----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh)
Date: 17 Jul 2002 07:03:47 GMT
Subject: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <20020717030347.03414.00000400@mb-fq.aol.com>
--------
>About five frames after the superlaser first makes contact with the planet, 
>a firey explosion appears to cover most of the target hemisphere. The rest 
>of the planet (observable, in part, on the leftmost side) is fine. By the 
>next frame, 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. 

Its called a planetary shield

>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'm 
>not sure if the darkness at the target zone represents debris clouding our 
>view, or if there's some sort of Independence Day thing going on. 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. 

Shield failure at point of impact

>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. As the frames pass, this explosion dissipates as the debris flies 
>outward. Our view of whatever might remain of the planet is obscured by the 
>mysterious ring and the expanding debris. 

The 'band would be whats left of the shield disapating energy.
the ring phenom occurs a lot with high energy sci-fi space explosions, since we
are seeing this from the death star veiw screens point of view I'm going with
the 'sphere cut down to ring so we can still see', the same reason Sulu's ship
saw a ring if the blast wave off the klingon moon, showing the whole thing
blocks the view

>A few frames later, a peculiar secondary explosion begins, with a 
>corresponding second ring appearing shortly. Judging by the propagation 
>speed of that weird band of brightness, the edges of the band may have met 
>on the opposite side of the planet. This secondary explosion is apparently 
>much larger than the first, though it doesn't appear as bright (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. 

the side the superlaser shot first blew up first on its way to the core then
the core blew

>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.

the first part well duh, the part the SL past through to get to the core is
vapor and molten liquid, when the core blew it threw debris through that
already destroyed section.  The last sentence though, do I really have to
explain closer looks larger to you? 

>The only remotely similar occurence I could think of as an analog was the 
>Big Whack Theory of the moon's origin, involving a large body two or three 
>times the size of Mars striking a newly formed Earth. Nova Online has a 
>nice Quicktime simulation here: 
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html 
>... which appears to be pretty close to the computer simulations I've seen. 
>The problem is that the Big Whack Theory doesn't help us much. After all, 
>Earth survived. But, the simulation does show the sort of planet-wide 
>deformation that occurred. 

>The superlaser blast caused no such planetwide deformation whatsoever 
>(though, to be fair, the impact event as shown in the Nova video is 
>time-compressed. In reality, the impact and immediate after-effects 
>occurred over a matter of hours). 

>Instead of deformation, the area directly targeted appeared to explode, 
>causing a peculiar luminescent band to encircle the planet while, 
>simultaneously, a mysterious ring appeared, departing the planet at about .3 
>lightspeed. At a time corresponding to the band coalescing on the opposite 
>side of the planet, a second explosion occurred, sending out a corresponding 
>second ring, departing the planet at about .9 lightspeed. 

this is completely irrelivent, this is a physical impact, the SL is an energy
weapon, if you think they're the same think and that the planet would react the
same way you need to go back to highschool, 

SFE: I shoot you with a .35 saterday nite special, you get knocked back by the
impact and have a hole in your chest.  I shoot you with a Maser (microwave
laser) with the same beam diameter as the .35, you have a hole burned through
you but suffer no impact damage.  While the plasma/energy weapons of star wars
have 'some' impact it is not that much

>So, what does this mean? What is the "Genesis Effect" thing (or, more 
>appropriately, the "Anti-Genesis Effect From Hell") happening with the 
>bands? Well, it could be some sort of normal shockwave caused by the 
>near-instantaneous destruction of a large section of the planet. However, 
>this makes little sense, since the magnitude of the secondary explosion (and 
>second ring) would seem to have been far greater than the magnitude of the 
>first. For a normal shockwave to do what was done, it would have had to 
>gather additional energy along the way somehow. 

no, the 'shockwave' is shield, the side the SL hits is blasted off first while
the beam is reaching the core, then the core goes

>And what of the rings? Most people seem willing to ignore them, but that is 
>a nonsense approach. You just don't get high-sublight rings flying out of 
>something like that, no matter what just happened to it. 

look above

>In search of the answer, I happened upon this quote, a description of how 
>the Death Star does its work. "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). 

Luke is a farmboy turned fighter pilot, with five minutes of briefing on how to
blow up the DS.  He has no real knowledge of how to blow up a planet.  Or how
the DS works.   that aside they have to decide how much energy they need to
blast  Yavin apart, since this still requires 'fuel' fed into the main reactor
to genorate it, they want to use just enough to destroy the planet and no more.
 With Tarkin and Vader breathing (pun) down their necks tellin thhem they have
to stop because they have to refuel due to overkill might be fatal, beside in
the later DSII you think the fire planet killer blasts at the rebels 

>Mass-energy conversion can take many forms, of course, from combustion to 
>fusion to matter/antimatter reactions. However, given the observed 
>behavior of the superlaser, this quote would seem to imply that much of the 
>energy of the Alderaan explosion came from Alderaan itself. The exact 
>nature of this mass-energy conversion (or perhaps 'extraction') is a 
>mystery, but it can be seen by way the "Genesis Effect" shockwave band 
>appears to have caused the secondary and larger explosion, and may also 
>serve as a sufficiently exotic explanation for the presence of the 
>high-sublight rings. 

