---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:44:52 GMT Subject: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <8ElJ8.67595$jm.6445019@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read that someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of the power levels available to the Enterprise-D. One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and core fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, or whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the awesome power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for example, by "going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and Wars uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the target to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... hey, go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: In the Special Edition of Star Wars IV, Alderaan is destroyed with a new special effect. It has this weird ring thing going on. Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as turbolasers. But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what does this do for the energy of the superlaser? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 May 2002 13:50:29 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020530095029.13164.00001085@mb-cf.aol.com> -------- >I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) > >But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read that >someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of the >power levels available to the Enterprise-D. > >One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't >actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and core >fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, or >whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the awesome >power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for example, by >"going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and Wars >uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the target >to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... hey, >go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: > >In the Special Edition of Star Wars IV, Alderaan is destroyed with a new >special effect. It has this weird ring thing going on. > >Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death Star >superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as turbolasers. > >But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause something to >explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think of >offhand why this would be so. > >So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what does >this do for the energy of the superlaser? > Well, turbolasers are heat-transfer weapons, and a superlaser is a compound turbolaser... So it's a hard sell to say it's 'cheating'. Of course, the ring is very strange. It's a little interesting to see people guess it's speed(Mike Wong of SD.NET pegs it at ~.1c, where Curtis Saxton of theforce.net/swtc puts it at .94c, with the possibility of it being FTL), but no one's come up with a good answer. Still, to fling the main debris out, you need 1e38 Joules from the gun. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:59:59 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020530095029.13164.00001085@mb-cf.aol.com... > >I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) > > > >But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read that > >someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of the > >power levels available to the Enterprise-D. > > > >One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't > >actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and core > >fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, or > >whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the awesome > >power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for example, by > >"going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and Wars > >uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the target > >to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... hey, > >go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: > > > >In the Special Edition of Star Wars IV, Alderaan is destroyed with a new > >special effect. It has this weird ring thing going on. > > > >Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death Star > >superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as turbolasers. > > > >But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause something to > >explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think of > >offhand why this would be so. > > > >So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what does > >this do for the energy of the superlaser? > > > > Well, turbolasers are heat-transfer weapons, and a superlaser is a compound > turbolaser... So it's a hard sell to say it's 'cheating'. But, that's just it. You don't get a funky ring from heat transfer. > Of course, the ring is very strange. It's a little interesting to see people > guess it's speed(Mike Wong of SD.NET pegs it at ~.1c, where Curtis Saxton of > theforce.net/swtc puts it at .94c, with the possibility of it being FTL), but > no one's come up with a good answer. Still, to fling the main debris out, you > need 1e38 Joules from the gun. > -- Well, we can't just ignore the ring. Without a scientific explanation of what that ring was, it has to imply that some sort of technobabble was going on. We saw a planet destroyed in the original Star Trek series ("All Our Yesterdays", I think), and we saw one blown up in Generations, both by suns going nova. In both cases, though, there was no ring, and unless I'm mistaken, the scientific rules are supposed to work in both universes. There was a ring in Star Trek VI when half of Praxis bit the dust, but that was a subspace shockwave from the Klingon's "key energy production facility", so we don't know if the ring came from the moon itself, or from the reactors and things on it. In any case, it could not have been the same phenomenon, because based on the picture of Praxis on Excelsior's screen, only a portion of the moon was actually destroyed. Alderaan's ring came from the center of the planet. A definite interesting note is that the Death Star exploded with a ring when its hypermatter reactor exploded, though at a different orientation. I'm not sure what is going on with it, but it is definitely more than simple heat transfer via laser. Any ideas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Yu" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:53:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:zMtJ8.8218$4i.1044524@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Well, we can't just ignore the ring. Without a scientific explanation of > what that ring was, it has to imply that some sort of technobabble was going > on. We saw a planet destroyed in the original Star Trek series ("All Our > Yesterdays", I think), and we saw one blown up in Generations, both by suns > going nova. In both cases, though, there was no ring, and unless I'm > mistaken, the scientific rules are supposed to work in both universes. > > There was a ring in Star Trek VI when half of Praxis bit the dust, but that > was a subspace shockwave from the Klingon's "key energy production > facility", so we don't know if the ring came from the moon itself, or from > the reactors and things on it. In any case, it could not have been the > same phenomenon, because based on the picture of Praxis on Excelsior's > screen, only a portion of the moon was actually destroyed. Alderaan's ring > came from the center of the planet. > > A definite interesting note is that the Death Star exploded with a ring when > its hypermatter reactor exploded, though at a different orientation. > > I'm not sure what is going on with it, but it is definitely more than simple > heat transfer via laser. Any ideas? Maybe the planet's shield generators were ringed around the planet at the equator instead of scattered over the surface. So when the planet goes up, all the shield generators (which need huge power supplies to withstand orbital bombardment from fleets) go boom. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:19:06 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Jeffrey Yu" wrote in message news:ad6007$re1$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:zMtJ8.8218$4i.1044524@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > Well, we can't just ignore the ring. Without a scientific explanation of > > what that ring was, it has to imply that some sort of technobabble was > going > > on. We saw a planet destroyed in the original Star Trek series ("All Our > > Yesterdays", I think), and we saw one blown up in Generations, both by > suns > > going nova. In both cases, though, there was no ring, and unless I'm > > mistaken, the scientific rules are supposed to work in both universes. > > > > There was a ring in Star Trek VI when half of Praxis bit the dust, but > that > > was a subspace shockwave from the Klingon's "key energy production > > facility", so we don't know if the ring came from the moon itself, or from > > the reactors and things on it. In any case, it could not have been the > > same phenomenon, because based on the picture of Praxis on Excelsior's > > screen, only a portion of the moon was actually destroyed. Alderaan's > ring > > came from the center of the planet. > > > > A definite interesting note is that the Death Star exploded with a ring > when > > its hypermatter reactor exploded, though at a different orientation. > > > > I'm not sure what is going on with it, but it is definitely more than > simple > > heat transfer via laser. Any ideas? > > Maybe the planet's shield generators were ringed around the planet at the > equator instead of scattered over the surface. So when the planet goes up, > all the shield generators (which need huge power supplies to withstand > orbital bombardment from fleets) go boom. I would say yes, but the shield generators would have to be deep, deep, deep inside the planet. When Alderaan is exploding, it actually sends out two rings. The first just sort of appears out of the flash that is the planet when it is first going up. That could have been shield generators or something, but, then, there's a "second wave" to the explosion, and a second ring comes out of the center of the planet, reinforcing and accelerating the first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 30 May 2002 18:38:13 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020530133813455-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death > Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as > turbolasers. No, they're invisible massless particles with a tracer. > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause > something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no > reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what > does this do for the energy of the superlaser? My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. So, the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert the water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar rings, so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a target. One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the required firepower to destroy Alderaan. