The Battle of Britain

Re:  "The Death Star Firepower Falsehood"    

Additional suggested reading:  the Superlaser Effect debate with Wong, which Ossus and I both refer to several times, and presume a general familiarity with.  Since the original webpage is long out of date (as mentioned on the site), the debate is, at the moment, the best source for info on the topic.  (This will soon change.)

In any case, despite continued whining by the more rabid opponents, the Superlaser Effect is a known and accepted quantity.   Speaking of more rabid opponents, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Ossus!:

"The Death Star is clearly the one supreme destructive force in either galaxy. This vessel can single-handedly destroy a planet in a matter of seconds, which is a task that would take 30 ships of a roughly Federation technology level hours to accomplish ("The Die is Cast"[DS9])."

This is probably Mr. Anderson's most controversial page.

You don't say.  

Not coincidentally, it is also one of the worst technical pages on his site. 

The hell?  Canon observation plus reason equals "worst technical"?  Funny, I thought observing and using reason to develop hypotheses based on those observations was called "the scientific method".   Gee, I guess science is technically flawed. 

In the opening sentence, Anderson makes an enormous and deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence in "The Die is Cast" [DS9], to promote Star Trek unreasonably.

The Obsidian Order / Tal'Shiar volley wiped out an "enormous and deliberate" amount of the Founder world's surface with their very first volley.   One cannot promote Star Trek unreasonably by use of the canon.  To claim otherwise is illogical.  Which, of course, is why Ossus claimed it . . . because it is illogical.

The episode depicts a very piddling barrage of weapons from Romulan and Cardassian ships as they attack a planet

WTF?   An opening barrage that destroys 30% of a planet's crust is "very piddling"??

, but it is clear that the shots are not doing sufficient damage to support the dialogue of the episode, which suggests that it would take the ships hours just to destroy the mantle of the planet in question.

Lovok: "Computer analysis indicates that the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour. And the mantle, within five."

The "very piddling" result of a few shots from the fleet

Then, later:

Officer: "The first barrage is complete."
Tain: "Effect?"
Officer: "Thirty percent of planetary crust destroyed in opening volley."

Anderson then takes this very ambiguous piece of dialogue, which is clearly contradicted by the visuals from that episode

"Thirty percent of planetary crust destroyed..." . . . yep, sounds ambiguous to me.  

(Oh, my eyes!  Make the rolling stop!)  

The quote is not ambiguous, nor is it contradicted by the visuals, or the transponder sending back false lifeform readings.  This common Warsie wanking is something else I'll be dealing with in a future page.  I'm actually quite surprised he didn't just go ahead and directly accuse the Tal'Shiar and Obsidian Order intelligence officers (or the "combat veterans" Admiral Toddman mentions the crews being composed of) of being morons who didn't know what the ships they rode upon were capable of.  That is, after all, the standard continuation of this line of BS.

The entire concept is absolutely insane, made even moreso by Ossus's insistence regarding Nemesis that photon torpedoes are in the low kiloton range.  As analogy, imagine that, in April of 1942, everyone . . . including U.S. intelligence officers, Lt. Col. James Doolittle with his trained and experienced Army Air Force plane crews, and Admiral "Bull" Halsey with his navy men . . . had been under the impression that the raid on Tokyo they were engaging in would totally destroy the island of Japan, leaving seawater to fill in the gaping hole where land used to be.   That is what Rabid Warsies expect you to believe of "The Die is Cast".    

(And really, it's quite amusing when you think about it . . . Rabid Warsies think me wicked because my Death Star page involves a theory, based on observation of the canon, which suggests that the Death Star destroyed Alderaan in a certain way.   However, they'll happily claim, without the slightest shame, that the TDiC fleet really didn't do anything to the Founder homeworld, based on ignoring the canon outright.  Stupid Rabid Warsies.) 

