Blaster fire speed

[McC]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

Wow.

While I don't necessarily agree with his theory, I think he raised some excellent points and can hardly be accused of being an idiot. I also think claiming victory because he 'ran away' is totally ludicrous. He got fed up with hearing the same un-informative "you're not listening to science!" "occam's razor overrules this" off-the-cuff remarks without any substantial indication that anyone really wanted to entertain the topic. I'm using pronouns liberally here -- there was some demonstrated interest in discussing the topic, but simultaneously I clearly understand his frustration. You were doing to him exactly what you're doing to me (throwing around 'science' as if it's some codified doctrine to which everything must adhere rather than a methodology by which to explore; invalidating his evaluations simply because you don't like them; twisting explanations around; criticizing a liberal interpretation of the texts when it was only done in such a way to attempt to unify the EU material that everyone pretends to be so concerned with including; etc).

All I see in that thread is one guy proposing a theory that, while it has its flaws, has some merits but no one willing to listen or entertain the idea or engage in debate with him. He got yelled at for quoting people in his posts. I guess being thorough and clear has recently become a crime.

I also noticed what seemed like a distinct neglect to actually read the theory he put forth. Anyone who challenged him seemed to only be reading what he would post in the thread of his theory, rather than reading the site he put up (not everyone is guilty of this, but many were). When he responded with patience, he was met with aggravation.

Additionally, your comparison of his theory to mine indicates to me that you either did not read his, did not read mine, or did not read either. In any case, it somewhat invalidates your position as a debater on the topic, given that your interest appears to be more in preserving the status quo (read: beam theory as interpreted literally from what is stated in AOTCICS) than indulging in other possible ideas. I am disturbed by your lack of interest in actually discussing the topic. I apologize if this is inflammatory, but this is getting moderately ridiculous.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I also think claiming victory because he 'ran away' is totally ludicrous.

No, we were right, because we were right. The fact that he refused to back it up only adds to the point.

He got fed up with hearing the same un-informative "you're not listening to science!"

Are you saying Mike was wrong? Liquids can be rigid? Annular confinement fields make sense?

"occam's razor overrules this" off-the-cuff remarks without any substantial indication that anyone really wanted to entertain the topic.

Subjective horseshit. His theory was needlessly complex to describe a series of weapons which fail to make consistent behaviors, merely because a single line says they should be related. Well sorry, the dissenting minority of information should be disregarded, and taken liberally. He held dogmatically to it and basically changed the meaning of other text to bend it to support his bullshit.

You were doing to him exactly what you're doing to me (throwing around 'science' as if it's some codified doctrine to which everything must adhere rather than a methodology by which to explore;

Do you have trouble listing examples? Why should people postulate contradictions in terms like "rigid liquids"?

invalidating his evaluations simply because you don't like them;

An example?

criticizing a liberal interpretation of the texts when it was only done in such a way to attempt to unify the EU material that everyone pretends to be so concerned with including; etc).

This outright offends me. You think taking Dr. Saxton's text and warping it into that is fitting the source in? He changes the meaning of the sources to confine to his theory. You can't do that. You have a theory which bends to the text, or you find which text is least consistent with visuals and useful explanations and discard it. Is the fucking blob a laser? Jesus Christ.

All I see in that thread is one guy proposing a theory that, while it has its flaws, has some merits but no one willing to listen or entertain the idea or engage in debate with him.

Ender, Connor, and Mike didn't tear his theory to shreds? What single flaw was there in Mike's critique. Name one.

I guess being thorough and clear has recently become a crime.

Dogmatic adherence to a theory maintained solely by the quantity of technobabble it contains is, at least on this board.

Observe that one of its precepts is mocking stupid people.

I also noticed what seemed like a distinct neglect to actually read the theory he put forth. Anyone who challenged him seemed to only be reading what he would post in the thread of his theory, rather than reading the site he put up (not everyone is guilty of this, but many were). When he responded with patience, he was met with aggravation.

Again, examples? How was Wong wrong? Annular confinement beams and rigid liquid walls do not make sense.

Plasma will not glow green, ever. It will not be translucent, ever. It will glow white-hot. It will increase in intensity with beam yield. It does not.

Additionally, your comparison of his theory to mine indicates to me that you either did not read his, did not read mine, or did not read either.

You proposed the same annular confinement beams.

In any case, it somewhat invalidates your position as a debater on the topic, given that your interest appears to be more in preserving the status quo (read: beam theory as interpreted literally from what is stated in AOTCICS)

You just proven yourself to be trolling, and to have entirely neglected to any research whatsoever.

The current theory is a modified "power-ramp-up" theory proposed by Mad; a modification of the AOTC ICS postulation. It is literally all over the place. The correct procedure for disproving a previously held theory is to understand the fucking theory, apply it, and then measure it against actual observations to say it doesn't work.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

I am disturbed by your lack of interest in actually discussing the topic. I apologize if this is inflammatory, but this is getting moderately ridiculous.

Hey fuck you, cockknocker. I've been debating this particular topic for at least a year, and when someone doesn't bother to propose an actual alternative mechanism, or even demonstrate how the actual current theory is wrong (which you didn't even read or understand, obviously) and then place your ad hoc speculation which takes official over canon information, expecting us to disprove it.

Well fuck you then. The very least you could've done is read the extensive thread on this, and research a major topic. You still have failed to do so, and even to understand that Mad's theory is not verbatim out of AOTC ICS, although it does work by it, rather than bastardizing and totally changing the meaning of the text then dishonestly holding one's theory to abide by it. Do your own homework.

[McC]

No, we were right, because we were right. The fact that he refused to back it up only adds to the point.

Actually, he did back it up. You just chose to disregard one source in favor of another.

Are you saying Mike was wrong? Liquids can be rigid? Annular confinement fields make sense?

No, Mike was absolutely right. The liquid wouldn't contain the plasma without some exotic properties which would then be sensible to apply as armor, which they are clearly not. I didn't say his theory was right, I said it was interesting and raised some excellent points.

Subjective horseshit. His theory was needlessly complex to describe a series of weapons which fail to make consistent behaviors, merely because a single line says they should be related. Well sorry, the dissenting minority of information should be disregarded, and taken liberally. He held dogmatically to it and basically changed the meaning of other text to bend it to support his bullshit.

He did exactly what everyone else is trying to do -- unify everything. If it requires extremely liberal interpretations of the text, then that's what he did. I'm not saying that he was right or wrong, but I'm saying that he made an effort to unify things and seemingly because it didn't agree with your theory, you claim he clung to it dogmatically and wouldn't see reason. Reason doesn't mean saying you're right if you're not. I'm not saying you are or aren't yet -- the beam theory does have some attractive things going for it, but it has some equal detractors as well.

Do you have trouble listing examples? Why should people postulate contradictions in terms like "rigid liquids"?

I didn't say they should. You're putting words into my mouth. Again, I said his theory made some good points, but also had some flaws.

An example?

How many do you want?

And there, my friends, goes a big heap of pseudoscientific technobabble.

I love how the Fact File, a third-party licensed release which is not used as a source material for further publications and is fucking ripped from a watered-down version of Xavier's own explanation, is used to justify a hack-job pasting together of everything regardless of author's intent and Occam's Razor.

Author's intent, incidentally, is also one of the literal interpretation tenants. As I recall, this is listed as a fallacy on Mike's page.

You're twisting semantics to fit your pet theory. And your vaunted Star Wars Fact Files are not even published in America.

Irrelevant point that you keep harping on. So what? Star Wars wasn't entirely made in America either. Should we invalidate parts of it? (I'm being melodramatic, of course, and I realize this is something of a red herring statement)

This outright offends me. You think taking Dr. Saxton's text and warping it into that is fitting the source in? He changes the meaning of the sources to confine to his theory. You can't do that. You have a theory which bends to the text, or you find which text is least consistent with visuals and useful explanations and discard it. Is the fucking blob a laser? Jesus Christ.

He changes the meaning you choose to apply to the source. Granted, his meaning is pretty far out there. Doesn't necessarily in and of itself make it wrong.

Ender, Connor, and Mike didn't tear his theory to shreds? What single flaw was there in Mike's critique. Name one.

There wasn't one. Nor did I suggest there was. But I wouldn't say his theory was torn to shreds. The faulty points were brought up and discussed (sometimes...sometimes they were just insulted outright, which is just offensive). Marc defended rather admirably, I thought, even though his basis for defense was somewhat questionable. My point is that he's not deserving of being called an idiot.

Dogmatic adherence to a theory maintained solely by the quantity of technobabble it contains is, at least on this board.

Ah, so dogmatic adherence to the popular theory is the preferred sort of dogma?

Observe that one of its precepts is mocking stupid people.

And exactly where are you finding stupid people? Marc has to be pretty intelligent to come up with the theory that he did. Granted, he made precisely two assumptions that I see that can't work via physics we understand, and those are the points where his theory begins to crack, but in no way is he stupid because his theory isn't flawless. It's as if you expect someone to come in with an airtight and unassailable theory from the get-go, which is preposterous. The precise reason I'm very comfortable with changing my theory/theories drastically from moment to moment is because I recognize that they're only ideas and that they are bound to have flaws that I haven't seen. Am I stupid because an idea I have has a flaw? If that's the case, then there isn't a single intelligent individual to be had on this planet.