waiting for signs you are making an original point

>Now, this does mean that I have independantly ended up in the same place as 
>several others, insofar as I have postulated that Alderaan supplied part (or 
>most) of the energy of her destruction. Wong would suggest that such an 
>idea simply comes from shocked disbelief or Evil Trekkiedom, and he has 
>attempted refutation of several similar ideas on the Myths page of 
>StarDestroyer.Net. None of the methods he refutes are sufficient to explain 
>the rings and band, nor does he attempt to do so. Furthermore, I have 
>arrived at this only by watching the film frame-by-frame, and searching the 
>canon for further details (I had not noticed the "Anti-Genesis Effect" of 
>the bands until writing this). I'll agree with Wong on the refutation of 
>other methods, and also add to the list of refutable ideas the notion that 
>an antimatter beam could have done the deed... it could, possibly, but even 
>antimatter would not have produced the observed effects. 

Wow you got one right, sort of, antimatter could have blown up the planet, but
you have to make antimatter, there is no 'natural' source, making enough to
blow a planet apart then storing it would take more energy then just blasting
the planet apart with REALLY big powerful weaponry

>Clearly, something more exotic is going on. Clearly, it has to do directly 
>with the superlaser, since the only other explosions which have produced 
>similar rings have been the destruction of Death Stars which have their 
>superlasers charged. 

see above reply on veiw screen effect

>Just to see where it leads us, let's assume that there is a chain reaction 
>of some sort. Based on observations of the explosion resulting from the 
>target area 'impact' of the superlaser, up until the bands and ring are well 
>on their way, the exotic mechanism of the Death Star superlaser may have 
>only taken over after a significant portion of the planet had been directly 
>destroyed. I would estimate that only between 10 and 30 percent of the 
>mass of the planet was destroyed directly in order to get the chain reaction 
>underway.

if the effect had been differant this might have potential, the point is
causing a chain reaction in the matter of the planet will take more energy than
blasting it. Unless you've discovered some unique exotic form of chain reaction
that works on all forms of matter and every element with equal ease.  Now if
the SL had just blown 10 to 30% to atoms Alderan might still have been
destroyed as it colapsed in on itself, or at least the alderannians killed as a
ELE, depends on which 10to30% is destroyed

>On the other hand, if the superlaser mechanism did not require an energy 
>release on the planet to take effect, then the entire planet would have been 
>destroyed by that mechanism. 

Funny coulda sworn it was


>"I wonder why they weren't vaporized?" 
>-McCoy, Star Trek VI 

Gratuitous trekkie moment 

>One question that this brings up is how some sort of mass-energy conversion 
>mechanism of the sort I am hypothesizing could have avoided reducing the 
>entire mass of the planet to energy. There are several potential 
>solutions, ranging from simple inefficiency to the notion that only those 
>materials near the surface contributed. In any case, it would be helpful 
>to estimate the amount of material left over in the vicinity of the planet. 
>However, this is extremely difficult, given the fact that we're only left to 
>estimate based on a diffuse cloud with some bulk matter here and there, not 
>to mention that some of the debris exits, stage left, and out of frame. Any 
>attempt to perform an eyeball estimate will result in a huge margin of 
>error, but I'll hazard a guess that between ten and fifty percent of the 
>planet's mass is no longer present after the secondary explosion starts to 
>die down. 

Wow, you notced your own arguments flaw, you have to come up with excuses to
make it work with the observed event

>The notion that the mass-energy conversion mechanism of the superlaser 
>stripped the planet of mass is not new... that would be the case even in the 
>event of a powerful laser beam. However, the way in which the Anti-Genesis 
>Effect seemed to draw energy from the planet's surface (or layers closest to 
>it . . . or it might even have been dealing with the mantle exclusively) has 
>apparently not been observed before. 

Everyone who noticed it took it for one of those "can withstand any
bombardment" planetary shields, that keep ISD's from BDZing every planet that
annoys the emperor, hence the point of the DS and the SL.

>The only peril with what I shall refer to as the Anti-Genesis Effect 
>hypothesis is that there is no known mechanism to explain it, and more 
>direct references do not appear in the canon (besides Luke's quote) to my 
>knowledge. 

>(On the other hand, the nomenclature alone makes it awfully nifty, perfectly 
>juxtaposing the philosophies of the Federation and Empire. And, based on 
>the end of Star Trek IV and the likely result of the Alderaan blast, the 
>Genesis Planet broke up rather violently, whereas the Alderaan debris will 
>likely re-coalesce.) 

in a few millenia

>(And while we're on the subject of protomatter devices . . . hmm . . . 
>Genesis Device, star reignition in "Second Sight"[DS9], and it was used by 
>the Maquis to destroy a ship, the bomb being described as an "implosive 
>protomatter device" ("The Maquis"[DS9]). It's been far too long since I saw 
>"Second Sight" to recall what that device going off looked like, but the 
>Genesis wave did put out a planet(oid) encircling band in the simulation, 
>and also gave off a hellacious plume over the surface, though this certainly 
>isn't a ring. There might just be something to the idea, though 
>protomatter is quite the unknown, so I won't incorporate it as part of the 
>official hypothesis.) 

