What follows below is the version of the page as it existed on January 6, 2003. I have created these back-ups for the sake of historical accuracy, since my site and its pages will continue to evolve long after StarDestroyer.Net's attempted "attack on [my] credibility" is forgotten.
Several objections have been made to the observations and conclusions of the "Anti-Genesis Effect" idea. I put the idea through a "trial by fire" by throwing it right at the Warsies to see if they could actually prove it wrong, or even make a huge revision necessary.
Just to recap, the objections are based on what has come to be known as the Classical Theory (or Classical Model) of the Death Star superlaser, as opposed to my theory.
Classical theory: Destruction occurred by brute-force direct energy transfer, either by laser or particle beam (plasma).
1. Two rings at high sublight.
2. Globe-encircling band which does not dissipate as it circles.
3. The larger secondary explosion.
Ad hoc theorizing has been used by many to posit possible solutions, in an effort to shore up the classical theory:
1. Hypermatter reactors on the surface caused the rings.
- False. The rings are a planetwide planar phenomenon that happens twice, when some, if not all, of the reactors would have been destroyed. Each reactor should have produce its own ring, anyway. There is no other instance of hypermatter reactors causing such a ring, with the possible exception of the Death Stars. However, these had their superlasers charged, and we do not know what effect that might have. Taken with the destruction of the hypermatter reactors on the surface, this only helps my hypothesis.
(Further, hypermatter reactors are non-canon.)
1. Collapse of a planetary shield
- False. No other instance of shield collapse has produced this effect, and the second Death Star was not protected by a shield when it exploded, producing a ring.
1. It is a natural occurence.
- False. There is no known mechanism, natural or otherwise, to produce such an effect.
1. The superlaser destroyed the planet based on the "flak burst", the effect observed when a turbolaser bolt poofs out of existence near targets.
- False. Though the non-canon literature compares the superlaser to a large compound turbolaser, there is no precedent for double flak bursts. The primary and secondary explosions would require this. Further, there is no precedent for a flak burst occurring without the visible bolt being the source, and the visible superlaser beam had terminated by the time the secondary explosion took place. Finally, no flak burst has ever produced rings.
2. There was no globe-encircling band.
- False. It is there and quite observable in frame-by-frame.
2. The band did not carry destructive energies.
- False. Away from the primary strike, the planet was undamaged until the band actually passed. Observe the left side of the planet. Furthermore, the band should, if merely a shockwave, have decreased in energy. Instead, it at least maintained its energy, implying by necessity an increase in its energy as it circled the globe.
3. The secondary explosion was caused by an invisible continuation of the Death Star superlaser.
- False. The superlaser did not produce damage until the visible portion struck, so there is no reason to assume an invisible portion continued afterward. Further, this invisible portion should have produced destruction of the debris that headed toward the camera, but it does not. The very existence of the debris headed toward the camera defeats this notion, because the superlaser should, if a direct energy transfer device, have continued burning through the planet, destroying any source of the large debris that would have appeared.
3. There was no secondary explosion.
- False. After the termination of the superlaser, only a portion of the planet has exploded. A second, larger explosion occurred afterward, featuring a second and far faster ring.
More general objections have also been stated.
1. Your theory relies on magic.
People are saying there's magical stuff in my explanation, but that is simply not true. My hypothesis does end up deriving the properties of an unknown mechanism, based on the observed canon evidence. However, that is not magic any more than the 'belief' in 'dark energy' to explain the observed expansion of the universe is a magic theory. The effects are there and observable, only the precise cause is unknown.
Such reasoning is common in these debates, as well. For example, in Mike Wong's page talking about myths about Star Wars, he uses the same sort of reasoning to conclude that the hypermatter idea of DS power generation is superior to the fusion idea, simply because "the characteristics of hypermatter reactors are not known and may be compatible with the known capabilities of the Death Star," using the direct energy transfer idea of the superlaser as the basis of the known capabilities of the Death Star. In other words, he judged the two possibilities based on the known effects.
Though my hypothesis does not detail the precise characteristics of the "Anti-Genesis Effect", it does allow greater compatibility with and potential explanation of the rings, band, and secondary explosion effects that we see in the canon. The classical model of brute-force direct energy transfer does not.