Again, examples? How was Wong wrong? Annular confinement beams and rigid liquid walls do not make sense.

Correct. And I again state that I thought his theory made some good points, but those two fundamental pieces of it ultimately make it fall apart.

Plasma will not glow green, ever. It will not be translucent, ever. It will glow white-hot. It will increase in intensity with beam yield. It does not.

And? When did he ever dispute this? If you suspend reality for a moment and accept that the plasma 'core' (note in his diagram that it's white and yellow) of his blob was encased in a semi-translucent/transparent (this would vary, as he explained) liquid covering. It was this component that was transparent, not the plasma itself. The plasma did not glow green. The liquid covering did, because of the light emitting from the contained plasma and the natural transmission properties of the liquid.

You proposed the same annular confinement beams.

Which I then reconsidered and made an addendum edit proposing an alternative idea. I know these don't work.

You just proven yourself to be trolling, and to have entirely neglected to any research whatsoever.

Oh please, I'm no more trolling than you are.

The current theory is a modified "power-ramp-up" theory proposed by Mad; a modification of the AOTC ICS postulation. It is literally all over the place. The correct procedure for disproving a previously held theory is to understand the fucking theory, apply it, and then measure it against actual observations to say it doesn't work.

Yeah, and it's a good theory. I haven't said it's wrong, just that it doesn't jive with my preconceptions of how it 'should be' and that I'm exploring possible methods to get a working method for my preconceptions. That doesn't include disproving Mad's theory yet, just coming up with a theory of my own.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. This kind of statement is probably why Marc ended up giving up. He got sick of hearing this belligerent garbage. It doesn't further the debate or either side's argument. All it does is annoy people. There are a few that seem to revel in doing this rather than actually talking about the theories.

Hey fuck you, cockknocker. I've been debating this particular topic for at least a year, and when someone doesn't bother to propose an actual alternative mechanism, or even demonstrate how the actual current theory is wrong (which you didn't even read or understand, obviously) and then place your ad hoc speculation which takes official over canon information, expecting us to disprove it.

Ah, the only seniority clause. Glad to see that finally came up. I was waiting for it. In any case, read my above response -- I'm working out a theory. I don't have a solid one yet, but I'm trying to formulate one. The purpose of requesting a debate on the topic is not because I haven't read the old theory or because I'm trying to disprove it -- it's because I have an idea that I want to explore and get feedback on.

Well fuck you then. The very least you could've done is read the extensive thread on this, and research a major topic. You still have failed to do so, and even to understand that Mad's theory is not verbatim out of AOTC ICS, although it does work by it, rather than bastardizing and totally changing the meaning of the text then dishonestly holding one's theory to abide by it. Do your own homework.

I just spent a good amount of money getting the oft-reference books in this forum from Amazon. So, there's doing your homework for you. No idea when they'll be here, or when I'll get through reading them all, but I am making an effort to bring myself up to speed. I'm also giving Mad's theory (which is, as I said, quite interesting, even though it challenges some fundamental preconceptions I have about blasters/TLs/etc that I feel I must first have sufficiently defeated before I can move onto another theory) the benefit of the doubt, along with Saxton's stated theory (which very interestingly nearly mimicks the wording from Marc's Fact Files, IIRC).

That's far more than I can say for what you're giving me.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, we were right, because we were right. The fact that he refused to back it up only adds to the point.

Actually, he did back it up. You just chose to disregard one source in favor of another.

The Fact File contradicts itself. Plasma doesn't work for blaster weapons--visuals are all wrong. The EGtWT doesn't work by itself cuz those energy blasts, if simply self-contained, would travel in parabolic arcs.

He did exactly what everyone else is trying to do -- unify everything. If it requires extremely liberal interpretations of the text, then that's what he did.

By changing the meaning of the official and canon text, which is indestinguishable from discarding it except for the dishonesty in the former.

I'm not saying that he was right or wrong, but I'm saying that he made an effort to unify things and seemingly because it didn't agree with your theory, you claim he clung to it dogmatically and wouldn't see reason.

You just don't get it, do you. When you attempt to say your theory is better than your opponents because it unifies more sources, and you facilitate that unification by taking out-of-context and warping the meaning of the sources such that they are, in actuality, ignored or arbitrarily weighed and bent to the theory, rather than the other way around. Not to mention to claim that shoving all the sources in there, regardless of destroying the actual meaning by simple definition of English words, is automatically superior is a Golden Mean Fallacy.

A claim like that is dishonest. And to adhere to it obsessively when this is pointed out over and over is dogmaticism.

Reason doesn't mean saying you're right if you're not. I'm not saying you are or aren't yet -- the beam theory does have some attractive things going for it, but it has some equal detractors as well.

Obviously. It doesn't work for a couple weapons, and not at all for hand blasters and most small-arms.

I didn't say they should. You're putting words into my mouth. Again, I said his theory made some good points, but also had some flaws.

Now you're dodging, asshole. We said it didn't work under basic sense and Occam's Razor because he was changing the meaning of words and making shit up so he wouldn't have to discard or limit his pet theory. Get it?

How many do you want?

Why don't you just fucking say it?

Author's intent, incidentally, is also one of the literal interpretation tenants. As I recall, this is listed as a fallacy on Mike's page.

Idiot. You can't call a liquid plasma blob a laser without mangling the meaning of the word. This is semantic dishonesty.

You can't say that the damage propogates at lightspeed without mangling the theory in the AOTC ICS. This is dishonesty. He pretended the AOTC ICS supported him. It did not. Get it?

Funny you support Mike, yet it is Mike himself who said this in the fucking thread. Want to read the refutations you claim don't exist?

Irrelevant point that you keep harping on. So what? Star Wars wasn't entirely made in America either. Should we invalidate parts of it? (I'm being melodramatic, of course, and I realize this is something of a red herring statement)

You don't get it still.

Moreover, you should stop disregarding the ICS explanation while upholding the much lower-order Fact Files (I remind you once again that LFL does not even publish them in its own home country) as irrefutable evidence. This kind of inconsistency is indicative of someone who just doesn't want to let go of a pet theory.

Not to mention, moron, the same Fact File quotes the AOTC ICS almost word-for-word, contradicting itself by assigning seperate mechanisms for what it describes as the same weapon. Do I need to really explain to you why under SOD that internally inconsistent historical sources of low quality are discarded?

He changes the meaning you choose to apply to the source. Granted, his meaning is pretty far out there. Doesn't necessarily in and of itself make it wrong.

A force field, even if it is shaped like a tube, is not reasonable, and it is not a "beam fired at lightspeed." A plasma blob is not a pulse "along that beam."

Furthermore this contradicts multiple quotes, some of them listed here, that the weapon is "coherent light." Works better with exotic luxons than a blob in a tube, eh?

My point is that he's not deserving of being called an idiot.

Repetatively refusing to admit that liquids won't maintain rigidity, that he as mangling the quotes and thusly AOTC ICS contradicted him, and being obtuse regarding how beam theory better worked for his own fucking splash pictures is annoying. You concede where you're wrong.

Maybe you're offended by our rudeness or derision, but what you don't realize because you didn't properly research this, is Marc had twice pulled the exact same shit. We'd already had two debates over it, and countless others.

He never conceded a point, and when he wanted our theory explained, he wanted unreasonable demands, like how the particles interact and where are they in modern science. Meanwhile his blob and magic tube were perfectly cool. It is offensive and dishonest to maintain a double standard.

He's a unsufferable shmuck. Even his fucking signature is pretentious.

Ah, so dogmatic adherence to the popular theory is the preferred sort of dogma?

See above. When you don't deal with it, ask unreasonable demands, and then refuse to deal with observed flaws in your own theory with anything but ad nauseum fallacies, yeah, you become pretty fucking annoying.

It's as if you expect someone to come in with an airtight and unassailable theory from the get-go, which is preposterous. The precise reason I'm very comfortable with changing my theory/theories drastically from moment to moment is because I recognize that they're only ideas and that they are bound to have flaws that I haven't seen. Am I stupid because an idea I have has a flaw?

Buddy, he presented the same lame theories from his website twice before, and failed (like you) to follow the countless other discussions and detailed analysis and video clips regarding Mad's theory. We were sick and tired of him asking for it in perfect scientific journal-worthy form, while he got to spew whatever ad hoc technobabble and quote mutilation served him. Both other times he refused to concede. He refused to concede this time too, essentially calling us assholes, but too passive aggressive to do so. The only reason he bugged out after that was because Mike spanked him.

And? When did he ever dispute this? If you suspend reality for a moment and accept that the plasma 'core' (note in his diagram that it's white and yellow) of his blob was encased in a semi-translucent/transparent (this would vary, as he explained) liquid covering. It was this component that was transparent, not the plasma itself. The plasma did not glow green. The liquid covering did, because of the light emitting from the contained plasma and the natural transmission properties of the liquid.

Buddy, he himself quoted a picture to challenge me (which was actually incorrect as a refutation, but I digress), which showed an entirely translucent, monochromatic bolt, which is totally against his theory and a white core of any kind.

