST upon interpretations of the canon films which contradict the original versions of those same films. A good scientist or historian tries to find an explanation which makes sense, does not introduce unnecessary complexity, and explains as much of the data as possible. Your approach, on the other hand, is to declare most of the evidence (the entire EU, the entire original trilogy) inadmissible prior to investigation. > First, resorting to invoking invisible beams is very questionable in > its own right. Next, there is no canon evidence for a damaging > invisible beam component that exists *after* the visible bolt or beam, > and I can think of no instance when this could be inferred. There are > a couple of canon occasions when damage occurs *before* the bolt > strikes, but these instances are exceedingly rare in comparison to > bolt=damage episodes. There is evidence of an invisible beam component (see TESB), there is evidence that glowing pulses ride along an underlying carrier (see the DS superlaser as it builds power at the focal point), and there are official statements from Lucasfilm-sanctioned publications to back this up. Therefore, it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that the underlying beam can persist even without a visible component. > Further, your effort to employ the non-canon ICS fails not only due to > its lack of canonicity, but also in regards to the argument it > presents wherein turbolaser bolts are *preceded* by an invisible, > lightspeed, laser-beam component, not followed by it. In the diffuse > matter of the Alderaan blast, one would have also expected to see some > evidence of beam-matter interaction, but none occurs. Also, Saxton, > author of the ICS, would seem to disagree with this interpretation for > the superlaser, given his comment on the matter: "When the eight > tributary beams meet at the weapon's focal point they do not pass > through each other as genuine light beams would. Instead they come to > a halt and energy apparently builds at that point until a critical > moment when the final outbound beam is spontaneously released. > Whatever force is involved in the "superlaser", it cannot be mere > electromagnetism because non-disruptive superposition of beams is > ruled out by the focal point behavior." Your shameless use of the "quote taken out of context" fallacy will avail you nothing. Dr. Saxton's interpretation of the Death Star superlaser is the same as mine; this is not a secret, and anyone who visits his webpages can easily verify that fact for themselves. He states (quite correctly) that they cannot possibly be ordinary lasers. However, unlike you, he does NOT make a leap in logic to conclude that the energy released by a turbolaser impact must therefore come from something OTHER than the turbolaser beam itself. As for the ICS being non-canon, you are correct: it is not canon. However, it is "quasi-canon", ie- officially sanctioned by Lucasfilm Licensing, which is far more than I can say for YOUR theory. > Also, any attempt to use the ICS theory can only detract from your > shield interaction argument, owing to the fact that there is nothing > visibly occurring at or near the planet prior to the green beam's > impact. The superlaser beam takes 38 frames to reach Alderaan, at > 24fps and from a stated distance of 6 planetary diameters (or about > 77,000km). Even rounding the time down and the distance up, that's > still 1.5 seconds to traverse 100,000 kilometers, which would still > only be 67,000 km/s, or just under one-quarter lightspeed. Any energy > traveling at lightspeed would have been affecting the planet well > before we see the superlaser hit the planet. Pure sophistry. You are using the ENTIRE time between initial firing and target impact, even though the beam obviously stops, circulates, and builds at the focal point of the dish for most of that time. In reality, the beam builds up at the focal point for a while but once this process is over, it takes only ¼-second to cover the 72,000km distance to the planet, which means that it travels at roughly c. > And last but not least, employing the non-canon would also include > such things as the Sun Crusher or Galaxy Gun, other devices which > employed fancy non-DET maneuvers to blow things up. And both of those were infinitesimally small compared to the Death Star, thus proving my point for me: if the Death Star used the same tricks, it wouldn't need to be so large. Thank you for digging your own grave. > (Then, of course, there's the Galileo argument. When Galileo noticed > that the moon had mountains, church-men were shocked and appalled . . > . according to their beliefs, the moon was a perfect sphere. So, they > argued that there was an invisible crystal over the moon, thereby > making it spherical. Galileo, in his wit, replied that the invisible > crystals were arranged into even taller mountains . . . I suppose I > could argue that the superlaser released billions of invisible flying > gnomes that dismantled Alderaan piece by piece, but I really don't see > the point of such claims.) More sophistry. The only one inventing extra mechanisms here is you. Conventional energy transfer does not need to be justified; it is the default behaviour of energy, as dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. The only way to show that something more complex is happening is to show that the left side of the equation does not equal the right side, and you have failed to do this. Instead, you give us endless iterations of your "unsolved mystery fallacy". > The band outer boundary is also visible in your Frame 4 and moves > further in Frame 5, and one can see that it is obviously unrelated to > any pre-existing surface or atmospheric object (frames 0 and 2 > included for reference): > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AldBlastBand4&5.jpg > You have chosen to deny the existence of the white band encircling > the globe outright: "The bands are a figment of your imagination. > Nothing more." This is incorrect, as the canon visuals demonstrate in > two separate ways. Your imaginative artwork proves nothing. No one sees these "bands" but you. You arbitrarily decide that the white-hot glowing region around the dark spot is a "band" by virtue of being next to a dark spot, even though it exhibits none of the geometric regularity of a circle and is obviously random. Moreover, your theory is undefined, and as such, would not predict these "bands" either, even if they were to exist. > You have also claimed that they are not grounds to conclude that some > Superlaser Effect occurs. You are partially correct . . . alone, they > are not. However, they are not the sole piece of evidence. > intact after explosion begins> Already dealt with in my previous post. There is already luminescent material hundreds of kilometres away from the planet well before any of this happens. You are pointing to vague bluish regions and arguing that they MUST represent solid, intact planetary surface still in its original location despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is the physics of the situation; we can see enormous volumes of material hurtling away from the planet. It does not take a PhD physicist to see that if huge clouds of superheated and vapourized material are flying away from a surface, there MUST be some kind of damage to that surface! What is your explanation? That all of the material is headed TOWARD the camera, the appearance of debris flying outward in all directions is an illusion, and the planet is mostly untouched? If that were the case, we STILL wouldn't see an unaffected planet, since we would effectively have rocket propulsion on a grand scale, and the planet would be knocked backward. Face it; the planet is sending clouds of material skyward at significant percentages of the speed of light. It is impossible for it to do so while retaining an intact surface; what you perceive as a persistent outline is just that: the appearance of a persistent outline and nothing more. > You have chosen to deny the existence of the clearly visible intact > polar material ... incorrect. There is obviously something there, > maintaining its location and orientation after the band passes. OK, let's say we humour your bizarre assertion that the poles of the planet do not move at all even though the rest of the planet is hurling trillions upon trillions of tons of matter into space, based on what appears to be a persistent outline. How does this prove your theory? By your OWN ADMISSION, this questionable interpretation was a COMPLETE SURPRISE to you, which means that your theory did NOT successfully predict it. Ergo, it does not represent support for your theory! There are 4 possible interpretations: 1. It is an optical illusion. 2. It is an overeager interpretation of a vague outline. 3. The planet is exploding in a grossly asymmetrical fashion, hence part of it stays in place for a long time. This may have something to do with the rates and directions in which energy is transferred throughout the planet's mass, or perhaps some fantastic side-effect of the shield, which would imply that part of the shield stayed up for a while, perhaps from shield generators on the far side of the planet which survive longer. 4. It is proof that the SE's are aphysical and that they are obviously doctored versions of the originals (a conclusion already agreed upon by most observers in the case of Greedo's infamous first shot in the Mos Eisley cantina). Regardless of the interpretation, this is not proof of your theory. It is simply another example of the "unsolved mystery fallacy", laid bare by your public admission that you failed to predict it. > However, you argue that it is vaporized material *only* for the second > modified screenshot, and *not* the first. For the first, you argue > that it is a shield effect, "PRECISELY as we would expect for the far > side of a shield which has just been struck by a superlaser versus a > shield which has already collapsed." More sophistry. If the shield collapses, the energy must go somewhere, and a lot of it will head downwards and vapourize the surface. There is no contradiction between an energetic shield and a vapourized cloud of material flying up from the surface shortly afterwards. > This is a gross inconsistency: you ascribe two separate causes to > what is a visually identical phenomenon, claiming that one is > vaporized material (even though this makes no sense without a > fireball) and claiming the other is a shield effect (even though > there is no evidence for a shield, but I'll be coming back to that > shortly). Visually, it IS an identical phenomenon: a shield which radiates energy or a piece of superheated matter which radiates energy will have the same appearance. This has been demonstrated many times in the movies by visibly glowing shield/bolt interactions, including one in which the entire front face of a Star Destroyer's lower superstructure glowed white-hot. For that brief moment, it was impossible to tell if the metal was white-hot or a shield was radiating the energy away. The fact that the two phenomena look similar does not mean that they MUST be the same phenomenon. > > ... you claim that the above shot shows that the center of the dark > spot is at least 3500 kilometers away from the impact point. First, > and most importantly, it should be noted that the dark spot is not > the basis of band location, contrary to your assertion. Of course not. The dark spot is not centred on the superlaser, nor is it centred on the band. These phenomena are obviously random, rather than being the geometrically predictable phenomenon you imagine them to be. Thanks for conceding the point. > Second, the radius of Earth is 7000 kilometers, but I see no valid > centerpoint which could be half that radius distant from the point of > impact, as illustrated below: Anyone can draw a line between the centre of the dark spot to the corner of the white flash where the superlaser hits, and come up with the same figure. Your denials change nothing. > Finally, your assertion fails to take into consideration the fact that > the planet is three-dimensional. We would expect to see any ejecta > which heads from the surface directly toward the observation point as > somewhat less luminescent, given that there wouldn't be so much > luminescent material behind it and adding to the luminescence. This > can also be seen in the large dark debris area's explosion, where > you'll note the rightmost side of it is darker than the left side. Actually, debris of any given temperature heading toward us will be MORE luminescent, since it is closer and the inverse-square law dictates that it will appear brighter for that reason. Please try not to butcher elementary physics in future. > > [Re: secondary blast] The only argument I've seen you make which could > possibly have anything to do with the secondary blast is your > reference to inertial confinement fusion (which, granted, was made in > reference to the polar region, and not the planetary core). However, > inertial confinement fusion is based on even, uniform target heating, > whether it is done by almost 200 lasers focused on the target surface, > or by even heating of a container which heats the target via > radiation. I do not see how a lone superlaser beam could be expected > to produce this effect for the core or polar region. Strawman. ICF is a hopeless theory for the IRON core of a planet, and I never made that argument. ICF does, however, provide an example of where a densified core can remain in place in a spherical explosion, because the inertial pressure from the expanding outer layers holds it in place. I was merely pointing out that outer-layer expansion pressure could keep a densified core in place for some time, hence the persistent spherical shape inside the expanding cloud of debris (certainly a better explanation than your bizarre claim that the surface is intact despite trillions of tons of vapourized and superheated matter emanating from it). > > You have been shown the fact that DET cannot explain the rings, and > does not explain the Death Star rings, either. You dismiss that > argument with the following: > > "Alternative syllogism fallacy (A or B; if not A, then B). The fact > > that the conventional explanation cannot explain the non-physical > > behaviour of the fire rings does not lend weight to your undefined > > MCR." > However, that is incorrect . . . you have mistaken my argument for > one that falls victim to that fallacy. You see, DET not only fails to > explain the rings of Alderaan and the Death Stars, but it also stands > opposed to those rings by virtue of the predictions one would expect > from DET. It is a failed prediction. Please re-read the definition of the alternative syllogism fallacy (A or B; if not A, then B). You deny committing the fallacy, and then you REPEAT it! You say that normal physics does not predict this particular aspect of the explosion (no kidding; the rings slow down of their own volition in the vacuum of space!), ie- "not A". You then conclude that your MCR wins by default, ie- "if not A, then B". That IS the fallacy which I described, and your denials will not change that fact. All you have accomplished is to show that you are an unapologetic user of fallacies, and will not retreat from one even when it is pointed out to you. > Meanwhile, my theory is based on the observations. As it stood from > the beginning would suggest that all of the fire rings should have as > their centerpoint the approximate center of mass of the object being > destroyed. You think that expansion from the centre of mass somehow proves a chain reaction? If you heat up a volume of material to extreme temperatures, what do you think it will do? It will naturally expand in a pattern located around its centre of mass! I honestly cannot believe you are attempting to claim that a mundane occurrence such as expansion from centre of mass somehow nullifies conventional physics and forces us to introduce new and mysterious mechanisms, not to mention vast untapped reserves of potential energy within ordinary planetary matter. > It is, therefore, not a matter of a fallacy of any sort. It is a > matter of false predictions of one theory, as opposed to true > predictions of another. Your failure to define your theory means that any "predictions" generated from it are false. You simply declare that it "predicts" everything we observe, without explaining how. > 5. The Novel Evidence > A. "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal > fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated > energy of a small artificial sun"(ANH Novel). > This describes the power source of the Death Star as having the energy > of a small sun, and/or being a small artificial sun. In either case, > we have a Death Star powerplant that cannot be described as being more > than around 1e26W, the power output of our mid-sized natural sun. > Further, suns operate off of nuclear fusion, and the quote above > suggests the same of the Death Star. Wrong. Suns do NOT necessarily "operate off of nuclear fusion". Pop quiz: does nuclear fusion occur in a neutron star? Does nuclear fusion occur in a white dwarf? No. Stars are defined by their luminosity, not by nuclear fusion. Please do not waste any more time with this scientifically ignorant line of semantics-based argument. > > B. "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for > those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would > present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"(ANH > novel, p. 178). > The way in which the superlaser does its job is defined above. Some > have argued that this somehow refers to the reactor of the Death Star, > but that claim does not fit the context of the quote. Luke is > pondering the incredibly tough temple and the remains of Alderaan, > along with the (possible) destruction of the moon. Ah, I see. And even though Luke is a farmboy with no training in physics and certainly no knowledge of planet-destroying battle station design, you are confident that a detailed semantic analysis of his ruminations will reveal the inner workings of superlaser physics. Frankly, I don't even see the need to explain what is wrong with your logic here; I trust that it will be self-evident to all rational observers. > II. The Definition of the Superlaser Effect > > "The true nature of the "superlaser" remains an undescribed piece of > > superphysics . . . Questions of "how" the superlaser functions may > > be unanswerable, but we can determine useful limits on the > > capabilities of the technology." - Saxton > The Death Star employs the Superlaser Effect. > This effect is based on some form of mass-energy conversion against > relatively dense (i.e. solid) matter to create the required energy > effect, with direct energy transfer effects being non-existent or > extremely limited. This effect is not instantaneous, which would > suggest a chain-reaction or propagation time for the effect. Scientific ignorance: in reality, heat/mass transfers over any distance are NEVER instantaneous. There is a distinct propagation delay, particularly over LARGE distances such as the radius of a planet, over which even the movement of light carries discernible delays. The expansion of Alderaan occurs at rates which work out to a significant fraction of c. This is many orders of magnitude faster than the conduction of energy from the Sun's core through its outer layers up to its surface (another "DET" process, although it would be disqualified as such if we were to adopt your "reasoning"). > The mass-energy conversion is almost certainly not achieved by way of > combustion, fission, fusion, or antimatter means, since none of these > can provide the required energy output in a reasonable fashion, and/or > reasonable timeframe, and/or in a manner consistent with the Death > Star's stated and observed capabilities. This is not a definition. You have only defined what your MCR is NOT. What are the preferred reactants, since all chain reactions are material-dependent? How do you know that the activation energy for this "reaction" is lower than the energy requirement for simply heating up the material? You are not defining a theory; you are merely defining a wish-list of characteristics you would like the theory to have (ie- "not a known reaction", "not energy-intensive", etc). > The estimates of how energetic the Alderaan blast appears to have been > seem to hover around 1e38J. Assuming 100% efficiency of a mass-energy > conversion effect, this would require only 1/5000th of the material of > Alderaan. Alternately, 100% of the material of Alderaan could undergo > conversion, at 0.02% efficiency. Given the debris which remains (and > which the Falcon later bumps into), a higher-efficiency mass-energy > conversion is more likely. Now you move on to describe the energy released by your still-undefined magic theory in which matter is annihilated completely to energy without requiring antimatter or any energy-intensive process. You appear to know nothing about this magic chain reaction of yours except for the fact that it can't possibly require a lot of energy. > The precise nuts-and-bolts of the how the Superlaser Effect is > achieved are not stated in the canon, just as hyperdrive and other > advanced or exotic technologies are left unexplained. However, we know > it to be a mass-energy conversion, and we know the limitations of the > Death Star reactor, so we have certain logical and physical > constraints which must be maintained. The Superlaser Effect creates a > planar shockwave after a certain amount of matter conversion takes > place, though the precise appearance and orientation are variable. You simply define your MCR to "create a planar shockwave" with no other explanation whatsoever? How convenient! And HOW does it do this, pray tell? Why shouldn't I simply copy your method and define a new "planar-ring DET" theory, in which I state that the Death Star uses a special form of energy transfer which "creates a planar shockwave?" And did you notice that the rings are NOT lined up with your imaginary "bands", or that they leap away from the surface simultaneously around the entire circumference, long before your imaginary "bands" reach the far side? > The lack of band dissipation supports the concept of mass-energy > conversion, provided the remnant polar material observed is subsurface > (i.e. mantle or upper mantle). The notion of chain-reaction or > propagation related to the band is supported by the timing . . . the > secondary blast begins concurrent to when the band would meet itself. > The secondary blast occurring after the superlaser has terminated also > supports the idea, since no additional energy input was occurring from > the superlaser. False-cause fallacy. Let's say we humour your bizarre claims about clearly visible and geometrically regular "bands" around the planet even though no one else can see them; what makes you think this bright glow is the CAUSE of heating rather than a SYMPTOM