[quote] Your post was a mile long, did i miss anything? [/quote] Yes. The point. I already knew all of the technobabble explanations for everything you just told me. The point is, it's technobabble. "You just need to find a metal alloy strong enough." Yeah, a metal alloy strong enough to hold up to a beam of plasma explicitly designed to cut through anything instantly (that is only ever resisted by fictional materials like cortosis). You'd also have to find a way to keep the metal itself from conducting any heat whatsoever. But again, this is a fictional metal, by your own admission, that emits a beam using explicitly fictional means (a magic crystal), wielded by space wizards that have fictional powers. Are you seriously trying to scientifically explain Buddhism? The fact that it is not "technically" a star is utter semantics. The point is, it provides the power output of a small star and all that entails. No material on earth can hold up that kind of energy. And the moon might be composed of loose rock, but it isn't a hollow structure held up by giant I-Beams. Again, fictional technobabble. And you have no explanation for the sun crusher. All of it is technobabble. In theory all of these things could work, but thus far, they do not, due to the laws of nature being more rigorous than those of fiction. I don't care what explanation you give me for the Death Star, or the Force, it is no more valid than the Halo Rings. If you want to tell me that the Force( an explicitly mystical energy field with explicitly mystical properties such as an afterlife and whatever the hell happened at the end of The Clone Wars Season 6) is somehow scientifically valid, than I have every right to claim that Halo, and the Precursors--which operate on very similar principles to the Force--are also valid. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Star Wars is science fantasy. Halo is science fiction with a touch of fantasy. Both have self-imposed limitations on themselves. Argue the canon and the lore, or don't argue at all.