Which I then reconsidered and made an addendum edit proposing an alternative idea. I know these don't work.

You do realize by post times I posted the link to Marc's thread before you edited your post, right?

Oh please, I'm no more trolling than you are.

Refusing to answer points, refusing to research, and basically implying we're lock-stepping idiots, well--think whatever you want.

Yeah, and it's a good theory. I haven't said it's wrong, just that it doesn't jive with my preconceptions of how it 'should be' and that I'm exploring possible methods to get a working method for my preconceptions. That doesn't include disproving Mad's theory yet, just coming up with a theory of my own.

Don't expect us to consider yours until you've disproven the other. I'm still waiting for Ender and you to hammer out where the SL is inconsistent with Mad's theory.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. This kind of statement is probably why Marc ended up giving up. He got sick of hearing this belligerent garbage. It doesn't further the debate or either side's argument. All it does is annoy people. There are a few that seem to revel in doing this rather than actually talking about the theories.

He couldn't take the heat so he got out of the fire. That's not our problem. It is our problem he consistently refused to deal with points raised over three debates over many months and refused to concede when wrong, and maintaining rediculous double standards while treating us like we were inconsistent, irrational assholes with his pedantic faux-courtesy and his passive aggressive, snooty tactics.

Ah, the only seniority clause. Glad to see that finally came up. I was waiting for it. In any case, read my above response -- I'm working out a theory. I don't have a solid one yet, but I'm trying to formulate one. The purpose of requesting a debate on the topic is not because I haven't read the old theory or because I'm trying to disprove it -- it's because I have an idea that I want to explore and get feedback on.

Its the same thing Ender said at the beginning. This has all been done so many times we're very exasperated with it now. Since we've been here for all of it, it wasn't a big deal to expect you to look into it.

I just spent a good amount of money getting the oft-reference books in this forum from Amazon. So, there's doing your homework for you. No idea when they'll be here, or when I'll get through reading them all, but I am making an effort to bring myself up to speed. I'm also giving Mad's theory (which is, as I said, quite interesting, even though it challenges some fundamental preconceptions I have about blasters/TLs/etc that I feel I must first have sufficiently defeated before I can move onto another theory) the benefit of the doubt, along with Saxton's stated theory (which very interestingly nearly mimicks the wording from Marc's Fact Files, IIRC).

Well that's good then. And I hope you realize that since the Fact Files are internally consistent, that point cannot be used as a citation under SOD.

That's far more than I can say for what you're giving me.

Sorry?

[Mad]

Ah, so dogmatic adherence to the popular theory is the preferred sort of dogma?

Interesting fact... way back in another thread, IP argued against my theory. I had to modify it a bit from my original theory. My unified theory still has problems with its attempt to work blasters in, but the turbolaser portion of it is the currently accepted TL theory, at least after the workout it went through in that thread. It wasn't just accepted overnight.

[Connor MacLeod]

It does not invalidate them in and of themselves, but look at this:

The beam that struck Alderaan took less than a second to progate from the dish to the target. The range was about 75000km, which is about a quarter of a light-second. Thus the beam's speed is equal or approiximately equal to the speed of light.

Whether you're talking about a visible tracer or not, it takes at least one second to reach Alderaan (closer to two -- it depends whether you regard Leia's reaction as concurret with the firing frames or in sequence with them). In order to travel at/near c, the beam/bolt would have had to have been travelling for only 0.25 seconds (6f @ 24fps, 7.5f @ 30fps). This coincides with the number of frames that the superlaser "tracer" is in view in the same shot as Alderaan before it impacts the planet's shield. It does not include the frames immediately after the tributary beams are forming the 'central beam' nor does it include Leia's reaction shot (which I see no reason to deem as not being part of a linear sequence rather than a coincident event). So, unless the "tracer wave" element that everyone continues to bring up can travel ahead of the beam as well as lag behind, then a c-speed beam seems impossible for at least this scene. If you do the temporal calculation in a short a time span as possible ("tracer" visible streaking from DS, no Leia shots included), it takes 27-28 frames, yielding a maximum speed of ~82,000 km/s. So unless superlasers (and TLs and lasers) have variable velocities (and I can't think of a reason why this would make sense)...

There are three different scene cuts: the "formation" of the superlaser blast, the cut to Leia, then the cut to the beam firing on Alderaan. There is no evidence that it occurs progressively, so it cannot be "at least a second" as you claim.

Moreover, the "lightspeed" nature of lasers and turbolasers is reinforced in the AOTC ICS, and the SW novels "Destiny's Way" and "Rebel Stand.", as well as indirect proof in comparison to commlinks (blasters and laser cannons can be modified to act as makeshift commlinks, whose transmissions propogate at the speed of light, as per Iron Fist and Solo Command) Further, we know from the BTM CD and the EGW&T that the superlaser is basically a compound turbolaser (which is in and of itself a compound laser.), thereby suggesting that superlasers are also lightspeed or near-lightspeed weapons. So there is certainly substantial evidence for Curtis' interpretation of the scene.

*shrug* Where does the DS get all its fuel for its reactor? Who's to say it's not the same material? The DS obviously doesn't carry hypermatter, which in turn has an obviously high energy density.

Hypermatter reactions involve annihilation of the reactants. I doubt there is much substantial, if any, matter left over from the reaction to be used in any sort of beam. (and if it was, this would still require near-c velocities to achieve the kinds of energies required.)

As such, the beam might be composed of this (I'm speculating, not making an assertion that I intend to actually back up -- just throwing it out as an idea).

The beam is composed of hypermatter? How is that supposed to work? (For that matter, we should be *avoiding* more complex solutions, not pursuing them aggressively. The more unknowns added, the less likely the theory is to work, unless absolutely required. In this case, alot of unknowns are not required.)

The crystals (I'm not sure where they're located -- are they located at the firing 'ports' or further in?) may be involved in the same way 'lasers' have been suggested to be involved in turbolasers -- as mechanisms to increase gaseous energy through heating. Again, mere speculation.

They're at the firing ports. And if your hypothetical "hypermatter" beam passed through those crystals, they'd induce an annihilation reaction. Doesn't quite seem to work.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

As a "particle beam", the weapon is going to rely on mass and velocity to deliver its destrtuctive power (IE kinetic energy.) If the beam moves only at .25c, then the majority of the "kinetic energy" will have to come from an exhorbitant amount of mass, which the Death Star is required to carry. Why would they do that, when accelerating much smaller amounts of mass to a highly relatavistic velocity (and high amounts of relatavistic mass as well) would work equally as well, if not a massless beam?

Further, the kinds of accelerations/velocities they are capable of achieving also requires accelerating small amounts of matter to near-c velocities (and adding a substantial amount of relatavistic mass.) Using high mass/low relatavistic methods like you suggest would be terribly inefficient (since it would require carrying a substantial amount of propellant as well as reactant, whereas if the ion engine stream is accelerated to near-lightspeed, it need only have a large amount of reactant to supply the required power.) If they can do that to engines, they can do it to weapons as well.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ah, so dogmatic adherence to the popular theory is the preferred sort of dogma?

How is it dogmatic? Your analysis is overly-simplistic, ignores the implications of certain bits of secondary evidence, and requires a theory that involves a far greater number of unknowns to substantiate it. All I have pointed out is that at best, you have established a "lower limit", but this does not prove that your interpretation automatically supercedes all others. In fact, your continued "I'm right and you're not" attitude is rather dogmatic in and of itself.

Of course, if you prefer to point out just where I am being dogmatic in my attitudes, I would be happy to discuss it.

[Darth Wong]

I didn't say his theory was right, I said it was interesting and raised some excellent points.

No, his theory was a complete joke. He correctly noted some imperfections in current theories, but his preferred theory did absolutely nothing to rectify those problems and in fact added quite a few of its own.

His cardinal error was to believe that if you can show theory A is not perfect, then theory B wins by default. That is a huge logical fallacy, and that is why his argument was weakest when his theory was subjected to closer scrutiny rather than being held up as the default winner.

[McC]

The Fact File contradicts itself. Plasma doesn't work for blaster weapons--visuals are all wrong. The EGtWT doesn't work by itself cuz those energy blasts, if simply self-contained, would travel in parabolic arcs.

Fair. As I've said before, I think there might be enough evidence to go either way on this topic, but without evidence to prove it yet, I will concede the point for now.

By changing the meaning of the official and canon text, which is indestinguishable from discarding it except for the dishonesty in the former.

I see where you're coming from here. Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he was only stretching to source in order to make everything work together. However, I do understand your position and (in light of later remarks), rest on this point as well.

You just don't get it, do you. When you attempt to say your theory is better than your opponents because it unifies more sources, and you facilitate that unification by taking out-of-context and warping the meaning of the sources such that they are, in actuality, ignored or arbitrarily weighed and bent to the theory, rather than the other way around. Not to mention to claim that shoving all the sources in there, regardless of destroying the actual meaning by simple definition of English words, is automatically superior is a Golden Mean Fallacy.

A claim like that is dishonest. And to adhere to it obsessively when this is pointed out over and over is dogmaticism.