of heating? > The planar aspect to superlaser and superlaser-related explosion > events is a constant. In the case of Alderaan, we have two rings. DS1 > gives us a ring-and-a-half, while the DS2 gives us only one ring. Wrong. The Rebel ships destroyed by superlasers in ROTJ create no planar ring. The original trilogy showed no planar ring. The micro-superlasers in AOTC showed no planar ring. Moreover, you have still failed to explain why a planar ring supports your theory, and why I shouldn't just copy your fallacious methods and invent a similarly meaningless "planar-ring DET theory" in which I simply define the problem away. > The theory as originally created successfully linked the planar > effects to a single cause, as opposed to the random ad hoc hypotheses > which existed previously. Further, even though the expectation that a > theory have predictive powers is a questionable one given the > untestability of any theories regarding sci-fi technology, the theory > did successfully predict the mass-centered nature of the DS2 ring > prior to this theorist's noticing of that effect. You have yet to explain the cause of the planar rings other than to mumble that your MCR creates them somehow. Moreover, your bizarre claim that a theory need not have predictive powers is scientifically ignorant in the extreme; there is no such thing as a valid theory without predictive powers. Even an untestable theory should still have predictive powers, even if we can't test those predictions (and I must point out that a theory can be testable even without experiments; observations made after formulation of the theory represent tests). Your theory has no predictive powers whatsoever, and your laughable attempt to claim that mass-centred explosions are somehow unique to your theory will fool no one. > Finally, though the original state of the theory left open the > question of how much DET was involved in the superlaser beam, I > eventually came down on the side that there was none or virtually > none. My discovery of the lack of atmospheric effect served as > confirmation of that hypothesis. I presume you refer to your "discovery" of what everyone else clearly identifies as a shield, which protected the surface and prevented these atmospheric effects? By the way, please model the rates of energy release for your chain reaction, which supposedly propagates across the surface of the planet causing very lttle damage and then abruptly causes the whole planet to explode like a bomb. A simple calculation on the volume ratio between the core/mantle of the planet and its crust will reveal that any reaction which propagates that slowly across thin surface layers would take a LOT longer to consume the core than we observe. > III. Counterarguments > 0. DS2 ship shot against the Wingless > You claim that the planar puff is a thin surface layer superheated > and blown off. This claim makes no sense, and is contrary to the > evidence. Please explain. We see luminescent matter flying away from a ship which is obviously still intact. If it is not a thin layer of surface material, then please explain what ELSE it could be, unless it's some kind of shield/superlaser interaction (an alternate explanation which is even more harmful for your preferred theory). > 1. Chain Reaction > You have previously claimed that all chain-reactions are dependent on > certain materials . . . fire burning better than steel, hydrogen > fusing better than iron, and so on. > However, you have pointed out only those chain reactions which are > based on particular sorts of particles, and have failed to acknowledge > the existence of reactions which are not dependent on a certain > element or compound. > One such chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the > big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come > online at Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some > physicists were nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than > creating quark-gluon plasma. They were concerned that it would end up > creating a negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks > like usual, but two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei > of Earth, turning them into other strangelets. The problem would be > that all these similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one > another, leading to the destruction of the planet. > As you might guess, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the > worst that might have happened given the energy levels employed at > RHIC would be a positively-charged strangelet being created, lasting > long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > non-material-dependent chain reaction even in our > comparatively-backwards physics. Thank you for using your diligent web research skills to provide another example to prove MY point: their theories were proven to be bunk, just as MOST scientists predicted beforehand. The failed attention-getting activities of a couple of fringe scientists hardly represent proof of material-independent chain reactions! Face it; according to every piece of evidence at our disposal, there is no such thing as a material-independent chain reaction. Your use of a FAILED example hardly disproves my point. > 2. Opening Crawl > > As to the word not lending itself to the assumption you place on it, > I have extracted the relevant definitions from > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=power . You are at liberty to add > to the list if you feel other definitions apply. > "Power: > 1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively. (The > Webster's Revised Unabridged on the page goes into further detail on > this point) > 9.a. The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine > is operated: turbines turned by steam power; a sailing ship driven by > wind power. > b. The capacity of a system or machine to operate: a vehicle that runs > under its own power. > c. Electrical or mechanical energy, especially as used to assist or > replace human energy. > d. Electricity supplied to a home, building, or community: a storm > that cut off power to the whole region. > 10. Physics. The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount > of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt > and horsepower." > Now, you'll note that the use of the word which you assume to be the > only accurate one given the context is the tenth approach, which for > our purposes would be the same as "firepower". > However, there is no reason to make this assumption. I find it > questionable that the opening crawl of Star Wars was making a foray > into physics and weapons yield data, as opposed to simply describing > the awesome capabilities of the Death Star. And those capabilities happen to be a vast amount of raw power. Deal with it. > > So you admit that the conventional explanation works, which means > > that it's a perfectly viable theory. Concession accepted. > What you have failed to notice (besides my comment immediately after > what you quoted regarding how your pro-shield argument ignores canon > facts) is that I was not acknowledging the validity of the shield idea > . . . I was acknowledging that you require it to be valid, and badly. Actually, you said that a shield "is the only explanation that can possibly explain the situation" and then attempted to disprove the existence of a shield with your fallacious reasoning about Rebel starship shields and planetary shields necessarily being identical in every conceivable respect. I explained that your disproof was utterly fallacious (with the TV example in support) in my last post , and you quietly dropped that part of your argument, but you STILL cite its conclusion that the shield "ignores canon facts"! Sorry, but it will be obvious to any observer that you are backtracking. You said that the shield "is the only explanation that can possibly explain the situation", but you were confident that you could prove there was no shield. When it was pointed out that you did NOT successfully prove that there was no shield, you suddenly changed your position and claimed that you never acknowledged the validity of the shield in the first place, even though everyone can see quite clearly that you did. As for your rhetorical grandstanding about how the DET/shield theory needs the shield, congratulations for proving that which is already self-evident: a theory needs all of its components in order to work. > > 100% of your arguments against the conventional theory are strawman > > distortions, because the conventional explanation includes a shield, > > and you insist on REMOVING the shield from that theory before > > attacking it. > Incorrect . . . there is no straw man in play, because there is no > evidence for a shield. Wrong. You are distorting the theory by removing a piece. THAT IS A STRAWMAN FALLACY. Your refusal to admit your fallacies does not strengthen your argument in any way. You claim that you can do so because there is no evidence, but for the SECOND time, I must point out that if the full theory (including the shield) can explain our observations, then THAT FACT is the evidence you require. Consistency with observations is evidence! What part of this don't you understand? This is a quite a fantastic little bit of sophistry you've concocted; a theory is tested by comparing it to to the observations and THEN seeing whether it is consistent with them. You take the conventional explanation, claim BEFORE TESTING that part of it fails the test, remove that part, and THEN you test it. And when the butchered strawman version of the theory doesn't work, you shake your fist in triumph. This is the most shamelessly pseudoscientific deception I have seen in a long time. > 3B. Outside Evidence for Planetary Shields > You claim that there is outside evidence for the existence of > planetary shields in Star Wars: > "The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations > to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think > that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough." > Tarkin bragged that the destruction of Alderaan would be impressive > because Alderaan's defense systems were as strong as ANY IN THE EMPIRE > Unfortunately, we are not told what this refers to. Orbital defenses, > anti-ship surface weaponry, fighter craft, jamming equipment, and/or a > naked guy with a sharp stick could all be defined as a planetary > defense system, and would logically have been the expected sort of > defense in a pre-superlaser universe. Sure, and Tarkin thought that THOSE types of puny defenses would make his massive planet-destroying battle station significantly more impressive? Your desperate efforts to dismiss various inconvenient facts are not helping you. > Naboo seemed to have little more than luck and fighters as its defense > system. They were, as Panaka pointed out, a non-violent people. > Similarly, Leia described Alderaan as being a planet of peaceful > people . . . I see no reason to assume that Alderaan would suddenly > have planetary shields when no other Republic or Imperial planet has > been seen to have them. > > ... the technology itself is not known to exist > > ... a threatre shield does not make for a planetary shield. Hoth. Theatre shields are known to exist, and with broad coverage. A network of such shields would constitute a planetary shield. Stop wasting time by forcing me to explicitly point out the obvious. Moreover, the ROTJ shield covered, if not the entire planet, then certainly one hemisphere of it, as described in the ROTJ novelization. > > As the superlaser hits, the cloud bank above the impact site is > unaffected. This suggests that there is no DET-style interaction with > the atmosphere. You claim that the planet is protected by a shield > which repels the superlaser until around Frame 4. As evidence for your > claim, you point to a "halo" of atmospheric brightening effects which > appear on the right side of the planet, past the terminator. For the umpteenth time, if the shield explanation works, then it wins because shields are already known to exist. Your MCR is not. Do not shift the burden of proof to me; we already know that shields exist, and that they can explain the visible phenomena. That is more than enough to postulate their existence here, and it is certainly more than you can say about your MCR. You act as though I must produce some kind of irrefutable proof of a shield being installed before you will even consider the possibility as part of a THEORY, thus justifying your refusal to even subject the idea to TESTING. That is putting the cart before the horse, Robert. > > [Re: patchy luminescence as evidence of shield rather than atmospheric > light transmission] Illogical: a light source producing a diffused > brightness in the atmosphere need not automatically obscure everything > below it. A clear sky, though appearing blue and virtually opaque to > us, does not appear that way from orbit. We are not talking about a "diffused brightness". We are talking about atmosphere heated to white-hot luminescence, such as that which you would see in a nuclear fireball! Your pretty picture of a sunset diffusing light a few degrees over the horizon hardly proves that atmospheric diffusion can cause white-hot luminescence to cover an entire hemisphere from a concentrated point! To do this, it would have to bend more than 90 degrees around the planet's curvature! If the planet's atmosphere could do this, there would never be any night-time! How many of these scientifically absurd claims do you intend to make? > > It generates a fireball in all directions moving outward from the > > point of energy release, with no patches or open holes whatsoever. > Then why the claim of fireball-free vaporization in regards to Frame > 5? Who said anything about the atmosphere being "fireball-free"? It is glowing white in a contiguous region, is it not? > > Note the gray clouds, and the diffuse surface details. This suggests > one of several things . . . either the cap is too dim, or the planet > receives very little sunlight, or the atmosphere is much thicker or > denser than that of Earth. And how does this make it possible for atmospheric light diffusion to selectively brighten areas with clouds or bend more than 90 degrees around the curvature of the planet to cover more than one hemisphere from a single point of contact? > Straw man: your argument is based on *direct* light transmission, > whereas I have never claimed direct light transmission from the point > of impact as the source of the atmospheric brightening. Of course not, since you defined NOTHING. So what mechanism does it use, pray tell? Please explain how a 23.5 gigaton energy release will cause an entire hemisphere to glow white-hot, or how its energy will propagate in a selective fashion which favours clouds. > Further, it is interesting to note here the fact that Alderaan, > despite appearing quite dim overall, is surprisingly well-lit past the > terminator. > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Ald-0-0-bright.jpg > Note the visible atmosphere past the terminator in the brightness and > contrast-enhanced shot to the right. The same result occurs no matter > which frame you look at prior to the superlaser hit. This suggests a > natural atmospheric diffraction of light far greater than what one > would expect from a planet such as Earth, as one can observe much more > closely in the following shot: > http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg Wow, a blurry long-distance shot of Alderaan seems to show slightly more atmospheric refraction than a very clear short-range shot of Earth. Of course, you ignore the possibility that this is due to simple video resolution limits and colour saturation, so you conclude that its atmosphere is radically different from that of Earth despite humans living there. Uh huh. And even if Alderaan's atmosphere refracts light a few more degrees over the horizon than Earth does, how does this translate to the magic ability to bend light more than 90 degrees around the curvature of the planet while mysteriously and selectively favouring clouds? How? > > Scientific ignorance: by assuming that the superlaser must start > > from zero at the moment it breaches the shield, you neglect > > conservation of energy. > Completely untrue. I do not assume it must start at zero, but by your > own argument regarding the shield re-radiating the energy around the > planet, there is no need to assume that all of the sudden a shield > failure would make that energy zip down and burn off the surface > layers of the planet, either. However, that is what your theory > requires. > ... > Irrelevant . . . a planet is not a closed system. You should know this > from arguing with creationists, since the reverse is one of their > claims. If it was re-radiating energy into space by use of a shield, > there is no reason this energy should suddenly turn inward when the > shield fails. Don't be ridiculous. No one said the energy had to go 100% down. If it is released in an omnidirectional fashion upon shield failure, nearly half of it will be headed toward the surface. That half would vapourize the surface. Please stop demanding that I waste time explaining every simplistic and/or painfully obvious little detail for every point I make. I am not speaking to a child; with reasonable diligence at learning the basics (rather than rushing straight to quantum-physics websites), you should be able to grasp these concepts for yourself without my painstaking tutelage. > > 100% of your attempts to generate evidence for your undefined MCR > > are examples of the alternative syllogism fallacy (if not A, then > > B). > Absolutely incorrect. What we are dealing with is not-A AND B. The > two arguments are not dependent on one another, though the comparisons > are quite telling. You have still failed to define a theory, other than say that it's some vague reaction which uses little energy but produces great energy from inert matter. Amazingly enough, you don't even notice the GLARING CONTRADICTION between this claim and your corrollary claim that the Death Star is limited to nuclear fusion: if they have some technology for converting any arbitrary inert material into pure energy, why would they be using nuclear fusion for their reactors? Your theory is its own death: you argue that the Empire has some fantastic technology for arbitrarily converting any kind of matter into energy even at great distances, then you turn around and deny that it has anything beyond nuclear fusion for a power source, in order to shore up your claim that the Death Star couldn't possibly have enough power output! > 6. Parsimony (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html) > The version of the principle of parsimony I like best is Einstein's: > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." > But, for our purposes, one of the four given on that page is best, > such as: "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely > to be accurate than more complicated explanations." > DET is a very simple theory . . . but it is too simple. In order to > try to explain away unhelpful facts, additional notions must be piled > on top: > A. In order to explain away the lack of cloud burn-off, there must be > a shield. > B. In order to explain away the band, it must be denied. > C. In order to explain away the rings, they must be chalked up to > ________ (where "blank" is still undetermined). > D. In order to explain away the secondary explosion, it must be > chalked up to an invisible beam. . . . and so on. I would revise that list to: A. The well-known phenomenon of planetary shields successfully explains the lack of cloud burn-off. Your theory does not. B. The luminescence patterns on the planet are obviously random. You must pretend that they are geometrically regular in order to generate a semblance of evidence for your undefined mystery theory. C. In order to explain away the rings, they must be chalked up to _______ for BOTH of our theories. Alternatively, we might consider the fact that they do not appear in the original version, or the fact that they are clearly non-physical for a variety of reasons. D. The established phenomenon of invisible-beam components can successfully explain the secondary explosion. Your mystery chain reaction, on the other hand, cannot. The reaction rates must abruptly swing massively upwards by many orders of magnitude in order to explain the secondary explosion, for no reason other than a back-fit to the evidence, which is to say no reason at all. > > Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." > Indeed. Just above, we have three separate extra entities piled on top > of DET. Meanwhile, my theory requires but one, with nothing piled on > top. No, we add only ONE entity: the planetary shield. You add ONE entity as well (your MCR), but since planetary shields are known to exist and your MCR isn't, planetary shields win. Moreover, since planetary shields are defined while your MCR isn't, planetary shields win TWICE. > Further, the DET theory fails to address the similar rings around the > Death Star I, Death Star II, and so on, and so forth. More ad hoc > theories would no doubt have to be employed in order to explain those > events. Your MCR does not explain those rings either. You can't simply say that it uses a reaction which "creates a planar shockwave" and leave it at that. This would be like explaining fire by saying that it's a reaction which "creates flame". No shit, Sherlock, but that's not a theory. The fact that the rings leave all sides of the planet simultaneously even though your imaginary "bands" have yet to reach the far side, or the fact that the rings aren't lined up with your imaginary "bands" both indicate the level of wishful thinking evident in your undefined "theory". > > "The principle of parsimony is intrinsically hostile to any theory > > which introduces extra or undefined mechanisms." > Perhaps, but it is even more hostile toward theories which do not > explain the evidence. Remember, something must be explained by a > theory before parsimony will even bother with it, and DET not only > fails to explain Alderaan without lots of extra ad hoc entities, but > also fails to explain the exact same phenomena with reference to the > Death Stars. And since no undefined theory can explain ANYTHING, your theory is STILL inferior. A theory which explains most of the evidence and leaves us scratching our heads at the remaining bits is imperfect, but it's far better than a theory which explains nothing and leaves us scratching our heads at the whole thing. > Again, as with the Canon argument, I am at a loss to understand why > there's an argument going on. There can be only one . . . let's go > with the one that sticks to the canon facts. Your grandstanding notwithstanding, you have utterly failed to meet several challenges: 1. Define your theory. Provide some numerical figures on reaction rates, propagation rates, explanations of the multiple order-of-magnitude spike in those rates for no conceivable reason midway through the reaction, types of reactants, etc. Do NOT simply define a wishlist of what you would like your theory to predict if it was ever defined, eg- "uses almost no energy". 