>In any case, the Anti-Genesis Effect hypothesis serves to attempt to explain 
>the effects observed by the superlaser strike on Alderaan, giving the idea 
>greater weight than the directed energy transfer hypothesis, which left 
>unknowns such as the rings and bands as ignored unknowns. It also does not 
>ignore the fact that the superlaser simply is not a laser, which the other 
>ideas would seem to imply (in part due to the ICS, plus the notion espoused 
>by some non-canon works that the superlaser is a really big turbolaser, in 
>principle). 

Of course the 'really big turbolasers theory works to, and works simply, fire
1E22 megaton blast at planet, planet goes boom.

>Furthermore, it allows the Death Star to more easily meet the energy 
>requirements of blowing up a planet, a feat which would not have been 
>possible using fusion (the "artificial sun" reference in the ANH novel, plus 
>the fusion reference in the Star Wars Technical Journal and Star Wars 
>Encyclopedia), or any sort of fusion-like use of hyperon particles (aka 
'>hypermatter'). 

Fusion: joining, to mix, to forge together. 
not always atomic, since atomic would not produce the power they speak of in
the 'has the power of a small sun' ref. for the Star Destroyer's reactors,
since the DS main reactor can encompass a Star Destroyer, its has power several
magnitudes higher.  

>Indeed, the actual material necessary from Alderaan, assuming you can have 
>100% mass-energy conversion (matter-energy equivalence) would be on the >order
of 1.1e21 kilograms. That would produce the often-touted 1e38 joules >thought
necessary to destroy Alderaan in the manner shown. A planet like Earth 
>weighs in at 5.97e24 kilograms, giving Earth over 5,000 times the necessary 
>matter to perform the deed. Therefore, assuming that only 10 percent of 
>Alderaan's matter was removed by the blast, the Anti-Genesis Effect did not 
>need to be terribly efficient at all to produce the necessary explosion 
>energy.

It would just take a lot more power.  That dude was right it IS Stilgars
argument you were just marginally smarter and didn't claim it was an atomic
fission or fusion reaction, instead you claim mystery chain-reaction.   You
also made it a little more complicated to, and repeated yourself alot.  But
still no substance.  You started flawed and ended the same way.

For those wondering, Why Setesh Why? I didn't hear about this until recently,
there is way to much crap on this in Wongs site and board already, besides I've
come to look forward to trying to figure out how Darkstar gets from my
responces to what he writes a response to, they often only have only vague
connections.  He even claimed I agreed with him once when we were at complete
odds.  I can't wait to see what twisted version of reality shows up in response
to this.

 


Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "DarkStar" <afinalunity@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:26:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <5T9Z8.145832$iX5.7066112@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
--------

"Setesh" <setesh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020717030347.03414.00000400@mb-fq.aol.com...
> >About five frames after the superlaser first makes contact with the
planet,
> >a firey explosion appears to cover most of the target hemisphere. The
rest
> >of the planet (observable, in part, on the leftmost side) is fine. By the
> >next frame, 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.
>
> Its called a planetary shield

Evidence that it was shield failure which produced the band and rings?

> >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'm
> >not sure if the darkness at the target zone represents debris clouding
our
> >view, or if there's some sort of Independence Day thing going on. 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.
>
> Shield failure at point of impact

We've never seen another shield failure do these things.

>
> >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. As the frames pass, this explosion dissipates as the debris flies
> >outward. Our view of whatever might remain of the planet is obscured by
the
> >mysterious ring and the expanding debris.
>
> The 'band would be whats left of the shield disapating energy.
> the ring phenom occurs a lot with high energy sci-fi space explosions,
since we
> are seeing this from the death star veiw screens point of view I'm going
with
> the 'sphere cut down to ring so we can still see', the same reason Sulu's
ship
> saw a ring if the blast wave off the klingon moon, showing the whole thing
> blocks the view

Blocks the view?

Besides, you're comparing a subspace shockwave to what we see.  Are you
making a claim of similarity?

>
> >A few frames later, a peculiar secondary explosion begins, with a
> >corresponding second ring appearing shortly. Judging by the propagation
> >speed of that weird band of brightness, the edges of the band may have
met
> >on the opposite side of the planet. This secondary explosion is
apparently
> >much larger than the first, though it doesn't appear as bright (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.
>
> the side the superlaser shot first blew up first on its way to the core
then
> the core blew

1.  The beam had terminated.
2.  The secondary explosion was not centered at the core.

>
> >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.
>
> the first part well duh, the part the SL past through to get to the core
is
> vapor and molten liquid, when the core blew it threw debris through that
> already destroyed section.  The last sentence though, do I really have to
> explain closer looks larger to you?