See above. Point conceded and rested.

Obviously. It doesn't work for a couple weapons, and not at all for hand blasters and most small-arms.

This is one of the things that suggested to me to find something else in the first place, given that at least two if not more sources suggest that the systems of a blaster a closely related to those of turbolasers and others.

Now you're dodging, asshole. We said it didn't work under basic sense and Occam's Razor because he was changing the meaning of words and making shit up so he wouldn't have to discard or limit his pet theory. Get it?

See above.

Idiot. You can't call a liquid plasma blob a laser without mangling the meaning of the word. This is semantic dishonesty.

I agree that the extent to which it was modified is extreme (see above). However, "author's intent" should not be a factor.

You can't say that the damage propogates at lightspeed without mangling the theory in the AOTC ICS. This is dishonesty. He pretended the AOTC ICS supported him. It did not. Get it?

Damage doesn't propogate at lightspeed from the beam launch. I've demonstrated this with the superlaser. I realize this is rationalized in the beam theory with the power ramp-up idea, but to me "damage propogates at lightspeed" reads "when the trigger is pulled, the damage will hit the target in d/c seconds," not "when the trigger is pulled, the damage will hit the target in d/c seconds after ramping up." This is a different point than he makes -- this is my direct quibble with the damage-at-c notion.

Funny you support Mike, yet it is Mike himself who said this in the fucking thread. Want to read the refutations you claim don't exist?

Sure, I support Mike. He's a very smart guy and has some very solid theories behind him. Doesn't mean I think he's right all the time. (This is in relation to the immediatley preceding statement and beam theory in general, not to the Marc thready)

Not to mention, moron, the same Fact File quotes the AOTC ICS almost word-for-word, contradicting itself by assigning seperate mechanisms for what it describes as the same weapon. Do I need to really explain to you why under SOD that internally inconsistent historical sources of low quality are discarded?

No, you just needed to explain to me where and how they were internally inconsistent. You have finally done so, and I am now conceding points.

A force field, even if it is shaped like a tube, is not reasonable, and it is not a "beam fired at lightspeed." A plasma blob is not a pulse "along that beam."

Just to try to clarify -- is shielding technology not regarded as a force field? I see references to it as a "volumetric effect," but I haven't looked into what, precisely, this means yet. I often find shielding technology much more difficult to figure out than even FTL technology, so I generally try to shy away from it beyond saying, "It's there, it works, and here's its performance capabilities."

Furthermore this contradicts multiple quotes, some of them listed here, that the weapon is "coherent light." Works better with exotic luxons than a blob in a tube, eh?

I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with luxons in general. I just looked something up, and they seem to have some very exotic properties, so I'm going to look into them in great detail before speaking directly on the topic at hand again. But without even looking at them, of course they work better than a blob in a tube. I still think the idea was creative and had some merit for that alone, if nothing else.

Repetatively refusing to admit that liquids won't maintain rigidity, that he as mangling the quotes and thusly AOTC ICS contradicted him, and being obtuse regarding how beam theory better worked for his own fucking splash pictures is annoying. You concede where you're wrong.

I do. I'm flexible -- I'm not here to prove a point (well...that's partly true, anyway...my 40-80k km/s figures are still on the table) or get my exact theory accepted. As I've said, my theory can change moment to moment based on new information I receive. And I'm happy to do that, so long as it's not a waste of effort. If I get to learn something out of the process, then great. My whole reason for being involved in these types of sci-fi tech nature discussions is because they're fun brain exercises. And when people aren't willing to be flexible, it does get annoying. So I see where you're coming from, but I hope you can try to understand where I'm coming from as well.

Maybe you're offended by our rudeness or derision, but what you don't realize because you didn't properly research this, is Marc had twice pulled the exact same shit. We'd already had two debates over it, and countless others.

As I've said, I didn't realize that I had access to the archive to properly research it, which I already said I should've tried to do anyway. (I think I actually did try, but I must've done something incorrectly, because I didn't get any meaningful results back)

He never conceded a point, and when he wanted our theory explained, he wanted unreasonable demands, like how the particles interact and where are they in modern science. Meanwhile his blob and magic tube were perfectly cool. It is offensive and dishonest to maintain a double standard.

Fair, but he does have something of a point here. Many remarks were made in that thread (do I really have to go quote them) that he wasn't paying attention to science. If the beam theory also doesn't pay attention to science, then there's double standards going on all around. However, I haven't look at it yet (and the fact that I found an article on luxons at all suggests that the beam theory is in modern science), this is probably a moot point.

He's a unsufferable shmuck. Even his fucking signature is pretentious.

See above. When you don't deal with it, ask unreasonable demands, and then refuse to deal with observed flaws in your own theory with anything but ad nauseum fallacies, yeah, you become pretty fucking annoying.

Agreed. But I'm going to interject myself here -- have I done that? I think I've been fairly reasonable (demanding only that people remain civil and discuss the topic) and directly discuss flaws...

Buddy, he presented the same lame theories from his website twice before, and failed (like you) to follow the countless other discussions and detailed analysis and video clips regarding Mad's theory. We were sick and tired of him asking for it in perfect scientific journal-worthy form, while he got to spew whatever ad hoc technobabble and quote mutilation served him. Both other times he refused to concede. He refused to concede this time too, essentially calling us assholes, but too passive aggressive to do so. The only reason he bugged out after that was because Mike spanked him.

See, I didn't know this. I agree that that's annoying. And I've stated above and before my reason for not being aware of the previous discussions.

Buddy, he himself quoted a picture to challenge me (which was actually incorrect as a refutation, but I digress), which showed an entirely translucent, monochromatic bolt, which is totally against his theory and a white core of any kind.

True.

You do realize by post times I posted the link to Marc's thread before you edited your post, right?

*nod* I said in my subsequent post "see edit remarks."

Refusing to answer points, refusing to research, and basically implying we're lock-stepping idiots, well--think whatever you want.

I have done neither of the first two. I try to answer any and all points that come up once I have put forward something for actual discussion. I've gone over this what seems like half a dozen times too. And the third is subject to interpretation. My only intended implication is that you were giving me an extremely unwarranted (from my POV, not knowing all this baggage you're all carrying) hard time, despite my efforts to remain civil even through your derrogatory responses.

Don't expect us to consider yours until you've disproven the other. I'm still waiting for Ender and you to hammer out where the SL is inconsistent with Mad's theory.

Fine, then I'll table my theory for the time being while I look into Mad's.

He couldn't take the heat so he got out of the fire. That's not our problem. It is our problem he consistently refused to deal with points raised over three debates over many months and refused to concede when wrong, and maintaining rediculous double standards while treating us like we were inconsistent, irrational assholes with his pedantic faux-courtesy and his passive aggressive, snooty tactics.

You see pedantic faux-courtesy and passive-agressive snooty tactics, but I see a guy being polite and reasonable in at least his manner if not his asserted points. You weren't inconsistent or irrational, but it seemed when I was reading it like you were unnecessarily being assholes. But given the new information you've told me about putting his theory forward twice before, my viewpoint on this has considerably changed. I still see no reason to be so flagrantly verbally harsh on anyone or one another. I'm not trying to suggest a style-over-substance thing here, but substance-with-style is certainly much easier to read and react to than substance-with-abuse.

Its the same thing Ender said at the beginning. This has all been done so many times we're very exasperated with it now. Since we've been here for all of it, it wasn't a big deal to expect you to look into it.

See previous remarks on "not doing research." I don't know how many times you want me to apologize for my oversight here.

Well that's good then. And I hope you realize that since the Fact Files are internally consistent, that point cannot be used as a citation under SOD.

No, no, I'm going to use my newfound sources as they are stated. They should get here within a week or so. I'm just trying to demonstrate that I'm interested in figuring out a real (well...you know what I mean), solid working theory here and have no personal agenda that I feel I need to set forward. I just want to talk tech, debate theories, and have a good time doing it. And maybe, just maybe, figure out a good solution in there along the way.

Sorry?

Thank you.

And then...

Interesting fact... way back in another thread, IP argued against my theory. I had to modify it a bit from my original theory. My unified theory still has problems with its attempt to work blasters in, but the turbolaser portion of it is the currently accepted TL theory, at least after the workout it went through in that thread. It wasn't just accepted overnight.

*nod* I'm looking forward to jumping into your theory, Mad I'm sorry if I seem to be short-changing you by bypassing your theory to propose my own. As I said above, I'm tabling mine to look at yours first.

And then...

There are three different scene cuts: the "formation" of the superlaser blast, the cut to Leia, then the cut to the beam firing on Alderaan. There is no evidence that it occurs progressively, so it cannot be "at least a second" as you claim.

The "formation" scene shows the SL 'tracer' firing. It does not just show the formation. So at least the "formation" scene and the firing scene must be progressive, even if Leia is not (which I see no reason not to assume...). As such, it's 28±2 frames without Leia, and 50±2 frames with Leia. Again, I see no reason to assume that it's not progressive. Movies are generally filmed in a progressive fashion. When we cut from the heroes to the villains, it's not to show what's going on meanwhile, it's (usually) to show what's going on while the heroes are doing something uninteresting. I point out that immediately after Alderaan explodes, we cut to Kenobi, who reacts to its explosion. This is definitely a progressive event. The entirety of the movie seems to be progressive, so assuming that this particular instance isn't is inconsistent.