2. Provide satisfactory reasoning for dismissing even the POSSIBILITY of a shield, so that it is not even evaluated as a THEORY. As long as it is POSSIBLE, it is valid for inclusion in a theory, and all of your attempts at sophistry aside, that fact remains. Your stubborn insistence on removing it from consideration is indicative of your level of discomfort with the idea; you realize that when the DET/shield theory is employed with all of its pieces in place, it defeats your theory. 3. Successfully predict any "unsolved mystery" which is not predicted by the conventional theory (and no, simply SAYING that the effect "creates planar shockwaves" is hardly a valid prediction; I might as well invent a "fire-ring DET theory" to combat your illogic). 4. Make your theory self-consistent: your claim that the Death Star runs on nuclear fusion is patently absurd in light of your claim that the Empire can magically convert any arbitrary piece of inert matter into pure energy at will. I agree with ONE of your statements; there is only one possible conclusion here, and that is the only one which is A) self-consistent, B) inclusive of the most evidnce possible, including both versions of the trilogy and the EU, C) physically meaningful, and D) fully defined. For the umpteenth time, an undefined theory can NEVER defeat a well-defined theory, even if the latter theory is imperfect. Our disagreement is not over Star Wars evidence, but over basic scientific philosophy, or to be more specific, your failure to employ it. DEBATE SUMMARY IN 3 SENTENCES 1. You claim that conventional physics and a mysterious undefined mechanism should be considered equal theories, with the latter winning by default if you can produce evidence of any unexplained phenomena. 2. I point out that this is an example of the "alternative syllogism" fallacy, or possibly the "false dilemma" fallacy depending on how you define your theory. 3. You deny, deny, deny any fallacy, and then you produce various examples of unsolved mysteries, some of which are more fanciful then others, and all of which you tout as proof of your undefined theory. What part of this don't you understand, Robert? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:41:31 GMT Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <%zJl9.304559$216.12668989@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D929DF0.4030706@stardestroyer.net... > RSA Debate > > Round 3, Part 1b (Death Star firepower) (Response has been ordered under topic headings) *** Length: > > > I urge you to heed your own stipulation about brevity and cut > > > it down. > > > > verbosity> > > I repeat the request that you cut down the unnecessary verbosity, If you don't want a long message, then don't ask me to repeat myself in regards to a definitions already given, details already discussed, et cetera. *** MCR BS: > You have only defined what your MCR is NOT. MCR, again? Mike, you have been told that is improper. Your continuing use of that phrasing after being informed of that fact is even more improper. I have not used "DET theorist" ever since you said you thought it was prejudicial, even if I didn't understand why you felt that way . . . why your continued use of your own prejudicial language? > > Further, the DET theory fails to address the similar rings around the > > Death Star I, Death Star II, and so on, and so forth. More ad hoc > > theories would no doubt have to be employed in order to explain those > > events. > > Your MCR "Superlaser Effect". If that's too long for you to type out, use SF (since there are already too many SE's running around). *** The Opening Crawl: <26 lines snipped> > > However, there is no reason to make this assumption. I find it > > questionable that the opening crawl of Star Wars was making a foray > > into physics and weapons yield data, as opposed to simply describing > > the awesome capabilities of the Death Star. > > And those capabilities happen to be a vast amount of raw power. Deal > with it. Why did you unnecessarily add to the length of your post by quoting a grand total of 30 lines only to completely fail to respond to them in any meaningful way? My point is not altered or defeated because of your unsupported assertion which is contrary to it. *** Original vs. Special Edition and the attempt to include the EU: > I notice that you assume the original versions can be completely > ignored. Justify this assumption. It is not an assumption. First, I'm curious why you're asking because your own Sansweet Encyclopedia quote says that the newer versions are canon . . . the rest are left out altogether. Given your acceptance of that quote, you shouldn't have a problem. At any rate, there are other quotes to the same effect: ""The digital technology that ILM pioneered in films like 'Jurassic Park' and 'Forrest Gump' allows me to revise a few scenes which bring the movie closer to my original version," Lucas said in a prepared statement." "There were parts of the movie that didn't live up to his vision, and now he has the ability to fix and add to the movie." - Howard Roffman, Lucasfilm's VP of licensing. (From a Reuters/Variety press release, reprinted at http://home.swipnet.se/~w-22083/base/news.htm, and in "Daily Variety" according to http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=22NOV199409 335142%40bestla.calstatela.edu) Also, there have been scene-specific comments . . . Lucas, in the annotated screenplays, says: "The scene in Jabba's palace was supposed to have a big musical number, but unfortunately, we ended up with only a couple of shots. Now, thanks to digital technology, we're able to turn this scene into the real musical number that it was supposed to be in the first place." - George Lucas Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays (as reprinted: http://www.starwars.com/episode-vi/classic/2000/05/classic20000529.html) The Special Edition is the fixed version of the trilogy, the way it is supposed to be in order to make it closer to Lucas's vision. > Keep in mind that in most forms of analysis, original data is always > preferable over processed and revised data. The Special Editions are corrected data. We would not wish to use incorrect data that we know is flawed, would we? Of course, you feel that, in spite of Lucas, the SEs may be wrong: > 4. It is proof that the SE's are aphysical and that they are obviously > doctored versions of the originals (a conclusion already agreed upon by > most observers in the case of Greedo's infamous first shot in the Mos > Eisley cantina). Incorrect. They are the completed vision of Lucas (unless and until he decides to do more to them). And hey, I don't like the Greedo thing either, but if we're going to talk about *the canon*, that's what we have to work with. Now, if we want to talk about Star Wars as *we would prefer it*, then Han blew him away and that's that. However, we can hardly have an objective discussion of the evidence if it's a free-for-all situation where everyone picks and chooses what they wish to believe. > > And last but not least, employing the non-canon would also include > > such things as the Sun Crusher or Galaxy Gun, other devices which > > employed fancy non-DET maneuvers to blow things up. > > And both of those were infinitesimally small compared to the Death Star, > thus proving my point for me: if the Death Star used the same tricks, it > wouldn't need to be so large. You forget . . . the Death Stars were to take on entire fleets as well. In the non-canon, the Sun Crusher was a fighter that used small size and virtually impenetrable armor to bypass fleets and reach a sun, where it would use resonance-torpedo chain reactions to cause supernovas. The Galaxy Gun fired starship-sized hyperspace missiles that only had to survive long enough to hit the planet and set off the planet-destroying nucleonic chain reaction. Further, both of these were created after the Death Star, and decades after the Death Star was first designed. In short, you're talking about new, different chain-reaction technologies applied in totally different paradigms, ignoring the principle I was pointing out to you to begin with. > and there are official statements from Lucasfilm-sanctioned publications > to back this up. Now wait just a minute. You can either argue the canonicity issue, or argue the superlaser issue, but you can't argue the latter and use the fact that we're arguing the former to slip in irrelevant EU material. (I already mentioned to you in my last post that one of your claims failed due to non-canonicity.) You said in your opening post: "However, as a matter of basic principle, it is impossible to hold a rational discussion based on the evidence without first determining what the evidence is, ie- what is admissible. Therefore, we must deal with the issue of Star Wars continuity first." It was fine, at the time, for you to go on and talk about the superlaser afterward, because you were following the dictate in the debate parameters that we should discuss it on canon grounds. But, if you now feel it necessary to run to the EU to try to find back-up for your claims, then I'd suggest you pick one of the following options: concede the superlaser debate, request a pause in the superlaser debate to await resolution of the canon issue, or keep the debate on canon grounds as dictated. I would suggest the third option, though you're welcome to pick the first. :-) *** Your Denials of Theory Definition, Logic, and the Philosophy of Science: > > II. The Definition of the Superlaser Effect > > > > "The true nature of the "superlaser" remains an undescribed piece of > > > superphysics . . . Questions of "how" the superlaser functions may > > > be unanswerable, but we can determine useful limits on the > > > capabilities of the technology." - Saxton > > > The Death Star employs the Superlaser Effect. > > This effect is based on some form of mass-energy conversion against > > relatively dense (i.e. solid) matter to create the required energy > > effect, with direct energy transfer effects being non-existent or > > extremely limited. This effect is not instantaneous, which would > > suggest a chain-reaction or propagation time for the effect. > > Scientific ignorance: That's yet another unnecessary and incorrect attack: > in reality, heat/mass transfers over any distance > are NEVER instantaneous. Nor did I claim the reverse about heat/mass transfers, as you might've noticed had you actually read what I said above. > > The mass-energy conversion is almost certainly not achieved by way of > > combustion, fission, fusion, or antimatter means, since none of these > > can provide the required energy output in a reasonable fashion, and/or > > reasonable timeframe, and/or in a manner consistent with the Death > > Star's stated and observed capabilities. > > This is not a definition. You're almost right . . . it's part of it. > You simply define your MCR to "create a planar shockwave" with no other > explanation whatsoever? How convenient! Oh please. Your self-professed scientific background must have ended up making you aware of other theories that included certain things as assumptions, now given causal relationships in the theory, without a nuts-and-bolts explanation for those observed facts besides the causal relationship. Einstein's theory is a prime example of such inclusive assumptions . . . by assuming the speed of light was a constant, everything else followed. And when the predictions of that theory were put to the test twenty years later, the theory was vindicated. Even though we know now the theory was incomplete, it wasn't *wrong*, and was a damn sight better than what had come before, because it actually explained things. Similarly, my theory regarding Alderaan has been vindicated by the observations which have taken place *after* the theory was created, such as the Death Star ring examples, the planar effects with ship-killer shots from DS2, the ring center, and so on. Meanwhile, like a profoundly in-your-face version of Mercury's orbit, the DET theory does not and cannot explain the rings, band, secondary blast, et cetera, et cetera. ("But Einstein had the math!" you'll no doubt wish to claim. He sure did . . . he had access to the mathematical and theoretical underpinnings of the knowledge of the time. We are not given the formulae regarding the Superlaser Effect any more than we are given the formulae regarding hyperdrive. If I had either (or even the background formulae of either), I wouldn't be talking to you . . . I'd be using them.) > And HOW does it do this, pray tell? *That is its nature*. > Why shouldn't I simply copy your method and define a new > "planar-ring DET" theory, in which I state that the Death Star uses a > special form of energy transfer which "creates a planar shockwave?" Because that would be a modification of your theory, unsupported by the evidence and inapplicable to any other cases of rings, also involving yet another ad hoc theory on top of your other increasingly-contrived Alderaan theories such as invisible beams, invisible shields, and so on. > Moreover, your theory is undefined, Oh good grief. It is defined as far as the evidence allows, unlike ad hoc one-shot theories which use guesswork and assertion in the place of facts. > > It is, therefore, not a matter of a fallacy of any sort. It is a > > matter of false predictions of one theory, as opposed to true > > predictions of another. > > Your failure to define your theory means that any "predictions" > generated from it are false. The theory has been defined. Your continuing efforts to claim otherwise are wasteful, silly, and dishonest. > Your interpretations all tend toward rigid inflexibility; That's logic for you. > A good scientist or historian tries to > find an explanation which makes sense, does not introduce unnecessary > complexity, and explains as much of the data as possible. Your approach, > on the other hand, is to declare most of the evidence (the entire EU, > the entire original trilogy) inadmissible prior to investigation. I weight the evidence according to its validity. That's because to do so makes sense, does not introduce unnecessary complexities, and accepts as much of the Canon Policy as possible. > > > Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." > > > Indeed. Just above, we have three separate extra entities piled on top > > of DET. Meanwhile, my theory requires but one, with nothing piled on > > top. > > No, we add only ONE entity: the planetary shield. . . . and the invisible laser, and the X of the rings, and whatever the hell the band is, et cetera. > You add ONE entity as well No, I only have one entity, period. 0 + 1 = 1. > C. In order to explain away the rings, they must be chalked up to > _______ for BOTH of our theories. Completely untrue. My theory gives them a logical cause, and explains their existence elsewhere. You chalk them up to mysteries and ignore them. > > (Then, of course, there's the Galileo argument. When Galileo noticed > > that the moon had mountains, church-men were shocked and appalled . . > > . according to their beliefs, the moon was a perfect sphere. So, they > > argued that there was an invisible crystal over the moon, thereby > > making it spherical. Galileo, in his wit, replied that the invisible > > crystals were arranged into even taller mountains . . . I suppose I > > could argue that the superlaser released billions of invisible flying > > gnomes that dismantled Alderaan piece by piece, but I really don't see > > the point of such claims.) > > More sophistry. The only one inventing extra mechanisms here is you. I did not refer to mechanisms, but to unsubstantiated (and contradicted) claims such as your invisible beam argument and invisible shield argument. My theory requires the 'invention' of a mechanism only inasmuch as the canon requires it. > Conventional energy transfer does not need to be justified; it is the > default behaviour of energy, as dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. > The only way to show that something more complex is happening is to show > that the left side of the equation does not equal the right side, and > you have failed to do this. The left side *doesn't* equal the right side . . . the predictions your theory makes do not hold water, and to shore up the theory you use increasingly contrived ad hoc guesswork that ends up being inapplicable to other examples. > Consistency with observations is evidence! No, only observations and facts are evidence. Consistency is merely helpful (if we wish to understand the evidence). > > You have been shown the fact that DET cannot explain the rings, and > > does not explain the Death Star rings, either. You dismiss that > > argument with the following: > > > > "Alternative syllogism fallacy (A or B; if not A, then B). The fact > > > that the conventional explanation cannot explain the non-physical > > > behaviour of the fire rings does not lend weight to your undefined > > > MCR." > > > However, that is incorrect . . . you have mistaken my argument for > > one that falls victim to that fallacy. You see, DET not only fails to > > explain the rings of Alderaan and the Death Stars, but it also stands > > opposed to those rings by virtue of the predictions one would expect > > from DET. It is a failed prediction. > > Please re-read the definition of the alternative syllogism fallacy (A or > B; if not A, then B). You deny committing the fallacy, and then you > REPEAT it! No, Mike. You've once again claimed a fallacy by slicing an argument through the middle and holding up half an argument as fallacious. You might've noticed had you allowed the argument to finish out: > > Meanwhile, my theory is based on the observations. As it stood from > > the beginning would suggest that all of the fire rings should have as > > their centerpoint the approximate center of mass of the object being > > destroyed. Which I then continued with "This prediction was rendered true by . . . " and gave one of several examples. Again . . . no alternative syllogism fallacy. Your theory fails to make valid predictions, and fails to subscribe to the canon. Mine does neither. It is not "your theory is wrong, *therefore* mine is right" as you claim . . . it's "your theory is wrong, *and* mine is right". (Naturally, that doesn't invert into yours being right if mine is wrong. Not only is that logically invalid, but there's the fact that even if my theory were wrong, yours would still be more wrong.) > > > 100% of your attempts to generate evidence for your undefined MCR > > > are examples of the alternative syllogism fallacy (if not A, then > > > B). > > > Absolutely incorrect. What we are dealing with is not-A AND B. The > > two arguments are not dependent on one another, though the comparisons > > are quite telling. > > You have still failed to define a theory, Untrue, yet again. I've made a hypothesis, and was confirmed time and time again, and have defined the theory as far as the limits allow. > By your OWN ADMISSION, this questionable interpretation was a COMPLETE > SURPRISE to you, which means that your theory did NOT successfully > predict it. I, personally, did not expect to see the polar material. I thought any existing matter would likely have been deep sub-surface, and certainly obscured by debris. However, the existence of material doesn't make the theory wrong, especially given that it required only the slightest clarification to the theory. One would think that your claims of a scientific background would include knowledge of the history of science, where such examples are commonplace. > You simply declare that it "predicts" > everything we observe, without explaining how. Can you predict what would happen if a starship at hyperspace impacted with the mass-shadow of a planet? Okay, explain precise nuts-and-bolts about how that occurs. Can you predict what would happen to a starship's range if a starship's hyperdrive was damaged and began leaking? Okay, explain the precise nuts-and-bolts of how that occurs. I ask these rhetorical questions to point out to you that you do not require the nuts-and-bolts in order to make predictions based on known parameters, contrary to your counter-scientific assertion. You can make *better* predictions with the nuts-and-bolts knowledge and mathematical models, but they are not required for a theory to be correct, or valid as a theory. > Moreover, your bizarre claim that a theory need not have > predictive powers is scientifically ignorant in the extreme; Wrong. What I said was that "even though the expectation that a theory have predictive powers is a questionable one given the untestability of any theories regarding sci-fi technology, the theory did successfully predict the mass-centered nature of the DS2 ring prior to this theorist's noticing of that effect." That does not imply or require that theories do not need predictive powers in any situation. It does, however, mean that demanding testable predictions from a theory regarding science-fiction technology (which is, by default, not open to testing) is peculiar. Nevertheless, my Alderaan theory did successfully predict related incidents and facts. > Even an untestable theory should still have > predictive powers, even if we can't test those predictions Exactly. > (and I must > point out that a theory can be testable even without experiments; > observations made after formulation of the theory represent tests). Then thank you for acknowledging the confirmations of my theory, if even indirectly. > Your theory has no predictive powers whatsoever, How odd, given that predictions were made, 'tested', and confirmed. > By the way, please model the rates of energy release for your chain > reaction, Which occurrence, and in what area? Oh, and while I'm doing that, please present a model of the effects you would predict from a DET superlaser. > For the umpteenth time, an undefined theory can NEVER defeat a > well-defined theory, even if the latter theory is imperfect. That is completely bogus on so many levels. First, you yourself are employing the very fallacies you wish to claim of me, by demanding a deathmatch between the two theories. Second, your claim that a well-defined theory, even if imperfect, can still stand belies a complete ignorance of the history of science, and logic. Ever heard of steady-state cosmology, or any other theory that got its ass handed to it in the history of science because it didn't match with the evidence? Third, DET theory is not "imperfect" . . . it is horribly wrong and useless, because it does not even begin to explain its primary explanatory goal of Alderaan, nor does it deign to explain any other similar event. Fourth, just how in the world do you think DET is well-defined in regards to Alderaan? > Our disagreement is not over Star Wars evidence, but over basic > scientific philosophy, or to be more