Turbolasers as physical shells

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-13 12:58pm

AidanMcfay wrote:
We've actually seen evidence for projectile weapons that look like blaster bolts (or "projectile" type blasters - ie HAn's blaster firing on Vader in TESB, Zam Wessel's rifle in AOTC, etc. The AOTC novel, btw, specifies hand blasters as projectile weaponry.)
How is Han's pistol like a projectile weapon, other then the fact that energy was projected from the barrel? As far as Zam Wessel's rifle, it could be a type of slug thrower.

It ejects shells in ESB when he fires at Vader. That's the only time it does it though.

AidanMcfay · Post by **AidanMcfay** » 2007-02-13 02:51pm

do we actualy know they are shell casings or could they be shells containing gas. Why doesnt the blaster ever do it any other time?

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2007-02-14 01:44am

Turbolaser bolts are capable of striking a target, obliterating it, and passing beyond without any perturbation of bolt geometry.
Turbolaser Commentaries, see the 1st image and its caption
How does invisible beam theory explain this?
If the pulse destroyed the asteroid, the beam is over. There should be no bolt afterwards

Speaking of bolt geometry, why do the visible bolts have a complex geometry? If it is only a tracer it needs no special shape. If it is a decay wave how does it have a special shape at all? What mechanism allows a stream of mass-less particles to decay in an arbitrary, consistent pattern? Provided such a mechanism exists, the easiest bolt geometry is a flat ended column. Not a cone-headed taper to a minimum then expand again before tapering to a final point shape. Or even a simple oval like many other bolts appear to be.
If you treat the invisible energy beam as a stream of mass-less particles, each individual particle must be given a precise time at which it must decay in order to create and then transform the visible bolt. Nearly every particle must be assigned a different time-to-decay value, and in a pattern unique to each shot fired.
Does this not seem enormously complex?

ISD turbolaser bolts are commonly about 50 meters long and well over 1 meter in maximum diameter.
A “medium” turbolaser bolt
Such bolts come from guns too small to see in the film, not from the massive turrets. It is highly likely these bolts are several times wider than the barrel opening they emanated from. Even the largest guns on an ISD II are 14 meters long, the barrel opening wouldn’t be much larger than 1 meter wide, and such monstrous weapons did not produce the bolts in question. X-Wing laser shots have no such ambiguity – they are wider than their barrel openings.
X-Wing Barrel
From ANH
An X-Wing takes a glancing hit from a TIE’s cannon. Notice the width of the bolt. I am surprised to find I don’t have any screen shots showing X-Wing laser bolts (and the movies are not accessible right now). I think we can all remember that X-Wing laser blasts are similarly sized, right? Such a bolt cannot fit inside the barrel opening found on the model, right?
How does invisible beam theory explain this?

Brian Young offers variations in bolt intensity, and camera glare as an explanation for the apparent width of the bolts, but I don’t buy it. To begin with the bolts are not very bright (see some of the previous images).
[1]
[2]
In the first image we can see three clear distinct regions of the beam. There is a bright washed out core surrounded by dim green bands, which together double the bolt’s thickness. Outside of all this is a well defined transparent green halo. Light is emitted from the whole thing. Check out the droid now; if there was a significant camera glare effect the bolt’s intensity would wash over the edges of the droid’s domes. Instead you can see the edges continuously, and this is a brighter bolt than many in the old trilogy.

In the second image you might notice two things I did: the beam, ignoring the well-defined halo, is no wider than the barrel*, and it is much dimmer than the muzzle flash. I want to draw attention to the muzzle flash. Notice how it is so bright the camera glares and it isn’t possible to make out any features or details? The turbolaser bolt is far less intense, and this isn’t a camera filter, the background has perfectly normal light levels. I think it is unlikely bolt width is a product of the camera.

*This weapon’s bolts do not appear much wider IIRC in any shot, although the halo, which is curiously well defined (here and in all examples AFAIK), is always wider than the barrel. From a distance it is the halo which stands out most in the old trilogy. The reason being often the core is not very bright. The halo’s width is important if it is not a camera effect, because it then is part of the bolt, and wider than the barrel, which it should not be if it is a visibly decaying energy beam no wider than the barrel.
To repeat myself, how does invisible beam theory explain this?