Moreover, the "lightspeed" nature of lasers and turbolasers is reinforced in the AOTC ICS, and the SW novels "Destiny's Way" and "Rebel Stand.", as well as indirect proof in comparison to commlinks (blasters and laser cannons can be modified to act as makeshift commlinks, whose transmissions propogate at the speed of light, as per Iron Fist and Solo Command) Further, we know from the BTM CD and the EGW&T that the superlaser is basically a compound turbolaser (which is in and of itself a compound laser.), thereby suggesting that superlasers are also lightspeed or near-lightspeed weapons. So there is certainly substantial evidence for Curtis' interpretation of the scene.

There's more than one way to "skin a cat," so to speak. Some lightspeed element doesn't necessarily require it to be the damaging component. My theory above (though currently tabled in favor of discussing Mad's) puts forth a way for lasers to be involved ("coupled with light"), providing a light speed element without requiring that the beam be light-speed.

Hypermatter reactions involve annihilation of the reactants. I doubt there is much substantial, if any, matter left over from the reaction to be used in any sort of beam. (and if it was, this would still require near-c velocities to achieve the kinds of energies required.)

I didn't mean leftover reactants, I meant the reactants themselves are instead taking and fired. But where is the hypermatter stored, I ask? Didn't this pose a problem previously? I don't think there was a solution worked up on Mike's page.

The beam is composed of hypermatter? How is that supposed to work? (For that matter, we should be *avoiding* more complex solutions, not pursuing them aggressively. The more unknowns added, the less likely the theory is to work, unless absolutely required. In this case, alot of unknowns are not required.)

Fair.

They're at the firing ports. And if your hypothetical "hypermatter" beam passed through those crystals, they'd induce an annihilation reaction. Doesn't quite seem to work.

Ah, yeah, that kinda kills that notion.

As a "particle beam"...<snip>...they can do it to weapons as well.

Hrm. Good point. Conceded.

How is it dogmatic? Your analysis is overly-simplistic, ignores the implications of certain bits of secondary evidence, and requires a theory that involves a far greater number of unknowns to substantiate it. All I have pointed out is that at best, you have established a "lower limit", but this does not prove that your interpretation automatically supercedes all others. In fact, your continued "I'm right and you're not" attitude is rather dogmatic in and of itself.

Don't "overly simplistic" and "involves a far great number of unknowns" contradict each other? And I never suggested that my interpreation superceding anything. It's just an idea to discuss. Now that we're actually discussing it, it's failing rapidly, and I'm conceding to the those points because they make sense and are logical.

And then...

No, his theory was a complete joke. He correctly noted some imperfections in current theories, but his preferred theory did absolutely nothing to rectify those problems and in fact added quite a few of its own.

I suppose that's true enough.

His cardinal error was to believe that if you can show theory A is not perfect, then theory B wins by default. That is a huge logical fallacy, and that is why his argument was weakest when his theory was subjected to closer scrutiny rather than being held up as the default winner.

*nod* I agree -- just because theory A is 'wrong' (not saying it is in this instance, just going with the hypothetical), B isn't suddenly 'right.' If 'evolution theory' (I know Mike loves this topic ) was for whatever reason suddenly proven wrong, 'creation theory' (ha!) wouldn't suddenly become 'right' (although the creationists sure would like to believe that this would be the case).

Finally...

Anyway, now that everything seems to be clarified from an interpersonal standpoint, can we get back to actually discussing this stuff?

[McC]

Okay, I'm only on page three of the "Observing the Behavior of Turbolasers and Blasters" thread, but some thoughts that have occurred to me thus far (I have to run to work, which is why I'm posting these now):

Hence, hand blasters operate differently despite similar appearance. Probably because the same particles are used, but they are fired differently, such as in a helix as HDS suggested.

How would such a helix be maintained?

Unfortunately, nothing seems to explain why normal levels of gravity doesn't seem to affect hand blaster bolts. (And yet dovin basals do affect them.) Maybe whatever causes the helix can also apply a small thrust, and that thrust is automatically determined by the blaster so as to negate gravity.

I have yet to see evidence of blasters not being affected by gravity. Granted, I haven't put forth my evidence on this yet, but in most instances where blasters/lasers are fired, the range is short enough that noticable arcing would be negligable. The primary scenario wherein this is false is over Tatooine (and the DS, depending on how massive it 'appears' to the starfighters), but I think I did see arcing in those scenes, if only very slight and difficult to detect. I'm simply asking if there was ever a comprehensive study done to show that they don't arc. I haven't researched the threads yet myself for this, but I will when I get to work. If anyone wants to go ahead and preempt my search if they know off the top of their heads, that's fine with me

If a method for firing blasts more quickly has been developed, then why not use it for capital ships?

Perhaps it results in a less powerful discharge, hence the distinction between 'blasters' and 'lasers.' Why not simply call everything a laser gun? If the timing of the discharge/decay/ripple/whatever happens immediately in a blaster, this would explain how it functions similarly to a turbolaser, but has some different properties as well, would it not?

Also, what if the lightspeed beam is, as has been suggested, initially a 'carrier' but the visible bolt and damaging properties are some kind of chain reaction effect induced at the barrel point that then propogate down the beam at STL speeds? Again, I'm just throwing ideas around right now, and I haven't finished reading the thread yet.

[McC]

Wow, that was quite a read. Okay, so let me see if I can summarize:

A luxon particle beam is fired at a target. This is a c-speed beam (necessitated by the definition of luxons). The initial beam is of very low power while the weapon 'charges up.' The fully energized luxon beam is then emitted towards a target. Prior to this, some form of decay takes place which acts as a visible tracer (it is unclear what the decay process is, and whether luxons are converted into tardyons or not). The damaging component does not, in any way, relate to the visible component other than to incidentally arrive simultaneously or in a very similar time span.

A small projectile is fired which generates a plasma field around it, as well as provides anti-gravity 'lift'. The kinetic damage from this projectile is negligable and most of the damage is done through thermal energy transfer via the plasma.

Is that about right?

[McC]

It seems like it's a forgone conclusion that gravity must be defied by blasters and lasers, and that this is one of the principal arguments against plasma. I have no idea where this (my post) is about to go, but for what it's worth, I'd like to examine the only known incident of blaster fire with a defined range and height while in an atmosphere on film: AT-AT Blizzard One firing at the Hoth shield generators. General Veers asks for a distance to target, to which the response is "one-seven decimal two-eight." He then looks into his viewfinder and cries out, "Target! Maximum firepower!" The AT-AT then guns down its last target before launching a crushing barrage at the Hoth power generator. I am doing this from work, and as such, doing this from memory, so if anything I have just said is inaccurate, please excuse me for it and do point it out.

Now, we know a good deal about the AT-AT. Dr. Saxton has determined its height to be 22.6±0.8m, and this is a fairly consistent canon figure (disregarding the discrepancies in WEG material which produces figures that decidedly do not mesh with canon). For the sake of simplicity, I will assume 22.6 m as the AT-AT height in my calculations. I offer this image as a starting point (link). I offer the below calculations:

Code: Select all

AT-AT Height (Meters): 22.6m (Saxton)
AT-AT Height (Pixels): 566px (Image)
AT-AT Image Scale: 566 px / 22.6 m = 25.0 px/m
AT-AT Upper Barrell Height: 385px
AT-AT Lower Barrell Height: 381px
AT-AT Mean Barrell Height: 383px / 25.0 px/m = 15.3m

I combined the two barrell heights because, like the split barrells on the Millennium Falcon, the two barrells seem to form a single shot. From the above, we find that AT-AT guns have a height above the ground of approximately 15.3m. If we assume Hoth to be identical to Earth in physical properties (obviously, it is not, but for the sake of argument and example, I'm going to assume it is), then we can determine how long it would take for a physical object with mass to fall from any given height, using the known value for g.

Code: Select all

g = 9.81 m/s^2
x = v0t + 0.5at^2
x = 15.3m
a = 9.81 m/s^2
15.3 m = 0*t + 0.5(9.81m/s^2)*(t)^2
t^2 = 15.3m/4.91 m/s^2
t^2 = 3.12 s^2
t = sqrt(3.12 s^2)
t = ±1.77s

Since we aren't concerned with 'negative time,' we can therefore conclude that any object would fall from 15.3m in an Earth-like gravity well in 1.77s, negating air resistance. 1.77s equates to approximately 53 frames at 30fps or 42 frames at 24fps. I will be unable to provide frame information from work, but I believe that the time was much shorter than nearly two seconds on video. Can someone verify this for me in the next three hours? If not, I will be able to verify it myself when I return home. Until it's verified how many frames past, anything I say beyond this point will be speculation only, but...

