Round 5, Part 1b (Death Star Firepower)
> Once again, I am going to snip out your off-topic material, as per my
> statements in the EU post. Your off-topic claims do not have merit or
Pot calling the kettle black. Instead, you produced yet another huge
long-winded post which was more than twice the size of mine and which
mostly delved into irrelevancies or points already refuted.
> I will, however, respond to one point . . . you seem to take issue
> with the fact that I rearranged your disorganized post into a logical
> order and concept grouping, and you claim that I ignored your main
> points. I responded to every point you made (and indeed was helping
> you to make them by putting them in a sensical order) . . . if there
> was some point you wanted to make which was scattered amongst the
> disorganization and never directly stated, the fault is your own.
I believe the audience can look at my posts and see for themselves that
arguments are MUCH easier to follow BEFORE being dismantled into
sentence and paragraph fragments. Your post is filled with this type of
tedious and defensive justification of your own actions.
> Also, I note with displeasure that you *continue* to use your
> prejudicial term "MCR" to refer to the Superlaser Effect, while I
> still have not used what you considered to be the similarly
> prejudicial "DET theorist".
Sorry, but MCR is more accurate than "Superlaser Effect", since you have
never defined it in a remotely meaningful way, hence it IS a "mysterious
chain reaction". Stop whining just because nobody will ever take an
undefined theory seriously. We now continue to my 9 points, each of
which you naturally answered with more than twice as much text as I used
to make them:
Point 1: Parsimony
> This is an example of what I just referred to. I could quote the next
> 37 lines and only afterward point out the fact that there is a
> difference between Occam's Razor and the more rigid Principle of
> Parsimony, but why should I wait to point out flaws?
In other words, you cannot defend your argument on the basis of
parsimony OR Occam's Razor, so you use the rhetorical trick of providing
a link to a presumably authoritative source and IMPLYING that this link
somehow supports your argument even though it doesn't. This is the kind
of empty rhetorical tactic which typifies most of your arguments, and it
will not fool anyone but a child.
>> And this is where we come to the single biggest problem with your
>> so-called "theory": it replaces the planetary shield with your MCR,
>> so the number of terms is the same,
> No Mike, the number of terms is not the same, because the Superlaser
> Effect does not replace the planetary shield.
Wrong. Your MCR is an extra mechanism which you introduce into the
equation. I cannot believe your audacity in claiming that you can
introduce an extra physical mechanism and not admit that you have added
a term by doing so. I can only conclude from the above argument that you
are either incompetent or lying.
> You must (1) have a beam type which operates on the target surface via
> DET, and (2) a shield which covers the planet and can hold the beam's
> energy at bay.
> My theory involves (1) a beam type which can induce the Superlaser
> Effect on relatively dense concentrations of matter.
Wrong yet again. The conventional theory involves a beam which exists,
and therefore carries mass/energy. It also accepts the laws of
thermodynamics, which tell us that mass/energy will be exchanged between
the planet and the beam. And finally, it includes a shield which covers
at least the facing hemisphere and which can briefly block the energy.
All three of these terms are known quantities; the superlaser beam
exists, the laws of thermodynamics are valid, and planetary theatre and
global shields are known to exist.
Your theory replaces the shield with a mysterious chain reaction which
you have never properly defined, not even with a simple reaction rate.
> * And then, once we're done there, you still have to contrive
> mechanisms to explain the other events . . . the DS2 explosion offset,
> the ship-killer shots, and so on, as previously explained and ignored.
> Meanwhile, I've still got one theory, going strong. *
Lies. The DS2 explosion offset is caused by the fact that a very rapidly
heated object will tend to expand from its centre of mass (in fact,
expansion from centre of mass directly OPPOSES your chain reaction
because it indicates very RAPID heating of the entire mass from the
inside out, perhaps with highly penetrative radiation or high-velocity
particles, as opposed to a steady progression from one side to the
other, which would be naturally offset toward the point where the
reaction begins). I mentioned this in a previous post despite your
claims that I have not. As for the ship-killer shots, they prove nothing
aside from your desperation. I explained the laughable fallacy of your
assumption that they disprove Alderaan's shield back in round 2, part
1b, and a starship is hardly comparable to a planet in mass,
composition, or structure.