, and then claims that it would take thirty SF-level vessels

Twenty vessels, actually.  I was mistaken, and Ossus missed it . . . I guess he was too busy accusing me of being mistaken when I wasn't to bother catching me when I was.  :-)

But, to be fair, it probably would take 30 Starfleet ships.  Though the Cardassian Keldon Class ships haven't been seen to be that grand (Tom Riker aboard the Defiant disabled one with ease in "Defiant"[DS9-3] a few months before TDiC), D'deridex Class Warbirds are hella-tough in the firepower department.  Several shots from one nearly brought down the Enterprise-D shields in "Tin Man"[TNG3].

It should be noted, of course, that the Defiant alone was thought capable of planetary-scale destruction.  In "Broken Link"[DS9-4], the Defiant is in orbit of the new Founder homeworld.  Worf, having detected Garak's attempt to take over the ship's weapons from within a Jefferies tube, apprehends him.  Garak says, "we have enough firepower on this ship to turn that planet into a smoking cinder."  This, after they'd just been escorted to the planet by six Jem'Hadar battlebugs.   Garak knew they'd be destroyed as soon as the Jem'Hadar realized what was going on, but told Worf he was proposing "wiping out every Founder on that planet . . . obliterating the Great Link."

Just how long do you think the Defiant could hold out against six Jem'Hadar ships while all its fire is concentrated on the planet?

hours to destroy a planet in a similar manner to the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan. This is clearly incorrect, even with just the dialogue from TDiC,

I already explained this to Ossus once before, but obviously he either suffers from a selective memory disorder or is just plain full of it. 

The crust was to be destroyed within one hour.   The mantle was to be destroyed within five.  Therefore, we have six hours to destroy both the crust and the mantle.  Given that it was thought Dominion reinforcements could reach the Founder's world in seven hours, this makes sense . . . the Jem'Hadar would find the naked core of their god's world, and nothing else.   

To quote myself from the SD.Net BBS:  "If you assume Earth-like composition, projecting from that point to the destruction of the entire planet becomes problematic . . . the time factor involved couldn't be based on density, since the mantle is around one and a half times as dense but also contains a far greater amount of material (the inner and outer core constitute ~32.5% of the mass of the planet but ~16% of the volume, the mantle layers constituting ~67% of the mass and ~83% of the volume, the crust getting the small leftovers).

So, either the Founder's world had a much thicker crust (as some believe of Mars, which would also have consequences for the remainder of the interior), or density is not the driving factor (or perhaps the higher internal temperatures were helpful).

In any case, destruction of the core should not have taken an inordinate amount of time after this point, especially with the core being relieved of the pressure caused by the bulk of the rest of the planet bearing down upon it (which will affect the density of the material).

If you wanted to peg me to an estimate of how long it would have taken the ships to destroy the core, I'd say 5-15 hours (5 hours equalling the time for the mantle, with three times that for "wiggle room").

This would give the 30 ships the same effect as the Death Star in 11-21 hours. That puts the Death Star superlaser at 75000 times more effective (using the 21 hour figure) against planets than the weaponry of a small fleet of Warbirds and Keldons.

In other words, what the Death Star did in seconds would take a 20-ship Romulan and Cardassian fleet an entire day.   But, then, that's the result of a 120km battlestation versus 20 ships that max out at less than a kilometer in length.   Pretty interesting comparison, I'd say.

 and is downright dishonest, given the visual effects from the episode which depict weapons no more powerful than a few megatons.

Can you say "Ossus is a stupid lying whore"? 

I knew that you could.

"Unfortunately, instead of taking this fact at face value and moving on, many pro-Wars debaters attempt to claim gargantuan firepower levels for the Death Star far beyond what is supported by the canon."

Can this not, just as easily, be attributed to a desire to discover the truth?

