Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters

[His Divine Shadow]

Why can't there be both a massless and non-massless kind?

Oh certainly there can, I am not saying that, I was only specifying that in the form of plasma, I would say no.
I'd say that some other kind of coherent particle beam created originally from the excitement of Tibanna Gas is more likely.

I am just wondering, what kind of particle-beam would we speak of then?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Funny, Nitram says that the canon visuals DISPROVE massless beams. Of course, I suppose he's wrong because he's not following the ICS2 like the Great and All-Knowing Illuminatus Primus is! :Roll:

Actually he's wrong because HDS showed him AOTC clips he refused to awknowledge--and does not recognize that the SPHA-T has an initial recoil that ends despite continuous fire--making his "seperate recoil" nitpick equally irrelevent. But you're just picking something out you didn't pay attention to make a personal attack.

Good work shitface.

Repeat after me, asshole: "My subjective opinion does NOT constitute proof of a higher status" . Ubiqtorate covered this rather amply, which you appear to not have picked up on.

Or, In other words (if you're too stupid to figure it out yourself, which I am certain you are), the ICS2 does not predict anything in the movies - it describes things - observed effects, and that the "official" theory, observation, element, whatever it is, gains a greater measure of "authority" from the canon itself. Its a very specific sort of process.

Actually moron--what I cited from ICS2--were blaster and shield/blaster affects which is the total thing arguable here. Perhaps some other point Saxton made was overriden by the VD--who cares. Plasma is bullshit (which you still haven't addressed) and the ICS2 by comparison is more valid according to canon. Is this difficult to understand?

What you do is assume that because certain elements are true, the whole book *must* be more accurate than others, and that it automatically is elevated to a higher status. This is NOT substantiated by canon policy, as Ubiqtorate pointed out. The ELEMENTs of a source can be reinforced by canon to give them greater precedence, but the status of the book itself remains unchanged.

Wrong. I said plasma was BS according to canon visuals and required extra invented mechanisms while the ICS2 fit canon visuals. The shield-blaster affects colloquially and incorrectly refered to as "flakbursts" are predicted by ICS2 descriptions of shield-blaster affects--further undermining plasma and flakburst BS. It this difficult to understand?

And, as I've already mentioned, there is always a measure of interpretation to things. You seem to rather blithely assume your interpretation is the correct one without substantiating it. Yet what is to make you more right than Nitram, hmm?

Actually I outlined each example and addressed blaster nature (in the form of what consititutes a blaster and shield-blaster affects). Your demand that I restate all the plasma/massless quanta arguments is BS. It is even earlier in this fucking thread. I'm not doing your homework for you. You're nitpicking my statements about the ICS2's blaster commentary more matching canon than the VD's blaster commentary. You're not addressing the point--which would be trying to state how the VD's blaster claims are more along canon--because you can't--and you're just being a little shit.

Wrong, as pointed out above, and by others (such as Ubiqtorate, again above.) Not only that, its a "leap in logic" from "specific elements or facts being reinforced by canon to have a greater standing" to "the majority or entirety of the book having greater standing than other books." A leap from specific to general, in other words.

Full of shit. Blaster/shield affects is completely relevent. Plasma theories (see VD, numbnuts) involve flakbursting which is not described by the ICS2 interpretation--but the decay of massless quanta described is. I didn't say that the ICS2 is more correct about repulsorlifts thus their description is right about blasters. We've only been discussing blasters here. Your claims of red herring are total distortions.

Yet you're too stupid to grasp this, for some reason.

Actually you can't understand the canon visuals do not show plasma blaster/laser/TL bolts. The ICS2 explanation explains at least laser/TL bolts consistently with canon--and the predicted result of blaster/shield interactions is also supported in the ICS2. Get it?

So in addition to red herrings, leaps in logic, Ignoring data, deception and misrepresentation of facts, we're tossing in repretition?

VD says plasma. Visuals say not plasma. ICS2 says pulse that is observed in DS beam and fits at least some observations directly. Is this complex? I feel repetition helps with the education of morons.

Your "claims" are no more proven than the ones Nitram made stating that canon "disproved" massless beams. Try again, shitwad.

You cite Nitram's BS yet recognize it as BS? Oh yes your original sentence is flame and irrelevent ad hominem--just as I thought.

Twist stuff around all you want - you seem to be quite good at it (not to mention ignoring what you don't like.) FAct is your logic is total bullshit. Your refusal to accept it as such does not change this.

Canon visuals do not say plasma. VD says plasma. You cited VD and others for plasma. PLASMA IS FUCKING WRONG. VD IS FUCKING WRONG. YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG.