>> and even planet-encircling systems such as the one at Endor).
>. . . which is not a planetary shield, unless you wish to claim that
> there is no difference between a 12,000km ball of rock and a ~900km
> technological monstrosity.
Your lies and desperate attempts to disprove the existence of planetary
shields only make YOU look bad, not me. Han could not land on the Endor
sanctuary moon unless they deactivated the shield, remember? Many Bothan
spies DIED to get them a shield deactivation code so they could land!
Why would any of this be necessary if the moon was not protected by a
planetary shield? I pointed this out in my previous post, and you
ignored it. Also see the ROTJ novelization:
Ackbar looked at the view-screen; the electronically generated web was
gone. The moon, and the Death Star, now floated in black, empty,
Did you see that? The moon AND the Death Star.
Frankly, I grow tired of answering your incredibly long-winded
arguments. I challenged you to respond PROPERLY, and CONCISELY to my
arguments. 9 points, 2-3 paragraphs apiece. You responded to point #1
with no less than TWENTY SEVEN paragraphs, all of which contain your
usual sophistry, evasions, suppression of key points, exasperating focus
on side-issues, piecemeal rather than contiguous rebuttals, circular
logic in which you state your conclusions as fact, etc. You are being
deliberately unreasonable, you are making no effort whatsoever to be
even remotely concise despite your own pre-debate stipulations, and
quite frankly, the most common audience feedback that I've gotten on
this debate so far is that you are so long-winded and boring that it
makes the whole debate completely uninteresting, and nobody wants to
read your bullshit any more.
>> So here are my challenges on point 1:
>> 1. Define the reactants employed by this reaction,
> As has been done repeatedly. But, once more, it is the matter of the
You think "matter of the planet" is an acceptable chemical definition of
reactants? (laughs hysterically)
>> as well as the reaction products.
> Given that it is described as mass-energy conversion, one logical
> candidate would be energy, wouldn't you say?
You honestly have NO CLUE what a reaction equation looks like, do you?
Did you fail high-school chemistry? You actually think you can define a
chain reaction by saying that there's "matter of the planet" on one side
and "energy" on the other side? As I said before, your chain reaction
can be described in one word: VAGUE.
>> 2. Estimate the reaction rate in the case of Alderaan.
> Again, you're asking me to speculate in the absence of evidence . . .
> we cannot see the interior of the planet, and we are not informed of
> any details regarding what is going on beneath the surface. Why the
> insistence on this tactic? Speculation is not required, and even if
> the speculation were made and you managed to disprove it (which would
> be interesting, given the absence of evidence), there would be no harm
> done to the theory itself.
Hardly. I asked the question because I knew you would cite ambiguities
and refuse to answer it, since what we DO know of the explosion
indicates a wildly inconsistent reaction rate under your "theory". As
per YOUR theory, it takes more than 1 second for your imaginary "bands
of brightness" (which you define as the chief indicator of the reaction)
to reach the opposite side of the planet. This indicates that the
reaction moves around the surface of the planet at less than 20,000
km/s. However, I refer you once more to exhibit A:
Roughly 0.08 seconds after impact, one entire hemisphere is already
glowing white-hot. You claim that this is mere light-diffusion from a
23.5 gigaton blast at the point of impact, thus betraying your
scientific ignorance; the atmosphere cannot refract light by more than
90 degrees around the curvature of the planet, and the P-K extinction
"dino-killer" asteroid was not theorized to create this effect 65
million years ago even though it was ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND gigatons, not
This shot shows that IF there is no shield (as per YOUR theory), then
the "reaction" must have initially shot around the planet at a rate of
nearly half the speed of light! Indeed, it's more like 0.8c between
frame2 and frame3, and it's already slowed down by frame3. Sorry, but
all available observationsare grossly inconsistent with your so-called
"theory". This screenshot shows that if we go by your theory (in which
the beam carries an insignificant 23.5 gigatons and the rest is caused
by a chain reaction which is completely indiscriminate of chemical
composition), then the reaction rate was so high that entire process
should have been complete by frame 5. Instead, we see the reaction
In the end, this brings us right back to the point I made in my very
first post: you have no plausible explanation whatsoever for the fact
that the "reaction" shoots around an entire hemisphere at half the speed
of light and then PAUSES. This is EASY to explain with a shield (the
shield is holding and re-radiating over that area), but under YOUR
theory, you are forced to resort to laughably ignorant stories about
light naturally refracting more than 90 degrees around the curvature of
There are similar reaction-rate inconsistencies in your story about your
imaginary "bands" moving slowly around the planet and then abruptly and
violently causing the rest of the planet to explode in one frame later
on, but I trust that the audience has gotten the point by now.