Again, quoting Poe:  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wong, Ossus, and friends have zero desire to discover the truth, as their attempted 'attack on my credibility', with all the ridiculously absurd claims being used as the weapons in their attack, demonstrates to perfection.  Hell, just look above.  General Order 24, "The Die is Cast", or "Broken Link"?  Nah, none of that is real . . . none of that ever appeared in Star Trek, just because Wong and Ossus don't want to believe it happened.  

Nay, these are Rabid Warsies of the first order.  To quote one of their Rabid Warsie brothers-in-arms, Ian "Kynes" Samuels, their "purpose is not to discover truth; the purpose is to win."

"Why? Because General Dodonna says in ANH that the Death Star has more firepower than half the starfleet. Of course, the fact that the surface of the Death Star was absolutely lousy with turbolaser emplacements is lost on the Warsies, who assume that the quote refers to the large superlaser, which the Warsies claim (based on a non-canon quote) is just a big turbolaser anyway. The point of inflating the Death Star numbers, though, is that the bigger the numbers for the Death Star, the bigger the numbers for the whole of the fleet. Warsies will not only reach into the depths of the non-canon works while ignoring the canon to support this view, but will also ignore the evidence of their eyes."

This is clearly an appeal to motive.

No, that's Ossus trying to manufacture a fallacy, intentionally confusing a Vs. Debate history lesson from the clearly-marked Foreward of the page with an argument relating to the Superlaser Effect.


"The common way they calculate the firepower is by assuming that the Death Star directly input all the required energy into the planet. By "directly", they mean as if by laser, particle beam, or other direct energy transfer (DET) method. This is an assumption only."

This is not an assumption, the theory that the Death Star actually needed to impart that much energy into the planet Alderaan is clearly rooted in typical scientific thinking.

In other words, it's an assumption.  It doesn't matter whether Ossus believes it was rooted in scientific thinking or voodoo.  To borrow from, an assumption is "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition".   

What one would normally do in "typical scientific thinking" is to actually observe the evidence, and hypothesize accordingly.   This was not done by those who assumed (and assume) DET.

Anderson claims that "if you watch that segment slowly in the Special Edition, the Death Star blast need only destroy part of the planet directly." However, this is clearly not true. Anderson's completely undefined theory for why this is the case is based in no small part on the existence of "bands of brightness," which allegedly encircle the planet Alderaan.

I wonder why Wong and Ossus continually try to multiply the one band into many.  Even when corrected (as I had to do in the debate with Wong repeatedly), they still use the plural form, and you can see above how Ossus put quotes around it to attribute it to me, even though that is not my usage.  

Oh, I'll grant that on the page, taken as it is directly from the original post on the topic, I did indeed use the term "bands" four times, compared to thirteen uses of the singular "band".   For the most part, the plural was used to refer to the concept in general, not the band around Alderaan in particular (which should've been obvious, given that the canon shows (and I describe) but one band around Alderaan).   Then there's the Objections page, which features no use of "bands" at all, compared to seven uses of "band".  

And yet, for some strange reason, they feel that it must be "bands".   Why the misrepresentation?  

 It is unclear why these "bands of brightness" support Anderson's theory that something else is going on in this scene

Gee, maybe because there's no logical reason for the band to appear if we assume a DET superlaser beam?  

, but what is clear is that the "bands of brightness" almost certainly do not exist. In fact, no one other than Anderson is able to even see what he is referring to when citing these as evidence for his theory.

This, of course, is why Wong was able to calculate the speed of the band during the debate through his own observation of it . . . because it wasn't there and he couldn't see it.

 People have continuously viewed the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan, but no one is in the least bit sure what exactly he is talking about. The bands he cites do not exist.

Funny, I've talked to plenty of people who can see one band.  Naturally no one would be able to see several. 