Related to the first paragraph, how does invisible beam theory explain bolts which miss their intended target and continue some considerable distance beyond?
Here’s what I mean
It has been suggested in the past that these particular misses could have been deliberate. However you stand on that one this is the only image on my harddrive that shows what I mean by bolts that miss and continue to exist.
How does invisible beam theory explain this (not this scene, the general case. We’ve all seen it happen other times; I don’t have any suitable screen captures)?

Consider these images:
Impact of a light turbolaser bolt
This one again
In each of these examples there appears to be something of material sustenance ejected from the impact point. In the case with the Falcon I don’t think a direct hull impact is satisfactory as the ship did not suffer the heavy damage such violent debris would suggest. I could be wrong. But in the case with the X-Wing it is clear that debris is not part of the hull. How does the invisible energy beam theory explain this debris?

Consider the scene in Episode 2 where Slave 1 chases Obi Wan’s fighter in the asteroid field. Due to Slave 1’s high rate of fire three bolts may be seen on screen at several points in time:
[1]
[2]
[3] This is not exhaustive. This scene is a plethora of rapid fire and explosions.
As well as multiple individual weapon bolts, recently shot asteroids and flak bursts from several previous shots are all visible in these images. This scene is unusually rich in flak bursts, and this is very helpful because it proves each bolt ends with a bang, either hitting something, or exploding. Slave 1 has but two active guns in this scene, yet often has three bolts flying off in different directions at the same instant, and each bolt will either strike something (and damage matches bolt arrival) or explode with considerable energy.
How does invisible beam theory explain this?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-02-14 01:53am

I wouldn't want to ape, so...

Mike wrote:Your logic relies on two central pillars of creationist thought:

1) Occam's Razor is not important.
2) If I can't make an idea work myself, despite not making much of an effort to do so, then the idea "fails" and my alternate idea must be right.

Where in your post have you shored up the specific deficiencies thus far named that your theory fails to account for? It is nothing more than more "look I can't make it work here so my idea must be right by default" - which of course does not logically follow, making you ignorant of logic or deliberately intellectually dishonest. Either that, or you're not arguing for your theory anymore, in which case you're just locking debate opponents into rhetorical games, which makes you an asshole.

Aquatain · Post by **Aquatain** » 2007-02-14 07:01am

Why would they name a weapon that fires physical shells "Turbolasers" ??

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2007-02-14 10:39am

So you can point out perceived problems with the ramp-up model, but you seem to have much difficulty in defending your projectile model. What are you trying to do now, force some kind of "they're completely magic" response? (After all, with the gaping holes poked into your model, the projectile model will not be replacing anything in its current state.)

The Silence and I wrote:Turbolaser bolts are capable of striking a target, obliterating it, and passing beyond without any perturbation of bolt geometry.
Turbolaser Commentaries, see the 1st image and its caption
How does invisible beam theory explain this?
If the pulse destroyed the asteroid, the beam is over. There should be no bolt afterwards

The fact that the beam is, y'know, active the entire time means that there is potential to do damage if it hits a weak enough target in the meantime. The fact that the bolt continues on afterwards is evidence that the beam has not yet reached full power.

By the way, remember the "magic A-wing" in RotJ, where a turbolaser bolt passes right through an A-wing without causing visible damage? That's impossible under your model, but works under the ramp up model.

Speaking of bolt geometry, why do the visible bolts have a complex geometry? If it is only a tracer it needs no special shape. If it is a decay wave how does it have a special shape at all? What mechanism allows a stream of mass-less particles to decay in an arbitrary, consistent pattern? Provided such a mechanism exists, the easiest bolt geometry is a flat ended column. Not a cone-headed taper to a minimum then expand again before tapering to a final point shape. Or even a simple oval like many other bolts appear to be.
If you treat the invisible energy beam as a stream of mass-less particles, each individual particle must be given a precise time at which it must decay in order to create and then transform the visible bolt. Nearly every particle must be assigned a different time-to-decay value, and in a pattern unique to each shot fired.
Does this not seem enormously complex?

Did you ignore the "chain reaction" portion of my comments earlier deliberately just so you can type up that?

If some products of the reaction (either photons or massive particles) causes more reaction to occur, then the reaction can travel down the beam until the beam terminates.