Point 2: Unsolved Mystery Fallacy 1: Fire Rings
I challenged you to answer concise 2-3 paragraph points with 2-3
paragraph answers, you chose to answer this one with 22 paragraphs. I
don't have time for this. You can try to spin-doctor my tendency to
answer only your summaries into some sort of victory for yourself
(indeed, you have already done so), but exhaustion tactics are no way to
win a debate, and you will fool no one but yourself.
>> Here is my challenge on point 2: explain how your MCR produces the
>> fire rings. Do not dismiss the challenge by pretending that you have
>> already done so (hint: you can't just say "it creates planar
>> shockwaves" and call that an explanation).
> Once again, you demand an unrequired and illogical specificity of me
> (and which you obviously do not require of yourself or your own
In other words, you cannot explain how your MCR produces the fire rings,
just as I cannot explain how a conventional process might produce the
fire rings. Concession accepted; the unsolved mystery of the fire rings
does not favour your "theory".
> The planar effects are produced by the Superlaser Effect, and the
> nuts-and-bolts of this are not known. There is something of a scale
> factor involved . . . larger converted objects/ more energetic effects
> create planar effects of a higher order. However, we are not told what
> the rings are composed of, and it is futile to speculate about the
> nuts-and-bolts of their origins in the absence of data, and improper
> to demand it.
Circular logic: stating your conclusion as a fact.
> Unlike some people, I go precisely as far as the evidence allows, and
> no further . . . I don't make wild guesses and hope they stick.
Your MCR is a wild guess. It is not supported by the evidence in any
way, since your only proofs thereof are attacks on the conventional
theory rather than demonstrating how the MCR can do better (see the
fallacies of syllogism which I mentioned in my very first post). And the
only thing it "sticks" to is your sticky fingers, after
techno-masturbating all over your Star Trek video collection.
> (And, again, how do you hope to disprove anything I might say?
> Subspace shockwaves? Sure, why not. Trillions of flaming gnomes? Hey,
> that's great, too. Death Star flatulence? Fantastic. Trillions of
> flaming flatulating subspace shockwave gnomes? Superb.)
Thank you for being the first to appeal to mockery in round 4, despite
your own pre-debate stipulation to not do so. This pre-emptively
nullifies any "concession accepted" sophistry you use if I return the
favour in round 5.
Point 3: Imaginary "Bands of Brightness"
Robert, you defended your claims of the "bands" and your silly idea
about a huge secondary explosion being triggered when they "meet" at the
far side by simply restating them (along with the usual sophistry and
grandstanding, of course). And of course, despite responding to 1 short
paragraph with EIGHT of your own, you still managed to snip out the main
point of the paragraph, so I will repeat it: "Try lighting a book of
matches at one end. Watch what happens: an exothermal chain reaction
shoots along the row of matches (which don't glow until it REACHES them)
until it reaches the end, whereupon it closes in upon itself and ...
What; no answer? Of course not, because you HAVE no answer! There is no
way for a chain reaction to start at ½c, slow down to a tiny fraction of
that, and then suddenly release a violent burst of energy at the end,
AFTER running out of reactant. Anyone who's ever lit up a book of
matches can understand this.
Point 4: Unsolved Mystery Fallacy 2: Secondary Blast
>> You claim that the "secondary blast" is explained by your MCR.
>> Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, as I have shown above.
> When? With the strawman argument? Straw men show absolutely nothing,
> Mike, except what might be very kindly referred to as 'creativity'.
Ah, so you finally admit that you cannot explain the secondary blast
with your MCR? Then your MCR has no advantage over the conventional
theory (since you have already admitted that you cannot explain the fire
rings either). Therefore, my longstanding criticism of your fallacies of
syllogism stands: you are using faulty logic to elevate one theory over
another even though it does not solve the proposed weaknesses of the
other, and introduces many new weaknesses of its own, not least of which
is the fact that it requires an extra, unknown mechanism. Sorry, but you
>> For all we know, the superlaser is so intense that it creates
>> gravitational distortions, and part of the core becomes a short-lived
>> singularity (which spontaneously detonates in a massive burst of
>> gamma rays).
> I already created and destroyed this basic concept back in May on ASVS
> in a lovely brainstorming thread (actually, I was pondering trying to
> make the core a spinning pulsar to explain the rings, but concluded
> that it wouldn't work at all). As my brainstorming partner put it:
> "Hmm, you're right, that is insane. Keen, but insane."
Evading the point, which is NOT to propose a specific explanation but to
simply point out that there are virtually infinite possibilities, so
there is no need to assume that your MCR must be the only solution
(particularly since you admit that it does not solve the mystery at all).
> First, the planetary core isn't going to be even remotely massive
> enough to create a genuine singularity. Second, gravitational
> distortions of that calibre would create an implosion effect on the
> planetary debris, if even due to the simple fact that the core would
> suddenly have to shrink to a diameter measured in meters. Third, you'd
> be looking at some profound angular momentum increases which are
> magically able to avoid translating to the rest of the planet, or the
> material therefrom. Fourth, this is your inertial confinement thing
> gone haywire, failing due to the same basic problem . . . you're
> shooting the core with a comparatively small beam; why would the
> entire core compress in such an orderly fashion, leaving everything
> else untouched? Finally, why the secondary blast delay, mixed with the
> explosion offset?
Ah, I love making fun of scientifically ignorant people. First, it IS
possible for low-mass singularities to exist; a planet's core is not
massive enough to form one NATURALLY, but that is irrelevant and you
know it. Second, a low-mass singularity would not cause an implosion
effect; outside its event horizon, the gravity of a singularity is
unremarkable, and it would produce no more gravity than the
corresponding mass did before. Third, since the beam itself does not
introduce any angular momentum, the angular momentum of the system
CANNOT "increase". Conservation of momentum is a fundamental physical
law! Fourth, the physics of ICF are well-known and observed; rapid
expansion of outer layers from a laser creates enormous pressure in the
core, which is how laser-based fusion works; your failure to comprehend
this mechanism only reflects badly on you (although it would take some
kind of unconventional mechanism in the superlaser to produce a
singularity, hence the need to point out that this is a competitor for
your low-energy MCR rather than a component of the basic conventional
theory). And finally, the secondary blast delay would be the rapid
evapouration of the singularity into gamma rays after it runs out of
matter to accumulate, caused by the fact that most of the planet's mass
is too fast and too far to pull back in, and Hawking radiation over a
small event horizon will rapidly deplete the singularity's mass/energy.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, but I'm trying to
point out that if one tries to concoct explanations, one must do better
than simply saying "chain reaction which uses ... ummm ... matter ...
and produces a secondary blast and planar shockwave". If one tries to
theorize about a mechanism, one must do better than saying "ummm ...
glowing bands ... meet each other ... touch off huge explosion for some
>> So here is my challenge on point 4: explain why your imaginary "bands
>> of brightness" would create a massive explosion AFTER running out of
> Your challenge is illogical, since it is based on a straw man. My
> challenge to you would be to explain it via DET theory. You've
> abandoned the rings as unknown unknowables, and simply ignore the
> band, but surely you realize you can't ignore every basic fact of the
> event and still declare your theory about it sound.
Concession accepted. You admit that you have no more explanation for the
secondary burst than I do. Therefore, there is no need to elevate your
MCR over one that is properly defined and does not introduce any
mysterious undefined mechanisms.