Please tell me you're not trying to say that the large fragments only look
bigger because they are closer.   You realize the scales we're working with,
right?

>
> >The only remotely similar occurence I could think of as an analog was the
> >Big Whack Theory of the moon's origin, involving a large body two or
three
> >times the size of Mars striking a newly formed Earth. Nova Online has a
> >nice Quicktime simulation here:
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html
> >... which appears to be pretty close to the computer simulations I've
seen.
> >The problem is that the Big Whack Theory doesn't help us much. After all,
> >Earth survived. But, the simulation does show the sort of planet-wide
> >deformation that occurred.
>
> >The superlaser blast caused no such planetwide deformation whatsoever
> >(though, to be fair, the impact event as shown in the Nova video is
> >time-compressed. In reality, the impact and immediate after-effects
> >occurred over a matter of hours).
>
> >Instead of deformation, the area directly targeted appeared to explode,
> >causing a peculiar luminescent band to encircle the planet while,
> >simultaneously, a mysterious ring appeared, departing the planet at about
.3
> >lightspeed. At a time corresponding to the band coalescing on the
opposite
> >side of the planet, a second explosion occurred, sending out a
corresponding
> >second ring, departing the planet at about .9 lightspeed.
>
> this is completely irrelivent, this is a physical impact, the SL is an
energy
> weapon, if you think they're the same think and that the planet would
react the
> same way you need to go back to highschool,

When in the world did I make that claim?

> >So, what does this mean? What is the "Genesis Effect" thing (or, more
> >appropriately, the "Anti-Genesis Effect From Hell") happening with the
> >bands? Well, it could be some sort of normal shockwave caused by the
> >near-instantaneous destruction of a large section of the planet. However,
> >this makes little sense, since the magnitude of the secondary explosion
(and
> >second ring) would seem to have been far greater than the magnitude of
the
> >first. For a normal shockwave to do what was done, it would have had to
> >gather additional energy along the way somehow.
>
> no, the 'shockwave' is shield, the side the SL hits is blasted off first
while
> the beam is reaching the core, then the core goes

An assumption not supported by the evidence.

> >In search of the answer, I happened upon this quote, a description of how
> >the Death Star does its work. "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).
>
> Luke is a farmboy turned fighter pilot, with five minutes of briefing on
how to
> blow up the DS.  He has no real knowledge of how to blow up a planet.  Or
how
> the DS works.   that aside they have to decide how much energy they need
to
> blast  Yavin apart, since this still requires 'fuel' fed into the main
reactor
> to genorate it, they want to use just enough to destroy the planet and no
more.
>  With Tarkin and Vader breathing (pun) down their necks tellin thhem they
have
> to stop because they have to refuel due to overkill might be fatal, beside
in
> the later DSII you think the fire planet killer blasts at the rebels

Luke was discussing weapons, and how the dense stone of the temple was
impervious to all weapons, theoretically.

>
> >Now, this does mean that I have independantly ended up in the same place
as
> >several others, insofar as I have postulated that Alderaan supplied part
(or
> >most) of the energy of her destruction. Wong would suggest that such an
> >idea simply comes from shocked disbelief or Evil Trekkiedom, and he has
> >attempted refutation of several similar ideas on the Myths page of
> >StarDestroyer.Net. None of the methods he refutes are sufficient to
explain
> >the rings and band, nor does he attempt to do so. Furthermore, I have
> >arrived at this only by watching the film frame-by-frame, and searching
the
> >canon for further details (I had not noticed the "Anti-Genesis Effect" of
> >the bands until writing this). I'll agree with Wong on the refutation of
> >other methods, and also add to the list of refutable ideas the notion
that
> >an antimatter beam could have done the deed... it could, possibly, but
even
> >antimatter would not have produced the observed effects.
>
> Wow you got one right, sort of, antimatter could have blown up the planet,
but
> you have to make antimatter, there is no 'natural' source, making enough
to
> blow a planet apart then storing it would take more energy then just
blasting
> the planet apart with REALLY big powerful weaponry

The point is that it doesn't explain the rings.

> >Just to see where it leads us, let's assume that there is a chain
reaction
> >of some sort. Based on observations of the explosion resulting from the
> >target area 'impact' of the superlaser, up until the bands and ring are
well
> >on their way, the exotic mechanism of the Death Star superlaser may have
> >only taken over after a significant portion of the planet had been
directly
> >destroyed. I would estimate that only between 10 and 30 percent of the
> >mass of the planet was destroyed directly in order to get the chain
reaction
> >underway.
>
> if the effect had been differant this might have potential, the point is
> causing a chain reaction in the matter of the planet will take more energy
than
> blasting it. Unless you've discovered some unique exotic form of chain
reaction
> that works on all forms of matter and every element with equal ease.

There is an example of such a chain reaction:

"Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all chain
reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more
common ones.