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:26:13 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020530133813455-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death > > Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as > > turbolasers. > > No, they're invisible massless particles with a tracer. Sorry, I'm just going by the Cross Sections thing that said invisible laser. If he mentioned massless particles somewhere else, I might've missed it. > > > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause > > something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no > > reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. > > > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what > > does this do for the energy of the superlaser? > > My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and > superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. So, Um, why would we expect to see it? If that had been Earth, I would not have expected to see the oceans boiling away in the middle of the planet's destruction. Of course, there is so much funk being sprayed everywhere, we could see a cloud of vapor and not even know it. > the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the > electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert the > water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the > equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. "For some reason"? That entire idea would only compound the problem, putting the superlaser in a magical "Genesis Device" category. Also, what about the origin of the second ring? > There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter > interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar rings, > so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a target. That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any of the physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings besides the ones we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships use hypermatter, there should probably be more ring events. For example, the ship destroyed by the superlaser in Return of the Jedi probably should have made a ring, if the hypermatter interaction idea is true. So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the required > firepower to destroy Alderaan. Well, no, that's just it... that idea isn't certain at all, now that the Special Edition is the only one we can look at. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:46:45 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:VNwJ8.72793$jm.6871314@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any of > the physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings besides > the ones we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships use > hypermatter, there should probably be more ring events. For example, > the ship destroyed by the superlaser in Return of the Jedi probably > should have made a ring, if the hypermatter interaction idea is true. > > So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > Ya know, it occurs to me this may not follow. Mushroom clouds only form in atmosphere with a particularly massive overpressure, as from a nuke or over- sized conventional explosive (BLU-82, the Minor Scale test, etc.). Perhaps we are looking at the same sort of phenomenon here. Unfounded speculation, but it rectifies the apparent errors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:43:48 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <8HzJ8.79352$Gs.7414728@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns921EB58445697kayla@65.96.0.182... > "DarkStar" wrote in > news:VNwJ8.72793$jm.6871314@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > > That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any of > > the physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings besides > > the ones we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships use > > hypermatter, there should probably be more ring events. For example, > > the ship destroyed by the superlaser in Return of the Jedi probably > > should have made a ring, if the hypermatter interaction idea is true. > > > > So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > > > > Ya know, it occurs to me this may not follow. Mushroom clouds only form in > atmosphere with a particularly massive overpressure, as from a nuke or over- > sized conventional explosive (BLU-82, the Minor Scale test, etc.). Perhaps > we are looking at the same sort of phenomenon here. Unfounded speculation, > but it rectifies the apparent errors. Well, you can get "mini-mushrooms" from smaller explosions. In the course of the mortar research I was doing for another thread, I stopped to watch a brief video of some guy shooting a target with an RPG. Those don't carry more than a few pounds TNT equivalent, but the mushroom effect occurred (of course, it was only a few meters tall). It's just a matter of heat and convection... the burning target beneath it probably helped tremendously. :) I considered something similar to your idea, though. I thought that the effect might somehow have come from the rotation of the planet somehow letting things shoot off 'sideways' with more velocity, or maybe there was some peculiarity of the planet's magnetic fields. But, I can't think of anything that can possibly explain the double-ring effect, especially with the ring traveling at some significant fraction of lightspeed. The only vaguely explanatory thing I could come up with while I was brainstorming is that maybe the planet's core was briefly transformed into a pulsar, with its spinning poles ejecting massive radio energies along the former equator of the planet, causing the planet's giblets to be wildly accelerated. Then the pulsar explodes, causing that secondary explosion we see at Alderaan, with the second ring coming from it, along the same plane as the first 'somehow'. I thought it was a really cool idea... for about a minute. Here are the problems. Pulsars generally mass 1.5 solar masses at least, so I seriously doubt Alderaan was big enough to be turned into anything resembling a pulsar with other floating junk to spare. I'd also imagine that we might have seen some of the planet's giblets seem to implode before any pulsar exploded, due to the sudden jump in gravitational force at the center of the planet. Anyway, just a thought. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:05:02 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:8HzJ8.79352$Gs.7414728@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > Well, you can get "mini-mushrooms" from smaller explosions. In the > course of the mortar research I was doing for another thread, I stopped > to watch a brief video of some guy shooting a target with an RPG. > Those don't carry more than a few pounds TNT equivalent, but the > mushroom effect occurred (of course, it was only a few meters tall). > It's just a matter of heat and convection... the burning target beneath > it probably helped tremendously. >:) > I was totally unaware of that. Huh. Blows my idea out of the water, I suppose. > I considered something similar to your idea, though. I thought that > the effect might somehow have come from the rotation of the planet > somehow letting things shoot off 'sideways' with more velocity, or maybe > there was some peculiarity of the planet's magnetic fields. But, I > can't think of anything that can possibly explain the double-ring > effect, especially with the ring traveling at some significant fraction > of lightspeed. > That speed difference is what gets me. It's just stupidly fast compared to the rest of the explosion. What I'd like to know is why only Alderaan had the double-ring, while the Death Stars displayed just one (that I remember). The only related factors between the three incidents are the presence of a superlaser, and possibly shields. No, wait, the shield was down around DS II... Agh, I'll strangle the bloody idiot who threw in those rings... > The only vaguely explanatory thing I could come up with while I was > brainstorming is that maybe the planet's core was briefly transformed > into a pulsar, with its spinning poles ejecting massive radio energies > along the former equator of the planet, causing the planet's giblets to > be wildly accelerated. Then the pulsar explodes, causing that > secondary explosion we see at Alderaan, with the second ring coming from > it, along the same plane as the first 'somehow'. > > I thought it was a really cool idea... for about a minute. > > Here are the problems. Pulsars generally mass 1.5 solar masses at > least, so I seriously doubt Alderaan was big enough to be turned into > anything resembling a pulsar with other floating junk to spare. I'd > also imagine that we might have seen some of the planet's giblets seem > to implode before any pulsar exploded, due to the sudden jump in > gravitational force at the center of the planet. > > Anyway, just a thought. > Hmm, you're right, that is insane. Keen, but insane. To get something approaching pulsar density from Alderaan's mass we'd be looking at a diameter of a couple hundred feet. I don't see a way to compress the planet's core that much. I suppose we could just go with the official stuff that describes it as a compound turbolaser, but I'm an idiot and I wanna know what caused them spooky rings. The hypermatter theory only works if the big spaceships we've seen destroyed in space in Jedi, a few Mon Cal cruisers, an ISD, and the Executor, all lack the reactors. But then, scrapping pretty much all official stuff is a little drastic at this juncture. Any other possible theories...? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:07:22 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns921ED722DFB5Bkayla@65.96.0.178... > > The only vaguely explanatory thing I could come up with while I was > > brainstorming is that maybe the planet's core was briefly transformed > > into a pulsar, with its spinning poles ejecting massive radio energies > > along the former equator of the planet, causing the planet's giblets to > > be wildly accelerated. Then the pulsar explodes, causing that > > secondary explosion we see at Alderaan, with the second ring coming from > > it, along the same plane as the first 'somehow'. > > > > I thought it was a really cool idea... for about a minute. > > > > Here are the problems. Pulsars generally mass 1.5 solar masses at > > least, so I seriously doubt Alderaan was big enough to be turned into > > anything resembling a pulsar with other floating junk to spare. I'd > > also imagine that we might have seen some of the planet's giblets seem > > to implode before any pulsar exploded, due to the sudden jump in > > gravitational force at the center of the planet. > > > > Anyway, just a thought. > > > > Hmm, you're right, that is insane. Keen, but insane. To get something > approaching pulsar density from Alderaan's mass we'd be looking at a diameter > of a couple hundred feet. I don't see a way to compress the planet's core > that much. > > I suppose we could just go with the official stuff that describes it as a > compound turbolaser, but I'm an idiot and I wanna know what caused them > spooky rings. The hypermatter theory only works if the big spaceships we've > seen destroyed in space in Jedi, a few Mon Cal cruisers, an ISD, and the > Executor, all lack the reactors. But then, scrapping pretty much all > official stuff is a little drastic at this juncture. Any other possible > theories...? Hmm. Well, I did just have a semi-conscious thought. Maybe the green superlaser beam only had to cut a hole to the core, so some sort of mad crazy tractor/pressor beam thing could squeeze the core into a pulsar... or maybe a major component of the superlaser was a "heavy graviton beam" (like Geordi proposed in "Best of Both Worlds") or something along similar lines that could suddenly cause the core to compress, forcing the conservation of angular momentum to kick in and have it spinning like crazy. Compress it enough, and you have a tiny rapidly spinning neutron star (held together by artificial means, since it wouldn't have the ability to hold itself together), also known as a pulsar. One problem among the many to choose from in regards to any pulsar idea is that it has to be spinning fast enough to produce a nice ring, and not a spiral. Anyway, once you've shot a hole into the core and compressed it like that, the