specific, your failure to > employ it. Uh huh. > does not explain those rings either. You can't simply say that > it uses a reaction which "creates a planar shockwave" and leave it at > that. It is an assumption of a causal relationship, confirmed by observation. It is therefore an explanation. It may not be as detailed as you want to claim it has to be, but it is as detailed as it needs to be to serve as an explanation. > This would be like explaining fire by saying that it's a reaction > which "creates flame". Oh good grief. That's just a horrendously false analogy, and you know it. Now, if you'd said something like 'the flame is a result of an exothermic chemical reaction of such-and-such basic appearance depending on size, the presence of oxygen and/or other suitable elements and compounds, etc.' you might almost have a worthwhile analogy. At least it would be testable . . . you'd simply start an exothermic chemical reaction within an oxygen atmosphere and see what happens. Similarly, my theory was testable, and has passed every test. > > > "The principle of parsimony is intrinsically hostile to any theory > > > which introduces extra or undefined mechanisms." > > > Perhaps, but it is even more hostile toward theories which do not > > explain the evidence. Remember, something must be explained by a > > theory before parsimony will even bother with it, and DET not only > > fails to explain Alderaan without lots of extra ad hoc entities, but > > also fails to explain the exact same phenomena with reference to the > > Death Stars. > > And since no undefined theory can explain ANYTHING, your theory is STILL > inferior. Which would be true, but for the fact that my theory is *not only* defined, but *also* passes the test of prediction. > This is a quite a fantastic little bit of sophistry you've concocted; a > theory is tested by comparing it to to the observations and THEN seeing > whether it is consistent with them. Do what? I have no idea where you're creating this from. A theory is tested by comparing to the observations AND seeing if it is consistent with them. The same holds true for a sub-theory, such as your shield claim. > You take the conventional explanation, claim BEFORE TESTING that > part of it fails the test, remove that part, and THEN you test it. Wha? The hell? Mike, I have shown you that your theory cannot exist without the shield theory stacked atop it (which you appear to accept), and I have shown that your shield theory is false (which you apparently don't accept). That is not a straw man, as you claim. However, you seem to be mixing these concepts up in your mind, in some strange indeterminate manner. THAT is a straw man. > And when the butchered strawman version of the theory doesn't > work, you shake your fist in triumph. Once again, your mixing up of the facts of what's going on does not concern me, nor does your flowery description of what you think based on it. *** Chain Reactions: > What are the preferred reactants The matter of the planet is the preferred reactant. Given the likely high efficiency of the reaction, between 0.02 and 0.1 percent of the planetary material would be sufficient. >, since all chain reactions are material-dependent? Incorrect, as previously pointed out to you, both in my last message and on your forums previously: > > You have previously claimed that all chain-reactions are dependent on > > certain materials . . . fire burning better than steel, hydrogen > > fusing better than iron, and so on. > > > However, you have pointed out only those chain reactions which are > > based on particular sorts of particles, and have failed to acknowledge > > the existence of reactions which are not dependent on a certain > > element or compound. > > > One such chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the > > big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come > > online at Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some > > physicists were nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than > > creating quark-gluon plasma. They were concerned that it would end up > > creating a negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks > > like usual, but two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei > > of Earth, turning them into other strangelets. The problem would be > > that all these similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one > > another, leading to the destruction of the planet. > > > As you might guess, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the > > worst that might have happened given the energy levels employed at > > RHIC would be a positively-charged strangelet being created, lasting > > long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, > > in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, > > non-material-dependent chain reaction even in our > > comparatively-backwards physics. > > Thank you for using your diligent web research skills to provide another > example to prove MY point: their theories were proven to be bunk, Wrong. Their prediction that the RHIC might create such a reaction was argued to be highly unlikely, mainly by virtue of the fact that RHIC was unlikely to produce such an event, given the nature of the accelerator, mixed with the general unlikelihood of negative strangelet production at the accelerator, due to various factors. Further, there's the common and contrary assumption about the required nature of negative strangelets . . . i.e. that for an Ice-9 transition, strangelets must be absolutely stable in bulk at zero pressure. However, some Ice-9 theorists found that temporary metastability could be sufficient (therefore not requiring absolute bulk stability), and would explain the lack of evidence for negative strangelets running amok in the universe from cosmic rays, et cetera. http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9910/9910333.pdf Most scientists favor the arguments relating to the assumption tht absolute stability in bulk is required. That doesn't make the other claim bunk . . . just in the minority, with the assumptions they operated under being highly unlikely. > Your use of a FAILED example hardly disproves my point. Not failed, simply unlikely. The principle you're missing, however, does not revolve around whether *this particular* sort of "Ice-9 type transition" (it's a general term from Vonnegut, previously applied to the whole "polywater" mess) is likely or unlikely to occur. The principle is that not all chain reactions are dependent on certain types and combinations of baryons and atoms, as you claim. Saxton refers to the superlaser as being a piece of superphysics . . . well, there's a whole lot of particle physics and other physics out there that we simply don't know yet. To argue that it is impossible, now and forevermore, for there to ever be any chain reaction that is not dependent on certain types and combinations of our common baryons and atoms is absurd. (That's roughly akin to arguing that it is forever impossible for a living being to achieve or surpass lightspeed in any way, shape, or form. That would, to paraphrase Solo, end our trip real quick.) *** Invisible Pink Beams and Basic Superlaser Facts: > > Also, any attempt to use the ICS theory can only detract from your > > shield interaction argument, owing to the fact that there is nothing > > visibly occurring at or near the planet prior to the green beam's > > impact. The superlaser beam takes 38 frames to reach Alderaan, at > > 24fps and from a stated distance of 6 planetary diameters (or about > > 77,000km). Even rounding the time down and the distance up, that's > > still 1.5 seconds to traverse 100,000 kilometers, which would still > > only be 67,000 km/s, or just under one-quarter lightspeed. Any energy > > traveling at lightspeed would have been affecting the planet well > > before we see the superlaser hit the planet. > > Pure sophistry. You are using the ENTIRE time between initial firing and > target impact, even though the beam obviously stops, circulates, and > builds at the focal point of the dish for most of that time. What?!? http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSSEframe28.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSSEframe67.jpg Using your own DeathStar-SE.avi, at what you claim to be 24fps and which has been confirmed by Windows and VirtualDub, the superlaser is first seen to depart the focal point of the multiple beams at frame 28. Contact is made with the planet at frame 67. I even subtracted a frame for caution's sake when I said that it took 38 frames. You say the beam stops . . . what, does it back up after it was released? > In reality, > the beam builds up at the focal point for a while but once this process > is over, it takes only ¼-second to cover the 72,000km distance to the > planet, which means that it travels at roughly c. Utter nonsense. Please re-watch your film. (Also, your math is off . . . 6 planetary diameters times an Earth-like diameter is 77,000 kilometers (about 76,500, actually, but I was being generous), not 72,000.) The beam is moving at a maximum of one-quarter lightspeed. That and the nature of the Superlaser Effect imply either a beam composed of accelerated exotic particles (in which case the slowdown at the tributary focal point would be odd), or a ray of exotic energy released from the focal point of the tributaries in some manner. > There is evidence of an invisible beam component (see TESB) Before the visible, not after. > there is evidence that glowing pulses ride along an underlying > carrier (see the DS superlaser as it builds power at the focal point), The 'carrier' is quite visible. > Therefore, it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that the underlying > beam can persist even without a visible component. Except for the fact that the underlying beam was visible, and that there's no evidence of an invisible component with the superlaser. > D. The established phenomenon of invisible-beam components can > successfully explain the secondary explosion. Except for the fact that your invisible beam doesn't exist. Not only does not not interact with the planet, invisible shield, or anything else before the green beam's impact, but there is also nothing to suggest that a beam is continuing to strike the surface afterward. Where's the vaporizing planetary debris, or even just any luminescence of material after the end of the green beam along its flight path at all? As with your invisible shield, the invisible laser is contrary to observation. > Dr. Saxton's interpretation of the Death Star superlaser is the same > as mine; If so, then you're both in error, since there is no evidence for an invisible energy beam moving at lightspeed in regards to the superlaser, and certainly no evidence for it continuing after the fact. > He states (quite correctly) that they cannot possibly be ordinary lasers. Which, you'll note, is precisely what I said. Also, in all this "invisible beams" and "well-defined theory" talk, I have yet to hear you identify just what the beam is composed of (either the visible or your invisible one). You seem to agree that it is not an EM-based laserbeam, so what is it? A particle beam? What sort? > However, unlike you, he does NOT make a leap in logic to conclude that > the energy released by a turbolaser impact must therefore come from > something OTHER than the turbolaser beam itself. I have made no such "leap in logic", and your claim that I have is a weak straw man *** The Band: > > The band outer boundary is also visible in your Frame 4 and moves > > further in Frame 5, and one can see that it is obviously unrelated to > > any pre-existing surface or atmospheric object (frames 0 and 2 > > included for reference): > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/AldBlastBand4&5.jpg > > You have chosen to deny the existence of the white band encircling > > the globe outright: "The bands are a figment of your imagination. > > Nothing more." This is incorrect, as the canon visuals demonstrate in > > two separate ways. > > Your imaginative artwork proves nothing. No one sees these "bands" but > you. I've demonstrated the band (it's singular, Mike) in two separate ways. Your continuing insistence that it does not exist is entertaining, but irrelevant. > B. The luminescence patterns on the planet are obviously random. Like I said, the band must be denied in your theory. > You arbitrarily decide that the white-hot glowing region around the > dark spot is a "band" by virtue of being next to a dark spot, . . . between the dark spot and the comparatively unaffected spots, actually. > even > though it exhibits none of the geometric regularity of a circle and is > obviously random. Which explains its circularity as it wraps around the globe how??? Again, you are claiming something contrary to observed (and easily observable) fact. Further, your comment about geometric regularity is bordering on a straw man. Nowhere have I argued that the band is a perfect circle of precise proportions, any more than I've argued the rings are perfect circles of precise proportions. Given the conversion effects and the nature of a planet, I'd actually consider it odd if the band was an absolutely perfect circle. However, as the band meets itself on the other side, any variation will cancel out. > > The lack of band dissipation supports the concept of mass-energy > > conversion, provided the remnant polar material observed is subsurface > > (i.e. mantle or upper mantle). The notion of chain-reaction or > > propagation related to the band is supported by the timing . . . the > > secondary blast begins concurrent to when the band would meet itself. > > The secondary blast occurring after the superlaser has terminated also > > supports the idea, since no additional energy input was occurring from > > the superlaser. > > False-cause fallacy. I didn't say that the band caused the secondary blast. I simply pointed out that the timing supports a relation of the band meeting itself on the other side and the beginning of the secondary blast. > what makes you think this bright glow > is the CAUSE of heating rather than a SYMPTOM of heating? I know of no heating effect that could cause the band effect to encircle the globe while leaving the surface untouched beforehand, and also allow it to continue to exist afterward, and which doesn't lose energy as it travels. Why, do you? > > ... you claim that the above shot shows that the center of the dark > > spot is at least 3500 kilometers away from the impact point. First, > > and most importantly, it should be noted that the dark spot is not > > the basis of band location, contrary to your assertion. > > Of course not. The dark spot is not centred on the superlaser, nor is it > centred on the band. These phenomena are obviously random, rather than > being the geometrically predictable phenomenon you imagine them to be. Another paltry straw man. I never claimed that the dark spot was the basis for band location, or that the dark spot's shape had to be geometrical. > And > did you notice that the rings are NOT lined up with your imaginary > "bands", or that they leap away from the surface simultaneously around > the entire circumference, long before your imaginary "bands" reach the > far side? Yes. Why should the band be lined up with the rings? It's origin point is the superlaser impact point. > The fact that the rings leave all sides of the planet simultaneously even > though your imaginary "bands" have yet to reach the far side, or the > fact that the rings aren't lined up with your imaginary "bands" both > indicate the level of wishful thinking evident in your undefined "theory". Why should the band (it's still singular) be lined up with the rings? > > Second, the radius of Earth is 7000 kilometers, but I see no valid > > centerpoint which could be half that radius distant from the point of > > impact, as illustrated below: > > Anyone can draw a line between the centre of the dark spot to the corner > of the white flash where the superlaser hits, and come up with the same > figure. Your denials change nothing. I have given you the evidence and made my point. You claim that my "denials change nothing". If you are going to fail to address the point and the evidence, do not bother responding. Alternately, do not claim that my posts are unnecessarily long . . . here's 10 lines wasted. Please pick one of the above options. > which supposedly propagates across the surface of the planet > causing very lttle damage and then abruptly causes the whole planet to > explode like a bomb. Straw man. Again, I do not claim a causal relationship between the band and the secondary blast. As I said: "The notion of chain-reaction or propagation related to the band is supported by the timing . . . the secondary blast begins concurrent to when the band would meet itself. The secondary blast occurring after the superlaser has terminated also supports the idea, since no additional energy input was occurring from the superlaser." It is phrased that way because no one knows what is going on beneath the surface . . . naturally, we can't see it. And, because we are never in a position to get a good view of what's going on beneath the surface when the effect takes place, I have not tried, as others might, to make bold, foolish assertions in absence of data. *** The Death Star Reactor and the Novel Evidence: > Amazingly enough, you don't even notice the GLARING > CONTRADICTION between this claim and your corrollary claim > that the Death Star is limited to nuclear fusion: if they > have some technology for converting any arbitrary inert > material into pure energy, why would they be using nuclear > fusion for their reactors? 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. (Also, where do you put it? If you build a huge facility on a planet, something goes wrong and the chain reaction gets out of hand, the planet might explode or be made rather inhospitable. You put it in orbit, and you have to beam the power down some other way, and ignore details like the potential "Ewok Holocaust" repeat if something goes wrong, the 'environmental unfriendliness' (to put it lightly) of sending death rays into the atmosphere (depending on the power production rate), and so on. In short, assuming it can even be controlled, it's unworkable as a power source. Perhaps, decades after RoTJ, things could be different . . . but, then, Lucas isn't making a third trilogy, so we don't know that.) > How do you know that the activation energy for this > "reaction" is lower than the energy requirement for simply heating up > the material? Because the Death Star was incapable of creating the required energy with the reactor. Further, what use would the technology be if they could have done the same basic thing in a simpler, more direct fashion? > > A. "Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal > > fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated > > energy of a small artificial sun"(ANH Novel). > > This describes the power source of the Death Star as having the energy > > of a small sun, and/or being a small artificial sun. In either case, > > we have a Death Star powerplant that cannot be described as being more > > than around 1e26W, the power output of our mid-sized natural sun. > > Further, suns operate off of nuclear fusion, and the quote above > > suggests the same of the Death Star. > > Wrong. Suns do NOT necessarily "operate off of nuclear fusion". Pop > quiz: does nuclear fusion occur in a neutron star? That's a neutron star, Mike, not a sun. All suns are stars, but not all stars are suns. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sun http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=star Your argument is nullified. Besides, how do you expect to have a smaller-than-usual artificial neutron star without having to input energy to keep it together? > Does nuclear fusion occur in a white dwarf? No, but that's the *remnant* of a sun. Using the quote in that manner would constitute a severe lower limit for the output of the DS reactor, which I see no need in employing. Besides, how do you liberate the energy of a dead ember of a star? Again, it's the liberated energy of a small artificial sun. Even if you wish to escape the fusion implication, you still have the energy upper limit to deal with, which is many, many times less than what you need it to be. > > B. "Luke had seen the shattered remnants of Alderaan and knew that for > > those in the incredible battle station that the entire moon would > > present simply another abstract problem in mass-energy conversion"(ANH > > novel, p. 178). > > The way in which the superlaser does its job is defined above. Some > > have argued that this somehow refers to the reactor of the Death Star, > > but that claim does not fit the context of the quote. Luke is > > pondering the incredibly tough temple and the remains of Alderaan, > > along with the (possible) destruction of the moon. > > Ah, I see. And even though Luke is a farmboy with no training in physics > and certainly no knowledge of planet-destroying battle station design, If he was as ignorant as you want to claim, then how would he even know enough to refer to it as mass-energy conversion? Beru said he just wasn't a farmer type . . . Or do you consider his half-joking desires for time alteration or teleportation (as he mentions to C-3PO) the average notions of an ignorant farmboy? Clearly, he was made aware of that element of the Death Star's technology. Unless, of course, you wish to claim that everyone was silent on the matter and that no one can ever learn any detail "off-camera". > you are confident that a detailed semantic analysis of his ruminations > will reveal the inner workings of superlaser physics. Another pitiful straw man. It is yet another confirmation, not the bedrock my standard is planted on. *** Shield Basics: > > 3B. Outside Evidence for Planetary Shields > > You claim that there is outside evidence for the existence of > > planetary shields in Star Wars: > > "The defense systems on Alderaan, despite the Senator's protestations > > to the contrary, were as strong as any in the Empire. I should think > > that our demonstration was as impressive as it was thorough." > > Tarkin bragged that the destruction of Alderaan would be impressive > > because Alderaan's defense systems were as strong as ANY IN THE EMPIRE > > Unfortunately, we are not told what this refers to. Orbital defenses, > > anti-ship surface weaponry, fighter craft, jamming equipment, and/or a > > naked guy with a sharp stick could all be defined as a planetary > > defense system, and would logically have been the expected sort of > > defense in a pre-superlaser universe. > > Sure, and Tarkin thought that THOSE types of puny defenses would make > his massive planet-destroying battle station significantly more > impressive? Well, probably not the naked guy with a sharp stick, but any of the other defenses (or combinations thereof) may or may not have been impressive planetary defenses to Tarkin. Your belief that they wouldn't be is no doubt colored by your belief in the EU materials and your belief that Alderaan has a shield capable of repelling 1e38J of raw energy. However, neither of those beliefs are valid. > A. The well-known phenomenon of planetary shields successfully explains > the lack of cloud burn-off. A "well-known phenomenon" with no evidence of its existence? The hell? > > As the superlaser hits, the cloud bank above the impact site is > > unaffected. This suggests that there is no DET-style interaction with > > the atmosphere. You claim that the planet is protected by a shield > > which repels the superlaser until around Frame 4. As evidence for your > > claim, you point to a "halo" of atmospheric brightening effects which > > appear on the right side of the planet, past the terminator. > > For the umpteenth time, if the shield explanation works, then it wins > because shields are already known to exist. No, Mike. You need proof of your claim, and responses to disproof. You can't simply assert that because you've claimed something, it *must* be so. If that's all anyone had to do, we wouldn't be debating, now would we? > but since planetary shields are known to exist And this is just a good-old fashioned attempt to sneak in something false. Planetary shields are not "known" to exist. You've hypothesized them, but your hypotheses do not match with the observed evidence. > Moreover, since planetary shields are defined Oh really? Do please explain the nuts and bolts of them, then . . . no doubt these were explained in the canon. You compare it to the Hoth energy shield (which obviously allowed matter through). Explain the details of how these hypothesized planetary shields do what they do, and explain the interaction with the superlaser beam. Do all the other things you insist are necessary for the Superlaser Effect, but are now mysteriously unnecessary for something you're hoping to sneak in and/or claim is valid merely because you have claimed it. > > Naboo seemed to have little more than luck and fighters as its defense > > system. They were, as Panaka pointed out, a non-violent people. > > Similarly, Leia described Alderaan as being a planet of peaceful > > people . . . I see no reason to assume that Alderaan would suddenly > > have planetary shields when no other Republic or Imperial planet has > > been seen to have them. > > > > ... the technology itself is not known to exist > > > > ... a threatre shield does not make for a planetary shield. > > Hoth. Theatre shields are known to exist, and with broad coverage. A > network of such shields would constitute a planetary shield. Proof that planetary shields can be linked in such a manner? Remember, by your own argument, you can't assume any sort of shield has the qualities of any other. Further, we do not know what "broad coverage" actually was. The base was tiny, and the slow walkers appeared mere kilometers from the base, from an unspecified location, with terrain and snow to hide them, if necessary. You need some sort of proof of planetary shields, not unsupported assertions. > Moreover, the ROTJ shield covered, if not the entire planet, then > certainly one hemisphere of it, as described in the ROTJ novelization. We saw the shield, Mike, in the Absolute Canon. It wasn't even close to being that big. > You said that the shield "is the only explanation that can possibly > explain the situation", but you were confident that you could prove > there was no shield. When it was pointed out that you did NOT > successfully prove that there was no shield, you suddenly changed your > position and claimed that you never acknowledged the validity of the > shield in the first place, even though everyone can see quite clearly > that you did. Your entire paragraph above is a weak, weak falsehood on your part. First, you misconstrued my statement about the cloud situation in the hopes that it might have tactical utility, and now you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you misconstrued it. Further, your suggestion that I was confident and then my argument was somehow smashed by you is horribly erroneous on both counts. Not only did I not say what you wish I said, but overconfidence of the sort you are claiming (not to mention the implicit accusation of a lie to cover it up) is not part of my nature. I generally make precisely-worded statements, meant to imply in context exactly what I wish to imply . . . no more, no less. The fact that you have misconstrued one of those statements and now wish to claim that I have lied based on your misunderstanding is foolhardy. > As for your rhetorical grandstanding about how the DET/shield theory > needs the shield, congratulations for proving that which is already > self-evident: a theory needs all of its components in order to work. That's just it . . . your theory not only doesn't get all of its components that are required to be built on top of it to cover up what doesn't work, but also fails to make valid predictions even with all that multiplication. > > > 100% of your arguments against the conventional theory are strawman > > > distortions, because the conventional explanation includes a shield, > > > and you insist on REMOVING the shield from that theory before > > > attacking it. > > > Incorrect . . . there is no straw man in play, because there is no > > evidence for a shield. > > Wrong. You are distorting the theory by removing a piece. THAT IS A > STRAWMAN FALLACY. No, you are adding a shield component to a theory which fails with or without it. The fact that I have denied you your shield by using the evidence to disprove it is not a straw man attack. > Do not shift the burden of proof to me; You make the claim, you have to provide the evidence. Is that not how things work? > we already know that shields exist, and that they can explain the > visible phenomena. Except for the fact that neither one of your claims above is true. > You act as though I must produce some kind of irrefutable proof > of a shield being installed before you will even consider the > possibility as part of a THEORY, thus justifying your refusal > to even subject the idea to TESTING. No, but it might be helpful if you would provide the slightest proof that planetary shields do in fact exist, as opposed to asserting that the mere fact you have claimed them is itself proof. I incorporated the planar aspect into the Superlaser Effect theory because it fit, and that assumption has been borne out by the evidence. You seem to incorporate shields as part of your DET theory, even though the very concept is disproven by the canon evidence. *That* is why shields don't work, Mike. And since you seem to agree that shields are your only way out, that's another reason why your theory fails. > > What you have failed to notice (besides my comment immediately after > > what you quoted regarding how your pro-shield argument ignores canon > > facts) is that I was not acknowledging the validity of the shield idea > > . . . I was acknowledging that you require it to be valid, and badly. > > Actually, you said that a shield "is the only explanation that can > possibly explain the situation" and then attempted to disprove the > existence of a shield with your fallacious reasoning about Rebel > starship shields and planetary shields necessarily being identical in > every conceivable respect. There was no fallacious reasoning involved. I pointed out the lack of any glow (shield or otherwise) before superlaser impact against the hull of the ships. You said: ""Weak analogy" fallacy: You assume that since A and B perform similar functions, then ANY property of A must also apply to B. To be more specific, you assume that since a planetary shield and a starship shield are both shields, then ALL of their outward characteristics must be identical." But this is absurd, both in regards to your assertion that I claimed it (I did not claim that every single property must apply to both in every single situation, as you suggest) and in your assertion that an Alderaan shield both would and would not glow, apparently at random (I say that due to your most peculiar claim that there is an invisible lightspeed component to the superlaser, even though it is not seen to be interacting with the shield prior to the slower visible bolt's impact (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/AlderaanBlast-0.jpg)). Further, to argue (as you do, both in reference to Alderaan and the ships), that shields only do certain things sometimes when hit by a superlaser blast is most peculiar. Finally, you're the one claiming the existence of shield halo as a result of the Gungan shields. Well, which is it? Can shields be comparable to one another, or can't they? "This fallacy ignores the fact that there are many underlying differences between A and B (eg- sheer scale, the fact that one operates in or near an upper atmosphere while the other doesn't, the fact that one is projected thousands of kilometres away from its base while the other is a "hull-hugger", etc), so not all properties of A are guaranteed to apply to B." I already pointed out the peculiarity of your "thousands of kilometres from its base" idea, and given that we have no reason to assume profound differences between the alleged Alderaan planetary shield tech and Mon Cal starship shield tech (unlike we do, say, in regards to the Gungan shield tech) I find your argument that 'maybe they might be different' specious. Again, there is no light until the ships themselves are hit. "A real-life example of this fallacy ..." . . . is itself fallacious, since it's a false analogy . . . "... would be to assume that since a rear-projection TV and a CRT TV are both TV's, and CRT TV's are known to employ powerful magnetic fields, rear-projection TV's must employ powerful magnetic fields too. Therefore, if we were to use your "reasoning", we could prove that a rear-projection TV is not a TV by simply observing the absence of the strong magnetic field." Actually, for your false analogy to hold any water as an analogy: 1. There should be no evidence for the existence of rear-projection televisions. People might know how to shine a bright light behind a piece of paper and make convincing hand puppets, and they might know how to make CRTs and fairly large CRTs, but that's as close as the technology is known to get. 2. "Magnetic field"? Why the appeal to the invisible again? The person claiming to have an operating rear-projection television should be incapable of turning it on and showing televised images on the screen. Should any light play on the screen from within the room, that should be used either as proof that the TV is working, or at other times as proof that the TV is not. And so on. > I explained that your disproof was utterly fallacious (with > the TV example in support) in my last post , and you quietly > dropped that part of your argument, No, I simply didn't have the time, space, or patience to respond to every one of your incorrect claims of fallacy and various faulty examples in relation to them. Since you have decided to make more of your false accusation of the fallacy (while also suggesting that I "quietly dropped" it, as if hoping no one would notice), I have now replied. > but you STILL cite its conclusion that the shield "ignores canon facts"! That's because it does, Mike. > You claim that you can do so > because there is no evidence, but for the SECOND time, I must point out > that if the full theory (including the shield) can explain our > observations, then THAT FACT is the evidence you require. Again, you make the peculiar assertion that merely because you have claimed something, it *must* be so. Where does this peculiar notion come from? The shield, assuming we ignore your position that no shield acts like any other, must operate along certain parameters, whether or not we know the nuts-and-bolts of its operation. You yourself have made certain claims about the shield, and these have been shown to be incorrect. I have pointed out facts which are contrary to any shield theory. So, again, I must ask you . . . how does the existence of an unsubstantiated claim contrary to other evidence magically constitute evidence? > 2. Provide satisfactory reasoning for dismissing even the POSSIBILITY of > a shield, Asked and answered, repeatedly. > so that it is not even evaluated as a THEORY. It's a hypothesis contrary to facts, Mike. > As long as it is POSSIBLE, it is valid for inclusion in a theory, > and all of your attempts at sophistry aside, that fact remains. (Well, at least this is a weaker, more rational version of your claim that merely because you've claimed it, it proves your case.) You're right . . . as long as an invisible shield is possible, it is a valid ad hoc entry into your theory. However, whether it is possible or not, the claims you have made regarding it are contrary to canon fact. > Your stubborn insistence on removing it from consideration is > indicative of your level of discomfort with the idea; Quite true. I'm not comfortable accepting that which is contrary to canon fact. > you realize that when the DET/shield theory is > employed with all of its pieces in place, it defeats your theory. No, because it doesn't work. *** Observations regarding the continued existence of *** planetary material vs. shield halo/vaporized material/other: > > You have also claimed that they are not grounds to conclude that some > > Superlaser Effect occurs. You are partially correct . . . alone, they > > are not. However, they are not the sole piece of evidence. > > > intact after explosion begins> > > Already dealt with in my previous post. There is already luminescent > material hundreds of kilometres away from the planet well before any of > this happens. And as proof of this, you point to blue material that is fireball-free. In regards to Frame 2, you said in your first message: "There is no fiery explosion; there is luminescence but nothing is being thrown away from the planet, and we can clearly see unaffected oceans underneath." In your second: "If it's an atmospheric effect, then there is no reason why you would see patches of blue ocean between the impact point and the "halo" to the right", and that it's a shield we see. Well, the oceans are not unaffected areas without any additional luminescence . . . they are brightened too, as I have shown you. And yet, you claim that by the time we reach Frame 5, your Frame 2 rules are to be thrown out the window . . . no fiery explosion is needed, and bluish luminescence is sufficient cause to believe that vaporized material is being thrown from the surface. The same effect, but two causes? That's inconsistency, now not only in regards to the left side of the planet, but to the areas adjacent to the superlaser strike zone, as well. You know, by that argument, the entire period of blue luminescence from the first frame of impact on (i.e. anything bright blue anywhere) is "luminescent material hundreds of kilometers away from the planet", which would mean that your shield theory is bogus. Alternately, all blue luminescence is a shield, which means it is up at least until the band passes the outermost visible areas of the planet, which would once again mean that your shield theory is bogus. Again, please pick one. > > [Re: patchy luminescence as evidence of shield rather than atmospheric > > light transmission] Illogical: a light source producing a diffused > > brightness in the atmosphere need not automatically obscure everything > > below it. A clear sky, though appearing blue and virtually opaque to > > us, does not appear that way from orbit. > > We are not talking about a "diffused brightness". We are talking about > atmosphere heated to white-hot luminescence, such as that which you > would see in a nuclear fireball! That is your claim, but it is disproven by the brightened but blue surface which we can see. You falsely argue that my claim is something about skipping light or some other such nonsense, but now you deny the blue patches which you previously asserted. Please pick one. > Your pretty picture of a sunset diffusing light a few degrees over > the horizon hardly proves that atmospheric diffusion can cause > white-hot luminescence to cover an entire hemisphere from a > concentrated point! Oh, come on. You know good and well that's not my claim. Where have I ever suggested that the point source of the superlaser, and the point source of the superlaser alone, single-handedly produced the hemisphere-covering flare of your Frame 3 which, in your words, "saturates the video medium"? The answer is 'nowhere', because by Frame 4 the band is already quite a distance from the impact site. Therefore, it is likely that we simply do not see the band within Frame 3 due to the intense saturation of light. Given the propagation speed of the band, it was likely already the size of a large continent by that point. > If the planet's atmosphere could do this, there would never be > any night-time! We already know that Alderaan extends the rather dim sunlight *at least* a couple of dozen degrees around the planet's surface (probably more, given the appearance and likely drop-off value, but it's hard to confirm more with image brightness manipulation before wash-out occurs). There's no logically valid reason to assume that it would not do the same (or more) with a bright, continent-sized light source. > > > It generates a fireball in all directions moving outward from the > > > point of energy release, with no patches or open holes whatsoever. > > > Then why the claim of fireball-free vaporization in regards to Frame > > 5? > > Who said anything about the atmosphere being "fireball-free"? It is > glowing white in a contiguous region, is it not? In Frame 5? Yeah, the circular band, but I don't see how this helps you. The left side of the planet is not glowing white. It's bright blue, but there's none of the "white-hot vaporization" that is fireball-free that you're claiming. > > Note the gray clouds, and the diffuse surface details. This suggests > > one of several things . . . either the cap is too dim, or the planet > > receives very little sunlight, or the atmosphere is much thicker or > > denser than that of Earth. > > And how does this make it possible for atmospheric light diffusion to > selectively brighten areas with clouds Gratuitous straw man regarding your continuing claim of selective brightening. I've demonstrated it to be a straw man, *and* shown you the disproof that your straw man is even what is seen. > Please explain how a 23.5 gigaton energy release will cause > an entire hemisphere to glow white-hot, I have never claimed that, as you are well aware, nor is it required or implied by my theory. > or how its energy will propagate > in a selective fashion which favours clouds. You don't understand that bright light will reflect and refract off clouds? Further, what I'm curious about is why you insist that this shield halo energy redirection effect of yours favors such a brightening of the clouds only. The clouds are absolutely aglow, yet there's no direct reflection of this off of the surface toward the observation point from the ground. Unless the planet's surface or water has a horrendous albedo, there's no reason this halo that brightens the clouds to an extent greater than they are brightened by their own sun should not reflect off the surface of the planet. Alternately, if you're claiming that this shield halo is somehow magnifying the incident light on the planet below, then why would the white cloud area past the terminator be as bright as the rest of the clouds? Again, your argument is inconsistent. > > Further, it is interesting to note here the fact that Alderaan, > > despite appearing quite dim overall, is surprisingly well-lit past the > > terminator. > > http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/Ald-0-0-bright.jpg > > Note the visible atmosphere past the terminator in the brightness and > > contrast-enhanced shot to the right. The same result occurs no matter > > which frame you look at prior to the superlaser hit. This suggests a > > natural atmospheric diffraction of light far greater than what one > > would expect from a planet such as Earth, as one can observe much more > > closely in the following shot: > > http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg > > Wow, a blurry long-distance shot of Alderaan seems to show slightly more > atmospheric refraction than a very clear short-range shot of Earth. Long distance vs. short range? Do you not understand that the short-range shot should be brighter, showing us more? > Of course, you ignore the possibility that this is due to simple video > resolution limits Why would low resolution selectively place a blue glow toward the right? Why would this selective low-res "feature" then be enhanced when the superlaser hits? Further, if the resolution is so poor, how do you justify your claim that the left side of the planet is flinging vaporized material? > No one said the energy had to go 100% down. If it is released > in an omnidirectional fashion upon shield failure, > nearly half of it will be headed toward the surface. And why would it do this all of the sudden, when it had previously been directing the energy outward or sideways? For that matter, just what sort of shield failure are you suggesting? Does it fail at the point of impact and spread outward, or just suddenly collapse on itself? Do the generators absorb the energy and then re-radiate it in close proximity to the superlaser strike zone? Please, pick one, or add your own and pick that. > You are pointing to vague bluish regions and arguing that > they MUST represent solid, intact planetary surface still in its > original location despite obvious evidence to the contrary. "Vague bluish regions"? You mean the visible surface of the planet on the left, which has not moved from its prior location in the slightest? Or the spot you pointed out as a "skipped" area of blue and claimed was unaffected? > Moreover, there is the physics of the situation; we can see enormous > volumes of material hurtling away from the planet. It does not take a > PhD physicist to see that if huge clouds of superheated and vapourized > material are flying away from a surface, there MUST be some kind of > damage to that surface! On the other side of the planet, better than half a hemisphere away? The point, Mike, is that I am denying your claim that the atmospheric blue haze is vaporized material. I have also now pointed out to you that your arguments are inconsistent on that count. > > Finally, though the original state of the theory left open the > > question of how much DET was involved in the superlaser beam, I > > eventually came down on the side that there was none or virtually > > none. My discovery of the lack of atmospheric effect served as > > confirmation of that hypothesis. > > I presume you refer to your "discovery" of what everyone else clearly > identifies as a shield, 1. Those are clouds, Mike. 2. You mistakenly assume that everyone else believed, as you claimed, that there were no significant