The following clip may better illustrate the band for those like Ossus who feign blindness.  Everything below a certain brightness threshold has been removed and is black, and everything above that threshold is rendered white.  You therefore get a nice view of the band encircling the globe, and the ring departing the planet.

bandenhance2.avi (108kb DivX4)

We do know that there are "rings" that appear around the equator of Alderaan, and that these rings spread outward very quickly before mysteriously slowing down. The existence of these rings, and their behavior, is not accurately described by the DET theory, suggesting that DET is in fact an incomplete theory.

I'm amazed he said that . . . Wong would've rather died during the debate than confess that fact.

The rings bear some visual and behavioral resemblance to the seismic charges seen in Episode II, but they are also different in many respects.

Wonder where he got that idea?  Oh, right, my page.  You don't think there might be a pattern of planar phenomena coming from weapons with a wacky operating principle, do you?  Nah . . . never.   

Anderson's undefined theory does not accurately predict these rings and their behavior, either

Wrong.  This is just the "switcheroo" maneuver Wong kept engaging in during the debate, and it is just as illogical and dishonest now as it was then.

What Ossus is trying to do is claim that the rings do not support the Superlaser Effect theory because, thanks to the limited information in the canon, I have chosen not to try to guess at the mechanism which produces them.  This, they believe, renders the Superlaser Effect "undefined".

To translate into a Trek example, let's say we were never told about the transporter, as if it's 1964 and we're just watching "The Cage" for the first time.   He's saying that people dematerializing in one place and materializing somewhere else would not support the idea of the transporter, because we've never been told how the thing works.

The reason this is a "switcheroo" is because they're trying to play with the evidence and demand an absurd requirement.   If I point out that every time Scotty diddles with the three sliders someone disappears from one place and appears somewhere else in a neat sparkly effect, then have I not pointed out pretty damn solid evidence that teleportation is occurring?  It certainly isn't 'direct person transfer', as if by shuttlecraft.  Do I have to explain that the person ends up in an annular confinement beam, dematerialized by the appropriate matter-energy conversion technobabble (throwing in terms like "phase transition coils" and "Heisenberg compensators"), winding up in a pattern buffer before transmission as energy to another location, where the dematerialization process is reversed?  Do I also need to produce its pedigree?

If you answered yes, please bash your head against your keyboard, monitor, and CPU no less than twenty times, since you have just denied the validity of the scientific method.  The head-bashing won't remove you from the gene pool, but at least you won't be sullying the internet for awhile.  

(Hell, at least in Star Trek we have some other technobabble we could try to draw from to explain transporters, if we didn't know about them already.  Star Wars has its fair share of random technobabble from Han or Qui-Gon, but one would actually have to draw from Trek's supply in order to engage in any useful conjecture.)

What the planar rings do is manifold.  First, the fact that they appear as part of both Death Star explosions (both of which involved a ready-to-fire superlaser) makes it clear that there is a correlation between the rings and the superlaser.  Second, the fact that we see a similar planar effect in the two DS2 ship-killing shots provides yet more evidence.  Third, the fact that no similar planar effect is seen in any other example (including the exploding Star Destroyer from RoTJ) is the clincher.   (And I won't even mention, for now, the fact that the ring central point is the center of mass of all the targets, a fact which is especially visible in the DS2 explosion.)

And last but not least, the rings make it pretty damn obvious that a simple DET beam is not the answer to the problem.  

So, if you have a superlaser, you have a planar effect.

When the Superlaser Effect concept first appeared, I had not noticed a variety of things yet . . . the planar effects around the ships, the mass-centered DS2 ring, and so on.  I had not even included the Death Star I and II explosion rings in the original post.  

For the full theory to hold, all of those things were required . . . the correlation had to be there . . . and ta-da, they all appeared, just as they should have.  Unlike the Rabid Warsies with their DET wanking, I can tell you why they appeared.  

but he is confident that because DET cannot predict these, his theory must be correct.

Wrong.  In reality, I am confident that because the canon stands against DET, the DET theory is incorrect.  

