Stewart at SDI wrote: Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.
It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)
Your theory is inferior because it is the less scientifically plausible one. It requires purity levels impossible to attain, efficiency you won't get, and an explosion resulting from a reaction that consumes more energy then it releases.
Further, you are yet to show that the waste heat is an issue, since we don't know the specifics of the materials used in the Death Star and their heat dissipation mechanisms.
Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before.
But answering a posit with a false argument does not win the debate, no mater how many times it has been mooted.
No, repeating the facts does. Like we are doing now.
And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required.
Wrong again. The fact that the planet explodes does not favor any one theory. Only that it does explode. It is up to us to find THE THEORY that requires the least conjecture and suspension of disbelife. The DET model fails on many fronts. I propose that you list all of the defects with my theory that you can point out in current common science, then make a list of all the things that we must suspend our colective disbelife to make yours work. It is not fair to list the piont that my theory makes the DS less powerfull than you would want to belive as a defect.[/quote]List any provable defects with DET that are not tautological in nature or require circular reasoning. I can handle yours now:
1) impossible purity
2) claims of wrong isotopes
3) existance of planet that should have gone boom long before
4) a mass based weapon moving at C
5) a reaction that is a net energy loss would cause an explosion
6) tossing CoE out the window
7) Ignores Conservation of Momentum as well as the debris field shifted
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
the secondary explosion disproves the chain reaction theory
9) the surrounding material would absorb rather then reflect neutrons
10) only blows up certain planets when was designed to handle all
I can go on if you would like shitnugget.
The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.
Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.
So the evidence that they have a mechanism to deal with it is proof they can't handle it?
Your defective logic is showing.
Rebutting your own argument now?