differences between the OE and SE. Regarding the polar material: > How does this prove your theory? It supports the idea that the band is converting surface material as it passes, provided that the polar material is subsurface, as stated. > 1. It is an optical illusion. Possible, but highly improbable. > 2. It is an overeager interpretation of a vague outline. No, it's quite visible, and the location leaves only one conclusion. > 3. The planet is exploding in a grossly asymmetrical fashion, hence part > of it stays in place for a long time. This may have something to do with > the rates and directions in which energy is transferred throughout the > planet's mass . . . which would require that either Alderaan or the superlaser be "lop-sided" or grossly asymmetrical in some way. The latter is not supported by the canon, and the former is unlikely . . . a planet whose composition or mass distribution were that lop-sided would be extremely odd, and would be contrary to much of our geophysical knowledge. >, or perhaps some fantastic side-effect of the shield, . . . a shield for which there is no evidence, and which your argument contradicts . . . > which would imply that part of the shield stayed up for a while, perhaps > from shield generators on the far side of the planet which survive longer. How would the shield protect the planet from damage that was coming from within, as DET would suggest to be the case? > > However, you argue that it is vaporized material *only* for the second > > modified screenshot, and *not* the first. For the first, you argue > > that it is a shield effect, "PRECISELY as we would expect for the far > > side of a shield which has just been struck by a superlaser versus a > > shield which has already collapsed." > > More sophistry. If the shield collapses, the energy must go somewhere, > and a lot of it will head downwards and vapourize the surface. There is > no contradiction between an energetic shield and a vapourized cloud of > material flying up from the surface shortly afterwards. Ah, but there is a contradiction, now identified in two ways. Not only do you ascribe the blue glow to two separate causes with regards to the screenshots of the side of the planet, but in regards to the planet's brightened blue areas as the superlaser hits, too. > > This is a gross inconsistency: you ascribe two separate causes to > > what is a visually identical phenomenon, claiming that one is > > vaporized material (even though this makes no sense without a > > fireball) and claiming the other is a shield effect (even though > > there is no evidence for a shield, but I'll be coming back to that > > shortly). > > Visually, it IS an identical phenomenon: a shield which radiates energy > or a piece of superheated matter which radiates energy will have the > same appearance. This has been demonstrated many times in the movies by > visibly glowing shield/bolt interactions, including one in which the > entire front face of a Star Destroyer's lower superstructure glowed > white-hot. For that brief moment, it was impossible to tell if the metal > was white-hot or a shield was radiating the energy away. But, in the case of the ion cannon bolt (which is what I assume your vague reference was aiming for), there was no observed material flying away, just as there isn't in this case . . . UNTIL the band passes. There's no fireball . . . no huge cracks in the crust . . . nothing to suggest that your claim of vaporizing blue material is correct. > > Finally, your assertion fails to take into consideration the fact that > > the planet is three-dimensional. We would expect to see any ejecta > > which heads from the surface directly toward the observation point as > > somewhat less luminescent, given that there wouldn't be so much > > luminescent material behind it and adding to the luminescence. This > > can also be seen in the large dark debris area's explosion, where > > you'll note the rightmost side of it is darker than the left side. > > Actually, debris of any given temperature heading toward us will be MORE > luminescent, since it is closer and the inverse-square law dictates that > it will appear brighter for that reason. First, the inverse-square law will not allow for the sort of incredible variation you are hoping for in this case. Second, you have ignored the fact that there will not be luminescent material behind that which is headed for the observation point, whereas luminescent material toward the edges will have luminescent material behind it. > > [Re: secondary blast] The only argument I've seen you make which could > > possibly have anything to do with the secondary blast is your > > reference to inertial confinement fusion (which, granted, was made in > > reference to the polar region, and not the planetary core). However, > > inertial confinement fusion is based on even, uniform target heating, > > whether it is done by almost 200 lasers focused on the target surface, > > or by even heating of a container which heats the target via > > radiation. I do not see how a lone superlaser beam could be expected > > to produce this effect for the core or polar region. > > Strawman. ICF is a hopeless theory for the IRON core of a planet, and I > never made that argument. Are you even reading what I write before you cry fallacy? I never ascribed the argument to you. I quote from what you quoted of me: "... which could possibly have anything to do with the secondary blast..." and "(which, granted, was made in reference to the polar region, and not the planetary core)." Again, I must reiterate that your constant false accusations of fallacies are unnecessary and undesirable. > ICF does, however, provide an example of where > a densified core can remain in place in a spherical explosion, because > the inertial pressure from the expanding outer layers holds it in place. > I was merely pointing out that outer-layer expansion pressure could keep > a densified core in place for some time, hence the persistent spherical > shape inside the expanding cloud of debris (certainly a better > explanation than your bizarre claim that the surface is intact despite > trillions of tons of vapourized and superheated matter emanating from it). Your claim that the polar material (and/or the left side of the planet, depending on which "persistent spherical shape" you refer to) could be the core of the planet makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. First, the curvature is way off. Second, your argument requires that the core move up to the polar region, and then stop to await the secondary explosion. Finally, if you refer to both the polar material and the left side of the planet, inertial confinement isn't the answer you're looking for . . . you need the core to grow substantially. > You think that expansion from the centre of mass somehow proves a chain > reaction? No, that's another straw man. An *explosion* from the center of mass does, especially in regards to DS2 and its centrally-located reactor. As I showed you, the explosion *does not* escape or vent through the non-existent parts of the station as one would expect, and the ring does not have as a center point the reactor's location. > If you heat up a volume of material to extreme temperatures, > what do you think it will do? False analogy, regarding either theory. You're talking about relatively even heating, not DET with a laser beam that is tiny compared to the target. *** The DS2 anti-ship shots: > > The planar aspect to superlaser and superlaser-related explosion > > events is a constant. In the case of Alderaan, we have two rings. DS1 > > gives us a ring-and-a-half, while the DS2 gives us only one ring. > > Wrong. The Rebel ships destroyed by superlasers in ROTJ create no planar > ring. Nor did I say they did, as you ought to have paid attention to. However, they did have a planar aspect. In the case of the Liberty, it is observed when the secondary blast occurs. We face it almost edge-on. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari127.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari128.jpg In the case of the Wingless, it is seen by the screen-filling gassy-looking shockwave. It is not three-dimensional . . . none of the other vehicles are obscured by it in the slightest, including the distant Y-Wing and the transport. From DSCalamari.mpg: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari228.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari229.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari230.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari231.jpg (frame 232 was a repeat) http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari233.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari234.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari235.jpg (frame 236 was a repeat) http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari237.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari238.jpg http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari239.jpg skipping to the last: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/DSCalamari274.jpg > > 0. DS2 ship shot against the Wingless > > You claim that the planar puff is a thin surface layer superheated > > and blown off. This claim makes no sense, and is contrary to the > > evidence. Please explain. > > We see luminescent matter flying away from a ship which is obviously > still intact. If it is not a thin layer of surface material, then please > explain what ELSE it could be, Which was done above. What I'm curious to know is how in the world you expect the superlaser to vaporize only the surface materials of the ship, and do so with the products departing in a planar orientation. > unless it's some kind of > shield/superlaser interaction (an alternate explanation which is even > more harmful for your preferred theory). No, because the smaller fireball which would consume the ship is already in progress, much as happens with the Liberty. That would be inconsistent with other examples of planar behavior. > The micro-superlasers in AOTC showed no planar ring. 1. You assume that the same technology was being used for the superlaser and the green beam weapons of AoTC. This you do despite the multi-decade gap between them and the fact that the Geonosians evidently did not design the LAATs or SPHA-Ts, as they did the Death Star. 2. You assume that rings should always appear no matter what, even though you have already been shown the differences related to scale. ********** Conclusion > > Again, as with the Canon argument, I am at a loss to understand why > > there's an argument going on. There can be only one . . . let's go > > with the one that sticks to the canon facts. > > Your grandstanding notwithstanding, Grandstanding? No, Mike, seriously . . . I do not understand why you're continuing to argue the point, at least from the view of reason. > What part of this don't you understand, Robert? 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. To quote you: "Deal with it." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:44:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D9CE453.4070503@stardestroyer.net> -------- RSA Debate Round 4, Part 1a (EU Inclusion) > Since most of your post is focused on attempts at attacking me, > grandstanding, and other such silliness, I shall first reply to > the small on-topic portion of your reply. Tell me, does your debating technique extend even slightly beyond the childish "you too!" technique? Because so far, that's all you do. I point out red herrings in your argument, you say "no, YOU'RE using red herrings!" I point out your ad hominem fallacies, you say "no, YOU'RE using personal attacks!" I point out grandstanding and sophistry on your part, you say "no, YOU'RE grandstanding!" In many cases, you even use the exact same words and phrases. This is beginning to border on low comedy. I grow weary of the way you reflexively defend every single one of your red herrings. You refused to admit that preferred methods of EU analysis (or even quotes from other peoples' arguments regarding those methods) have no bearing on the question of whether the EU is admissible at all. You refused to admit that comparisons of EU users to shifty lawbreakers are an obvious "prejudicial language" attack. You refused to admit that there is a distinction between hearsay and direct testimony, or that Sansweet is not qualified to say what enters George Lucas' mind during his writing process. You refused to admit the fallacy of your basic philosophical approach, which would nullify both science and history if applied to real life (indeed, you actually had the temerity to dismiss it as a false analogy because your methods contradict scientific methods so violently, thereby CONCEDING that you use unscientific methods despite your shameless quoting of scientific terms and principles when convenient). You refused to admit that verbal interviews are not as carefully composed as articles being written expressly for publication. You denied each and every characterization of fallacious behaviour even when it was as plain as the nose on your face, and everyone but you could see it (eg- you say the EU is either guaranteed true or completely worthless with no conceivable middle ground, yet you refuse to admit that this is a false dilemma fallacy!). You stubbornly refused to budge on even the smallest, most obvious point (you even deny that the term "quasi-canon" was ever approved by Lucasfilm even though it was printed in the officially sanctioned SWE!). Half of your denials simply say "completely untrue" or "utterly false" without even bothering to explain why, and when you DO deign to explain why, the explanation invariably treats "canon" and "continuity as interchangeable concepts (using your conclusion as a premise; that's circular logic, whether you admit it or not). You even attacked the inclusion of logic fallacy DEFINITIONS as somehow being "shameful". And ultimately, by fighting tooth and nail on every single insignificant point, and splitting paragraphs into individual sentences to attack them piecemeal, you have created the "ballooning post" syndrome in which every post gets longer and longer, because you can't let a single sentence go by without pontificating upon it at length. Frankly, I am convinced that all rational observers can easily see through these tactics by now, and your brick-wall denials will not change that fact. I will summarize, and I challenge you to defend on the key ON-TOPIC points, without your voluminous theatrics: 1. You cite Cerasi who said that only the films constitute the "real story" of Star Wars, while the EU represents a somewhat distorted window into that story. 2. You cite Sansweet, who says that EU does not exist in Lucas' mind when he makes the films but who also said that the EU is "quasi-canon". 3. In your last post, you claimed that the LFL continuity is "subservient to the Canon, not inclusive of it and in control of it." 4. You cite many, many sources (including Lucas) which indicate that the EU is separate from the canon (although in Lucas' case, he also said that the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars). My rebuttals on those key points: 1. Cerasi agrees with me, not you. I have been saying that the canon represents direct observation (ie- the "real story") while the EU represents historical data (ie- distorted retellings, ie- "windows" onto events), and both should be interpreted accordingly. You, on the other hand, insist that the canon represents the entirety of the story, and that the EU does NOT represent any kind of view into the Star Wars story, thus directly contradicting the Cerasi quote. Justify your backtracking on the "foggy windows" quote as well as your misuse of the English language: "real" and "complete" are not synonyms. 2. First of all, Sansweet obviously agrees with me, not you, given his statement in the SWE. Moreover, Sansweet is not qualified to testify as to what exists in Lucas' mind. And finally, your interpretation is over-arching; even if Lucas composes the prequels without studying the EU first, that HARDLY means that he thinks the fans should ignore it! He is George Lucas, and he can violate lesser parts of the continuity at will (he has even contradicted canon on occasion!), but that doesn't mean WE can do the same. Justify your claim that we, the fans, have the same power to violate the EU that George Lucas reserves for himself. 3. Your argument is a non sequitur. The continuity need not "control" the canon in order to include it. An occupied car includes its driver; does that mean the car MUST control the driver, and not the other way around? 4. It is possible for the EU to be separate from the canon but still be part of the overall continuity (picture attached for clarity, since you seem incapable of understanding this simple concept). The Pacific War in WW2 was separate from and parallel to the European War in WW2 with very little overlap, yet both theatres of war were part of the same timeline. If we had direct video footage of the Pacific War and nothing but written reports from the European War, we would have a fairly analogous situation to the canon and the EU. I have noted this glaring hole in your logic in every single post since this debate started. Stop ignoring it. You have already acknowledged that an overall continuity exists, and that it includes both the canon and the EU, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. My challenge to you is: 1. Justify your belief that anything which is not guaranteed true should be discarded completely. Explain why you feel it is NOT a false dilemma fallacy to force us to choose between "guaranteed true" and "totally worthless", with no permissible middle ground. 2. Explain why you flatly insist on interpreting the phrase "real story" as "100% comprehensive; nothing else exists" rather than "known to be true" (as per the dictionary). 3. Explain why you feel that the LFL "in-house continuity" should be ignored, without resorting to word substitutions such as "inclusion = control" or worse yet, your circular logic of arguing that the canon is the only thing that counts because the EU doesn't "control" the canon ... which is the only thing that counts. 4. Explain why you feel that the preface to the SWE should be either ignored or painted as irreconcilably opposed to the other statements, rather than trying to interpret them in a manner consistent with it (which IS possible, as I have demonstrated). 5. Explain why George Lucas' comment about the EU intruding on the world of Star Wars should be ignored. Explain what else he could have possibly meant by that statement, in a manner consistent with the other quotes. 6. In your last post, you claimed that "You cannot "rationalize a fictional universe" (as you stated in your opening statement) with evidence obtained from a parallel, separate, different universe." Justify this axiomatic statement (which relies upon an ultra-literal interpretation of the word "universe") in light of the fact that both have been stated by official LFL representatives to occupy the SAME timeline, ie- continuity. 7. Explain why you feel that George Lucas' power to override or ignore the EU (or even the canon in some cases) should extend to YOU, even though he reserves it for himself and does not extend it to his own official authors. 8. Try to defend all of these points without resorting to your ridiculous strawman distortion that by including the EU in the continuity, I am making it canon. You cannot use your conclusion as a premise in order to attack your opponent (ie- "you think the EU is canon because you say it's part of the continuity, and we all know that continuity is the canon"). In the same vein, stop using "rebuttals" such as "The EU is not canon". You cannot perform a "continuiy = canon" word substitution in your replies without being guilty of circular logic (using your conclusion to prove itself and/or attack criticism thereof). I would answer all of your little points, nitpicks, desperate attempts to evade or ignore accusations of logical fallacies, strawman distortions, and countless childish "you too!" retorts, but frankly, I have discovered that this would only give you an excuse to continue dissipating this debate into endless time-wasting arguments over minutae, rather than focusing on the major points in a straightforward manner (besides, you'll ignore most of them out with your cute little "snipes snipped" trick anyway). You have already succeeded in boring the audience to tears with your immense monologues; no one on my own BBS, ASVS, or anywhere else seems to be interested in reading or commenting on this any more (is that your plan? To drive the audience away so no one will pay attention to your mistakes and fallacies?). Please stop violating your own debate stipulations and make an HONEST effort to A) keep it short and B) avoid logical fallacies. Address the relevant points and ONLY those points, as summarized above. > I really don't understand why the disagreement continues. That is why you fail. This is really very simple, Robert: LFL tells us that the EU is official, or "quasi-canon", according to the SWE. Lucas tells us that the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars wherever his films don't. Cerasi tells us that the EU gives us a "window" into the world of Star Wars, albeit an imperfect one. Ergo, the EU counts. You may insist that it's somehow wrong to include the EU as per the wishes of LFL and Lucas himself, but whatever your agenda is, you can't change the fact that every source you bring up to support your position (Cerasi, Sansweet, Lucas) actually DAMAGES it when you look at the big picture, and all of your brick-wall denials won't change that fact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:49:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D9CE58C.6070407@stardestroyer.net> -------- Whoops, forgot the link for the picture mentioned in part 1: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Continuity.png ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:23:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D9CE453.4070503@stardestroyer.net... > RSA Debate > > Round 4, Part 1a (EU Inclusion) > > > Since most of your post is focused on attempts at attacking me, > > grandstanding, and other such silliness, I shall first reply to > > the small on-topic portion of your reply. > > Tell me, does your debating technique extend even slightly beyond the > childish "you too!" technique? I hoped to have a discussion focused on the evidence. That means that I find efforts to play games with the truth . . . smokescreens, personal attacks, and other such silliness . . . reprehensible. I could've played up your improper behavior right from the start, but as I explained in the last message, *I saw no logical reason to do so*. However, you have not only engaged in improper behavior, but hoped to score a bit of a coup by accusing me of it first. I allowed myself to be drawn into your game to the point of defending myself and pointing