planet is certain to destabilize, though maybe not quite like we saw (not sure). Then, when you stop artificially maintaining the micro-pulsar, it will destabilize and blow itself to bits. The merit of the pulsar idea is that it explains the huge second explosion (with second ring) that occurs after the planet starts to go up, but after the superlaser is no longer in play. I agree with you, though, that the best thing would have been to simply leave the old explosion in there. The Death Stars could have rings, that would be fine. But why he had to let the planet get rings, and thus be like every other big space explosion of the 90's (Praxis facility in Star Trek VI, and Ra's ship from Stargate), is beyond me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:19:44 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- No quotes here because I'm really low on time and just throwing out a new bit of data: the explosion of the first Death Star DOES have two rings. Watch very carefully; the second ring is extremely faint and appears as the other is moving offscreen. I can't explain the difference in luminance, but that certainly makes things more interesting. I'll watch ROTJ sometime tonight and see if the same holds true. May not be able to respond until tomorrow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:03:55 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:KPIJ8.77545$Kp.7617637@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > "Kayla" wrote in message > news:Xns921ED722DFB5Bkayla@65.96.0.178... > >> > The only vaguely explanatory thing I could come up with while I was >> > brainstorming is that maybe the planet's core was briefly transformed >> > into a pulsar, with its spinning poles ejecting massive radio >> > energies along the former equator of the planet, causing the planet's >> > giblets to be wildly accelerated. Then the pulsar explodes, causing >> > that secondary explosion we see at Alderaan, with the second ring >> > coming from it, along the same plane as the first 'somehow'. >> > >> > I thought it was a really cool idea... for about a minute. >> > >> > Here are the problems. Pulsars generally mass 1.5 solar masses at >> > least, so I seriously doubt Alderaan was big enough to be turned into >> > anything resembling a pulsar with other floating junk to spare. I'd >> > also imagine that we might have seen some of the planet's giblets >> > seem to implode before any pulsar exploded, due to the sudden jump in >> > gravitational force at the center of the planet. >> > >> > Anyway, just a thought. >> > >> >> Hmm, you're right, that is insane. Keen, but insane. To get something >> approaching pulsar density from Alderaan's mass we'd be looking at a > diameter >> of a couple hundred feet. I don't see a way to compress the planet's >> core that much. >> >> I suppose we could just go with the official stuff that describes it as >> a compound turbolaser, but I'm an idiot and I wanna know what caused >> them spooky rings. The hypermatter theory only works if the big >> spaceships > we've >> seen destroyed in space in Jedi, a few Mon Cal cruisers, an ISD, and >> the Executor, all lack the reactors. But then, scrapping pretty much >> all official stuff is a little drastic at this juncture. Any other >> possible theories...? > > Hmm. Well, I did just have a semi-conscious thought. Maybe the green > superlaser beam only had to cut a hole to the core, so some sort of mad > crazy tractor/pressor beam thing could squeeze the core into a pulsar... > or maybe a major component of the superlaser was a "heavy graviton beam" > (like Geordi proposed in "Best of Both Worlds") or something along > similar lines that could suddenly cause the core to compress, forcing > the conservation of angular momentum to kick in and have it spinning > like crazy. Compress it enough, and you have a tiny rapidly spinning > neutron star (held together by artificial means, since it wouldn't have > the ability to hold itself together), also known as a pulsar. One > problem among the many to choose from in regards to any pulsar idea is > that it has to be spinning fast enough to produce a nice ring, and not a > spiral. > Heck, let's run some numbers to see what we get. We'll use Earth as our example and assume we're compressing only the core. Angular momentum is moment of inertia times angular velocity. Angular velocity is angle covered over time, thus 2(pi) over 86400 seconds in a day, making it 7.2722 x 10^-5 rads/second. The core masses 1.93175 x 10^24 kilograms. Therefore, moment of inertia is 9.3577 x 10^30 (eh...?!). Angular momentum therefore becomes... ungodly huge. 1.286777 x 10^35. I hope I didn't muck that up... Now we want to take that core and throw it into super spin mode. Angular velocity is going to shoot up, so something else has to die; in this case, radius. I will operate under the assumption that one thousand spins per second is rapid enough to give us an even ring at that scale. if you disagree, just ask and I'll redo the numbers. Angular velocity changes to 6283.185. AV x MoI = AM, thus our new MoI is AM/AV: 2.047985 x 10^27. MoI is (2/5)(M)(R^2). Did I mention it's incredibly friggin' tedious doing this on the built-in Windows calculator? Especially since I realized I just made a hideous, hideous error and destroyed about half an hour of clicking to fill in extra zeroes at the end of numbers, and everything from now on is rewritten? Teach me not to bring my TI home with me... Anyway, running the new numbers yields me a radius of 51.482 meters, rather than 106 as before, when I just divided the MoI by the mass instead of working backwards through the equation. The core has a volume of (4/3)(pi)(r^3); 571550.8 cubic meters. Density of the core at this stage is, well, ridiculously frigging high. Just looking I can tell it'll be in the 10^19 area, or within an order of magnitude; probably middle range of 10^18. That's a thousand times the density of neutronium, which is something like 6 x 10^16 kg/m^3. The volume of the sphere must match that density or less, so it cannot be less than 30716330. That yields a resultant radius of 194.279 meters. The core will never be smaller than this. With that in mind, we know that the core cannot spin a thousand times per second, now anywhere near such a value. On the other hand, it absolutely cannot spin fewer times in a second than there are frames; deformation of the rings would be instantaneously visible. In fact, it would probably be visible even if the ring spun faster. I'm figuring something on the level of a hundred spins might be needed to throw out the ring without any evidence of such a spiral; that sucker moved at a third of the speed of light, if Mr. Wong's scaling of its velocity can be trusted. I'll try running the numbers with the angular velocity resulting from a hundred spins. CRIPES. All of the numbers above are wrong. If you look, when I grabbed the moment of inertia with the new angular velocity, it was in the 10^27 range. Dividing an angular momentum in the 10^35 range by 6283 does not give that kind of number; it should have been 10^32 or thereabouts. Apparently Windows calculator does not accept any order of magnitude above 10^30. That's a lot of work down the drain. I'd try to salvage it, but this is just depressing and I'm not going to redo everything for a third time without a graphing calculator or at least something that doesn't have an arbitrary digit limir. If anybody feels like trying to finish what I was doing, feel free. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bdiller@.ipass.net (Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:25:39 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <3cf9483a.185159429@News.CIS.DFN.DE> -------- On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:03:55 GMT, Kayla got caught while selling his only friends for delicious, delicious cake. While being carted away by the police he uttered these prophetic words : >Did I mention it's incredibly friggin' tedious doing this on the built-in >Windows calculator? Especially since I realized I just made a hideous, >hideous error and destroyed about half an hour of clicking to fill in extra >zeroes at the end of numbers, and everything from now on is rewritten? Teach >me not to bring my TI home with me... Try typing out the entire thing in Notepad first, then copying and pasting. That's what I would do in this case. (It has the added advantage of that you can save a text file.) It's a little tricky at first though - you have to type it out exactly the order you would type in the calculator. (For instance, the inverse sine of .45 would be typed in as ".45is", where i does the inverse and s calls for a sine. Look under the Tips and Tricks section under the help for more keyboard shortcuts, which you can use. Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 "It's like having your brain replaced with a lump of crack cocaine and confectioner's sugar." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:12:58 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- bdiller@.ipass.net (Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.) wrote in news:3cf9483a.185159429@News.CIS.DFN.DE: > Try typing out the entire thing in Notepad first, then copying and > pasting. That's what I would do in this case. (It has the added > advantage of that you can save a text file.) It's a little tricky at > first though - you have to type it out exactly the order you would > type in the calculator. (For instance, the inverse sine of .45 would > be typed in as ".45is", where i does the inverse and s calls for a > sine. Look under the Tips and Tricks section under the help for more > keyboard shortcuts, which you can use. > > Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic > Hero http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ > bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 > > "It's like having your brain replaced with a lump of crack cocaine and > confectioner's sugar." > Oooooh. Pretty hint. Makes the calculator MUCH less useless. I'm not in the mood to redo all that math until tomorrow, but thank you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 2 Jun 2002 00:50:04 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020601195004360-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Kayla told me: > Oooooh. Pretty hint. Makes the calculator MUCH less useless. I'm > not in the mood to redo all that math until tomorrow, but thank you! Do what I do. Use a TI-86. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 01:13:10 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- Durandal wrote in news:20020601195004360- 0500@news.cis.dfn.de: > Do what I do. Use a TI-86. Like I mentioned in post, I left my calculator in a locker where it doesn't help me at all. Can't recitify that until Monday (I COULD, I suppose, if breaking and entering became legal when I wasn't looking). I'll be reworking all the math tomorrow, after I figure out a clever way to rape Windows calculator into accepting more than thirty digits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 02:38:43 +0100 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns9220D87B5DC16kayla@65.96.0.178... > Durandal wrote in news:20020601195004360- > 0500@news.cis.dfn.de: > > > Do what I do. Use a TI-86. > > Like I mentioned in post, I left my calculator in a locker where it doesn't > help me at all. Can't recitify that until Monday (I COULD, I suppose, if > breaking and entering became legal when I wasn't looking). I'll be reworking > all the math tomorrow, after I figure out a clever way to rape Windows > calculator into accepting more than thirty digits. Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need to. Rob Wilson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 11:29:25 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "rob.wn5" wrote in news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@newsfep1- win.server.ntli.net: > Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need to. > > Rob Wilson > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about Windows Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 2 Jun 2002 18:00:01 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020602130000787-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Kayla told me: > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@ > newsfep1- win.server.ntli.net: > >> Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need >> to. Rob Wilson > > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about > Windows Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? No, even I knew about the scientific mode, and I use Mac OS X. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 2 Jun 2002 15:00:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- Durandal wrote in message news:<20020602130000787-0500@news.cis.dfn.de>... > The voice in my head named Kayla told me: > > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@ > > newsfep1- win.server.ntli.net: > > > >> Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need > >> to. Rob Wilson > > > > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about > > Windows Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? > > No, even I knew about the scientific mode, and I use Mac OS X. Yeah, but the calculator is still pure shit compared to a handheld graph-capable one. After using those, I've stopped even acknowledging the existence of those shitty two-cent preschool calculators. -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 2 Jun 2002 23:14:55 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020602181454716-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Eleas told me: > Durandal wrote in message news:<20020602130000787- > 0500@news.cis.dfn.de>... >> The voice in my head named Kayla told me: >> > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@ >> > newsfep1- win.server.ntli.net: >> > >> >> Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you >> >> need to. Rob Wilson >> > >> > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about >> > Windows Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? >> >> No, even I knew about the scientific mode, and I use Mac OS X. > > Yeah, but the calculator is still pure shit compared to a handheld > graph-capable one. After using those, I've stopped even acknowledging > the existence of those shitty two-cent preschool calculators. Indeed. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 00:03:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns92214CDBFC2B0kayla@65.96.0.178... > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@newsfep1- > win.server.ntli.net: > > > Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need to. > > > > Rob Wilson > > > > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about Windows > Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? Rob Wilson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:11:47 -0600 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <3CFD4933.1A712E6E@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- "rob.wn5" wrote: > > "Kayla" wrote in message > news:Xns92214CDBFC2B0kayla@65.96.0.178... > > "rob.wn5" wrote in > news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@newsfep1- > > win.server.ntli.net: > > > > > Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need to. > > > > > > Rob Wilson > > > > > > > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about Windows > > Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? > > I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last > year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, > thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? Another thing to do with that calculator. Enter in a number like 9e9999. Multiply it by itself. Continue doing this until it takes your computer several minutes to perform the calculation. Wheee! Graeme Dice -- "Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the earth." — Archimedes (287-212 BC) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:17:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3CFD4933.1A712E6E@sk.sympatico.ca... > "rob.wn5" wrote: > > > > "Kayla" wrote in message > > news:Xns92214CDBFC2B0kayla@65.96.0.178... > > > "rob.wn5" wrote in > > news:JHeK8.3200$Ca.217520@newsfep1- > > > win.server.ntli.net: > > > > > > > Set the VEIW tab to Scientific and use the Exponentials if you need to. > > > > > > > > Rob Wilson > > > > > > > > > > Can I ask a question? Am I the only one here so clueless about Windows > > > Calculator, or do I have comrades in misery? > > > > I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last > > year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, > > thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? > > > Another thing to do with that calculator. Enter in a number like > 9e9999. Multiply it by itself. Continue doing this until it takes your > computer several minutes to perform the calculation. Wheee! > Its fun to just watch the little lights blink while Wwinamp stops working in the background for a few moments. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kayla Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 00:14:57 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "rob.wn5" wrote in news:YGbL8.51194$wd3.8289105@news6- win.server.ntlworld.com: > I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last > year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, > thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? > > Rob Wilson > > > No, they certainly don't... Anyway, if that Darkstar fellow is looking around here, I finally got my real caclculator back and punched in all the numbers. Conservation of momentum doesn't SEEM to prevent that pulsar thing. Can't say it wouldn't take the same amount of energy, I haven't tried looking at that yet. (I responded here 'cause me newsreader auto-sliced out the other posts. Sorry this is all hidden and stuff.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 05:40:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns9223CEBCB7E91kayla@65.96.0.178... > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:YGbL8.51194$wd3.8289105@news6- > win.server.ntlworld.com: > > > I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last > > year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, > > thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? > > > > Rob Wilson > > > > > > > > No, they certainly don't... > > Anyway, if that Darkstar fellow is looking around here, I finally got my real > caclculator back and punched in all the numbers. Conservation of momentum > doesn't SEEM to prevent that pulsar thing. Can't say it wouldn't take the > same amount of energy, I haven't tried looking at that yet. (I responded > here 'cause me newsreader auto-sliced out the other posts. Sorry this is all > hidden and stuff.) Hit the New Post button and make a Thread named either [ATTN] Darkstar or one named [cont] Masterpiece society calcs anything along those lines. Rob Wilson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:06:59 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kayla" wrote in message news:Xns9223CEBCB7E91kayla@65.96.0.178... > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:YGbL8.51194$wd3.8289105@news6- > win.server.ntlworld.com: > > > I beleive i was told about the Sci Option on the Caculator on this NG last > > year, possibly Phong or Greg. So no, you're not alone there - lets face it, > > thye don't exactly go out of their way to advertise it do they? > > > > Rob Wilson > > > > > > > > No, they certainly don't... > > Anyway, if that Darkstar fellow is looking around here, I finally got my real > caclculator back and punched in all the numbers. Conservation of momentum > doesn't SEEM to prevent that pulsar thing. Can't say it wouldn't take the > same amount of energy, I haven't tried looking at that yet. (I responded > here 'cause me newsreader auto-sliced out the other posts. Sorry this is all > hidden and stuff.) I'm back! Sorry. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 31 May 2002 00:54:19 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020530195418243-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:20020530133813455-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... >> The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: >> >> > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death >> > Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as >> > turbolasers. >> >> No, they're invisible massless particles with a tracer. > > Sorry, I'm just going by the Cross Sections thing that said invisible > laser. If he mentioned massless particles somewhere else, I might've > missed it. As far as I know, Saxton said that they are massless particles, not necessarily photons. I don't have the ICS, yet though. >> > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause >> > something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no >> > reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. >> > >> > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, >> > what does this do for the energy of the superlaser? >> >> My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and >> superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. >> So, > > Um, why would we expect to see it? If that had been Earth, I would > not have expected to see the oceans boiling away in the middle of the > planet's destruction. Of course, there is so much funk being sprayed > everywhere, we could see a cloud of vapor and not even know it. There is an utterly /huge/ amount of water on Earth. We saw superheated chunks of rock flying out, so there must have been some thermal effect in addition to the 1E38J of kinetic energy delivered. The vapor would have been noticeable. >> the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the >> electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert >> the water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the >> equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. > > "For some reason"? That entire idea would only compound the problem, > putting the superlaser in a magical "Genesis Device" category. Also, > what about the origin of the second ring? Right, I forgot about the second ring. That leaves the hypermatter theory. >> There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter >> interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar >> rings, so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a >> target. > > That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any > of the physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings > besides the ones we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships > use hypermatter, there should probably be more ring events. For > example, the ship destroyed by the superlaser in Return of the Jedi > probably should have made a ring, if the hypermatter interaction idea > is true. It could depend on the magnitude. All three ring incidents occured on extremely large scales. > So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > >> One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the >> required firepower to destroy Alderaan. > > Well, no, that's just it... that idea isn't certain at all, now that > the Special Edition is the only one we can look at. This isn't a courtroom. You need to do more than show "reasonable doubt" to disprove the simple explanation that the Death Star obeyed conservation of energy and delivered the requisite energy. The opening crawl also states that the Death Star itself carried the required firepower. All we are left with is a ring effect that is likely the biproduct of large-scale hypermatter interactions. You cannot claim it to be evidence of a "cheat" anymore than I can claim it to be evidence of figures 400 orders of magnitude higher. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:46:57 +0800 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020530195418243-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > This isn't a courtroom. You need to do more than show "reasonable doubt" > to disprove the simple explanation that the Death Star obeyed > conservation of energy and delivered the requisite energy. The opening > crawl also states that the Death Star itself carried the required > firepower. All we are left with is a ring effect that is likely the > biproduct of large-scale hypermatter interactions. You cannot claim it > to be evidence of a "cheat" anymore than I can claim it to be evidence > of figures 400 orders of magnitude higher. Actually, the customs of this newsgroup (and scientific analysis) is closer to this: If you want to say they defied the most fundamental laws of physics (like COE), you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no way to explain it with our current laws. Laws that are lower on this list (applies less than universally, such as the Conservation of Baryons, which I don't even know exactly how it works but supposedly it does not cover black holes because all the particles get messed up in it or something) might require somewhat less rigorous proof, but the difference is small. Therefore, he's using the "reasonable doubt" thing in the wrong direction :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 31 May 2002 18:28:09 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020531132809460-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Kazuaki Shimazaki told me: > Actually, the customs of this newsgroup (and scientific analysis) is > closer to this: If you want to say they defied the most fundamental > laws of physics (like COE), you have to prove beyond a reasonable > doubt that there is no way to explain it with our current laws. Laws > that are lower on this list (applies less than universally, such as > the Conservation of Baryons, which I don't even know exactly how it > works but supposedly it does not cover black holes because all the > particles get messed up in it or something) might require somewhat > less rigorous proof, but the difference is small. Therefore, he's > using the "reasonable doubt" thing in the wrong direction :-) Quantum number conservation (which conservation of baryons is a subset of) ceases to apply in the gravitational well of a black hole, where only a particle's momentum and energy are conserved. In normal conditions, quantum numbers must be conserved in a given interaction. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:33:25 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <9cJJ8.82162$Gs.7797338@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020530195418243-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > >> My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and > >> superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. > >> So, > > > > Um, why would we expect to see it? If that had been Earth, I would > > not have expected to see the oceans boiling away in the middle of the > > planet's destruction. Of course, there is so much funk being sprayed > > everywhere, we could see a cloud of vapor and not even know it. > > There is an utterly /huge/ amount of water on Earth. We saw superheated > chunks of rock flying out, so there must have been some thermal effect > in addition to the 1E38J of kinetic energy delivered. The vapor would > have been noticeable. But, as gassy as the explosion was, maybe it is there. > > >> the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the > >> electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert > >> the water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the > >> equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. > > > > "For some reason"? That entire idea would only compound the problem, > > putting the superlaser in a magical "Genesis Device" category. Also, > > what about the origin of the second ring? > > Right, I forgot about the second ring. That leaves the hypermatter > theory. Unfortunately, the destruction of the Mon Calamari ship in Return of the Jedi doesn't support that. > > >> There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter > >> interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar > >> rings, so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a > >> target. > > > > That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any > > of the physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings > > besides the ones we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships > > use hypermatter, there should probably be more ring events. For > > example, the ship destroyed by the superlaser in Return of the Jedi > > probably should have made a ring, if the hypermatter interaction idea > > is true. > > It could depend on the magnitude. All three ring incidents occured on > extremely large scales. True, the actual events where a hypermatter reactor went up (DS1 and 2) had it. Why should what has been described as a tremendous turbolaser do it? And why would it only do it at planet-destroying power? Hmm... I wonder, is it possible they doped the beam that killed Alderaan with hypermatter from the reactor? > > > So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > > > >> One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the > >> required firepower to destroy Alderaan. > > > > Well, no, that's just it... that idea isn't certain at all, now that > > the Special Edition is the only one we can look at. > > This isn't a courtroom. You need to do more than show "reasonable doubt" > to disprove the simple explanation that the Death Star obeyed > conservation of energy and delivered the requisite energy. The opening > crawl also states that the Death Star itself carried the required > firepower. All we are left with is a ring effect that is likely the Actually, I have shown much more than reasonable doubt, as far as I can see, that more than a simple laser, plasma, or particle beam was fired at Alderaan. There is no known mechanism in the physics of our world that can explain what occurred. There is no known mechanism in the physics of any fictional world we're talking about that can explain what occurred, except perhaps by doping the superlaser with a large amount of hypermatter. However, that contradicts official claims about the constitution of the superlaser, so you'll probably want to throw that out. Also, the opening crawl is meaningless. It may say it has the firepower to destroy a planet, but the same could be said of a sufficiently large phaser. However, the phaser itself would not be expending the same amount of energy to perform the same task. It would appear, based on the fact that something besides known physics is going on, that the Death Star may not have, either. > biproduct of large-scale hypermatter interactions. You cannot claim it > to be evidence of a "cheat" anymore than I can claim it to be evidence > of figures 400 orders of magnitude higher. Actually, I can, simply from common sense. Whenever you cheat physics (or use its complexities to your advantage), you're doing it to save yourself trouble. For example, why increase the weight of the car with the bearings? It makes them have less friction, so the extra weight is cancelled out. We know something beyond normal physics took place. It had to be: 1. The use of some technology or effect that would reduce the energy requirements (Efficiency Up) 2. The use of some technology or effect that was used because it was easier, but the energy requirements on the Death Star were the same (Efficiency Same, but they did it this way because of materials requirements, structural necessity, time constraints, or something similar) 3. The use of some technology or effect that was used because it was easier, even though it required a greater amount of energy input from the Death Star to achieve the same result. (Efficiency Down, but it was the only way to get the job done, perhaps due to technological maladies or something.) 4. An unanticipated occurrence. Now, I would hope that someone would have figured out in all those years that they had the Death Star plans that a ring would be formed, so I discount #4. The idea of doping the superlaser with hypermatter would fall under #1, or maybe #3. I'm tired, I'm going to sleep, I'll continue soon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 31 May 2002 18:49:44 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020531134942889-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > True, the actual events where a hypermatter reactor went up (DS1 and 2) > had it. Why should what has been described as a tremendous > turbolaser do it? And why would it only do it at planet-destroying > power? Superlasers are nothing new in the SW universe; they were in use before the Death Star was ever conceived). The Death Star's superlaser was just the largest superlaser ever constructed (Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire). It was so large that it required a hypermatter reactor to power it, so it's very possible that the ring effect is a result of its hypermatter nature, whereas smaller, non-hypermatter-powered superlasers ( like the one in DF: SftE, which glassed a lake, and possibly, the ones on the Republic LAAT's) do not demonstrate the ring effect, nor do turbolasers. > Hmm... I wonder, is it possible they doped the beam that killed > Alderaan with hypermatter from the reactor? It's a distinct possibility, and it would make more sense than throwing the most fundamental law of physics out the window. > Actually, I have shown much more than reasonable doubt, as far as I > can see, that more than a simple laser, plasma, or particle beam was > fired at Alderaan. There is no known mechanism in the physics of our > world that can explain what occurred. There is no known mechanism in > the physics of any fictional world we're talking about that can > explain what occurred, except perhaps by doping the superlaser with a > large amount of hypermatter. However, that contradicts official claims > about the constitution of the superlaser, so you'll probably want to > throw that out. "Constitution of the superlaser"? What do you mean? > Also, the opening crawl is meaningless. It may say it has the > firepower to destroy a planet, but the same could be said of a > sufficiently large phaser. However, the phaser itself would not be > expending the same amount of energy to perform the same task. It > would appear, based on the fact that something besides known physics > is going on, that the Death Star may not have, either. Actually, the opening crawl is treated as a third-person omniscient. It's hardly meaningless. Furthermore, the BTM CD makes it clear that the Death Star carried the firepower itself, as well. > Actually, I can, simply from common sense. Whenever you cheat > physics (or use its complexities to your advantage), you're doing it > to save yourself trouble. For example, why increase the weight of > the car with the bearings? It makes them have less friction, so the > extra weight is cancelled out. > > We know something beyond normal physics took place. It had to be: > > 1. The use of some technology or effect that would reduce the energy > requirements (Efficiency Up) And, what precisely would this be? Certainly not nuclear processes. The simplest explanation is that the ring is a biproduct of hypermatter reactions on a large scale. Turbolasers powered by hypermatter do not exhibit this effect, presumably because their scale is too small. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 05:32:01 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020531134942889-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > > > > True, the actual events where a hypermatter reactor went up (DS1 and 2) > > had it. Why should what has been described as a tremendous > > turbolaser do it? And why would it only do it at planet-destroying > > power? > > Superlasers are nothing new in the SW universe; they were in use before > the Death Star was ever conceived). The Death Star's superlaser was just > the largest superlaser ever constructed (Dark Forces: Soldier for the > Empire). It was so large that it required a hypermatter reactor to power > it, so it's very possible that the ring effect is a result of its > hypermatter nature, whereas smaller, non-hypermatter-powered superlasers ( > like the one in DF: SftE, which glassed a lake, and possibly, the ones > on the Republic LAAT's) do not demonstrate the ring effect, nor do > turbolasers. > > > Hmm... I wonder, is it possible they doped the beam that killed > > Alderaan with hypermatter from the reactor? > > It's a distinct possibility, and it would make more sense than throwing > the most fundamental law of physics out the window. What law of physics do you think is being thrown out? > > > Actually, I have shown much more than reasonable doubt, as far as I > > can see, that more than a simple laser, plasma, or particle beam was > > fired at Alderaan. There is no known mechanism in the physics of our > > world that can explain what occurred. There is no known mechanism in > > the physics of any fictional world we're talking about that can > > explain what occurred, except perhaps by doping the superlaser with a > > large amount of hypermatter. However, that contradicts official claims > > about the constitution of the superlaser, so you'll probably want to > > throw that out. > > "Constitution of the superlaser"? What do you mean? The constitution of the superlaser. In other words, what constitutes it... what it is made of. If it is just a big turbolaser, there should not be hypermatter in the beam. > > > Also, the opening crawl is meaningless. It may say it has the > > firepower to destroy a planet, but the same could be said of a > > sufficiently large phaser. However, the phaser itself would not be > > expending the same amount of energy to perform the same task. It > > would appear, based on the fact that something besides known physics > > is going on, that the Death Star may not have, either. > > Actually, the opening crawl is treated as a third-person omniscient. > It's hardly meaningless. Furthermore, the BTM CD makes it clear that the > Death Star carried the firepower itself, as well. I don't think you understand. The sentence itself is meaningless, because we're talking about the ability to do something. The sentences do not say "The Death Star is a device which directly imparts sufficient laser energy into a planet to cause it to explode violently." They simply say it has the firepower... not how it does it. > > > Actually, I can, simply from common sense. Whenever you cheat > > physics (or use its complexities to your advantage), you're doing it > > to save yourself trouble. For example, why increase the weight of > > the car with the bearings? It makes them have less friction, so the > > extra weight is cancelled out. > > > > We know something beyond normal physics took place. It had to be: > > > > 1. The use of some technology or effect that would reduce the energy > > requirements (Efficiency Up) > > And, what precisely would this be? Certainly not nuclear processes. The > simplest explanation is that the ring is a biproduct of hypermatter > reactions on a large scale. Turbolasers powered by hypermatter do not > exhibit this effect, presumably because their scale is too small. And ship-killing shots by an even larger superlaser don't, either. Any hypermatter related idea has to have hypermatter involved. The superlaser can't just magically change properties because it is powered by a hypermatter reactor, unless there is hypermatter in the beam. But, if the superlaser is just turbolaser technology on a grand scale, then hypermatter would have to be a part of every beam. But it can't, because we know that turbolasers are just invisible lasers with a tracer. But that can't be, because... Ow. My head hurts. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 1 Jun 2002 19:29:39 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020601142938999-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: >> It's a distinct possibility, and it would make more sense than >> throwing the most fundamental law of physics out the window. > > What law of physics do you think is being thrown out? Conservation of energy. You're throwing it out in favor of some magical force assisting the Death Star. >> > Actually, I have shown much more than reasonable doubt, as far as I >> > can see, that more than a simple laser, plasma, or particle beam >> > was fired at Alderaan. There is no known mechanism in the physics >> > of our world that can explain what occurred. There is no known >> > mechanism in the physics of any fictional world we're talking about >> > that can explain what occurred, except perhaps by doping the >> > superlaser with a large amount of hypermatter. However, that >> > contradicts official claims about the constitution of the >> > superlaser, so you'll probably want to throw that out. >> >> "Constitution of the superlaser"? What do you mean? > > The constitution of the superlaser. In other words, what constitutes > it... what it is made of. If it is just a big turbolaser, there > should not be hypermatter in the beam. How do you know? They had to adapt it to draw from a hypermatter energy source, so the beam may have been doped with hypermatter as a result. >> > Also, the opening crawl is meaningless. It may say it has the >> > firepower to destroy a planet, but the same could be said of a >> > sufficiently large phaser. However, the phaser itself would not be >> > expending the same amount of energy to perform the same task. It >> > would appear, based on the fact that something besides known >> > physics is going on, that the Death Star may not have, either. >> >> Actually, the opening crawl is treated as a third-person omniscient. >> It's hardly meaningless. Furthermore, the BTM CD makes it clear that >> the Death Star carried the firepower itself, as well. > > I don't think you understand. The sentence itself is meaningless, > because we're talking about the ability to do something. The > sentences do not say "The Death Star is a device which directly > imparts sufficient laser energy into a planet to cause it to explode > violently." They simply say it has the firepower... not how it does > it. Yes, it has the firepower. The firepower required to do what it did (if imparted over a period of 1 second) is 1E38W. Thus, the Death Star can generate 1E38W of firepower. >> > Actually, I can, simply from common sense. Whenever you cheat >> > physics (or use its complexities to your advantage), you're doing >> > it to save yourself trouble. For example, why increase the weight >> > of the car with the bearings? It makes them have less friction, >> > so the extra weight is cancelled out. >> > >> > We know something beyond normal physics took place. It had to be: >> > >> > 1. The use of some technology or effect that would reduce the >> > energy requirements (Efficiency Up) >> >> And, what precisely would this be? Certainly not nuclear processes. >> The simplest explanation is that the ring is a biproduct of >> hypermatter reactions on a large scale. Turbolasers powered by >> hypermatter do not exhibit this effect, presumably because their >> scale is too small. > > And ship-killing shots by an even larger superlaser don't, either. > > Any hypermatter related idea has to have hypermatter involved. The > superlaser can't just magically change properties because it is > powered by a hypermatter reactor, unless there is hypermatter in the > beam. But, if the superlaser is just turbolaser technology on a > grand scale, then hypermatter would have to be a part of every beam. > But it can't, because we know that turbolasers are just invisible > lasers with a tracer. But that can't be, because... > > Ow. My head hurts. :) You're just being difficult. The beam is probably doped with hypermatter, and on large scales (like a planet or exploding reactor), this produces a huge ring effect. So, conservation of energy is obeyed, we only need one magical force (hypermatter) and all is well. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shogoki Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 02:55:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 21:26:13 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Durandal" wrote in message >news:20020530133813455-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... >> The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: >> >> > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death >> > Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as >> > turbolasers. >> >> No, they're invisible massless particles with a tracer. > >Sorry, I'm just going by the Cross Sections thing that said invisible laser. >If he mentioned massless particles somewhere else, I might've missed it. > >> >> > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause >> > something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no >> > reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. >> > >> > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what >> > does this do for the energy of the superlaser? >> >> My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and >> superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. So, > >Um, why would we expect to see it? If that had been Earth, I would not >have expected to see the oceans boiling away in the middle of the planet's >destruction. Of course, there is so much funk being sprayed everywhere, we >could see a cloud of vapor and not even know it. > >> the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the >> electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert the >> water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the >> equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. > >"For some reason"? That entire idea would only compound the problem, >putting the superlaser in a magical "Genesis Device" category. Also, what >about the origin of the second ring? > >> There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter >> interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar rings, >> so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a target. > >That's the best idea I can think of, but it doesn't really solve any of the >physics issues involved. Also, since we see no other rings besides the ones >we've mentioned, and since so many Star Wars ships use hypermatter, there >should probably be more ring events. For example, the ship destroyed by the >superlaser in Return of the Jedi probably should have made a ring, if the >hypermatter interaction idea is true. > >So, again, we have more problems than we started with. > >> One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the required >> firepower to destroy Alderaan. > >Well, no, that's just it... that idea isn't certain at all, now that the >Special Edition is the only one we can look at. > The planet itself does not have enough energy to start such a violent explosion, the energy must have come from an external source (the super laser) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: silver_jedi@yahoo.com (silver_jedi) Date: 31 May 2002 09:43:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <1e80d105.0205310843.524ca7e@posting.google.com> -------- Durandal wrote in message news:<20020530133813455-0500@news.cis.dfn.de>... > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death > > Star superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as > > turbolasers. > > No, they're invisible massless particles with a