ICS2 fits SOME observations--ICS2 explanation for bolts is MORE RIGHT.

ICS2 IS MORE RELEVENT THAN VD ABOUT BLASTER BOLTS.

Get it, dipshit?

As opposed to deep throating that "Make up what I want and pass it off as fact" cock as you are?

Fortunately, I'm rather secure in my debating/analytical status (due to the opinions of people who I RESPECT and CONSIDER important, unlike yours).

More irrelevent flame from a moron who can't understand basic sense.

You tried to twist words, misrepresent ideas, ignore what you couldn't refute, and all but actually debate honestly. As I said before, concession accepted, asshole.

Canon overruled your cited sources in your original posts before I lifted a finger--keep nitpicking and changing the issue to how the ICS2 more fits canon visuals though.

Just to throw more fuel onto the fire (And to kick the shithead when he's down)

Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters. The Jedi on the whole had abandoned the old fighting style, considering it almost irrelevant against the enemies of the present galaxy"
AOTC novel page 342

I can't wait to see what sort of invented dodge he makes up to pretend he can ignore THIS tidbit. More than likely he'll either use the trusty "canon allows me to categorically ignore anything you try to debate me with because I said so" dodge, or he might actually attempt to employ some imagination (and thought) and make up something that allows him to elevate the AOTC ICS AABOVE the canon movie novelizations

Or maybe he'll just close his eyes and hope the mean men go away.

*shrug* I don't know what it means. It means an object is fired from blasters. It certainly implies bolt momentum.

Does it support your plasma cocksucking? Certainly not. The absolute canon films contradict that.

Thanks for the entertaining drooling foam chock full of distortions, changes to the subject, and outright personal attacks, asshole.

[His Divine Shadow]

Does it support your plasma cocksucking? Certainly not. The absolute canon films contradict that

I think you should know that he does not support plasma as in magnetic bottle whatever weirdo effect, plasma however could be workable if we assume that MW's possible theory on a small projectile containing it and creating a kind of force-field, this doesn't affect weapons on starships though which are clearly not the same kind of weapons.

Ofcourse, blasters in canon are proven to be more than just one kind of weapon(Solo's blaster fires independant bolt entities, other blasters have translucent bolts and damage occurs before impact, clearly two kinds of handweapons), the EGWT and VD would also agree with this since both their working descriptions are different.

Also, the rifle fired by Zam in AOTC is clearly a bullet weapon and is recognized as a rail-gun in the VD, it also fires a projectile that glows alot like a blaster bolt, similar to the Wookie Bow-Caster I think.

I'm starting to think that blaster is a buzzword for almost any kind of hand weapon, infact it would give alot of elbow room to rationalize this very hard dilemma.

[Mad]

I think you should know that he does not support plasma as in magnetic bottle whatever weirdo effect, plasma however could be workable if we assume that MW's possible theory on a small projectile containing it and creating a kind of force-field, this doesn't affect weapons on starships though which are clearly not the same kind of weapons.

Yeah. In any case, that the VD and VD2 use phrases like "hyper-ionize" (wha-?) and calling the bolt "coherent" and that "plasma energy" is released as the bolt becomes "incoherent" definitely show that this is not one of the standard plasma theories that were tossed around way back when.

Plasma can't be coherent to my knowledge, so it's obvious that something strange is being done. Something called "plasma" is involved somehow, we know that (too many descriptions mention it to discount). How close it is to real plasma is unknown ("lasers" and "lightspeed," anyone? SW is known to twist around definitions of words in some cases). This "plasma" is likely invisible, as EGW&T says the visible portion is a harmless byproduct of the "high-energy particles" in the bolt.

There are also other weapons, such as those used by the Vong, which are a more pure form of plasma than blaster weapons are, otherwise the descriptions wouldn't bother to contrast the Vong plasma weapons as being different from blaster weaponry.

Also, the VD and VD2 descriptions don't require a flakbursts to be possible (just 'cause the old theories use it doesn't mean new ones have to). Though it should be noted that both the novelization and radio drama to ANH specifically mention "flak," and I think TESB novelization also mentions flak. These could be from dedicated flak weapons, however. The ANH novel also refers to "explosive solids," as well as both beam and bolts weapons, which supports the idea that there are either multiple firing modes, or multiple types of energy weapons. All this is canon, but vague as to which weapons are being referred to.

Ofcourse, blasters in canon are proven to be more than just one kind of weapon(Solo's blaster fires independant bolt entities, other blasters have translucent bolts and damage occurs before impact, clearly two kinds of handweapons), the EGWT and VD would also agree with this since both their working descriptions are different.