For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love are
based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar with...
and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules.

Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all possible
chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're
only now starting to learn. For example:

The only "odd" 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

Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might
have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that
lasts 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 in real physics."

>Now if
> the SL had just blown 10 to 30% to atoms Alderan might still have been
> destroyed as it colapsed in on itself, or at least the alderannians killed
as a
> ELE, depends on which 10to30% is destroyed

From the looks of it, only what was under/near the superlaser.

>
> >On the other hand, if the superlaser mechanism did not require an energy
> >release on the planet to take effect, then the entire planet would have
been
> >destroyed by that mechanism.
>
> Funny coulda sworn it was

I was talking about the chain reaction mechanism.

> >"I wonder why they weren't vaporized?"
> >-McCoy, Star Trek VI
>
> Gratuitous trekkie moment

Yeah, I confess.  :)

>
> >One question that this brings up is how some sort of mass-energy
conversion
> >mechanism of the sort I am hypothesizing could have avoided reducing the
> >entire mass of the planet to energy. There are several potential
> >solutions, ranging from simple inefficiency to the notion that only those
> >materials near the surface contributed. In any case, it would be helpful
> >to estimate the amount of material left over in the vicinity of the
planet.
> >However, this is extremely difficult, given the fact that we're only left
to
> >estimate based on a diffuse cloud with some bulk matter here and there,
not
> >to mention that some of the debris exits, stage left, and out of frame.
Any
> >attempt to perform an eyeball estimate will result in a huge margin of
> >error, but I'll hazard a guess that between ten and fifty percent of the
> >planet's mass is no longer present after the secondary explosion starts
to
> >die down.
>
> Wow, you notced your own arguments flaw, you have to come up with excuses
to
> make it work with the observed event

No, I'm making observations and drawing conclusions.

> >The notion that the mass-energy conversion mechanism of the superlaser
> >stripped the planet of mass is not new... that would be the case even in
the
> >event of a powerful laser beam. However, the way in which the
Anti-Genesis
> >Effect seemed to draw energy from the planet's surface (or layers closest
to
> >it . . . or it might even have been dealing with the mantle exclusively)
has
> >apparently not been observed before.
>
> Everyone who noticed it took it for one of those "can withstand any
> bombardment" planetary shields, that keep ISD's from BDZing every planet
that
> annoys the emperor, hence the point of the DS and the SL.

But there is no precedent for shield interactions of the type you need.

>
> >The only peril with what I shall refer to as the Anti-Genesis Effect
> >hypothesis is that there is no known mechanism to explain it, and more
> >direct references do not appear in the canon (besides Luke's quote) to my
> >knowledge.
>
> >(On the other hand, the nomenclature alone makes it awfully nifty,
perfectly
> >juxtaposing the philosophies of the Federation and Empire. And, based on
> >the end of Star Trek IV and the likely result of the Alderaan blast, the
> >Genesis Planet broke up rather violently, whereas the Alderaan debris
will
> >likely re-coalesce.)
>
> in a few millenia

What we saw of it when the Falcon arrived was moving awfully slow.

>
> >(And while we're on the subject of protomatter devices . . . hmm . . .
> >Genesis Device, star reignition in "Second Sight"[DS9], and it was used
by
> >the Maquis to destroy a ship, the bomb being described as an "implosive
> >protomatter device" ("The Maquis"[DS9]). It's been far too long since I
saw
> >"Second Sight" to recall what that device going off looked like, but the
> >Genesis wave did put out a planet(oid) encircling band in the simulation,
> >and also gave off a hellacious plume over the surface, though this
certainly
> >isn't a ring. There might just be something to the idea, though
> >protomatter is quite the unknown, so I won't incorporate it as part of
the
> >official hypothesis.)
>
> >In any case, the Anti-Genesis Effect hypothesis serves to attempt to
explain
> >the effects observed by the superlaser strike on Alderaan, giving the
idea
> >greater weight than the directed energy transfer hypothesis, which left
> >unknowns such as the rings and bands as ignored unknowns. It also does
not
> >ignore the fact that the superlaser simply is not a laser, which the
other
> >ideas would seem to imply (in part due to the ICS, plus the notion
espoused
> >by some non-canon works that the superlaser is a really big turbolaser,
in
> >principle).
>
> Of course the 'really big turbolasers theory works to, and works simply,
fire
> 1E22 megaton blast at planet, planet goes boom.

The planet wouldn't go boom like that with a direct energy transfer weapon.

>
> >Furthermore, it allows the Death Star to more easily meet the energy
> >requirements of blowing up a planet, a feat which would not have been
> >possible using fusion (the "artificial sun" reference in the ANH novel,
plus
> >the fusion reference in the Star Wars Technical Journal and Star Wars
> >Encyclopedia), or any sort of fusion-like use of hyperon particles (aka
> '>hypermatter').
>
> Fusion: joining, to mix, to forge together.
> not always atomic, since atomic would not produce the power they speak of
in
> the 'has the power of a small sun' ref. for the Star Destroyer's reactors,
> since the DS main reactor can encompass a Star Destroyer, its has power
several
> magnitudes higher.

