I was talking about how this was his greatest feat in terms of "physical" energy used. Obviously he put more effort behind the force lightning later but I hope you won't try to compare force lightning that was blocked by Yoda to a force storm that tore apart various capital ships (without the Emperor concentrating much).
And you're still arguing an irrelevancy, because neither feat shows the extent of Sidious' power. And I'd like to see how DE Sidious "wasn't concentrating much" when he was making a Force Storm.
So we have "a great storm of raw energy that rends the fabric of space itself" according to the narrator. That statement alone should be enough.
Too bad that it isn't, because in no way can you provide how much energy it takes to create such a thing.
But well: As we can see that the ships are basically torn into pieced by ripping them apart (which points to gravitational energy pulling them inside the storm). Judging from the Blockade Runner (marked green - 150 metres length) the lowest possible diameter of the storm is roughly 1.2 kilometres (although it appears to be far greater if you compare it to the MC Cruiser - 1800 metres length).If you'd like to turn our sun into a black hole the result would be a black hole with roughly 2.9 kilomtres diameter with a gravitational binding energy of 6.9 × 10E41 J. Since the theory estimates the gravitational energy of a black hole is proportional to its diameter even the lowest estimation that can be made for the force storm (1.2 kilometres) would give it a energy of 2.86 x 10E41 J.
That's nice and all, but you're operating under yet another false premise:
That a Force Storm is somehow a black hole.
Sorry, it isn't. It is a tear in space-time as we see in the very scan that you found.
Another false premise you assume to be true (this logical fallacy, by the way, is called Begging the Question) is that the Force Storm ripped the ships apart via gravitational energy.
There is no evidence for that, the energy could have easily been electromagnetic or a number of other types.
Just to give you something to compare. Mike Wong (stardestroyer.net) estimated a power of 1E38 J for one Death Star shot. So the destructive power of the force storm is equal to around 28,600 shots from the Death Stars main weapon. And since we see single shots from the DS breaking through MC cruisers shields and vaporize the ships I guess something which has thousand times the energy of a DS shot should need quite more power than "overloading ships shields".
This doesn't even warrant a response, your numbers leading up to it are invalid since they're based on false premises.
Again you come up with comparing apples to oranges.
No, I "come up" with making you look like a fool for assigning arbitrary numbers to materials you don't know shit about.
a)
Durasteel is a metal alloy and the hardest material in the SW universe - they use to craft ship hulls with that. But I doubt the density is ubor-high since DX-2 Disruptor Pistol and DXR-6 Disruptor Rifle (so handguns) are stated to be able to disintegrate 0.5³ metres of Durasteel with a single shot. Not to mention that people used to wear Durasteel armor - I doubt that things like Vader's helmet posess a weight of dozens of pounds...
And still this is no stone.
It is not the hardest material in Star Wars, Nai. If stones were as malleable and lightweight as metal, they'd be used as armor as well.
The properties of disruptor weapons are such that they disintigrate materials on the molecular level. Normal blasters and their variants (turbolasers) do not have this property. Your assertions on the relative durability of durasteel are pretty moot and irrelevant.
b)
Cortosis is another metal (cortosis ore - hint, hint) which isn't known for his density but more for the fact that it's conductive properties caused lightsabers to shorten or become useless on contact. Again I doubt an ubor-density due to the fact that cortosis was exstensivly used in shadowtrooper armor and Shadday Potkin was using a cortosis blade against Vader in "Purge".
Irrelevant misdirection. I asked you to provide its density.
c)
You're talking about the same temples that look like STONE temples in ANH and descriped as STONE temples in the JA trilogy ? Do "stones" in the SW universe now pocess uber-densities because you like it that way ? I wonder why the didn't built starships out of that virtually undestructible (unless Kun tries it himself) stone but instead used metal?
There is no material with a scientific name (or even a layman's name) of "stone," Nai. As I'm sure you know, there are different kinds of stones. So unless you can tell us with proof positive what kind of stone the Massassi Temples are built from, any speculation as to their density is entirely irrelevant and any conclusion based on it is based on a false premise.
And starships are armored with metal because metal is malleable and generally lightweight. Most stones (at least those used for construction) are neither.
I asked you these questions because I knew you couldn't answer, thus any attempt to pull a number out of your ass regarding the Massassi temple stones are little more than speculative nonsense.
Oh wait a minute. There is virtually indestructable stone in the SW universe. The Hijarna Stone (fortress on Hijarna, Hand of Thrawn) can absorb turbolaser fire like a sponge. Unfortunatelly it's black so that doesn't match the STONE temples on Yavin 4...
And you still can't name the stone that they're actually constructed from, so your point is still moot and is still an irrelevant misdirection.
Oh wait. There is not an ounce of silicon used in your PC since it's 1,2 nm thick silicondioxid and because it's so ubor effective (leakage currents) Intel is doing research on better materials to built chips (Gate dielectic metal) ?
Irrelevant misdirection. I also said, "or other semiconductors."
You do know the difference between a semiconductor and an isolator ? The conductivity of an semiconductor increases exponatially when applying heat on it while an isolator doesn't conduct anything. Iron isn't affected much by electricity either. So what are you trying to tell me ?
Rubber is not a semiconductor, Nai. Rubber is not much affected by electricity, hence why the safest place in a thunder storm is in a car with rubber tires.
It isn't irrelevant because "conduction" only applies on electrical energy when we have no idea what kind of energy Kun was using. A wall of rubber might protect you from an electic attack but it will still melt if someone uses heat against it not even talking about kinetic energy. So the only irrevelant thing here is talking about the conductivity of different materials.
Really, Nai? Is that why conductivity also applies to thermal energy? Is that why metals typically conduct both of them very well?
Huh. Looks like you're operating under another false premise.