Again, Anderson fails to describe how the ring is even involved in the destruction of either the Death Star or Alderaan. It appears to be merely a bi-product of the destruction, as it does little to destroy either one and does not appear to interact with the matter of either body significantly.

Duh.  I never said the rings destroyed anything.  As far as I can tell through observation, that concept is in direct opposition to the canon.  They are, most likely, a simple by-product of the Superlaser Effect.

Additionally, Anderson contends that this shores up his theory, but his theory is still undefined. For it to become a workable theory, he would need to describe how the rings are formed

Ossus, then, believes that Newton's Law of Gravity was neither a law nor a theory nor even valuable in the slightest because Newton didn't have relativistic space-time curvature or gravitons to work with, as the means behind the math.   Or that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was neither a theory nor even valuable in the slightest because he didn't have DNA to work with, as the mechanism of heredity and change.  That's idiotic.

, how they contribute to the destruction of the planet and the Death Star

That is not my claim, and never was.  

, how the rings help to support his claims about the second explosion being the primary cause of destruction

How the what and the huh?   Explosions causing destruction?   He wants proof of this concept?  Or is he denying that the huge secondary blast (the one occurring after the termination of the superlaser) is when Alderaan blew itself to bits? 

, and how this supports his conclusion.

See above . . . if you have a superlaser, you have a planar shockwave effect.  

A recent debate between Mr. Robert Anderson and Mr. Mike Wong has been over this event and its subsequent theories numerous times- to the point where additional debate on the subject is not likely to get anywhere. 

Indeed . . . like creationists, Wong and his cohorts are awfully slow to recognize that their cherished wanking has been deposed by a new idea which demonstrates adherence to the scientific method.

However, it is clear that Mr. Anderson's theory that a chain reaction, which greatly magnified the apparent firepower of the Death Star, has numerous flaws in it, which will be summarized here.

1.  Probably the most important flaw with Mr. Anderson’s theory is that it is completely undefined. 

Another stupid lie by Ossus . . . not his, really, just a parroting of Wong's.  

That is, Anderson has refused to explain what is actually going on in the reaction. 

Ossus, probably inadvertently, has hit the nail on the head.  I refuse to speculate on the mechanism of one of the greatest superweapons of science fiction, because we are not given any detail on how it does what it does . . . we simply get to see it do what it does.   Similarly, I do not engage in speculation on hyperdrive, blasters, lightsabres, phasers, transporters, or any other damn thing.

That is not a flaw, nor is it a weakness.  We know the result it achieves, and we know how it achieves it.  To ask for blueprints of the device is moronic.

He instead claims simply that because the current DET theory does not accurately predict the rings around Alderaan must be incorrect, even though his theory does not even properly describe the destruction of Alderaan, much less the rings.

A simple lie on Ossus's part.  Wong also tried to pull this repeatedly during the debate.  I do not claim that my theory is automatically correct because Wong's is wrong.   I claim it is correct because it corresponds to what we see in the canon. 

The fact that Wong's theory does not correspond to what we see in the canon, or that he has admitted this, or that his own lapdog Ossus calls it an incomplete theory, does not affect the truth value of my theory one iota.

2.  Anderson's reasoning is self-contradictory. Mr. Anderson has stated that it is impossible for the Death Star to produce the necessary energy to destroy a planet, but that it must be able to do so by affecting a planet. It would be much simpler if the energy were created using Mr. Anderson's mechanism, and then transferred to the planet that is about to be destroyed. Essentially, Anderson believes that the Empire possesses the technology to create nearly limitless power by deriving it from mass, but that the Empire is incapable of using this in its reactors, which he insists are run by nuclear fusion.