ISD turbolaser bolts are commonly about 50 meters long and well over 1 meter in maximum diameter.
A “medium” turbolaser bolt
Such bolts come from guns too small to see in the film, not from the massive turrets. It is highly likely these bolts are several times wider than the barrel opening they emanated from. Even the largest guns on an ISD II are 14 meters long, the barrel opening wouldn’t be much larger than 1 meter wide, and such monstrous weapons did not produce the bolts in question. X-Wing laser shots have no such ambiguity – they are wider than their barrel openings.
X-Wing Barrel
From ANH
An X-Wing takes a glancing hit from a TIE’s cannon. Notice the width of the bolt. I am surprised to find I don’t have any screen shots showing X-Wing laser bolts (and the movies are not accessible right now). I think we can all remember that X-Wing laser blasts are similarly sized, right? Such a bolt cannot fit inside the barrel opening found on the model, right?
How does invisible beam theory explain this?

Luxons can decay into massive particles, so if some of them decay into massive particles, then those particles can spread out and release photons (or decay further and release photons). (And Shadows of the Empire calls the bolt an "ionized marker" that is associated with the invisible beam, so there is evidence for the visible portion containing massive particles.)

And the massive particles spreading out slightly before giving off the photons to make the glow neatly preempts your next argument, so I will skip on to the following one.

Related to the first paragraph, how does invisible beam theory explain bolts which miss their intended target and continue some considerable distance beyond?
Here’s what I mean
It has been suggested in the past that these particular misses could have been deliberate. However you stand on that one this is the only image on my harddrive that shows what I mean by bolts that miss and continue to exist.
How does invisible beam theory explain this (not this scene, the general case. We’ve all seen it happen other times; I don’t have any suitable screen captures)?

The phenomenon could either be a cooldown of the beam or the massive particles continuing to glow for a short period of time.

Consider these images:
Impact of a light turbolaser bolt
This one again
In each of these examples there appears to be something of material sustenance ejected from the impact point. In the case with the Falcon I don’t think a direct hull impact is satisfactory as the ship did not suffer the heavy damage such violent debris would suggest. I could be wrong. But in the case with the X-Wing it is clear that debris is not part of the hull. How does the invisible energy beam theory explain this debris?

The ionized portion of the ionized marker still giving off photons. (This is also the explanation for flak bursts, by the way.)

Consider the scene in Episode 2 where Slave 1 chases Obi Wan’s fighter in the asteroid field. Due to Slave 1’s high rate of fire three bolts may be seen on screen at several points in time:
[1]
[2]
[3] This is not exhaustive. This scene is a plethora of rapid fire and explosions.
As well as multiple individual weapon bolts, recently shot asteroids and flak bursts from several previous shots are all visible in these images. This scene is unusually rich in flak bursts, and this is very helpful because it proves each bolt ends with a bang, either hitting something, or exploding. Slave 1 has but two active guns in this scene, yet often has three bolts flying off in different directions at the same instant, and each bolt will either strike something (and damage matches bolt arrival) or explode with considerable energy.
How does invisible beam theory explain this?

It's like you didn't even read my previous post, where I mentioned the possibility of multiple emitters inside the gun. See above for the massive particles being disrupted causing flak bursts.

And I see that you didn't address any of my criticisms to your model. Perhaps you'd care to address them now? Oh, and I even added another one for you to have fun with in this post. Enjoy!

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-02-14 01:03pm

Mad wrote:Luxons can decay into massive particles,

...What? Source please! Decay is a physical process, which implies the passage of proper time for the particles involved. Luxons, being restricted to c, do not experience proper time. Every instance of "photon decay" I've heard of has either been a fancy name for redshift, or induced by the influence of nearby matter.

Really, Mad, this assertion is not squaring away with my knowledge of special relativity. If these "luxons" were traveling marginally slower than c, I could accept that they could decay.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2007-02-14 01:15pm

Wyrm wrote:...What? Source please! Decay is a physical process, which implies the passage of proper time for the particles involved. Luxons, being restricted to c, do not experience proper time. Every instance of "photon decay" I've heard of has either been a fancy name for redshift, or induced by the influence of nearby matter.

Really, Mad, this assertion is not squaring away with my knowledge of special relativity. If these "luxons" were traveling marginally slower than c, I could accept that they could decay.