Point 5: Fear of Evidence
> "!"? Why the exclamation? You're *supposed* to dismiss the original
> versions . . . that's what the Special Editions are for! The Special
> Editions are the way Lucas wanted it to be, and so he corrected the
> originals accordingly.
> You insist on the Star Wars Encyclopedia quote elsewhere . . . why
> ignore its dictate that only the Special Editions are canon?
The SWE states that everything but the Special Editions either "comes in
second" or is quasi-canon, Robert. Moreover, the fact is that Lucas IS
engaging in historical revisionism; Greedo did NOT shoot first. You are
the ONLY person out there who insists that Greedo really did shoot first.
<snip more repetitions of your claim that the EU and the original
versions of the films should be thrown in the garbage so as not to
interfere with your fantasies>
Point 6: Inconsistency (ie- hypocrisy)
> Speaking of extrapolation and 'inconsistency (ie- hypocrisy)': <snip
> quote from my website about the unreliability of technological
How does that quote mean that we cannot say that a large number of
theatre shields would constitute a planetary shield? One need not
techno-extrapolate unknown capabilities in order to recognize that if
one shield generator covers X square kilometres, then two of them would
cover 2X square kilometres, and so on, so that a large number of theatre
shields would cover a planet if necessary. You are either being
deliberately obtuse or your intelligence is even lower than I had feared
(and yes, I know you will crow "concession accepted" at the insult;
frankly, I don't give a damn, because you made this debate so thoroughly
dull and uninteresting that nobody is even reading it any more).
> ... What I find absurd is that you seem to be under the impression
> that the entire DET theory must be tested all at once, and its
> multiple individual parts are not subject to testing. Even more: when
> they fail the test, they still cannot be removed from the theory, or
> else it is a straw man ...
Yadda yadda yadda. In other words, your idea of a "test" is your
assumption that it cannot possibly exist in the first place, which means
that you REFUSE to test the theory against the Alderaan observations
themselves. You have failed yet another challenge.
Point 7: Alderaan Planetary Shield
>> You refuse to evaluate the conventional explanation with a shield in
> Naturally, since there is no evidence for a shield in place, evidence
> against, and so on.
See above. Your evidence "against" a shield is based on horrible logical
fallacies of syllogism, and your claim of no evidence is a joke, based
on your refusal to test it against the Alderaan observations.
>> Rather than see the visible manifestations of a shield as evidence of
>> that shield, you insist that there is NO shield and then challenge us
>> to explain the shield-like manifestations WITHOUT it!
> Your "visible manifestations" change with the wind. At one point, it's
> shield . . . in the next frame, it's vaporized surface material. And
> then you expect me to *disprove* a shield that is only sporadically
> argued for in the first place, while demanding that I not shift the
> burden of proof to you.
(points and laughs at troll) sorry, but you're only making a fool out of
yourself. Yes, at one point it's a shield and then it's vapourized
surface material; that would represent the moment of shield failure!
This is beyond your feeble comprehension?
> Our level playing field is reality, and the bedrock is canon fact.
> There is nothing in support of the shield claim, and the shield claim
> is self-contradictory. It simply doesn't get to play.
In other words, you admit that you refuse to test the conventional
theory on a level playing field, complete with the shield. You lose. Again.
Point 8: A Candidate for your MCR
>> It is based on simple thermodynamics, and it is known as mass/heat
> Your attempt at humor (at least, that's what I hope it is, for your
> sake) is entertaining, but not seriously capable of matching the
> Superlaser Effect. As demonstrated, DET does not serve to explain
> anything, and its demands are contradictory to observed fact.
I see. You dismiss it as a joke, in order to hide the fact that you
cannot refute it. Face it; you cannot prove that a modified DET theory
would not fit your criteria (without needing your silly theories about
magical super-reactions in the "matter of the planet"), so you simply
run and hide. Typical.