tracer. > > > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause > > something to explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no > > reason I can think of offhand why this would be so. > > > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what > > does this do for the energy of the superlaser? > > My theory goes something like this: Alderaan was destroyed and > superheated, but we never see any of the water, nor do we see vapor. So, > the superlaser actually carried enough energy to dissociate the > electrons at random from the individual water molecules and convert the > water to plasma. For some reason, the plasma collected around the > equator of the planet and decided to expand in a nice, circular ring. > > There's also the possibility that it's a biproduct of hypermatter > interactions. Notice that both Death Stars exploded with similar rings, > so it may be the result of delivering hypermatter energy to a target. Is hypermatter a componant of turbolasers? If so, it could hep explain why there were two rings. Suppose the ring effect is some exotic biproduct of large hypermatter explosions. If the beam carries twice the amount of hypermatter required for the ring to happen, twice the "critical mass" so to speak, then the that is why there were two rings. the "pulses" wouild seem to suggest (to me at least) that the energy was not carried in a continuos fasion, so when the first half of the pulses arrives and and hypermatter is relesed (when the beam flack bursts) it is enough to create the first ring. The second ring is created when the rest of the hypermatter gets there. As to why we don't see a ring whenever a ship running on hyper matter explodes (of a turbolaser strikes for that matter) mabey they just don't have enough hypermatter to for the ring to appear. > > One thing is certain, however. The Death Star supplied all the required > firepower to destroy Alderaan. without a doubt -- Silver Jedi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 31 May 2002 18:25:22 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: <20020531132522094-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named silver_jedi told me: > Is hypermatter a componant of turbolasers? If so, it could hep explain > why there were two rings. Suppose the ring effect is some exotic > biproduct of large hypermatter explosions. If the beam carries twice > the amount of hypermatter required for the ring to happen, twice the > "critical mass" so to speak, then the that is why there were two > rings. the "pulses" wouild seem to suggest (to me at least) that the > energy was not carried in a continuos fasion, so when the first half > of the pulses arrives and and hypermatter is relesed (when the beam > flack bursts) it is enough to create the first ring. The second ring > is created when the rest of the hypermatter gets there. As to why we > don't see a ring whenever a ship running on hyper matter explodes (of > a turbolaser strikes for that matter) mabey they just don't have > enough hypermatter to for the ring to appear. As far as I know, turbolasers do not utilize hypermatter. They use tibanna gas. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 03:27:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:8ElJ8.67595$jm.6445019@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) > > But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read that > someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of the > power levels available to the Enterprise-D. > > One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't > actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and core > fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, or > whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the awesome > power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for example, by > "going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and Wars > uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the target > to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... hey, > go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: > > In the Special Edition of Star Wars IV, Alderaan is destroyed with a new > special effect. It has this weird ring thing going on. > > Turbolasers are invisible lasers with a visible tracer. The Death Star > superlaser is supposed to operate by the same principle as turbolasers. > > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause something to > explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think of > offhand why this would be so. > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what does > this do for the energy of the superlaser? > My theoory has long been, well since SE came out, that the effect is related to the magnetic field of the planetoids/objects in question. A large detonation (exploding reactor or SL bolt hitting the planetary core and bursting) might, in the immediate vicinity of the detonation, liberate enough electrons to form a pool of plasma which in turn would have enough free electrons to be noticeably affected by the magnetic field of a planet (or a huge plaenet-destroying station) enough so as to align it in a planar fashion. Is this highly plausible? I doubt it. Is it remotely possible? I believe so. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:34:28 +0800 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:8ElJ8.67595$jm.6445019@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) > > But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read that > someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of the > power levels available to the Enterprise-D. Close enough, except he did it poorly. > One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't > actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and core > fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, or > whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the awesome > power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for example, by > "going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and Wars > uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the target > to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... hey, > go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: All properly done analyzes and calculations that I know of are based on obeying fundamental physical laws. There is no way you can _cheat_ physics. It is just that some laws and theories are not precisely universal. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Baryons is not as universal as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, since supposedly the baryon law does not cover black holes, for instance. You don't have to obey the more "local" laws and theories, but that is because they don't apply to you on close inspection. Which is why Wong's NDF theory, for instance, can seemingly violate that Baryon law and still have a chance to be a viable theory, because it wouldn't violate the COE law. The fundamental laws are not so easily circumvented. The stuff that we used to explain the Masterpiece Society are the same. We ran them through Newtons Law, the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy, E=mc^2 and the work-energy theorem before we think that it didn't have to take too much energy after all to do so. > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause something to > explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think of > offhand why this would be so. > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what does > this do for the energy of the superlaser? Unfortunately, there was real delta-v there (change in magnitude of velocity) and real fulfillment of the 2E32J requirement for GPE.. Which means something has to be giving it. I really doubt it _can_ employ a "cheat" that reduces energy requirements without totally busting COE, the fundamental tenet. If any theory requires violating COE outright, its chances of remaining alive are about zero! And do you realize if you want to say that they somehow reduced the energy requirement, it is your job to work out the thermodynamic proof. Without working out energy states, you have no case! After clearly showing that it is thermodynamically possible, your case will still be weak, until you figure a MECHANISM (if only a possible one). The more possible it is, the more plausible your case. After that, you'll have to show how your brilliant mechanism somehow made the job easier. Just pointing to the ring doesn't cut it as a mechanism - that is a possible symbol of the mechanism of unknown meaning. For all you know, that ring was arrogant Tarkin's specially ordered idea to the tracer containment field, so that it made nice SFX even as the planet blew up to satisfy his BLOATED valuation of himself and his accomplishment! :-) You might notice that all three steps were present in dissecting the Masterpiece Society. First, a simple use of E=1/2mvv showed mighty quickly if there was only an angle and not a magnitude of velocity change, then thermodynamically at least, the net energy change would be zero, and thus thermodynamically, no energy would be required. Without that, we would have had NO CASE. Then we worked out possible mechanisms in which energy from going forward can be diverted to sidewards so the angle can change without the speed change. AMRE and space-time distortions were suggested to assist with the hard maneuver, and RL mechanisms like wheels and all were brought in to show RL cases. Notice here also that it works a lot better if the mechanisms are real life or already introduced elsewhere in the sci-fi show (for instance, AMRE is introduced earlier). From there, we used things like the Fd formulas and reference frames to show how we can actually reduce the energy requirement if they did as we say. And we had the added advantage of the enormous disparity between this incident and other more incidents where there has to be REAL energy change, and this rationalization may just bridge the gap, so we choked it down. Or do you seriously think anyone is going to spend days trying to say that they didn't do that work if the Enterprise ROUTINELY puts out 1E27W based on other incidents? It may be possible to do it that way, but no one would investigate it :-) You have just about none of the three so far. You have a flimsy mechanism somewhere in this thread now about compressing it to neutron stars, but I propose that you first work out the thermodynamics of the event. Find a way to convince everyone your method will take less than 2E32J, or at least 1E38J. I bet this would be a real challenge for you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 04:29:32 GMT Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad91ei$v4j63$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:8ElJ8.67595$jm.6445019@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > I'm probably about to make myself very unpopular. :) > > > > But, the thought came to me earlier. In another thread, I've read > that > > someone was trying to use tractor beam effects to make an estimate of > the > > power levels available to the Enterprise-D. > > Close enough, except he did it poorly. I don't know if he did it well or not. I was just skimming. > > > One of the main claims to the contrary was that the Enterprise wasn't > > actually putting out the energy necessary to move the asteroid and > core > > fragment, but cheating by creating the force (gravitons) indirectly, > or > > whatever. It's kind of like how ships in both universes avoid the > awesome > > power requirements of accelerating to 0.99999999999999999c, for > example, by > > "going around" the problem. Trek uses warp fields to cheat it, and > Wars > > uses hyperdrive to cheat it. Or, how phasers cheat by causing the > target > > to provide the energy. There's no problem with any of the cheating... > hey, > > go for it... but, here's the thought that comes from that: > > All properly done analyzes and calculations that I know of are based on > obeying fundamental physical laws. There is no way you can _cheat_ > physics. It is just that some laws and theories are not precisely > universal. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Baryons is not as > universal as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, since > supposedly the baryon law does not cover black holes, for instance. You > don't have to obey the more "local" laws and theories, but that is > because they don't apply to you on close inspection. Which is why Wong's > NDF theory, for instance, can seemingly violate that Baryon law and > still have a chance to be a viable theory, because it wouldn't violate > the COE law. The fundamental laws are not so easily circumvented. I think I defined my use of "cheat" well enough, though perhaps I should have said that by physics, I meant the modern variety. Star Trek and Star Wars physics would have no problem with the idea that you can use warp or hyperdrive to avoid the infinite energy requirement of getting to lightspeed, for example. They also wouldn't have a problem with you going beyond it. > The stuff that we used to explain the Masterpiece Society are the same. > We ran them through Newtons Law, the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy, > E=mc^2 and the work-energy theorem before we think that it didn't have > to take too much energy after all to do so. > > > > But, neither an invisible nor a visible laser beam should cause > something to > > explode with a weird ring like that, and there's no reason I can think > of > > offhand why this would be so. > > > > So, did the Death Star superlaser employ a cheat? And, if so, what > does > > this do for the energy of the superlaser? > > Unfortunately, there was real delta-v there (change in magnitude of > velocity) and real fulfillment of the 2E32J requirement for GPE.. Which > means something has to be giving it. I really doubt it _can_ employ a > "cheat" that reduces energy requirements without totally busting COE, > the fundamental tenet. If any theory requires violating COE outright, > its chances of remaining alive are about zero! Actually, you can. If you have a particle beam that does Work X (say, melting wax), that's one thing. Now, instead of normal particles, use anti-protons or positrons. The same number of particles at the same speed will annihilate the wax. You haven't cheated anything, really. Besides, the amount of work to make an antiproton beam might be more than it would take to simply make a better particle beam. But you get the idea. > And do you realize if you want to say that they somehow reduced the > energy requirement, it is your job to work out the thermodynamic proof. > Without working out energy states, you have no case! After clearly I'm not suggesting any specific numerical reduction. I can't, because we're dealing with made-up technology. If you're asking me to perform calculations that are based on the properties of hypermatter, you're obviously smoking something good. > showing that it is thermodynamically possible, your case will still be > weak, until you figure a MECHANISM (if only a possible one). The more > possible it is, the more plausible your case. After that, you'll have to > show how your brilliant mechanism somehow made the job easier. Just > pointing to the ring doesn't cut it as a mechanism - that is a possible > symbol of the mechanism of unknown meaning. For all you know, that ring > was arrogant Tarkin's specially ordered idea to the tracer containment > field, so that it made nice SFX even as the planet blew up to satisfy > his BLOATED valuation of himself and his accomplishment! :-) Actually, it would be up to you to prove the Tarkin-Ego idea. I have simply pointed out the "symptom" of something beyond current physical laws taking place, and have provided two possible mechanisms (the within-modern-physics pulsar idea, and the outside-modern-physics hypermatter-doped beam idea), that might explain what occurred. I never just pointed to the ring, except to point and say "what the hell is that!?!" On a lighter note, why would you need a superlaser tracer? A superlaser is one of those things you'd better get right the first time. Besides, we don't see anything happen to the planet before the green shit hits it, do we? > You have just about none of the three so far. You have a flimsy > mechanism somewhere in this thread now about compressing it to neutron > stars, but I propose that you first work out the thermodynamics of the > event. Find a way to convince everyone your method will take less than > 2E32J, or at least 1E38J. I actually doubt the pulsar thing would be a less energetic event. I'm just trying to figure out where the rings might come from, first. Common sense suggests it should relate to some mechanism that is less energetic than a simple laserbeam of that power, but I'm trying to brainstorm anything that might explain it first. > I bet this would be a real challenge for you. Thanks for the vote of confidence, asshole. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:51:42 +0800 Subject: Re: Tractor Beams and Death Stars Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:M4YJ8.88036$Oa1.8244490@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:ad91ei$v4j63$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > I don't know if he did it well or not. I was just skimming. It was done poorly in that he assumed there MUST be a magnitude of velocity change, when it was described as an angle change. He then made his lower limit based on THAT. Without the assumption of the magnitude of velocity change, at least thermodynamically, it could potentially be zero net energy requirement. If you insist on a speed change, it is E27W class. Pretty damn big difference. While I'm do not consider myself a qualified scaler at more than order of magnitude crap (if you can see both ships in the fight, they are not 10,000km apart), the scaling was supposedly done poorly. Apparently, in fact accurate and incontrovertible scaling with the picture involved was about impossible. See here, it may explain things in a way that reaches you: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/WhatsNew.html That's why it is considered a poor analysis. Partially correct here. The wrong part is that all the rationalizations we use follow the laws such as COE. If "cheat" is the best word you can think of, I suggest you try harder. "Loophole" is a bad word there too. It is just that as far as we know, our rationalization does not necessarily contravene any of the laws, and thus it is not impossible. Try "a physical application" or something like that. Or don't say it at all. Just say "Star Trek has ways to exceed speed of light using warp drives." But first, you'll have to arrange for the anti proton particles! Since antimatter is extremely rare naturally on macroscopic scales within the observation universe, the only way would be to artificially convert protons into anti-protons. The energy requirement for the conversion will be huge. By the time you really got to it, COE would probably decree that you couldn't save energy this way. Besides, if you want to propose that the mechanism "anti-proton beam" could potentially reduce the overall energy requirements, then YOU have to do the mathematics and formulae to show it. I wish I can do them for you, but 1) I'm not a physicist, and 2) the onus is really on you, so even if I knew, I'll be sleeping on it, waiting for you to try and screw up :-) I can, however, give you a starter. The energy state of Alderaan was increased to the tune of 1E38J. That requires the insertion of 1E38J of energy. That is the thermodynamic lower limit. The mechanics of the event may further push up the sum. Do you really think that the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and the Thermodynamic Laws will allow you to circumvent the requirement by turning vast amounts of matter into antimatter for a low energy cost, then injecting it into the planet? Somehow, I doubt it. I think that you understand my request poorly. What you are saying is a "mechanistic" analysis. I just said you had to start with a "thermodynamic" analysis. You don't need to understand shit about how the "made-up technology" works to do a basic thermodynamic analysis (but you do need to know the various thermodynamic theorems fairly well or you run the risk of making a stupid error or making an assumption you don't have to make, like Chris). We could not compute exactly how much our mechanisms could reduce the fragments energy requirement either. But we do know that thermodynamically, we compare before and after energy states. Those can potentially be very simple (hell, I can do them) and can be done almost immediately. Since the energy before and after were equal, thermodyanmic analysis would conclude potentially, there was zero net energy requirement (plus the inefficiency of course). In short, a theory must at least obey basic laws like Conservation of Mass and Energy, Newton's Laws, E=mc^2, the Laws of Thermodynamics...etc. If they don't, then your theory basically doesn't work. An anomaly. When I talked about the Tarkin-Ego idea, I meant that as a joke about Tarkin's huge ego. But within that joke there is truth. It is as good a guess as any because we don't really know what it is. All we can say is, "Hmm, so at high energy levels, SW energy weapons cause a neat blue ring effect!" Unless you can link it directly to something that would reduce the energy requirement, you really have no case. You are just speculating that the ring actually means something, when for all you know, it could just be nothing, nothing that would help you or your side anyway. If you prefer, you can believe in Brown's theory 6. It was designed for lightsabers, but it has been modified for TLs as well. See if you like it: http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/ls/sabres4.htm In fact, since the blade is pure energy, and there is a trail of light that can act as a tracer, and the damn thing even spins, I think it is reasonably consistent with Saxton's EP2:ICS ideas. It can even FlakBurst, bringing it in line with canon claims (they are in the novelizations) of TL flakbursting (which is clearly impossible with a simple laser, too). It could potentially work that way. At high spinning energy levels, it might just be that when released, they produce a neat planar ring that is not easily apparent at lower power levels. It is an inherent property of the system. Why don't you presume it is just something that naturally comes with the system as a whole. It is neither beneficial nor detrimental. It is just...there. Just like ice melts at room temperature. It is not very important unless you can make something out of it. You don't have to have an explanation of everything in sci-fi. We don't understand precisely how a hyperdrive works. You need an explanation because you want to show that they could use less power. If we want to use that ring to increase our DS calcs, we would also have to know more about that ring than we do now. Let's say we work out that it is a gas that is being flung out more rapidly than the explosion. Then if we can get a good estimate on how much gas is there, then we can work out the energy needed to fling that ring that fast. Or we figure out it is some kind of energy and think we have a way to measure that kind of energy just by visual frequency observation on the limited resolution screen. But we don't know what the ring really is, so it is just there. As for my bleak assessment of your chances, well, unless you think you are the most intelligent pro-Trek debater that ever was played the game. Because hundreds of Trekkies had tried to reduce the number, and they were all now smoking debris on Wong's table :-)