Fusion in a technical sense refers to nuclear fusion or (archaic) melting.

> >Indeed, the actual material necessary from Alderaan, assuming you can
have
> >100% mass-energy conversion (matter-energy equivalence) would be on the
>order
> of 1.1e21 kilograms. That would produce the often-touted 1e38 joules
>thought
> necessary to destroy Alderaan in the manner shown. A planet like Earth
> >weighs in at 5.97e24 kilograms, giving Earth over 5,000 times the
necessary
> >matter to perform the deed. Therefore, assuming that only 10 percent of
> >Alderaan's matter was removed by the blast, the Anti-Genesis Effect did
not
> >need to be terribly efficient at all to produce the necessary explosion
> >energy.
>
> It would just take a lot more power.  That dude was right it IS Stilgars
> argument you were just marginally smarter and didn't claim it was an
atomic
> fission or fusion reaction, instead you claim mystery chain-reaction.
You
> also made it a little more complicated to, and repeated yourself alot.
But
> still no substance.  You started flawed and ended the same way.

This isn't Stilgar's argument.   I don't know Stilgar.   I took the
evidence, determined what was and wasn't possible, and drew conclusions.






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh)
Date: 17 Jul 2002 19:30:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <20020717153059.10380.00000099@mb-bg.aol.com>
--------
>Evidence that it was shield failure which produced the band and rings?
>

ok, TPM showed that you can see shields in an atmosphere, when struck by a
powerful enough shot they 'ripple' in an expanding ring from tho point of
impact.  If the shot is to weak (droid blasters vs Anakin's fighter) there is
no ripple, with a sufficiently powerful weapon (Fighter vs. Droidekas shields)
it blast right through.  I don't have the DVD of TPM yet so I can't frame by
frame it.  

Hypothosis: Alderan has a planetay hield that is fixed in the upper atmosphere.

Possible effect of SL shot hitting such shields based on effects of weapons on
other shields, a ripple effect that extends out from the point of impact

Observation:A ripple effect extending from the point of impact.

>We've never seen another shield failure do these things.
>

The shield at poiint of impact fails the rest of the shield is still up
(multiple generators) 
the beam hits the surface of the planet, lots of smoke as it vaporises its way
thorough

>Blocks the view?
>
>Besides, you're comparing a subspace shockwave to what we see.  Are you
>making a claim of similarity?
>

okay let's since you aparently haven't heard of this effect before I'll
explain.  Both explosions produce a spherical blast wave, showing said wave
would take up the entire screen, it would look like a wall moving towards you,
this makes seeing anything else rather hard until the wave moves past you,
solution set the veiw screen to display only a part of the wave so you can
'see' whats behind it. Other than the reasoning behind it no simularity.

 >1.  The beam had terminated.

the beam had breached the surface

>2.  The secondary explosion was not centered at the core.
>

oooh, overkill

>Please tell me you're not trying to say that the large fragments only look
>bigger because they are closer.   You realize the scales we're working with,
>right?
>
2 ten ton rocks moving at high veliocity, one toward on away which looks
larger, which looks like a speck. There are a lot more than 2 after the blast
and most of them are a lot smaller we don't even see  most of the debris.  What
bits we do see seem pretty multidirectional.



>When in the world did I make that claim?

Then the entire paragraph is OT? Unless your making the claim why the hell is
it here, its an event with widly differant proporties. 

>> no, the 'shockwave' is shield, the side the SL hits is blasted off first
>while
>> the beam is reaching the core, then the core goes
>
>An assumption not supported by the evidence.

yes, it is


>Luke was discussing weapons, and how the dense stone of the temple was
>impervious to all weapons, theoretically.
>

oh yeah stating what he was talking about changes his cluelessness.

>There is an example of such a chain reaction:
>
>"Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all chain
>reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more
>common ones.
>
>For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love are
>based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar with...
>and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules.
>
>Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all possible
>chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're
>only now starting to learn. For example:
>
>The only "odd" 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
>
>Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might
>have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that
>lasts 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 in real physics."

Your equating a planetary destruction event to a theory that wasn't taken
seriously by any involved?

To quote Larry McLerran the leader of Brookhaven's nuclear-theory group 
"The world won't end with this particular bang. These collisions have been
going on since the beginning of time. There are nuclei in cosmic rays, and they
collide with one another at very high densities. And we're still alive."

So the 'stranglet' theory is 'junk science' it goes out the window.   

If you want to claim the RHIC's normal operation works on any matter, it does
but consider:

This is firing a 'beam' of Ions

RHIC's beam travels at 99.995% the speed of light (186,000 miles per second, or
300,000,000 meters per second).

RHIC's beam is not continuous -- instead, it's made up of 57 separate
"bunches", each containing billions of ions.

RHIC ions are so small that, even at high speed, the force of their impact is
about the same as the impact of two mosquitoes colliding.