Another repeat of Wong.  They try to pretend that a runaway chain reaction somehow equals a controlled one.  The "logic" they're using is this:   "Mankind, maker of fusion bombs, possesses the technology to create nearly limitless power by deriving it from hydrogen fusion, so mankind must be capable of using it in reactors."   Tell that to the poor noble bastards slaving away trying to figure out how to make controlled nuclear fusion a reality.   Or, to quote from the debate:

"I was wondering when you were going to attempt that silly argument. What
you have failed to consider is one of the basic facts of science and history
. . . employing a potentially vast energy source as a weapon is a helluva
lot easier than making it into a generator. Making fusion bombs was easy .
. . controlled fusion for a reactor is not. Add to that the fact that to
make this superweapon, they evidently had to build ridiculously huge
starships with massive internal systems dedicated to the weapon. Assuming
they could even control the reaction when it is in progress and/or make it
controllably self-sustaining (two awfully huge assumptions), the smallest
known example of the technology is still enormous, and requires similarly
huge fusion reactors just to get it going.

(Also, where do you put it? If you build a huge facility on a planet,
something goes wrong and the chain reaction gets out of hand, the planet
might explode or be made rather inhospitable. You put it in orbit, and you
have to beam the power down some other way, and ignore details like the
potential "Ewok Holocaust" repeat if something goes wrong, the
'environmental unfriendliness' (to put it lightly) of sending death rays
into the atmosphere (depending on the power production rate), and so on. In
short, assuming it can even be controlled, it's unworkable as a power
source. Perhaps, decades after RoTJ, things could be different . . . but,
then, Lucas isn't making a third trilogy, so we don't know that.)"

Even better is Ossus's suggestion that it would be simpler for the Death Star to generate the 1e38J on-board and then transmit it to Alderaan.   This would be like telling the pilot of the Enola Gay that he was to detonate the atomic bomb in the bomb bay, and then fly over Hiroshima and open the bay door to release the energy.

In other words, Ossus is assuming that the Empire had the technology to create 1e38J on-board the Death Star without the whole thing blowing to tiny bits, and that they also had a method of transmitting this level of raw energy from the ship.

Stupid Ossus.

And let's not forget efficiency . . . it can be so easily lost as a concept when you're dealing with such fantastic energies.  For our purposes, efficiency would be the amount of energy released in joules divided by the mass times lightspeed squared.  In other words, the liberated energy versus good old E=mc˛.

For example, let's say that the Superlaser Effect only required about 1/5000th (0.02%) of Alderaan's mass to produce 1e38J.   That would be an efficiency of about 100%, equal to the efficiency of matter/antimatter reactions.

In a common main sequence star like the sun, efficiency is actually around 0.8%..  Deuterium-deuterium and deuterium-tritium fusion reactions would fall within the same ballpark . . . a bit better, but not much.

Now, it's unlikely that the Superlaser Effect is 100% efficient.  Let's suppose that it required ten percent of Alderaan's mass to make 1e38J.  The total amount of energy of that mass is:

E = mc^2
E = (5.976 x 10^23)(299,792,458)^2
E = 5.37096094813122221664e40J

Getting a "mere" 1e38J out of that potential amount of energy would translate to an efficiency of 0.19%, or about four times less than fusion's efficiency.   That would mean the Superlaser Effect is great for killing planets in a timely manner, but pretty sucky for sustained power generation.

For comparison, half the mass of the planet would work out to 0.037% efficiency.  One percent (1/100th) of the planet's mass would be 1.8% efficient.  

That last one, or any amount of one percent or less, works out to efficiency significantly greater than stellar fusion.  But, then, there's still a wee problem . . . fusion is a pretty simple thing to contain, in the grand scheme.  But just how in the hell do you expect to contain the Superlaser Effect reaction?  You're basically talking about trying to contain a mass-energy conversion effect that, as seen at Alderaan, will quite happily expand to encompass every bit of nearby material.  Even if it was just going after some particular element or compound, this just happens to be the same thing one can find in planets and ships to a sufficient degree, judging by the susceptibility of both . . . so what the hell do you intend to build the reactor out of? 