Also, the rifle fired by Zam in AOTC is clearly a bullet weapon and is recognized as a rail-gun in the VD, it also fires a projectile that glows alot like a blaster bolt, similar to the Wookie Bow-Caster I think.

Yeah, most weapons in SW show very similar visual effects. Even the missiles fired by A-wings and the Falcon in RotJ bear similarities to other laser weapons, and the ion cannon is similar, as well.

I'm starting to think that blaster is a buzzword for almost any kind of hand weapon, infact it would give alot of elbow room to rationalize this very hard dilemma.

Quite possible. A problem could arise if one specific type of weapon showed inconsistent effects, like what TIE lasers may have done.

[His Divine Shadow]

Plasma can't be coherent to my knowledge, so it's obvious that something strange is being done

That is indeed true, but any charged particle weapon needs some containment, otherwise it'll scatter.

This "plasma" is likely invisible, as EGW&T says the visible portion is a harmless byproduct of the "high-energy particles" in the bolt.

Actually, I believe blasters as described in the EGWT is another form of blasters, dissimilar to the ones mentioned in the SWTJ and VD's, the VD blasters(example: Clone Rifles) work differently and uses electromagnetic forces to eject some bolt, it must clearly be composed of particles of some kind, likely contained with a small device which also counters gravitational pull.

EGWT blasters OTOH fires a beam and it goes through a prismatic crystal of some kind, assuming they use Tibanna gas and energy packs and harness the radiation of it, the prismatic crystal could be what focuses the radiation and releases a beam likely of the same kind that ship weapons use, so this would be another form of blaster working on that principle, I believe we can assign the blaster with the translucent bolt in the Tantive-IV boarding scene and the one that damaged Lukes hand to these kind of blaster models.

Quite possible. A problem could arise if one specific type of weapon showed inconsistent effects, like what TIE lasers may have done.

Well I think that is solved by merely saying the beam has terminated and the bolt or remains of it lingers for a little while before dissolving totally(as seen in ANH when one DS turret is tracking a X-wing), creating the illusion of multiple shots on multiple vectors.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In light of reading up on Special Relativity and after a heads-up by HDS, confirmed my worries.

I conceed on my theory.

Obviously the alternative is a gravity-defying massive beam that varies in speed by yield. Though I have looked at AOTC Clone trooper bolts and they do have some deviations from the norm.

Also, the VD and VD2 descriptions don't require a flakbursts to be possible (just 'cause the old theories use it doesn't mean new ones have to). Though it should be noted that both the novelization and radio drama to ANH specifically mention "flak," and I think TESB novelization also mentions flak. These could be from dedicated flak weapons, however. The ANH novel also refers to "explosive solids," as well as both beam and bolts weapons, which supports the idea that there are either multiple firing modes, or multiple types of energy weapons. All this is canon, but vague as to which weapons are being referred to.

Blaster bolts as we see in visuals do not flakburst. These are dedicated projectile weapons with proximity warheads.

[His Divine Shadow]

In general address:

Without going into specifics regarding the details of the present dispute, one should note that it is not technically correct to contend that one may apply M. Cerasi’s “foggy window” to determine relative status between the Incredible Cross Sections series and the Visual Dictionary series.

M. Cerasi’s specific remarks regarding proximity of sources to the absolute canon is, “The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play.” Both the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Visual Dictionary and the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections are encyclopaedic resources relating directly to the films; to wit, both sources are first-generation secondary resources. One cannot overrule the other by virtue of proximity, as they are of equal propinquity.

Rather, when attempting to resolve a contradiction between the two, they must be compared in terms of their individual merits. If one can be demonstrated to more accurately reflect the filmic evidence, then that one is more accurate a representation of the objective Star Wars reality on that point. To argue that a source is more authoritative than another because of greater accuracy on individual points, however, would be an occurrence of the fallacy of composition.

Moreover, it bears emphasis that this does not confer higher evidential status upon the said source. The actual policy is that the closer a sources is to the films, the more accurate it is; the policy as stated by M. Cerasi makes no allowance for accuracy conferring higher status. The determinant of relative superiority as evidence is proximity to the films.

Excuse me, if I understand this right, the ICS and VD are indeed higher sources than say EU novels and comics.

[Ubiqtorate]

The honourable Member His Divine Shadow:

Excuse me, if I understand this right, the ICS and VD are indeed higher sources than say EU novels and comics.

The honourable Member does indeed understand correctly. Because the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Visual Dictionary and the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections are both encyclopaedic resources relating directly to the film itself, they are superior evidence to Expanded Universe novels, comic stories, &c., by virtue of what one might call jus propinquitatis.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh goodie