In 20 years of running, RHIC will use less than one gram of gold.

To make the superconducting magnets carry electricity without resistance, RHIC
magnets are bathed in liquid helium, at a temperature only about 4.5 degrees
above Absolute Zero, or minus 451.6 Fahrenheit! (Absolute Zero is minus 273
Celsius, or minus 459 degrees Fahrenheit. It's the coldest that anything can
be.)

To get the helium chilled down, RHIC's refrigerators draw 15 megawatts of
electrical power. (One megawatt is enough to power 1,000 homes.)

Thats not counting the rest of the facilities power consumption.

Do I have to draw a map to lead back to 'will take even more power than
blasting it'

>I was talking about the chain reaction mechanism.

Then the statment makes even less sense.

>But there is no precedent for shield interactions of the type you need.
>

answered

>What we saw of it when the Falcon arrived was moving awfully slow.

and not very dense, so its still moving 'away' from Alderan's POD

>> Of course the 'really big turbolasers theory works to, and works simply,
>fire
>> 1E22 megaton blast at planet, planet goes boom.
>
>The planet wouldn't go boom like that with a direct energy transfer weapon.

so far your only argument is still 'I'm right you and everyone else especially
M. Wong who has the degree's nessicary to know what he's talking about are
wrong' 


Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "DarkStar" <afinalunity@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:25:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <shlZ8.245702$vq.13289996@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
--------

"Setesh" <setesh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020717153059.10380.00000099@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >Evidence that it was shield failure which produced the band and rings?
> >
>
> ok, TPM showed that you can see shields in an atmosphere, when struck by a
> powerful enough shot they 'ripple' in an expanding ring from tho point of
> impact.  If the shot is to weak (droid blasters vs Anakin's fighter) there
is
> no ripple, with a sufficiently powerful weapon (Fighter vs. Droidekas
shields)
> it blast right through.  I don't have the DVD of TPM yet so I can't frame
by
> frame it.

And nothing of the sort is ever seen in space.

> Hypothosis: Alderan has a planetay hield that is fixed in the upper
atmosphere.
>
> Possible effect of SL shot hitting such shields based on effects of
weapons on
> other shields, a ripple effect that extends out from the point of impact
>
> Observation:A ripple effect extending from the point of impact.

We don't see a ripple on the upper atmosphere.   The band appears to be in
contact with the surface.

> >We've never seen another shield failure do these things.
> >
>
> The shield at poiint of impact fails the rest of the shield is still up
> (multiple generators)
> the beam hits the surface of the planet, lots of smoke as it vaporises its
way
> thorough

The problem is that there is still no evidence shields were up.

>
> >Blocks the view?
> >
> >Besides, you're comparing a subspace shockwave to what we see.  Are you
> >making a claim of similarity?
> >
>
> okay let's since you aparently haven't heard of this effect before I'll
> explain.  Both explosions produce a spherical blast wave, showing said
wave
> would take up the entire screen, it would look like a wall moving towards
you,
> this makes seeing anything else rather hard until the wave moves past you,
> solution set the veiw screen to display only a part of the wave so you can
> 'see' whats behind it. Other than the reasoning behind it no simularity.

I think the rules make that claim invalid.

>  >1.  The beam had terminated.
>
> the beam had breached the surface

Perhaps, but it had still terminated by the time of the secondary explosion.

> >2.  The secondary explosion was not centered at the core.
> >
>
> oooh, overkill

Well, you said it was the core going up.

> >Please tell me you're not trying to say that the large fragments only
look
> >bigger because they are closer.   You realize the scales we're working
with,
> >right?
> >
> 2 ten ton rocks moving at high veliocity, one toward on away which looks
> larger, which looks like a speck. There are a lot more than 2 after the
blast
> and most of them are a lot smaller we don't even see  most of the debris.
What
> bits we do see seem pretty multidirectional.

That's nuts.  Alderaan, if like Earth, is 12,000 kilometers in diameter,
which means the camera is helluva-far from the planet.   For a piece of
debris to suddenly seem many, many times bigger even though it is only a
couple of thousand kilometers closer just doesn't work at the ranges we're
talking about.

> >When in the world did I make that claim?
>
> Then the entire paragraph is OT? Unless your making the claim why the hell
is
> it here, its an event with widly differant proporties.

It's the only good simulation we have of a planet-killing event.

> >> no, the 'shockwave' is shield, the side the SL hits is blasted off
first
> >while
> >> the beam is reaching the core, then the core goes
> >
> >An assumption not supported by the evidence.
>
> yes, it is

Uh, no.  There's nothing to suggest a shield, and the secondary explosion is
not centered at the core.

> >There is an example of such a chain reaction:
> >
> >"Some people have been parroting Mike Wong's line to me about how all
chain
> >reactions are material-dependent, as in nuclear chain reactions and more
> >common ones.
> >
> >For the most part, it is true. All the chain reactions we know and love
are
> >based on common baryons... the protons and neutrons we're familiar
with...
> >and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules.
> >
> >Well, that's fine, but that is placing a blanket statement on all
possible
> >chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics
we're
> >only now starting to learn. For example:
> >
> >The only "odd" 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
> >
> >Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that
might
> >have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that
> >lasts 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 in real physics."
>
> Your equating a planetary destruction event to a theory that wasn't taken
> seriously by any involved?