It seems pretty clear that there's no reason to assume that whatever the AT-AT's firing is not some kind of massed particle discharge from gravitational effects alone based on this particular scene. Blaster shots between personnel generally occur over much shorter distances, so as to make any arc determinations next to impossible (from a waist height of 1m, it would take 0.45s/14f@30fps for the bolt to hit the ground, and we usually only see blaster shots in the air for 3-6 frames). At low orbital height, such as the scene between Devastator and Tantive IV in ANH, again assuming Earth-like properties and an altitude of 160km (extreme low orbit), acceleration due to gravity would be roughly...

Code: Select all

Earth Radius: 6,378 km
Distance above surface: 160km
Gravity falloff: 1/R^2
Gravity decrease factor: (6378km/6538km)^2 = 95.2%
Acceleration from gravity: .952 * 9.81 m/s^2 = 9.34 m/s^2

Not a big change at this altitude, but enough of one to need accounting for. Now, if we assume, for the moment, that Tantive IV and Devastator were exactly level and that Devastator could only shoot at Tantive IV's engine block, we have an area approximately 27.4 meters tall to address (see justification for height figure here). If we assume that Devastator fired at the top of the engine block, but the shot hit the bottom of the engine block due to the effects of gravity, it would take:

Code: Select all

x = 1/2at^2
x = 27.4m
a = 9.34m/s^2
t^2 = 27.4m/(9.34m/s^2/2)
t^2 = 5.87 s^2
t = sqrt(5.87 s^2)
t = ±2.42s (73f @ 30fps, 58f @ 24fps)

I don't think we ever see a shot last this long, or anywhere even close to this long. As such, I don't think this is an instance that can be used to prove that lasers don't arc. They are travelling too fast for arc to really enter into the equation at this point.

As such, I put forth that there is no visual evidence to corroborate the claim that blaster and laser weapons must be massless (necessitating that they be luxons). Although the ICS2 claims that the weapons fire at c, it is contradicted by the VD, which shares equal canon footing with the ICS2. However, I would also note that my analysis here is hardly conclusive that the weapons do arc. I am merely stating that these two instances, which are the most accessible visual examples wherein we might detect arcing weaponry, do not explicitly prove one way or another that blaster weapons do/do not arc. There is insufficient data from these two scenes to make a conclusion on this subject.

[McC]

I also put forward these images with respect to the "plasma must be white-hot" and "plasma must be opaque" remarks made in the other thread:



I confess, however, that I do not know if these images were taken with a filtered camera lens. The first does not appear to be filtered in any way, given that it shows an actual aparatus in what appears to be a white-light-lit room. The second image is a bit less clear. While this does not in any way suggest that plasma can be green, I'm merely pointing out some flaws in the assumptions I have seen made about plasma and its nature. It does not have to be opaque and it can have a color.

EDIT: I realize that my last two posts seem to fall under the "Supports Plasma" category, but I am not really in support of any current theory at the moment. I'm just examining possibilities and putting information out there. There seem to be a number of misconceptions regarding plasma (perhaps I am under some as well! this post may be making some kind of assumption about plasma and those images) and I'm just trying to see if we can't remove some of the mud from the waters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The laser blasts in AOTC were level across several kilometers.

[McC]

Have pics/quotes?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

McC, what are those pictures exactly of?

[McC]

McC, what are those pictures exactly of?

Plasma. The right one is the inside of an experimental tokamak-style fusion reactor. The left one I'm actually not sure about. The image caption on the site says 'plasma reactor,' but it's under a paragraph talking about cold fusion. *shrug* I dunno. But either way, they're demonstrations of actual plasma.

[revprez]

Plasma. The right one is the inside of an experimental tokamak-style fusion reactor. The left one I'm actually not sure about. The image caption on the site says 'plasma reactor,' but it's under a paragraph talking about cold fusion. *shrug* I dunno. But either way, they're demonstrations of actual plasma.

It's just a specially shaped bottle that plasma physicists used to study a configuration of weakly ionized gas at low temperatures. I have one at the office, but we just use it as a volume to regulate air pressure on our glass melts. Another guy has one he uses to keep spare change in. It has nothing to do with cold fusion.

Rev Prez

[Connor MacLeod]

The "formation" scene shows the SL 'tracer' firing. It does not just show the formation. So at least the "formation" scene and the firing scene must be progressive, even if Leia is not (which I see no reason not to assume...). As such, it's 28±2 frames without Leia, and 50±2 frames with Leia. Again, I see no reason to assume that it's not progressive.

Your irrelevant nitpicking aside about my "formation comment", there are three different scene cuts: The formation (and firing, since you are being nitpicky about it) of the superlaser, the cut to Leia, and the cut to the superlaser striking Alderaan. It is entirely possible for the two superlaser "scenes" to be from two different viewpoints (and in the second one, where the superlaser strikes Alderaan, it forms off-screen.)

Apparently you still do not understand what an "upper" and a "lower" limit is, and how it applies in this instance (especially since there is evidence for near or lightspeed propogation, in addition to the valid reasons for doing so.)

Movies are generally filmed in a progressive fashion. When we cut from the heroes to the villains, it's not to show what's going on meanwhile, it's (usually) to show what's going on while the heroes are doing something uninteresting.

We're not approaching it like a movie. We're applying suspension of Disbelief. We've been over this. "Good guys and bad guys" have no place in it either. This is meaningless to the argument.

I point out that immediately after Alderaan explodes, we cut to Kenobi, who reacts to its explosion. This is definitely a progressive event.

That's simple to explain: when you blow up a planet, people die. Unless you're trying to argue as well that it took time for Obi-Wan to feel their deaths as well.

The entirety of the movie seems to be progressive, so assuming that this particular instance isn't is inconsistent.

No, but it is still an assumption. What makes your assumptions any better than say, Curtis's? You're the one who keeps insisting you refuted his conclusions, after all.

There's more than one way to "skin a cat," so to speak. Some lightspeed element doesn't necessarily require it to be the damaging component. My theory above (though currently tabled in favor of discussing Mad's) puts forth a way for lasers to be involved ("coupled with light"), providing a light speed element without requiring that the beam be light-speed.

Actually, it does. We know canonically that the invisible component is in fact damaging (the various "damage before contact" scenes in the movies.) as well as from sources like the AOTC ICS and Shadows of the Empire. Moreover there are sources like the EGW&T that indicate the visible light is a harmless byproduct. You seem to be assuming that the visible portion somehow has to be important or damaging.

Moreover, why would you want a hybrid weapon? Your theory cannot explain damage before contact, nor does it explain the problems with a hybrid weapon (if it were a laser and particle beam hybrid, for example, the laser would impart random motion to the particles, causing the beam to scatter.)

I didn't mean leftover reactants, I meant the reactants themselves are instead taking and fired. But where is the hypermatter stored, I ask? Didn't this pose a problem previously? I don't think there was a solution worked up on Mike's page.

Why would you fling the reactants at the planet? That's even *less* efficient than simply using a particle beam (For one thing, the annihilation of the reactants will cause scattering, reducing the efficiency.)

As for where the Hypermatter is stored, Mike speculated on what it could be - one of the options was an exceptionally dense fuel source.

Don't "overly simplistic" and "involves a far great number of unknowns" contradict each other?

No. Over-simplifying your conclusion can be just as bad as generating far more assumptions than required. If you don't understand why, I suggest reading Mike's Essay on "Occam's Razor."

And I never suggested that my interpreation superceding anything. It's just an idea to discuss. Now that we're actually discussing it, it's failing rapidly, and I'm conceding to the those points because they make sense and are logical.

Then why did you say this on page 6 of the thread? (Much less all the other insistences of Saxton's interpretation being "wrong" on the previous pages.)

See most recent calculation post. Turns out that the c beam theory is still wrong, based on the union of novelization and film information, and actually closely coincides with the figures I was deriving with my FOV method (although this could easily simply be sheer luck).

Generally if you insist someone is "wrong", you are arguing that your interpretation is superior.

[McC]

Your irrelevant nitpicking aside about my "formation comment", there are three different scene cuts: The formation (and firing, since you are being nitpicky about it) of the superlaser, the cut to Leia, and the cut to the superlaser striking Alderaan. It is entirely possible for the two superlaser "scenes" to be from two different viewpoints (and in the second one, where the superlaser strikes Alderaan, it forms off-screen.)

That's an unncessary leap to make, though. If we saw Alderaan by itself on screen for the exact same number of frames as the "formation" sequence, up to the part where the beam emits, that'd be one thing. But we don't.

Apparently you still do not understand what an "upper" and a "lower" limit is, and how it applies in this instance (especially since there is evidence for near or lightspeed propogation, in addition to the valid reasons for doing so.)

I do understand, and I acknowledge that one interpretation of what we see on-screen can produce a c-speed beam. I simply feel that this interpreation requires one to make illogical decisions about what's being displayed on screen.

We're not approaching it like a movie. We're applying suspension of Disbelief. We've been over this. "Good guys and bad guys" have no place in it either. This is meaningless to the argument.

Wrong, in part. We're not approaching it like a movie, that's true. We're approaching it as if it's a portrayal of what actually happened. That's why we can use frame durations and such, since we assume them to be precisely accurate to what actually took place. As a result, it stands to reason that we would be shown what happens in a progressive fashion so as to provide a good sense of how everything plays out. As I said, though, there are a number of ways to interpret what we see. You obviously favor the interpretation that suggests the DS firing sequence took place over a mere seven frames. I think this is inconsistent with what we're shown.