Point 9: Energy Level
> Let's look at www.m-w.com (the Merriam-Webster website) and see what
> else they have to say:
> "1 a often capitalized : the luminous celestial body around which the
> earth and other planets revolve, from which they receive heat and
> light, and which has a mean distance from earth of 93,000,000 miles
> (150,000,000 kilometers), a linear diameter of 864,000 miles
> (1,390,000 kilometers), a mass 332,000 times greater than earth, and
> a mean density about one fourth that of earth b : a celestial body
> like the sun
> 2 : the heat or light radiated from the sun
> 3 : one resembling the sun (as in warmth or brilliance)
> 4 : the rising or setting of the sun <from sun to sun>"
> You decided to partially quote #3, and insert your own meaning into it
> by stripping out "one" (i.e. a person) and inserting the idea of a
> celestial body instead. However, the only Merriam-Webster implication
> regarding a celestial body comes in definition 1b: "a celestial body
> like the sun".
> I'm not impressed, Mike.
Is that kind of transparent sophistry the best you can do? I showed that
the definition of "sun" merely refers to celestial objects which are
very luminous, and does not necessarily require nuclear fusion. You
attacked my incomplete quoting of Merriam-Webster but failed to refute
the point: NOWHERE IN THE FULL DEFINITION IS NUCLEAR FUSION EVEN
MENTIONED. You are attacking me, not the argument.
>> Nothing there about nuclear fusion being part of the definition of
>> "sun", I'm afraid ... it appears to apply to any luminous celestial
> Provided, of course, that it is like our sun. Or, in our case, a small
> artificial version of it.
Your desperation is pathetic, and it would be amusing if not for your
dogged determination and the fact that you obviously take this SOOO
seriously, which has inclined more than one observer to muse that you
should seek psychiatric help. There are lots of ways to be "like" our
Sun besides using nuclear fusion; the dictionary SPECIFICALLY mentions
"warmth and brilliance"; it does NOT mention nuclear fusion.
>> Moreover, this entire line of reasoning is inherently
>> self-contradictory. I have already pointed out that your theory calls
>> for the Death Star to be able to convert any arbitrary piece of
>> matter into energy with its superlaser, but NOT its power reactor.
> This again? I already answered this silly claim last time . . . it's
> sitting there on your un-formatted reprint, halfway down the page. Did
> you even read my last post?
Of course not! Did I ever CLAIM to? Do I look like the kind of person
who would ENJOY reading thousands of words of your tedious and defensive
monologues? I don't think ANYBODY read your entire >20,000 word post,
except possibly for yourself and perhaps a few psychiatrists who might
be interested in having you as a patient. Instead, I skipped to your
summary, because summaries are SUPPOSED to cover all the major points,
and because I do not have the time OR obligation to carefully pore over
a >20,000 word diatribe in a debate where brevity was one of the ground
rules. While you were huddled over your computer, typing for hours upon
hours, did you really think anybody would want to read 20,000 words of
that tripe? The fact that you couldn't tell until this point whether I'd
even read your entire post is simply more proof that your posts are
almost entirely filled with dragging, tiresome self-justifications and
repetitions. If you wanted anyone to read every word, you should have
posted less than 20,000 words. Some of us have LIVES, you know.
> And I quote:
> "I was wondering when you were going to attempt that silly argument.
> What you have failed to consider is one of the basic facts of science
> and history . . . employing a potentially vast energy source as a
> weapon is a helluva lot easier than making it into a generator. Making
> fusion bombs was easy . . . controlled fusion for a reactor is not.
> Add to that the fact that to make this superweapon, they evidently had
> to build ridiculously huge starships with massive internal systems
> dedicated to the weapon. Assuming they could even control the reaction
> when it is in progress and/or make it controllably self-sustaining
> (two awfully huge assumptions), the smallest known example of the
> technology is still enormous, and requires similarly huge fusion
> reactors just to get it going.