Of course, that all assumes that it would be worth your time.  If the Superlaser Effect required ten percent of Alderaan's mass, and thus was four times less efficient than fusion, it would hardly make much sense to go to all the trouble of developing the technology for reactors and containment versus venerable old fusion.

3.  This is essentially the largest physics-escape clause in the history of the vs. debates.

It's not an escape clause . . . it's the conclusion demanded by the canon.  Where else can you get the rings?  Where else can you get the band?   Where else can you get the planar effect from exploding starships? . . . Certainly not the rest of that same canon, from the same movie!  What other theory explains those, and everything else, in a rationally consistent way?  Certainly not Wong's DET wanking, which turns a blind eye to what goes unexplained.

4.  Anderson harps on the existence of the rings as his primary evidence, but does not explain how his theory explains these rings or their behavior. Thus, his theory does not explain these rings at all- this is the same as the direct energy transfer theorists

Wrong on numerous counts, for reasons already explained.   But, pay close attention to that silly claim at the end . . . 'he doesn't explain the mechanism behind them, and we don't either, so it's the same'.  Uh-huh.  In reality, I give why they appear, demonstrate how they fit into my theory, and so on.  Meanwhile, the Rabid Warsie theory requires that the rings be ignored, totally!   Any attempt on my part to explain the mechanism which produces them would be simple idle speculation.  Any attempt on their part to explain the mechanism which produces them would require total revision of the DET concept, or ad hoc theories that would have to be different for each sort of event.

5.  Anderson's invisible "bands of brightness" are not just invisible, but defy the laws of physics as well. They are not evidence for anything because they do not appear to exist.

Obviously, Ossus's comment regarding defiance of the laws of physics is simply an attempt at humor.  You see, the band defies the laws of physics by being present and measurable (by Wong), while simultaneously not existing in the minds of those who observe it.

6.  A primary component of the DET theory is the Alderaan Planetary shield.

Which, since it  does   not   exist  , ended up putting another nail in DET's coffin . . . a rather resounding one, too, given how often the idea has been beaten down, even when argued by its staunchest defenders.

7.  The only true evidence for Mr. Anderson's theory comes from his refusal to acknowledge alternate interpretations for one line of semantics. He insists that the word “sun” can only be used to describe something that produces power using nuclear fusion, however this is not true. There are stars that operate without using nuclear fusion.

Holy crap . . . here Ossus tries to re-use one of his master's worst failed arguments from the debate (one which failed so badly he openly lied to cover himself, though I caught him in that).  

In Ossus's case, he wisely chose not to repeat his master's mistake . . . at least, not directly.   However, he still tries to slip in the word "star" to replace the word "sun" from the following quote:

"Space filled temporarily with trillions of microscopic metal fragments, propelled past the retreating ships by the liberated energy of a small artificial sun." (italics mine)

Let's see here . . . does that or does that not say "sun"?   Oh, look, it does.   It does not say "star".   Nor does it say "neutron star", or any other conceivable non-fusion star like a white dwarf.  It says "sun".  And what is a sun?  Let's look at (the Merriam Webster website that Wong abused) and find out:

"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>"

In other words, a sun is a celestial body like the sun (or "Sun").  I suppose that, if you prefer, you could conclude that it was the liberated energy of a small artificial nice/smart person, but I hardly think the Death Star was powered by an R2-size droid.

It's really quite simple . . . all suns are stars, but not all stars are suns.   They can't seem to grasp that.

Ossus is wrong.  The Death Star was powered by something which either (A) operates via fusion or (B) operates via some technology that produces a similar power output to fusion.   Being generous, I grant 3e26W for the Death Star's power output . . . this is generous because that's roughly the output of a frickin' huge natural sun:  ours.   Thus, to charge up the superlaser for a 1e38J DET blast would require on the order of 8,200 years.   