out your errors, but no longer. I am not here to play games with the truth. You choose, for instance, to play up the length of my posts: > Please stop violating your own debate stipulations and make an HONEST > effort to A) keep it short I keep it as short as possible, but the fact remains that a simplistic, pleasant fiction can be stated very quickly and easily . . . fact takes longer, especially when replying to someone's pleasant fiction. Creationist scattergun tactics with pleasant fictions are geared toward just such a situation . . . it takes a scientist ages to point out why each element is incorrect. If you find my posts overly long, then don't give me cause to make them so. > and B) avoid logical fallacies. While I have avoided all real logical fallacies to my knowledge (with the exception of the one I admitted before using), it would be impossible to avoid things which you would *claim* to be logical fallacies. I'll stick with avoiding the real ones. I do not believe fact-based discussions are to be judged on such gamesmanship . . . hence my editorial dislodging of your poor behavior in the last post to a point below the discussion on fact. I assumed that the maneuver might clue you in on the situation, but I was clearly mistaken: > I have discovered that this would only give you an excuse to continue > dissipating this debate into endless time-wasting arguments over > minutae, rather than focusing on the major points in a straightforward > manner It is absurd to claim that I am dissipating the debate . . . I *am* focusing on the major points, hence the editorial dislodging of your silliness. Evidently, you either missed the message last time, or chose to hope to employ such shenanigans again for their possible tactical utility (at least, when it comes to readers who aren't watching for just the facts). Either way, it involves you missing the message or failing to employ the dictates of it, so I'm going to repeat that message in plain English: that which does not relate to the facts of the case is irrelevant crap. I will, in this message, simply snip out your irrelevancies, since I made it clear in the latter half of the last part-one post that they have neither merit nor relevance. If this snipping involves slashing entire paragraphs and restating the tiny on-topic portion of your position, you are, of course, at liberty to complain . . . but the fault is your own. ********************* Now, regarding the Sansweet quote from a convention: "In the canon debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict his creativity in any way." . . . you still argue that it is hearsay, and apparently believe that it should be thrown out on that basis. You're partially right . . . it is hearsay, but I hardly see that as a reason to throw it out. An independent party wrote down what was said, either at the time or later from a recording. Reality is a court of fact, not a court of law. Since we do not have the primary source (the recording, or the paper the person wrote on), this fact should be weighted accordingly (i.e. low), but not counted or discounted merely in regards to its convenience. And, as I pointed out in the last message, it is simply another confirmation, not the bedrock quote of my position. My argument stands with or without it. Further, you continue to argue that Sansweet's use of the term "mind" must constitute some sort of psychological courtroom testimony by Sansweet, and he should be ignored because he is not qualified to testify about the contents of Lucas's mind. That continues to be an absurd argument . . . he is telling the audience what Lucas does and does not consider fact. This is readily apparent from the quote and his use of the common phrase, and it is consistent with other examples. ** Regarding Lucas's TV Guide and Cinescape quotes, you continue to attempt to dismiss them by claiming that verbal interviews are not as carefully composed as articles written for publication. However, as I have already pointed out, that argument is not useful for you, since you would need Lucas to be so utterly careless with his words that he states the precise opposite of what you want him to state, and (even worse) states this same erroneous concept in two separate interviews. I, on the other hand, hold that it is virtually impossible that one would state the exact opposite of their belief in such a manner once, and certainly not twice . . . in other words, Lucas said what he meant to say, and this is his repeated (and therefore consistent) position. I consider that rather obvious, and see no logic in attempting to dismiss Lucas's statements. ** You continue to argue that there ought to be a middle ground wherein the EU can be partially true and partially worthless, or at least useful in spite of that fact. However, we have been over this point repeatedly . . . Sansweet (quoting Cerasi) makes a comment that the real story of Star Wars is only the absolute canon. The use of the term "only" is logically exclusive. Further, if the EU is outside the canon universe, there is no logic in applying its facts to the canon universe and claiming to have found truth. To employ an analogy involving TOS, it would be akin to claiming that all Starfleet personnel carry daggers. Well, they did, but that wasn't in our canon universe. It is not a false dilemma to employ the same dilemma placed on us by the facts. In other words, when we are given only two choices, you cannot claim a false dilemma because you'd prefer a third. ** You continue to insist that the existence of the in-house Continuity espoused by LucasBooks and Lucas Licensing overrides the canon policy statements of Lucas and LFL, and you insist that there is an overall continuity (as stated by LB and LL personnel in Insider #23) which includes the Canon and Continuity. You have failed to realize that this 'overall continuity' is, in fact, simply the in-house Continuity of LB and LL. They control it, they maintain it, but their in-house Continuity has absolutely no control over the Lucas/LFL canon or Absolute Canon, and as per Rostoni is subservient to it. Again, I stress that there is no continuity which exists or that is being maintained which has any control over the canon. The subservience of the EU does not an overall continuity make. Any individual is at liberty to accept the LB/LL dictates regarding what they consider to be the facts of Star Wars. However, strict adherence to fact requires that we accept the Lucas/LFL statements that the EU is outside the canon universe, and that the only real story of Star Wars is the canon. *** "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." > 1. You cite Cerasi who said that only the films constitute the "real > story" of Star Wars, True. > while the EU represents a somewhat distorted window > into that story. More or less true. Cerasi referred to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, and the diligent work to keep the Expanded Universe 'cohesive and uniform' (in spite of the amount of interpretation and speculation that comes the further one branches from the movies), and his *analogy* regarding that is that every piece of EU fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe . . . some foggy, some abstract, but each with a nugget of truth. > 1. Cerasi agrees with me, not you. That's absurd. > I have been saying that the canon > represents direct observation (ie- the "real story") The absolute canon is this real story, and it comes from the films, "and *only* the films". This is a logically exclusive statement . . . that which is not the films (the absolute canon) is not the real story, and is therefore unreal (with the exception of the novelisations, which are "very accurate depictions"). You claim that "real" and "complete" are not synonymous, and that's true in some senses of the terms. However, what you fail to observe is the fact that "only" + "real" and "complete" are synonymous. Or, to break it down for you: Absolute Canon = Real Story of Star Wars Absolute Canon = *Only* the Films Therefore: *Only* the Films = Real Story of Star Wars Or: Real Story of Star Wars = *Only* the Films You argue that: *Only* the Films /= Real Story of Star Wars or Real Story of Star Wars /= *Only* the Films However, that claim is absurdly illogical. > while the EU represents historical data (ie- distorted retellings, > ie- "windows" onto events), and both should be interpreted accordingly. Cerasi's 'nuggets of truth' in the EU can only be those elements derived from the canon (which is the only source for the real story of Star Wars), unless (in keeping with one of your efforts with the Lucas quote) we should take one part and override the rest, instead of understanding the statement as a cohesive, non-contradictory whole. > You, on the other hand, insist that the canon represents the > entirety of the story, As per Cerasi and the logical exclusivity of his statement. > and that the EU does NOT represent any kind of view into the Star Wars > story, thus directly contradicting the Cerasi quote. I'm not the one contradicting Cerasi, nor have I suggested that the EU doesn't represent any kind of view into the real SW universe. It just happens to be a useless view, except for those nuggets of truth from the canon that are not butchered by interpretation and speculation. > 2. You cite Sansweet, who says that EU does not exist in Lucas' mind > when he makes the films but who also said that the EU is "quasi-canon". And both of these can be given low weight . . . the first is hearsay, the second is overridden by Lucas, later Sansweet, etc. > 2. First of all, Sansweet obviously agrees with me, Also absurd. > not you, given his statement in the SWE. I understand the fact that you desperately need the quote from the foreward of the Star Wars Encyclopedia to be approved by LucasFilm and presently valid, in order for your claims of positional validity to have any weight. However, do you not understand the following?: 1. "Quasi-canon" appears nowhere else in any statement of Canon Policy anywhere, before or since. 2. It is contradicted by other statements, including those of Lucas, Sansweet himself, Cerasi, and Rostoni, both before and after that publication. 3. Sansweet, as part of Specialty Marketing for Lucas Licensing, was hardly in a position to illuminate LucasFilm canon policy. He is now in such a position, and he certainly does not employ the term "quasi-canon", and (as per #2) has effectively denied it. 4. Judging by the dates, LucasBooks would've been the approving party, not LucasFilm. At best, his position at the time was a method of compromise between Lucas/LFL canon, and Rostoni's peculiar assignment of the term "canon" to the contents of the EU. In any event, that comment cannot and does not override Lucas, modern Sansweet, or Cerasi. > And finally, your interpretation is > over-arching; even if Lucas composes the prequels without studying the > EU first, that HARDLY means that he thinks the fans should ignore it! Grossly inaccurate . . . the EU being a parallel universe does not equal 'Lucas doesn't study the EU before making canon'. Further, to claim that when he tells the fans that the EU is a parallel universe it should have absolutely no bearing on their view of the reality of that universe is absurd. > He is George Lucas, and he can violate lesser parts of the continuity at > will (he has even contradicted canon on occasion!), I assume your proof of this claim is still your assertion that the Original Edition has merit, and that, by creating the Special Edition, Lucas has contradicted canon. As previously pointed out, he *changed* the canon. That is not a contradiction, it is a completely truthful revision that must be accepted if we're going to talk about canon. > 3. In your last post, you claimed that the LFL continuity is > "subservient to the Canon, not inclusive of it and in control of it." Correct. > 3. Your argument is a non sequitur. The continuity need not "control" > the canon in order to include it. The in-house Continuity is left to accept the facts of the Canon wholesale, and as per Rostoni attempts to avoid conflict with the canon or undermining of its meaning. This is not inclusion into an overall realm inclusive of the canon . . . this is subservience to that canon. > An occupied car includes its driver; does that mean the car MUST > control the driver, and not the other way around? False analogy. We're talking about authority and fact. A better analogy would refer to the set of things which the driver controls . . . the car's speed, radio settings, direction, and so on . . . but not the road he or she is expected to follow. > 4. You cite many, many sources (including Lucas) which indicate that the > EU is separate from the canon More than "separate" . . . outside the canon's universe. > (although in Lucas' case, he also said > that the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars). Which, as oft-demonstrated, does not mean what you want it to mean. > 4. It is possible for the EU to be separate from the canon but still be > part of the overall continuity (picture attached for clarity, since you > seem incapable of understanding this simple concept). I understand the concept you are arguing for just fine. Your position is that of an EU fan . . . your "overall continuity" would be the belief about Star Wars in the mind of a fan. However, this fan belief has no basis in the Canon Policy, and is actually opposed to it. > The Pacific War in WW2 was separate from and parallel to the European > War in WW2 with very little overlap, yet both theatres of war were > part of the same timeline. Another horrendous analogy. We are not talking about parallel events in one universe . . . we are talking about parallel universes, with the events of the parallel universe being explicitly outside the 'real' universe. Nothing of consequence to the real universe can occur in the parallel universe. > You have already acknowledged that an overall continuity exists, I'm curious to know when *that* happened, given my statements on the matter: From my first post: "So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks, insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account." From my second post: " > a continuity of some sort must exist, Correct: a continuity of some sort must exist if we are to assume that Star Wars has a consistency and story that is to make sense. > and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating > the question of what is included in that continuity, and you > have failed to present a shred of evidence that the EU is > NOT included. Contrary to fact: we know what the real story of Star Wars is . . . it is the films, "and *only* the films"(Cerasi, quoted by Sansweet)." From my third: "There is no concession. I would agree that *Lucas Licensing* and LucasBooks maintain an *internal* Continuity, and that they do so in a manner subservient to the Canon of Lucas . . . however, they have no control over the Canon, so to attempt to claim that the continuity is inclusive of the Canon is peculiar. Further, their internal continuity bears no relevance to the superior statements by Lucas and LucasFilm. You have clearly misconstrued my statements." . . . and evidently, continue to do so. > 1. Justify your belief that anything which is not guaranteed true should > be discarded completely. We've already been over this territory, and I'm not going to repeat myself, since that will merely bring us right back to your analogy regarding history and science, the false and specious nature of that analogy having already been demonstrated. Since we're talking about canon anyway, I will employ a religious analogy: You want to know pi to the fifth digit. You have several views of pi available . . . One is someone's confusion with e, thereby arguing pi to the fifth digit is 2.71828. One is a very rough estimate, exactly three. So, pi to the fifth digit is 3.00000. One is a very rough estimate, about three and a half. So, we'd end up with 3.50000. One is a fraction of 22/7, therefore some say that pi to the fifth digit is 3.14285. One is a confusion of the fraction, 27/2. And so, pi to the fifth digit is 13.50000. Another was handed down to you by God himself. He said that it is actually 3.14159, and went on to give you more: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 So, what to do to figure out pi? I argue that we accept the canon ("God-given") figure. You suggest that we take that figure and acknowledge the others as well, perhaps by averaging to 4.8338 or maybe by claiming that it could be as high as 13.5, but that God merely spoke of a lower value of pi. I find such a notion absurd. > Explain why you feel it is NOT a false dilemma > fallacy to force us to choose between "guaranteed true" and "totally > worthless", with no permissible middle ground. Because that is the choice given to us by the canon policy. The truth is logically exclusive. It is not a false dilemma to employ the same dilemma placed on us by the facts. > 2. Explain why you flatly insist on interpreting the phrase "real story" > as "100% comprehensive; nothing else exists" rather than "known to be > true" (as per the dictionary). "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and *only* the films." The Absolute Canon is the real story of Star Wars, and the only source of that is the films. > 3. Explain why you feel that the LFL "in-house continuity" should be > ignored, Because it is not the LFL in-house Continuity, it is the in-house Continuity of LB/LL. > 4. Explain why you feel that the preface to the SWE should be either > ignored or painted as irreconcilably opposed to the other statements, > rather than trying to interpret them in a manner consistent with it > (which IS possible, as I have demonstrated). You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you assume that "Real Story of Star Wars /= *Only* the Films", though this is contrary to Sansweet and Cerasi. If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you accept the dictates of Specialty Marketing and LucasBooks over Lucas and LFL without any effort to weigh statements (this is just in general, whether or not they agree). If you accept the Encyclopedia foreward as perfectly factual, you must assume that Lucas was wrong when he placed the EU outside his universe, and part of a parallel one. . . . Et cetera. I have detailed these and other reasons to you previously. > 5. Explain why George Lucas' comment about the EU intruding on the world > of Star Wars should be ignored. Contrary to your straw man efforts, I do not think it should be ignored. I do, however, think it should be understood in context, and not used to override and ignore the rest of his statements about the content of the parallel universe. > Explain what else he could have possibly meant by that statement, > in a manner consistent with the other quotes. Perhaps he meant what he said . . . that the EU is part of a parallel universe, the content of which is outside his universe, though the EU has occasionally attempted to insert things between his time periods of the films (albeit, logically, in the EU universe). In other words, Lucas "owns" the movie time period blocks in both universes (whether this should be understood as one fat one, two smaller ones, or six slender ones is unclear). Your notion is that, because temporal intrusion occurs in the EU universe, it is actually the same universe . . . but this is absurd. We already know the EU is outside the universe (as per TV Guide), and part of another world and a parallel universe. Temporal intrusion in one universe does not equal a crossing of the boundary between universes. > 6. In your last post, you claimed that "You cannot "rationalize a > fictional universe" (as you stated in your opening statement) with > evidence obtained from a parallel, separate, different universe." > Justify this axiomatic statement (which relies upon an ultra-literal > interpretation of the word "universe") in light of the fact that both > have been stated by official LFL representatives to occupy the SAME > timeline, ie- continuity. What? LFL representatives have not placed the EU in the same timeline. Rostoni of *LucasBooks* has said that they hope to present a continuous and unified history, but her goal and the statements of LFL in regards to the EU are not compatible. You need to be more careful about confusing who (and what company) says what. Because the EU universe is separate from Lucas's canon universe, it is not a valid source of information regarding the canon universe. > 7. Explain why you feel that George Lucas' power to override or ignore > the EU (or even the canon in some cases) should extend to YOU, even > though he reserves it for himself and does not extend it to his own > official authors. Absurdly stated. First, I do not think that I, personally, have the power to override the EU or canon, objectively speaking, and my position does not imply or require such a notion. Second, you're coloring the issue in a most peculiar and improper way by claiming that I am appropriating Lucas's power to ignore the EU. Lucas stated that the EU is part of a parallel universe . . . why should we not accept that? Third, your question belies an ignorance of the nature of the in-house Continuity of LucasBooks. The entire point of EU authors is to contribute to the EU, and it was decided by Wilson and Rostoni that a continuity should be maintained within EU materials, to avoid contradiction. Lucas has nothing to do with it. > 8. Try to defend all of these points without resorting to your > ridiculous strawman distortion that by including the EU in the > continuity, I am making it canon. I have never argued that you are making it canon. I have argued that you are giving it canonicity. It's a subtle distinction you seem to have missed (thereby leading to yet another of your false fallacy accusations). For something to be canon means that, in its entirety, it is part of the inviolable truth of Star Wars. To have canonicity is to simply have truth value . . . it need not be 100%. You believe that the EU can add information to the real story of Star Wars. This gives it canonicity. ***** And now we move on to your attempted synthesis of various faulty examples: > This is really very simple, Robert: LFL tells us that the EU is > official, or "quasi-canon", according to the SWE. I note that you have given the Encyclopedia quote the greatest weight, even over Lucas. That's a desperate position, to say the least . . . not only is Lucas's position disrespected, but the facts surrounding the Encyclopedia foreward quote are ignored. > Lucas tells us that the EU "intrudes" on the world of Star Wars wherever > his films don't. No, he says that the EU intrudes between the movies in his time period of the movies. You think this overrides the parallel universe comment, but it doesn't . . . something occurring in a contemporaneous fashion does not automatically occur in the same universe. > Cerasi tells us that the EU gives us a "window" into the world of Star > Wars, albeit an imperfect one. Ergo, the EU counts. No, since Cerasi also gives us the "*only*" comment. To be a window into a universe does not mean that the window itself is part of the other universe. > You may insist that it's somehow wrong to include the EU as per the > wishes of LFL and Lucas himself, Yes, I do insist that. > you can't change the fact that every source you bring up to support > your position (Cerasi, Sansweet, Lucas) actually DAMAGES it when you > look at the big picture Now *that's* an interesting claim, given that my position is based on the evidence in part and in whole. I must assume that "when you look at the big picture" = "when you modify or ignore any and every quote to fall in line with the Encyclopedia quote and unsupported assertions." > You refused to admit the fallacy of your basic philosophical approach, > which would nullify both science and history if applied to real life I refuse to admit any foolish notion of yours or anyone else's that is based on a horrendously false analogy, such as your claims regarding my approach. ********************** Summing up, I find that we're still in the same basic place, with the same major points which you still have not adequately answered: re: Canon Policy - Lucas overrides LucasFilm. Lucasfilm overrides LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, etc. (This you merely ignore, or confuse) 1. Lucas says the EU is a parallel universe and outside his little universe. (This you hope to override with the "intrude" nonsense) 2. Sansweet of LucasFilm directly quotes Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks in regards to the fact that the only source for the real story of Star Wars is Lucas's canon, and has been heard to say in public that only the canon is relevant to Lucas. (The first of these you ignore the meaning of, and the second you dismiss) 3. Rostoni of LucasBooks and Kausch of Lucas Licensing correctly identified the canon, but commented that between them, much of the EU material is part of a continuity. (This forms the bedrock of your position that there's an overall continuity, in spite of #4.) 