Ah, I see now what your objection was. You should have left it buried,
because you are completely wrong on all counts. Nuclear fusion has been
used as a natural power source for billions of years, with no technology
or human intervention required (see that big glowing thing in the sky
which we call "the Sun"; believe it or not, it actually runs on nuclear
fusion). Nuclear fission was also found in a natural fission reactor,
this time much closer to home, at Oslo. Chemical combustion was used for
warmth long before it was used for weaponry. In reality, the "basic
facts of science and history" are that any given mechanism will be used
in a controlled manner BEFORE it is used as a weapon (it might even
happen NATURALLY). Moreover, the "basic facts of science and history"
will reveal that any given mechanism will be researched under controlled
conditions LONG before it is implemented on a large scale; that is how
scientists and engineers work (not that I would expect YOU to know
anything about that, despite your pretensions of study).
Ah, but what about MAN-MADE nuclear reacitons? Glad you asked.
Controlled nuclear fission was produced in an atomic "pile" on December
2, 1942 in Stagg Field, Chicago, nearly 3 years before the July 6, 1945
detonation of "Trinity", the first fission bomb. As for FUSION, it was
in 1919 that Ernest Rutherford produced the first artificial nuclear
fusion reaction, by bombarding nitrogen atoms with alpha radiation to
produce oxygen, and it was in 1934 that he produced deuterium fusion
under controlled conditions. Sorry, but controlled nuclear fusion
predates "Ivy Mike" (the first fusion bomb, detonated in November 1952),
by 33 years, and even controlled DEUTERIUM fusion predates "Ivy Mike" by
18 years (more gratuitous trivia; the first successful fusion reaction
in a toroid-style reactor was produced at Harwell ZETA facility in
August 1957, just 5 years after "Ivy Mike"). The only difficulty with
nuclear fusion has historically been commercial viability, ie- making
net-positive energy. In the case of your mysterious chain reaction
(which requires no special confinement and no special materials), this
would be far, far easier than it is with nuclear fusion anyway.
And finally, your argument rests upon the absurd assumption that
superlaser technology is so new and exotic that the leading scientists
of the Republic and the Empire were unable to devise a weapon from it.
Did it ever occur to you that if a bunch of Geonosians in the Outer Rim
can design massive-scale implementations on their own, decades before
ANH, then it is obviously NOT some kind of exotic new undeveloped
science? Did it occur to you that compound turbolaser technology was
already widely deployed in AOTC, on the gunships and the self-propelled
artillery pieces? Did it occur to you that the very FIRST prototype of
an untested piece of technology is invariably a small-scale device,
rather than an enormous weapon? Or did you think that they would go
straight from theory to giant-scale implementation? You've been watching
far too much "Star Trek", Robert. You don't seem to have the SLIGHTEST
inkling of how engineers work. What makes you think superlaser
technology is so new and poorly understood that they couldn't possibly
use it for power generation if it has these fantastic properties of
requiring no special confinement or materials? That would make it the
EASIEST reactor design possible!
As an aside, I like the part at the end where you claim that they need
fusion reactors in order to "get it going". From which zit on your ass
did you squeeze this assumption?
> (Also, where do you put it? If you build a huge facility on a planet,
> something goes wrong and the chain reaction gets out of hand, the
> planet might explode or be made rather inhospitable. You put it in
> orbit, and you have to beam the power down some other way, and ignore
> details like the potential "Ewok Holocaust" repeat if something goes
> wrong, the environmental unfriendliness' (to put it lightly) of
> sending death rays into the atmosphere (depending on the power
> production rate), and so on. In short, assuming it can even be
> controlled, it's unworkable as a power source. Perhaps, decades after
> RoTJ, things could be different . . . but, then, Lucas isn't making a
> third trilogy, so we don't know that.)"
Here's a hint: they have these things called "spaceships" which could
obviously use high-density power sources, and where they could easily be
tested without risking terrestrial safety or worrying about having to
"beam the power down" to a planet, since they could use it for various
purposes onboard. This is all too easy; are you deliberately TRYING to
make yourself look ridiculous?
> Mike, you should've just skipped point nine, since it involved you in
> a bald-faced lie and what I assume was failure to read my last post.