That's simple to explain: when you blow up a planet, people die. Unless you're trying to argue as well that it took time for Obi-Wan to feel their deaths as well.

No no, not what I meant. What I was trying to say is that immediately after Alderaan exploded, he reacted. This was shown to us in such a way that suggests everything we just saw was progressive. It's consistent with the entire sequence we just witnessed.

No, but it is still an assumption. What makes your assumptions any better than say, Curtis's? You're the one who keeps insisting you refuted his conclusions, after all.

Look at what Dr. Saxton wrote:

The beam that struck Alderaan took less than a second to progate from the dish to the target. The range was about 75000km, which is about a quarter of a light-second. Thus the beam's speed is equal or approiximately equal to the speed of light.

If you omit the Leia cut from the sequence, he is technically correct that it took less than a second -- 27/30 frames. But he does not state what he's using for the amount of time. It's never shown how he reached his conclusion that it equal to the speed of light, or what his justification is for stating this frame duration. It's a mystical "well, it did this in about this amount of time, it was this far away, so....yeah, it goes this fast." Now, clearly, Dr. Saxton is not some hand-waver just cooking up random crap, but were I able, I would like to actually question him on what he was thinking here. It seems like a very wrong conclusion to draw. Do you know if he responds to e-mails from SWTC?

Actually, it does. We know canonically that the invisible component is in fact damaging (the various "damage before contact" scenes in the movies.) as well as from sources like the AOTC ICS and Shadows of the Empire. Moreover there are sources like the EGW&T that indicate the visible light is a harmless byproduct. You seem to be assuming that the visible portion somehow has to be important or damaging.

Not so much as has to be important and damaging, but has to be in some way related to the position of the damaging component.

Moreover, why would you want a hybrid weapon? Your theory cannot explain damage before contact, nor does it explain the problems with a hybrid weapon (if it were a laser and particle beam hybrid, for example, the laser would impart random motion to the particles, causing the beam to scatter.)

Yeah, the laser imparting random motion I didn't think about, so I guess that's out. However, I did adress damage-before-contact -- the particle beam is thin enough so as to be virtually invisible at the turbolaser/blaster scale.

Why would you fling the reactants at the planet? That's even *less* efficient than simply using a particle beam (For one thing, the annihilation of the reactants will cause scattering, reducing the efficiency.)

I guess I have some major misconceptions about hypermatter. I was under the impression that it was inherently energetic or some such.

As for where the Hypermatter is stored, Mike speculated on what it could be - one of the options was an exceptionally dense fuel source.

*nod* I saw that -- the black hole idea. I like the idea in theory, but it doesn't really address what hypermatter is, unless SW people refer to black holes and other ultra-dense forms of matter as hypermatter...

No. Over-simplifying your conclusion can be just as bad as generating far more assumptions than required. If you don't understand why, I suggest reading Mike's Essay on "Occam's Razor."

Oh, I understand what you were saying now. Sorry, misunderstood.

Then why did you say this on page 6 of the thread? (Much less all the other insistences of Saxton's interpretation being "wrong" on the previous pages.)

'cause based on my way of interpreting the sequence, he is wrong. If you subscribe to some other way of interpreting the sequence, then he is not. As I've said, I find it very difficult to believe the idea that the Alderaan POV shot is the only one wherein the SL is traveling. It seems more sensible to me to interpret the entire sequence as a linear progression of events.

Generally if you insist someone is "wrong", you are arguing that your interpretation is superior.

I do think my interpretation of the number of frames over which the SL travel is more sensible, so if you want to refer to that as arguing my interpretation is superior, then I guess you can...

It's just a specially shaped bottle that plasma physicists used to study a configuration of weakly ionized gas at low temperatures. I have one at the office, but we just use it as a volume to regulate air pressure on our glass melts. Another guy has one he uses to keep spare change in. It has nothing to do with cold fusion.

Oh, cool

[McC]

Last post for the evening. I'm back home now, so I had a change to capture and look at the AT-AT firing scene from above. I've uploaded the clip (here, Sorenson QuickTime, 2MB) for you all to look at as well.

Seems to me this is what it shows:

Code: Select all

00:02 - First visible hint of AT-AT having fired
00:04 - Major muzzle flash
00:26 - Explosion

So, we're looking at 22-24 frames here, or approximately 0.8 seconds, well above the 1.77s required for the bolts to be pulled completely down to the ground by gravity. It also yields a velocity of approximately 21.6 km/s for the bolts, well below light speed (although the visible element, as has been noted, does not have to be related to the damaging component). This scene, at least, allows for the use of a bolt with a mass.

I'd also like to point out frame 21. You can see some form of after-image of the bolts in this scene. It actually lingers there, in the same place, for 5 frames, fading out during that time. This may actually be visible prove of some kind of sighting beam or some such that does travel at lightspeed (since AT-ATs are said to have laser cannons rather than blaster cannons).

In addition, but of no real relevance, I'd like to point out 1:00, because it looks really cool.

[Shok Teenik]

some questions that popped in my mind while reading this thread:

if we're to assume there was an in-universe camera filming the events pictured in the movies (and the characters failed to notice this or chose to ignore it), why assume it has anything like a "focal length" or whatever at all? they would've used a holo-camera, and there's no telling how those work, seeing as how for an example, R2D2 was able to record Leia in 3D while its optics only viewed one side of her, suggesting they work on a radically different basis than our cameras.

and if we're to think it's a simply remake of historic events and not an actual recording from the events as they happened, why assume they used a camera at all? it could all be advanced Star Wars universe CGI, for all we know. I think all arguments that make assumptions on the nature of the recording device the movies were filmed with are fundamentally flawed from this perspective.

another thing is, why would the Imperials bother spending precious energy adding a huge tracer component into the Death Star beam? after all, they know precisely where they're going to hit with the thing well in advance of firing it. perhaps it's meant to terrorize? or maybe they need it to focus the minor beams somehow?

[Connor MacLeod]

That's an unncessary leap to make, though. If we saw Alderaan by itself on screen for the exact same number of frames as the "formation" sequence, up to the part where the beam emits, that'd be one thing. But we don't.

No it isn't. We know that its possible (we know other similar weapons are capable of such velocities), it does not explicitly contradict what is observed, it is the most efficient method, and it fits what is known with a minimum of assumptions. Have you forgotten all the other evidence and considerations I have brought up?

You seem to be assuming the only consideration is what the apparent timeframe of the incident is, and attempting to straitjacket the conversation by assuming that only your particular interpretation of the scene is valid.

I do understand, and I acknowledge that one interpretation of what we see on-screen can produce a c-speed beam. I simply feel that this interpreation requires one to make illogical decisions about what's being displayed on screen.

And how is assuming the beam moves at c and we are just subject to multiple screen-cuts of the same incident requiring of more assumptions than what you have been attempting to present, exactly? Just saying "I feel" does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If I were to say "I feel you're wrong" does that automatically mean I've refuted you if you present evidence? I happen to think its illogical to assume the Death Star is ejecting near-planetary masses as low-relatavistic speeds.

Wrong, in part. We're not approaching it like a movie, that's true. We're approaching it as if it's a portrayal of what actually happened.

So why bring up stuff like "the good guys and bad guys?" its a red herring.

That's why we can use frame durations and such, since we assume them to be precisely accurate to what actually took place. As a result, it stands to reason that we would be shown what happens in a progressive fashion so as to provide a good sense of how everything plays out.

And your method requires we ignore explicit evidence in addition to proposing something that is *deliberately* far more inefficient than the Star Wars universe is known to be capable of. The entire basis for your viewpoint seems to be largely assumption, in fact (IE "I think its illogical" and "it probably is progressive.") Would you care to try addressing the *other* evidencee I have mentioned?

As I said, though, there are a number of ways to interpret what we see. You obviously favor the interpretation that suggests the DS firing sequence took place over a mere seven frames. I think this is inconsistent with what we're shown.

Fine, think what you will. But you have not proven that your theory is superior, despite your claims to the contrary.

No no, not what I meant. What I was trying to say is that immediately after Alderaan exploded, he reacted. This was shown to us in such a way that suggests everything we just saw was progressive. It's consistent with the entire sequence we just witnessed.

So is assuming there are multiple scene-cuts of the same incident involved. Which is why we look at other evidence as well.

Look at what Dr. Saxton wrote:

The beam that struck Alderaan took less than a second to progate from the dish to the target. The range was about 75000km, which is about a quarter of a light-second. Thus the beam's speed is equal or approiximately equal to the speed of light.

If you omit the Leia cut from the sequence, he is technically correct that it took less than a second -- 27/30 frames. But he does not state what he's using for the amount of time. It's never shown how he reached his conclusion that it equal to the speed of light, or what his justification is for stating this frame duration. It's a mystical "well, it did this in about this amount of time, it was this far away, so....yeah, it goes this fast." Now, clearly, Dr. Saxton is not some hand-waver just cooking up random crap, but were I able, I would like to actually question him on what he was thinking here. It seems like a very wrong conclusion to draw. Do you know if he responds to e-mails from SWTC?