Oh, it was taken quite seriously by several physicists.

> To quote Larry McLerran the leader of Brookhaven's nuclear-theory group
> "The world won't end with this particular bang. These collisions have been
> going on since the beginning of time. There are nuclei in cosmic rays, and
they
> collide with one another at very high densities. And we're still alive."
>
> So the 'stranglet' theory is 'junk science' it goes out the window.

"This particular bang" had energies similar to those of the cosmic rays
against the upper atmosphere, but you're failing to take into account the
environment of the collider, and fear of higher energy levels taking place
at RHIC.


> Do I have to draw a map to lead back to 'will take even more power than
> blasting it'

How do you figure that a single collider would require more power than
directly blasting it?   The only power figure you gave was 15 megawatts.
Even if the entire facility requires 1000 megawatts, it would be more than
enough if it were capable of producing an Ice-9 type transition.

> >> Of course the 'really big turbolasers theory works to, and works
simply,
> >fire
> >> 1E22 megaton blast at planet, planet goes boom.
> >
> >The planet wouldn't go boom like that with a direct energy transfer
weapon.
>
> so far your only argument is still 'I'm right you and everyone else
especially
> M. Wong who has the degree's nessicary to know what he's talking about are
> wrong'

I'm right and you're wrong only when you hold on to dumb ideas like "the
planet would go boom just like we saw on screen with a powerful DET weapon".

As for your claim about my argument, that is patently absurd.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh)
Date: 18 Jul 2002 06:33:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <20020718023351.12948.00000936@mb-me.aol.com>
--------
>And nothing of the sort is ever seen in space.
>

planet, atmosphere, understand

>We don't see a ripple on the upper atmosphere.   The band appears to be in
>contact with the surface.

okay on 30in tv alderans atmosphere would be the thickness of a dime, it would
appear to be in contact, plus its a really big ripple so it may nearly reach
the ground


>The problem is that there is still no evidence shields were up.

no evidence they're not



>I think the rules make that claim invalid.

oh? in what way

>Well, you said it was the core going up.
>

on this I broke out the trusty grid transparincy, guess what your right the
first explosion id core centered the second is not


Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh)
Date: 18 Jul 2002 06:57:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Darkstar:SD.net post:warning long
Message-ID: <20020718025747.12948.00000938@mb-me.aol.com>
--------
oops sorry got cut off and it posted before I was done
>That's nuts.  Alderaan, if like Earth, is 12,000 kilometers in diameter,
>which means the camera is helluva-far from the planet.   For a piece of
>debris to suddenly seem many, many times bigger even though it is only a
>couple of thousand kilometers closer just doesn't work at the ranges we're
>talking about.
>

true but I can't see it so I won't argue it I see a lot of little specks with
contrails moving in a lot of diferant directions, none seem terribly much
larger than the others

>It's the only good simulation we have of a planet-killing event.

A) planet killing and planet destroying are differant, just go ask a Bfiver

B)conditions are totally differant, you want planet killing simulations go
watch MibII
5 in the opening credits

 >Uh, no.  There's nothing to suggest a shield, and the secondary explosion is
>not centered at the core.

Ok, shields have been shown to have the ripple effect, there is a ripple effect
on alderan, so that could explain that.  You may not like it but since YOU are
trying to change the most accepted theory the burden of proof is on you not us.
 You can't say prove they were up. Because if they're up a lot of you original
theory goes out the window, you have to prove your right by proving they're
down. 

 >I'm right and you're wrong only when you hold on to dumb ideas like "the
>planet would go boom just like we saw on screen with a powerful DET weapon".
>
>As for your claim about my argument, that is patently absurd.
>

you really need to research more, but I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt. 
You keep claiming that DET won't work, but the only proof you give is the ring
and your word.  The RHIC uses 2000 megawatts and the Ice-9 transition makes
quark-gloun plasma which lasts for about a minute the 'stranglet' theory is a
running joke at the facility.  I didn't quote the nastier things they said
about the 'stranglet' 'fear mongers' ( alot of it had to due with publicity
stunt jokes).   The point is that the theory was proved false and baseless, you
can't use a chain reaction that was proved doesn't work as your basis for an
argument

>I'm right and you're wrong only when you hold on to dumb ideas like "the
>planet would go boom just like we saw on screen with a powerful DET weapon".
>
>As for your claim about my argument, that is patently absurd.
>
Okay that is the 23 time you said that DET wouldn't work that way, you have yet
to say why, this is the source of a lot of the 'troll' comments you keep saying
that but provide no proof it doesn't.  Constant repitition isn't going to
convince anyone you NEED to tell use why.





Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time?
Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always
fun."