Sorry, "decay" was the wrong word for me to use here, since we are talking about a chain reaction and not simply random decay. Photons with high enough energy levels (greater than the rest mass energy of 2 electrons) can be converted into matter (and antimatter) when interacting with matter in a process known as pair production.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-02-14 02:09pm

Wyrm wrote:
Mad wrote:Luxons can decay into massive particles,
...What? Source please! Decay is a physical process, which implies the passage of proper time for the particles involved. Luxons, being restricted to c, do not experience proper time. Every instance of "photon decay" I've heard of has either been a fancy name for redshift, or induced by the influence of nearby matter.

Really, Mad, this assertion is not squaring away with my knowledge of special relativity. If these "luxons" were traveling marginally slower than c, I could accept that they could decay.

Pair production. Also, Hawking radiation may produce more exotic short lived particles. E=mc^2 goes both ways you know.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-14 05:13pm

Well, this thread has certainly moved on since I last checked in. Not to revisit what appears now to be ancient disputes, but:

1) It is true that Occam's Razor does not necessarily select the true explanation, only that which is more logical. However, this fact does not mean that it's OK to ignore Occam's Razor, any more than it is OK to simply make up shit randomly and declare that random shit you pull out of your ass is not necessarily false.

2) People who think that you can achieve arbitrary speed for a massive turret by simply having "powerful servos" have obviously never tried plugging this assumption into a standard second-order control-system function. When you increase motor power, you can accelerate the inertial mass quickly to the target, but you need to brake it too, and you will get more oscillation around the target point. This "wobble" at the end takes a while to settle, which is why we call this "settle time". You can reduce settle time by adding more damping to the system, but more damping creates more resistance to movement, hence requiring an even bigger motor to overcome. You can add an even bigger motor, but now you need even more damping, and you also start running into problems with heat. As with most things in life, it is more complicated when you actually try to do it. I'm sick of dumbshit sci-fi fans who think that designing complicated systems is just a matter of some kind of idiot Tim Taylor "more power raraar'' solution.

AidanMcfay · Post by **AidanMcfay** » 2007-02-14 10:13pm

Aquatain wrote:Why would they name a weapon that fires physical shells "Turbolasers" ??

I like that, I like that alot.... short, simple and to the point.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-02-14 10:18pm

Since he basically openly disclaims logic and evidence (it's not 'interesting' enough) maybe we should cook up a Greatest Hits thread or Hate Mail page? It'd be awesome reading.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-02-15 12:43am

Ender wrote:Pair production. Also, Hawking radiation may produce more exotic short lived particles. E=mc^2 goes both ways you know.

Yes, I know. Both of your examples are covered under "influence of nearby matter". The point of my tirade is that decay (rather than pair production or Hawking radiation) implies the passing of proper time, and proper time does not elapse for luxons. Mad's explanation cleared things up.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-15 10:12am

Stark wrote:Since he basically openly disclaims logic and evidence (it's not 'interesting' enough) maybe we should cook up a Greatest Hits thread or Hate Mail page? It'd be awesome reading.

I love the way he tries to dismiss accusations of employing creationist reasoning, but he never actually refutes the charge. A refusal to employ Occam's Razor is textbook religious apologist thought. Really, once we throw away Occam's Razor and allow any old nonsensical term to be used (particularly something as nonsensical as an artificially generated "energy field" that can splinter into discrete glowing self-sustaining pieces), we might as well say that turbolaser bolts are actually generated by the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that turbolaser cannons actually use their energy to send subspace incantations to activate the FSM's powers. After all, the fact that it's nonsense doesn't necessarily mean it's false, right?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-02-15 10:01pm

Ender wrote:
AidanMcfay wrote:
We've actually seen evidence for projectile weapons that look like blaster bolts (or "projectile" type blasters - ie HAn's blaster firing on Vader in TESB, Zam Wessel's rifle in AOTC, etc. The AOTC novel, btw, specifies hand blasters as projectile weaponry.)
How is Han's pistol like a projectile weapon, other then the fact that energy was projected from the barrel? As far as Zam Wessel's rifle, it could be a type of slug thrower.
It ejects shells in ESB when he fires at Vader. That's the only time it does it though.

I can recall at least one other example than that as well, and I'm not talking about ROTS.

(speaking of ROTS, I just remembered that if you watch the Separatist "bolts" penetrate from those goofy small-guns, they display virtually no thermal effects whatsoever from penetration.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-02-15 10:11pm

Stark wrote:Since he basically openly disclaims logic and evidence (it's not 'interesting' enough) maybe we should cook up a Greatest Hits thread or Hate Mail page? It'd be awesome reading.