2. Your theory is stupid because it uses Star Trek ideas.
Not true. If you'll note, I did flirt with the idea of protomatter as a possible solution, but only as an aside. Hence the parentheses which enclosed it.
3. Your argument is like a creationist's, because you're simply trying to stir up reasonable doubt and use it as de facto proof of your theory.
Not correct. My hypothesis is independent of the classical model, and takes advantage of the canon facts that the classical model ignores. The classical model was based on the original version of Star Wars, not the Special Edition. Lucas has declared the Special Edition to be the true version. We are therefore in the position of scientists who have uncovered new evidence about a known event.
We can either ignore this evidence and maintain our belief in the classical model, or we can acknowledge the evidence and proceed forward.
4. You're just trying to weaken the Death Star.
Not so. I fully believe the Death Star is a supreme vessel in either universe. I am merely acknowledging the canon representation of how it does the job.
5. The opening crawl for Star Wars says that the Death Star has the firepower to destroy an entire planet. That means it produces and delivers the entire amount of energy through brute force.
Incorrect. The crawl says "enough power to destroy an entire planet." Assuming that refers to firepower is an assumption about the meaning of the words. In fact, my hypothesis also means that the Death Star has the power to destroy an entire planet, so there is no conflict with canon.
6. All chain reactions are material-dependent, but your theory involves converting any kind of mass into energy. That means there couldn't have been a chain reaction.
All the chain reactions we know and love are based on common baryons . . . the protons and neutrons we're familiar with . . . and particular combinations of these into elements and molecules.
Well, that's fine, but to make material-dependency a rigid part of chain reaction definition is placing a blanket statement on all possible chain reactions, including those using particles and particle physics we're only now starting to learn. For example:
The only "odd" chain reaction I'm familiar with was the one that caused the big stir when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was due to come online at Brookhaven. It is called the "Ice-9 Type Transition". Some physicists were nervous that the RHIC would end up doing more than creating quark-gluon plasma. They were concerned that it would end up creating a negatively-charged strangelet (a particle with three quarks like usual, but two of them strange), which would 'eat' all the nuclei of Earth, turning them into other strangelets. The problem would be that all these similar-charged strangelets would have repelled one another
Naturally, this hasn't happened. As luck would have it, the worst that might have happened would be a positively-charged strangelet being created that lasts long enough to snatch electrons from some innocent nearby atom. But, in any case, there is precedent for the idea of a funky, non-material-dependent chain reaction in real physics.
7. (Actually an argument in favor of the Alderaan Shield Falsehood) When a screenshot from the SE is examined, one can plainly see a 'glow' enveloping the world, much like a shield glows when overloaded.
Look at the third image of the Alderaan destruction scene as it played out in the SE. I assume this is the "glow" referred to. However, it neither envelops the world, nor does it show anything more than a significant brightness increase in the area of the superlaser strike . . . a brightness increase which does cross the terminator from day into night, created by Alderaan's sun. But, just look at where the superlaser hits. This glow even over a part of the nightside is to be expected.
And, actually, the fact that the clouds are unchanged happens to coincide with my theory. A true DET beam should have burned away those clouds instantly, as one would see with a nuclear explosion. However, as you can see, those clouds are unaffected.
The classical theory makes an assumption of direct energy transfer, and then bases everything else off of this. They chalk up the odd effects as "mysteries", and leave them be as unknowns. The defenders of the classical model then attack the Anti-Genesis Effect hypothesis on the grounds that there are too many unknowns involved. Well, if we were dealing with one anomaly, that might be fine. But, we have three (or five, depending on how you want to count it) ring anomalies (Alderaan, DS1, DS2), a peculiar field anomaly (one Rebel ship, ROTJ), a band anomaly (Alderaan), a secondary explosion anomaly (Alderaan), a DS2 explosion center anomaly, and the 'anomalous normality' of other things, such as the destruction of the other Rebel ship.
All these fit nicely in my theory. All of them are unexplained and unexplainable according to the classical theory.
So, take your pick. The classical theory which utterly fails
to explain the evidence, but which uses an assumed mechanism that is easy
to grasp, or a theory which explains all the evidence, but uses a
mechanism we don't fully understand.