4. Rostoni and Cerasi both speak of this in-house continuity of LucasBooks/LL, which Wilson and Rostoni decided to create and maintain in the publishing department. (These facts you simply ignore, choosing not to relate them to the continuity which Rostoni and Kausch spoke of, for no apparent reason.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Wong Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:47:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: <3D9CE524.7040609@stardestroyer.net> -------- RSA Debate Round 4, Part 1b (Death Star Firepower) Preface ******* Robert, as I expected, you created yet another massive "rebuttal" in which you took individual paragraphs, stripped them apart into sentences to attack piecemeal, and quietly ignored, misrepresented, or evaded the main points. Moreover, your increasing use of personal insults (such as having the gall to accuse ME of scientific ignorance despite your own mistakes, or dismissing my criticisms as "BS"), enormous misrepresentations, and brick-wall denials (eg- answering challenges by simply saying that you've already dealt with them even if you haven't, or denying accusations of fallacies by simply saying "incorrect" or "completely false" without further explanation) is steadily making a mockery of this debate. You can't even admit the most obvious red herrings, and you have adopted the incredibly audacious tactic of claiming that "as the challenged party", you have the right to change the subject as you see fit! Sorry to burst your bubble, but once the subject is declared in the opening of the debate, it's too late to change it. And since you insisted that I open the debate instead of you, you forfeited your right to select the subject. If you want to keep up this charade of being a rational debater, you should be prepared to focus on the main points, avoid logical fallacies, stop trying to change the subject, and be prepared to abandon untenable positions rather than stubbornly holding onto them and then desperately lashing out at your opponent by trying to goad him with thinly veiled insults and blatant misrepresentations. I see now that answering each and every one of your denials and evasions simply produces a downward spiral, in which more and more of the post is taken up with your quixotic attempts to pretend your argument is completely infallible in every minute detail, while less and less of it actually addresses the point. Therefore, since no one is buying your brick-wall denials anyway, I will summarize the major arguments and challenge you to defend on the MAJOR points, rather than wasting any more time going around in circles with you while you insist that you haven't made a single misstep, no matter how small. By the way, I challenge you to answer this as a normal debater would, by answering each WHOLE point with a single CONTIGUOUS rebuttal, rather than breaking each paragraph apart into fragments in order to attack them piecemeal, snip quotes out of context, etc. It would not only produce a cleaner (not to mention more honest) debate, but it would also produce one that is much smaller and easier to read. I don't see any reason to torture the audience, and I don't see why you can't resist the temptation to mulch and re-order points into unrecognizable debris rather than dealing with them whole. Point 1: Parsimony ****************** The principle of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor in this context, instructs us to avoid redundant terms. Given two theories of equal performance but differing numbers of terms, the one with fewer terms wins. A lesser-known aspect of this principle is that unobservable terms are redundant by definition, since they cannot be evaluated and therefore cannot be used for quantitative prediction. Or as Stephen Hawking put it: "It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." 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, but planetary shields are KNOWN TO EXIST in SW (ranging from tiny ground theatre shields to huge theatre shields like the one at Hoth which could easily be networked, and even planet-encircling systems such as the one at Endor). Your MCR, on the other hand, is neither seen or mentioned anywhere in the canon. Moreover, your MCR cannot possibly be evaluated in any quantitative manner. You have NO WAY of assigning it any numbers whatsoever. You cannot determine how much energy it produces, other than assuming that the superlaser is weaker than the explosion by some arbitrary figure. You don't even know what the reactants are, or what the reaction rate is! Your MCR is a textbook example of a redundant, unobservable term. The minute you try to make it "real" by assigning numbers to it such as a reaction rate, it quickly produces predictions which severely contradict observation. So here are my challenges on point 1: 1. Define the reactants employed by this reaction, as well as the reaction products. 2. Estimate the reaction rate in the case of Alderaan. I'm not asking you to explain precisely how it works; I'm only asking you to define what is reacting, and how quickly. If you have anything which remotely resembles a workable theory (which you claim to have), then this should be quite easy to do. Point 2: Unsolved Mystery Fallacy 1: Fire Rings *********************************************** As mentioned many times before, you cannot prove that your MCR exists simply by showing that the fire rings are an unsolved mystery. So what if the fire rings are not explained by conventional physics? Have you got a BETTER idea? There's the rub; you can't supplant A with B unless you can prove that B is better. B is NOT automatically assumed to be better if A is not quite perfect! The fire rings defy the laws of physics in many ways. First, they slow down spontaneously in the vacuum of space. Second, they are not visible from the ground (watch ROTJ; the fire ring follows right behind the MF as it streaks toward the Rebel fleet, which is sitting between the DS and the planet; this obviously means that the ring is headed straight for the sanctuary moon, yet we see Ewoks looking up at the sky and seeing nothing). Third, they cause no effect upon striking the atmosphere of Endor; not even a harmless "aurora borealis"-style lightshow. So what are they? How much energy do they carry? And how does your theory predict their existence? Isn't it entirely possible that they are some wholly exotic hyperspace side-effect which can only be seen by our omnipotent observer, since the phenomenon is heading straight for the Ewoks and they can't see it with the naked eye? Ultimately, the fire rings crush your argument rather than helping it, because the ring simultaneously appears around the entire circumference of the planet. While the conventional theory has the planet exploding from the inside out (which should produce effects that are centred on the core), your argument has the planet reacting from the outside in, in a slow reaction that crawls along the surface. Why, then, does the fire ring appear all around the planet simultaneously, even emanating from part of the planet where your imaginary "bands of brightness" have not even reached yet? 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). Point 3: Imaginary "Bands of Brightness" **************************************** You produced a marked-up picture to show your "bands of brightness". EVERYONE who has seen that picture has come away convinced that you are delusional. You have no plausible explanation for why the planet is white-hot luminescent for thousands of kilometres AHEAD of the imaginary "bands" in the early frames, nor can you explain why this region of luminescence does not stay ahead of the imaginary "band" as it supposedly moves around the planet but rather, waits for it to catch up. And finally, you claim that when the "bands of brightness" close in on themselves at the other end, a huge secondary explosion results. I hate to break the news to you, but that's NOT what happens when a real exothermal chain reaction reaches the end. 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. 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. Even if we humour your imaginary "bands of brightness", and even if we humour your desire to interpret this as an exothermal chain reaction moving through the planet, the fact is that if the secondary explosion doesn't occur until the "bands" reach the far side of the planet, then it actually DISPROVES your MCR by not fizzling out at that point, the way an exothermal chain reaction should. Ultimately, your MCR is shattered, not supported, by the secondary blast. There are an infinite number of theories one might concoct to explain what it is (particularly since the delay is really not that large; I suggest people watch the clip at FULL speed to see what I mean). 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). But regardless of how we choose to rationalize it, the point is that there is no reason to imagine that any exotic reaction would require LESS energy. 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. Point 5: Fear of Evidence ************************* Your theory relies upon exclusion of evidence: you must eliminate the entire EU, explain away the opening crawl of ANH, and even dismiss the original versions of the canon films! As a matter of principle, our arguments over canon and continuity exist only because YOUR theory is wholly dependent upon an ultra-strict interpretation. The conventional explanation works equally well with or without the EU. The conventional explanation works equally well with or without the original versions of the canon films. The conventional explanation works equally well with or without the opening crawl of ANH. Your "theory", however, rests upon the flimsy platform of your dogmatic and inflexible brick-wall claims regarding what you call the "Canon Policy" (invariably capitalized for extra Religious Power(TM)). I do not fear evidence; the conventional explanation works equally well regardless of which policy you choose to use. You, on the other hand, have constructed an argument so flimsy that it absolutely REQUIRES that most of the available evidence be declared inadmissible before trial. You have left yourself no flexibility whatsoever on this matter, hence your policy of denying as much evidence as you can. So here is my challenge on point 5: how can you claim to be conducting "evidence-based debate" when you expend so much effort trying to SUPPRESS most of the evidence? Even "foggy" pictures of the situation (as per your Cerasi quote) are better than no pictures at all. Point 6: Inconsistency (ie- hypocrisy) ************************************** You flatly deny the existence of the Alderaan planetary shield because there is no explicit statement that it exists. You refuse to even TEST it against the observations of Alderaan because of the lack of PRIOR evidence (even though the test ITSELF would provide the evidence you need). However, if you were to apply this policy in a UNIFORM manner, you would have to disqualify your MCR for the same reason: there is no explicit dialogue or prior observation whatsoever to even remotely hint at the existence of this MCR (indeed, it's much worse; at least we know planetary shields and theatre shields have been mentioned before). So here is my challenge on point 6: explain why you think we should carefully consider your MCR while disqualifying the planetary shield before we even reach the starting blocks. Point 7: Alderaan Planetary Shield ********************************** You refuse to evaluate the conventional explanation with a shield in place. 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! This is a truly bizarre line of reasoning, even from you. Do you honestly believe that anybody besides you is buying into this horrendous sophistry? Here is my challenge on point 7: defend your MCR against the conventional explanation INCLUDING the shield. If the shield is not a workable explanation, then we'll find out if it fails the test. But if you continue to insist on disqualifying it before the test even begins, then I can only conclude that you do not want to face it on a level playing field, with all that this implies. Point 8: A Candidate for your MCR ********************************* Since you refuse to provide a candidate for your MCR, I will. You have claimed that the explosion involved a chain reaction which is not particularly sensitive to the type of matter involved. Luckily enough, I happen to know of one such chain reaction. It is based on simple thermodynamics, and it is known as mass/heat transfer. Given a solid mass, a large heat input at one spot will excite particles at that spot. These energetic particles will impart their energy to cooler surrounding particles through thermodynamic heat transfer. Those surrounding particles will impart their energy to THEIR cooler surrounding particles in turn, and so on, and so on in a cascade effect. If the heat flux is turned off, the entire mass would eventually reach the same temperature. However, if the heat flux is too great, the object will tend to be disrupted, as the chain reaction cannot move energy away quickly enough. Voila! A chain reaction which moves through matter at a finite rate and produces an asymmetrical explosion. It's not an EXOTHERMAL chain reaction, which would be highly material-sensitive, but it DOES happens to fit your requirements. So there you have it: since you wouldn't do it, I have helpfully defined your MCR for you. It is (to use your nomenclature) DET. Does that help? No need to thank me; the pleasure is all mine. Point 9: Energy Level ********************* Ultimately, your argument is not about chain reactions. As I have already pointed out, conventional heating mechanisms are actually a chain reaction! No, your argument is about energy levels. You insist that the Death Star did not need 1E38 J in order to raise Alderaan's energy state by 1E38 J. And after all of your sophistry, evasions, nitpicks, etc., you have produced only a SINGLE piece of evidence for this claim: semantics. You insist that the "artificial sun" comment in the ANH novelization is a precise description of Death Star power generation physics. You base this on your assumption that "sun" means "something which runs on nuclear fusion". Oddly enough, there are many kinds of star which do NOT run on nuclear fusion (as I already pointed out, and to which you predictably replied by extensively nitpicking details of the examples provided, rather than acknowledging the underlying point), and Merriam-Webster says a sun is a celestial body "resembling the Sun (as in warmth or brilliance)". Nothing there about nuclear fusion being part of the definition of "sun", I'm afraid ... it appears to apply to any luminous celestial body. 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 is utterly ridiculous; if the Death Star has the ability to convert any matter into energy with its superlaser (as you say), then they should surely have devised a way of using this amazing capability for power generation, instead of relying on primitive nuclear fusion! Is this concept too difficult for you to understand? Are you truly unable to see the logical self-contradiction in your argument? Or did you ignore this point the first time around because you knew you had no defense against it? Here is my challenge on point 9 (since your semantic "artificial sun" argument is so weak that it convinces no one but yourself): explain how the Empire can possibly have the fantastic technology to convert arbitrary masses into energy from tens of thousands of kilometres away while being unable to employ anything more sophisticated than nuclear fusion for power generation. Summary ******* In the end, we see 1E38 J on the right-hand side of the equation; this is indisputable. You refuse to acknowledge that we should put 1E38 J on the left-hand side as well, and the only "evidence" you put forward on this point (by far the most crucial point, since everything else you mention can be attributed to conventional physics more easily than your MCR) is a seriously flawed semantic analysis. You have willfully ignored your own debate stipulations about sticking to evidence, conducting rational debate, or keeping it brief. In fact, the audience is already rumbling that your ridiculously long posts are an exhaustion tactic. You can continue to hurl your rhetoric, sophistry, and thinly veiled insults all you like, but ultimately, I doubt you will be able to answer ANY of these points properly, in essay form, as a whole point rather than a mulched pile of sentence and paragraph fragments. I have made them before, you have evaded and/or ignored them. So this time, I challenge you to face them head-on, instead of writing voluminous treatises on side-issues while quietly glossing over the major points. Just 9 points, 2-3 paragraphs apiece. Can you handle that? It isn't that difficult to stay concise and on-topic if you make an HONEST effort for a change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 06:25:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Hey Darkstar! Front and Centre! Message-ID: -------- This post isn't showing up in Outlook. Forgive me if I'm reposting: "Michael Wong" wrote in message news:3D9CE524.7040609@stardestroyer.net... > RSA Debate > > Round 4, Part 1b (Death Star Firepower) > (Summary at the bottom) > Preface > ******* 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. I will, however, respond to one point . . . you seem to take issue with the fact that I rearranged your disorganized post into a logical order and concept grouping, and you claim that I ignored your main points. I responded to every point you made (and indeed was helping you to make them by putting them in a sensical order) . . . if there was some point you wanted to make which was scattered amongst the disorganization and never directly stated, the fault is your own. 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". Regarding the nature of the debate, you suggest that I am: > claiming that "as the challenged party", you have the right to change > the subject as you see fit! I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting to arrive at that suggestion, but that is not my claim nor has it ever been. > And since you insisted that I open the debate instead of you, you > forfeited your right to select the subject. Mike, please try to be more consistent . . . first, it is your stated belief that the challenged party sets the topic. Second, I already told you what we were going to be debating long before the debate began. Your decision to throw in the EU matter was acceptable, so long as it didn't interfere with the main topic. > By the way, I challenge you to answer this as a normal debater would, by > answering each WHOLE point with a single CONTIGUOUS rebuttal, That is neither necessary nor logical. Arguments are supposed to be based on proof, and developed toward a conclusion of some sort. I could leave out your claims entirely, but I quote each bit of proof and moment of development along with my rebuttal for ease of reference, and to avoid your claim (being made anyway) that I have ignored such-and-such or so-and-so. It seems that you would rather have me quote an entire section of text, and then start to discuss it . . . in which case I'd be left to start from your conclusion, instead of pointing out the flaws you make as you make them. While it might be helpful for you if I had a hand tied behind my back in such a manner, I do not find it a valid request. > Point 1: Parsimony > ****************** > > The principle of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor in this context, 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 > A lesser-known aspect of this principle is that unobservable terms > are redundant by definition, since they cannot be evaluated and > therefore cannot be used for quantitative prediction. Correct. > Or as Stephen Hawking put it: > > "It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut > out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." The full quote is in regards to uncertainty and determinism in the universe: "We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." > 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. 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. * 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. * > but planetary shields are KNOWN TO EXIST in SW You're still claiming this? > (ranging from tiny ground theatre shields . . . which is not a planetary shield . . . > to huge theatre shields like the one at Hoth . . . which is not a planetary shield . . . > which could easily be networked, . . . which means you're claiming they could exist, not that they are "KNOWN TO EXIST" . . . > 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 MCR, on the other hand, is neither seen or mentioned anywhere > in the canon. It's seen at Alderaan and elsewhere, as