Why? His blaster theory is not nearly as insane as others have provided and I frankly find the nonsense Marc Xavier and his "surface tension" nonsense more absurd (and he didnt get a hate mail page.) Cut out some of the absurd elements and assumptions he made and its fairly workable (but then again there's lots of ways to work the "blasters/turbolasers as projectiles" angle too - replace "energy fields" with "warhead", for example.)

In a generalized way there's nothing specifically wrong with blasters being projectiles (or larger weapons, since we're stuck with ROTS.) since SOME of the evidence fits that. But jumping to the conclusion that ALL glowing bolts must be projectiles is as problematic as he claims that "all bolts being massless beams" is.

All this should really tell us is that you can't derive a single, all-encompassing theory for SW weaponry just because they all happen to look like big, glowy bolts or beams of something.

Edit: I also thought the bit about "throwing Occam's Razor" out was where this debate became absurd. The only possible reason one could want to do that is simply to allow them to create any sort of inflated, overly-complicated theory they need to fit their needs or desires.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-02-15 10:14pm

That was not in reference to any of his specific ideas, merely (as I clearly stated) his tossing aside of logic and evidence. He's freely admitted he works backwards and is fine with contorting evidence to fit a conclusion.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-02-15 10:17pm

Stark wrote:That was not in reference to any of his specific ideas, merely (as I clearly stated) his tossing aside of logic and evidence. He's freely admitted he works backwards and is fine with contorting evidence to fit a conclusion.

If it comes to that, I can think of dozens of morons over the years who would be worth a "hate mail' page just because they toss aside logic and evidence. Those sorts of idiots are a dime a dozen. Nowadays the Hate Mail is for someone either Mike challenges to a debate or someone of truly stellar stupidity or otherwise humorous qualities. There's a reason after all that someone like Stilgar or Stewart Davies ends up there, while others like Mith or Adarx do not.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-02-15 10:18pm

Stark wrote:That was not in reference to any of his specific ideas, merely (as I clearly stated) his tossing aside of logic and evidence. He's freely admitted he works backwards and is fine with contorting evidence to fit a conclusion.

While understandable...do you really want to read a greatest hits parade that read pretty much same across the board, just different shades of which long winded tirade cross his mind this month? Silence has never been interesting enough because his works are mundane and stupid. He doesn't put that finally oomph to actually make himself noticeable, and never will.

As is, maybe he'll come back here to this topic and actually debate Mad.

MPC2163 · Post by **MPC2163** » 2007-02-15 10:19pm

I don't know why I am wandering in here but the topic looked interesting. In RotS the Venators are firing weapons that have recoil and shells or at least charges being breech-loaded, implying some sort of projectile weapon. We never see the workings of other capital weapons in the other movies from what I can remember. Some of the weapons on Star Destroyers might be projectile, who knows.

The energy weapons on the Republic gunships and the artillery in AotC that bring down the shere-ships were very different than the turbolasers seen in space. They acted more like phasers in Star Trek, a long unbroken beam of energy cutting through stuff.

I really think the turbolasers are energy based weapons that operate in a manner only George Lucas understands. And I should get back to my paper on the Civil War so I'll run away now...

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-02-15 10:29pm

The ANH novelization makes mention of "explosive solids" as well (and the radio drama mentions missiles), so we could conclude that some of the magical-glowy bolts were projectiles there.

Projectile weapons would have some advantages (penetration aids, grgeater raw damage potential, more complex damage mechanisms in the case of kinetic impactors, etc.) over beam weapons but they wouldn't be the "be all, end all" of weapons (projectiles would reducec ammo cappacity and possibly refire rates, be prone to interception and jamming, and probably erquire much shorter ranges.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-02-15 10:34pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Stark wrote:That was not in reference to any of his specific ideas, merely (as I clearly stated) his tossing aside of logic and evidence. He's freely admitted he works backwards and is fine with contorting evidence to fit a conclusion.
While understandable...do you really want to read a greatest hits parade that read pretty much same across the board, just different shades of which long winded tirade cross his mind this month? Silence has never been interesting enough because his works are mundane and stupid. He doesn't put that finally oomph to actually make himself noticeable, and never will.

As is, maybe he'll come back here to this topic and actually debate Mad.

I think some of his ideas have merit, save for the fact of how ridiculously overcomplicated they are (The whole bit about shield penetration being one example.) although I am mildly annoyed by the canon purist thing as well (I dislike Canon purists on principle, because they usually tend to do so for the same reason idiots like Scooter do it.)