I never CLAIMED to read all the way through your incredibly long-winded
third-round post. And since you have made it clear that I only missed
one major point by doing so (and a pathetic point at that), it is clear
that my decision to save time by only dealing with your summaries was a
good one. Admit it; most of your posts are simply tedious evasions and
self-justifications, not logical points. I'm sure you will claim victory
because I didn't pore over your entire >20,000 word post, but frankly,
that little bit of sophistry will not help you climb out of the hole
you've dug for yourself.
Your Weak-Kneed Summary
> In Summary
> 1. The Principle of Parsimony awards its points to the Superlaser
> 2. The existence of the rings and planar effects across the board
> constitutes proof of SF.
> 3. Your denial of the bands constitutes an awarding of points to the
> Superlaser Effect.
> 4. The existence of the secondary blast points to the SF.
> 5. The proper acceptance of canon fact (whether or not EU override is
> required) points to the SF.
> 6 & 7. The lack of evidence for a planetary shield, the evidence
> against it, et cetera points to SF.
> 9. The energy limitations of the Death Star fusion reactor point to
Nothing but your wishful opinions, all refuted many times. Parsimony
rejects extra mechanisms, particularly undefined ones which have no
predictive power. You have CONCEDED that you cannot explain the fire
rings and secondary blast any better than I can, hence they do not
support one theory over the other. Your ridiculous claims about the
nonexistence of planetary shields at Alderaan (or even the POSSIBILITY
thereof) are based on horrible fallacies of syllogism, and you have
CONCEDED that you refuse to test a shield against the Alderaan
observations, showing how much you fear it. Your "bands" exist only in
your fevered wet dreams. And finally, your claims about Death Star
energy limits are based on some of the worst examples of sophistry and
scientific ignorance that I have ever seen (I particularly enjoyed the
part where you proudly quoted the full Merriam-Webster dictionary
definition of "sun" as proof of your argument, even though it says
NOTHING about nuclear fusion, exactly as I've been saying).
> Further, I note that you have failed to answer questions of the same
> class you illogically demand answers to in regards to SF, yet you
> still claim that DET is a better-defined theory.
For the umpteenth time, DET is a better-defined theory because it has a
defined mechanism which is known to work (laws of thermodynamics). Yours
does not. As for the two unsolved mysteries, I never CLAIMED to be able
to answer those questions. And since you have finally conceded that you
can't either, this means that they do not "support" EITHER theory.
Hence, you are caught in a bald-faced lie when you claim that they
support your theory over the straightforward and conventional one.
> As I've said, I do not understand why the argument continues . . . or,
> more precisely, the reason you continue to argue for your theory is
> what I do not understand. It fails logically, scientifically,
> canonically, et cetera, and no matter how many desperate and contrived
> additions you pile on top of it (or denials of the evidence allowing
> you to make it simpler), it simply isn't going to work, and the fact
> that it appears to be an article of faith doesn't make it work,
> either. Star Wars may be fantasy, but that doesn't mean our attempts
> to understand it should be.
> To quote you: "Deal with it."
Ooooh, such creative rhetoric! Whatever will I do? Oh yeah, I'll just
point out that I HAVE dealt with your key points, MANY times. This
argument has been nothing more than a case of constant repetition since
the very first post. You have failed to address key problems with your
MCR (not least of which is the fact that it is not defined), you
conceded points and then backtracked when I pointed it out, you have
employed the most astounding arsenal of sophistry and logical fallacies
I have ever seen, and every attempt by you to employ any kind of
scientific principle has only made you look like a fool.
If nothing else, you are an interesting psychological case study. While
most debaters soften their stance if it appears that their position has
been weakened in any way, your reaction is the opposite: you HARDEN your
stance, dig in your heels, and use even STRONGER rhetoric. It's as if
you believe that by stating the superiority of your argument in an
increasingly emphatic manner, you make it stronger. Perhaps you should
try posting in all-caps, since that is the inevitable progression of
your debate tactics.
Of course, I realize that you will now rush to your computer to type up
another profoundly long-winded response for this final round, once again
doubling or tripling the size of my arguments and shredding every
paragraph into sentence fragments for your piecemeal debate style.
Quick, Robin! To the Bat-Computer!!!!
Back to The Wong Debate
Back to STvSW