8.  Anderson's MCR Theory relies heavily on the bands damaging a planet.

I really can't blame him for saying this, since I suggested that the band was damaging on the old page (though the theory in no way relied on the concept of damage . . . that's a straw man).   However, as per the evidence I discovered in the midst of the debate, the northern polar region is visibly intact after the passage of the band.  The band may or may not do some damage, but the surface was intact after the band's passage.

As he puts it, "Away from the primary strike, the planet was undamaged until the band actually passed. Observe the left side of the planet." This does not support his theory in any way.

On the contrary . . . without the Superlaser Effect, this lack of damage is inexplicable.   The most you could argue would be that the atmosphere was burning off, but then you'd have to find an explanation for why the burn-off was so energetic as to produce a wall of flame hundreds of kilometers high (i.e. far beyond the atmosphere), how this circular wall of flame managed to grow and become more energetic as it expanded and travelled through the atmosphere instead of dissipating, how it managed to leave the surface visibly unaffected, why the beam which produced it didn't affect the clouds as it passed through them, and so on and so forth.   Further, since the band had not gotten very far at all before the beam stopped striking the planet, one would still be left trying to figure out why the planet exploded later, especially if all the beam managed to do was ignite the atmosphere.

Wong kept insisting that the surface could not have been intact in those areas under DET theory, due to the volume and velocity of material we see from the planet elsewhere.   He even presented his crack-head inertial-confinement-fusion-on-a-global-scale idea later to try to explain it with DET, not to mention his claim that the obvious band circling the globe was nothing more than "luminescence patterns" which were "obviously random".

The only rationally consistent way to view the event is under the Superlaser Effect.  To do otherwise is to shoot oneself in the foot . . . or, more precisely, the head.

Most importantly, the amount of energy required to create a fireball encompassing the hemisphere of the planet that is already destroyed before the rings pass is vastly in excess of the amount of energy Anderson attributes the Death Star with providing.

Funny, I attribute the Death Star with causing an energy release on Alderaan which is on the order of 1e38J . . . which is roughly the necessary amount of energy to produce the planet's destruction as observed.  

[Editor's note: this article successfully points out a number of serious problems with Anderson's "theory"

Really?  When did that happen?

 (a term I use loosely, since a theory must have a defined mechanism and be capable of specific predictions from that mechanism)

Ah, look.  Wong doesn't know what a theory is either.  I guess this explains his use of creationist tactics . . . he thinks Darwin's theory was a bogus non-theory.

He does not even have the right to insist that the classical theory needs to be defended at all, since Conservation of Energy dictates that any given energy input into a system must manifest itself in that system, so the "Classical Theory"'s only requirement is Conservation of Mass/Energy, the most fundamental law in all of science

Standard Wongian sophistry.   Accuse your opponent of not subscribing to a fundamental law of science in an effort to cover up the fact that you've failed to follow the entire scientific method.  "Step one:  observe, bitch!"

In reality, Wong's Conservation of Energy claim is false, and I already explained why in the debate . . . of course, he didn't read the last few of my posts, so I suppose he can't be faulted for missing it any more than he can be faulted for missing the rest (though he never brought it up again after I explained why it was wrong, until now).  

The problem rests with his BS claim that Conservation of Energy is violated by the Superlaser Effect.  He intentionally ignores the fact that, even from my very first post on the subject, the whole idea is that Alderaan's mass (converted by the mass-energy conversion we know to be a part of the Death Star's planet-killing as per the canon novel) is the primary source of the destructive energy.   If this conversion were 100% efficient, one would only need 1/5000th of the planet's material.   Lesser efficiencies would require more material, though the fact that debris is left over limits just how low the efficiency can go.

In other words, all the energy needed is already present on Alderaan, with plenty to spare.  Wong's crazy notion that the Death Star and only the Death Star alone could be the source of it is absurd, and is contrary to canon.

(Also, just for kicks, check out this rather amusing NASA article I found while doing some research online.  Even NASA knows SW tech runs off of fusion.)

Back to The Battle of Britain
Back to STvSW