For example, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that the "shell" might generate a deflector shield as some sort of damage mechanism: We see the effects of objects hitting shields on multiple occasions (TESB and asteroids come to mind, as does the ROTJ shield, although that might have been in the novel mainly.) But such a damage mechanism would not need all the excess stuff he attached to it. Alternately, you could just claim that the damage mechanism for the "shell-bolt" is similar to a very short bladed, lightsaber, if you want to go for goofy ideas.

Then again, as I said, it could just be a warhead wrapped in a big glowy pulse that makes it look similar to the massless beams. Or in other words, they're just a missile/torpedo (the fact that its a big glowy pulse that looks like a turbolaser, is of course, meaningless in terms of names.)

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-02-15 10:38pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Stark wrote:That was not in reference to any of his specific ideas, merely (as I clearly stated) his tossing aside of logic and evidence. He's freely admitted he works backwards and is fine with contorting evidence to fit a conclusion.
While understandable...do you really want to read a greatest hits parade that read pretty much same across the board, just different shades of which long winded tirade cross his mind this month? Silence has never been interesting enough because his works are mundane and stupid. He doesn't put that finally oomph to actually make himself noticeable, and never will.

As is, maybe he'll come back here to this topic and actually debate Mad.
I think some of his ideas have merit, save for the fact of how ridiculously overcomplicated they are (The whole bit about shield penetration being one example.) although I am mildly annoyed by the canon purist thing as well (I dislike Canon purists on principle, because they usually tend to do so for the same reason idiots like Scooter do it.)

For example, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that the "shell" might generate a deflector shield as some sort of damage mechanism: We see the effects of objects hitting shields on multiple occasions (TESB and asteroids come to mind, as does the ROTJ shield, although that might have been in the novel mainly.) But such a damage mechanism would not need all the excess stuff he attached to it. Alternately, you could just claim that the damage mechanism for the "shell-bolt" is similar to a very short bladed, lightsaber, if you want to go for goofy ideas.

Then again, as I said, it could just be a warhead wrapped in a big glowy pulse that makes it look similar to the massless beams.

That much is true. One aspect as you said is this want to use canon only, and the premise of canon purists. The EU storywise can have immense variations, but the technology as well as what can be derived is fascinating for research.

The worst thing is this intent that this is an all or nothing explaination. That alone hinders it and just makes it open for people to destroy as they find more examples that hinder it then support. This is something Silence does more then a few times, and what makes his off the wall explainations after a while sound the same over and over.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2007-02-16 01:01pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:I think some of his ideas have merit, save for the fact of how ridiculously overcomplicated they are (The whole bit about shield penetration being one example.) although I am mildly annoyed by the canon purist thing as well (I dislike Canon purists on principle, because they usually tend to do so for the same reason idiots like Scooter do it.)

The idea that some of the bolts we see are physical projectiles of some kind with some kind of glow is fine. As you pointed out, the ANH novelization refers to projectile weapons being used during the Battle of Yavin. (It also mentions beams and bolts as two other weapon types.) And there's other support for other projectile weapons from RotS.

But applying the idea to all the bolts seen is stupid. It doesn't explain superlasers, it throws out the ANH novelization (energy weapons in the forms of beams and bolts) and EU sources, and Silence's implementation even requires nonsensical assumptions, explanations, and alterations to known physics to work.

Certainly, the fact that some "bolts" are projectiles (proton torpedoes and concussion missiles) can allow us to entertain the idea that some strange behaviors of supposed turbolaser bolts are really projectiles and thus not actually coming from turbolaser weapons.

Since many, if not most, hand blasters appear to be projectile weapons (based off of lightsaber interactions and the AotC novelization reference to 'projectile weapons like blasters', among other things), a better approach would be to come up with a blaster projectile theory (that doesn't rely on strange new physics if possible) and then seeing if any strange behavior attributed to turbolasers can be explained under the blaster model.

glass · Post by **glass** » 2007-02-19 05:41am

Connor MacLeod wrote:The ANH novelization makes mention of "explosive solids" as well (and the radio drama mentions missiles), so we could conclude that some of the magical-glowy bolts were projectiles there.

Its been a while since I read it, but doesn't the ANH novelisation talk about projectile weapons and turbolasers?

glass.