He's only incorrect *if* your assumptions are correct. The problem is you deliberately ignore all the other considerations (if you watch just the scene with the superlaser striking Alderaan, frrom the point it fires to the point.

And I just noticed you're using the 30 fps NTSC, which is not consistent with the theatrical film release (which would be at 24 fps.) if you go by 24 fps, the "first" shot of the superlaser, formation and firing, takes place for 12 frames from firing to scene switch. The second scene is 6 frames more (which at 24 fps, equals the "quarter second" Saxton indicated, incidentally.) thats 18 frames, or roughly .75 seconds... equalling a low end velocity of actually 100,000 km/s, or roughly 1/3 the speed of light.

If we include teh scene with Leia, thats about another 18 frames.. for a total of roughly 36 frames. 1.5 seconds, or 50,000 km/s (.167c - one-sixth the speed of light.)

However, there are other more obvious considerations, like the distance covered by the debris ejected from Alderaan (the speed of which is based upon the planet's diameter, reasonably assuming an approximately Earthlike planet. This is also confirmed in the WOTC guide concerning Coruscant and the Core worlds. link here

Note that it takes several seconds easily for the "ring" to travel the same distance the Superlaser traveled in that same scene. The debris takes roughly ~4 seconds to cross the screen. Both indicate velocites that are near or at lightspeed (the beam cannot move faster than c = we can clearly see it - which we would not if it wer emoving FTL. Thus anything higher than c is ignored.) Thus it is consistent with Saxton's interpretation, but not with yours (The superlaser blast crosses the same distance in a fraction of a second that the debris/ring cover in seconds.)

We should also note that by assuming it is "progressive" as you note, we would also be required to ignore the novelization, which we are not required to under the assumption of "multiple scene cuts"

Not so much as has to be important and damaging, but has to be in some way related to the position of the damaging component.

Why? Its a side effect of the invisible beam. Whatever speed it moves at is largely irrelevant, when it comes down to it.

Yeah, the laser imparting random motion I didn't think about, so I guess that's out. However, I did adress damage-before-contact -- the particle beam is thin enough so as to be virtually invisible at the turbolaser/blaster scale.

A parrticle beam is going to be invisible anyhow unless it is emitting light (IE if it is excited by something else - interaction with the atmosphere, or with another beam, or some such.) But I already addressed the problems with that.

I guess I have some major misconceptions about hypermatter. I was under the impression that it was inherently energetic or some such.

Like antimatter, it requires something to interact with to produce energy (it has to annihilate something, remember?) Its more efficient to use it to power a weapon than to use it as a weapon itself. (or, if you were going to use it as a weapon, using it as a missile or bomb would be more efficient - why bother flinging it at the planet as an unconfined beam?)

*nod* I saw that -- the black hole idea. I like the idea in theory, but it doesn't really address what hypermatter is, unless SW people refer to black holes and other ultra-dense forms of matter as hypermatter...

Not just a black hole, but it could also be neutronium-dense annihilation product. It would probably behave more like a fission reactor, IIRC (which I believe does not really use a fuel tank, either.)

'cause based on my way of interpreting the sequence, he is wrong. If you subscribe to some other way of interpreting the sequence, then he is not. As I've said, I find it very difficult to believe the idea that the Alderaan POV shot is the only one wherein the SL is traveling. It seems more sensible to me to interpret the entire sequence as a linear progression of events.

That's merely your opinion though. IF you are going to claim your theory is the superior one, you must provide a theory that accounts for all available evidence with the fewest assumptions, and preferrably ignores the minimum of evidence. Thus far, your theory has not adequately met these requirements, and you only "think" it is the more logical of the two. That is not sufficient to claim that it is neccesarily "better" than Curtis's.

I do think my interpretation of the number of frames over which the SL travel is more sensible, so if you want to refer to that as arguing my interpretation is superior, then I guess you can...

It is. Unfortunately, you have not *proven* it to be such. In fact, your theory thus far is less workable based on the various elements of evidence I have mentioned.

[McC]

No it isn't. We know that its possible (we know other similar weapons are capable of such velocities), it does not explicitly contradict what is observed, it is the most efficient method, and it fits what is known with a minimum of assumptions. Have you forgotten all the other evidence and considerations I have brought up?

No, no, I'm just looking at this particular scene for a moment. As you said before, my method of analysis provides a lower limit, not an absolute.

You seem to be assuming the only consideration is what the apparent timeframe of the incident is, and attempting to straitjacket the conversation by assuming that only your particular interpretation of the scene is valid.

I'm trying to open the possibility that we may not be looking at a c beam, that's all I feel like everyone else is attempting to straight-jacket the conversation into forcing some interpretation using a c beam, and I contend that the c beam's evidence is circumstantial enough to be questionable.

And how is assuming the beam moves at c and we are just subject to multiple screen-cuts of the same incident requiring of more assumptions than what you have been attempting to present, exactly? Just saying "I feel" does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If I were to say "I feel you're wrong" does that automatically mean I've refuted you if you present evidence? I happen to think its illogical to assume the Death Star is ejecting near-planetary masses as low-relatavistic speeds.

No, again, of course not. My "I feel" is not meant to be a scientifically valid assertion, simply my expression of where I stand on this current point of contention.

So why bring up stuff like "the good guys and bad guys?" its a red herring.

Momentary slip. Try as I might, my instinct still tells me to approach it as a film. Sorry.

And your method requires we ignore explicit evidence in addition to proposing something that is *deliberately* far more inefficient than the Star Wars universe is known to be capable of. The entire basis for your viewpoint seems to be largely assumption, in fact (IE "I think its illogical" and "it probably is progressive.") Would you care to try addressing the *other* evidencee I have mentioned?

Well, hold on there. My proposed method is very freeform at the moment, and not meant to actually pose any kind of challenge to anything yet. It's not nearly refined or thought-through enough. It's mostly idle talk. My main point is to demonstrate wherein the c beam theory is inconsistent, using the major canon evidence that others have stated supports it. I'm basically trying to cut out what others perceive to be rock-solid support for the c beam theory so as to open the conversation to alternative ideas. Taking off the straight-jacket, to use your metaphor from earlier.

As to the other evidence you have mentioned (I'm assuming you mean the EU evidence -- stop me if I'm wrong), it's EU. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it holds a lot less weight (at least with me) than something we can see. I know I'm going to get yelled at for this, but EU evidence just doesn't prove anything to me. If it can be worked in to support a theory, great. But it's corroborating and circumstantial non-expert observational evidence at best, not technically accurate evidence to be regarded as nigh-infallible. That's my stance on it. If that doesn't agree with everyone else, well, that would certainly explain the source of some problems we've had thus far

Fine, think what you will. But you have not proven that your theory is superior, despite your claims to the contrary.

I don't think I ever claimed my theory is superior. As I've said, I'm pointing out ways in which the c beam evidence can be interpreted to show a STL beam just as easily, thereby reducing some of the canon support for the idea. I realize that I should have some kind of actual goal other than taking apart the standing theory (i.e. I should have something with which to replace it), but for the moment I have nothing more than an instinct saying "c beam is not what we see, so it must be wrong." I think I've done a fair job of showing instances where canon evidence for the c beam theory starts to waver.

So is assuming there are multiple scene-cuts of the same incident involved. Which is why we look at other evidence as well.

*nod* You are, of course, right in that there is no conclusive way to look at this sequence and that additional evidence must be factored in. As I said previously, I'm still waiting on some nigh-canon published material to arrive so I can examine myself what others have at their disposal for this discussion.

He's only incorrect *if* your assumptions are correct. The problem is you deliberately ignore all the other considerations (if you watch just the scene with the superlaser striking Alderaan, frrom the point it fires to the point.

I'm not deliberately ignoring so much as deliberately focusing on this specific example. I just want someone to say (and mean) that yes, this scene does not conclusively show that the SL fires a c beam.

And I just noticed you're using the 30 fps NTSC, which is not consistent with the theatrical film release (which would be at 24 fps.) if you go by 24 fps, the "first" shot of the superlaser, formation and firing, takes place for 12 frames from firing to scene switch. The second scene is 6 frames more (which at 24 fps, equals the "quarter second" Saxton indicated, incidentally.) thats 18 frames, or roughly .75 seconds... equalling a low end velocity of actually 100,000 km/s, or roughly 1/3 the speed of light.

If we include teh scene with Leia, thats about another 18 frames.. for a total of roughly 36 frames. 1.5 seconds, or 50,000 km/s (.167c - one-sixth the speed of light.)

I'm going to get back to you on this, but using one version or the other shouldn't matter -- the idea is that you can easily jump from one version to the next without significant differences in running time or sound synchronization. IIRC, the 30fps version simply either blends or duplicates frames to get the additional numbers. I'll have to go back and read-up. But I'm fairly sure this is an irrelevant fact.

However, there are other more obvious considerations, like the distance covered by the debris ejected from Alderaan (the speed of which is based upon the planet's diameter, reasonably assuming an approximately Earthlike planet. This is also confirmed in the WOTC guide concerning Coruscant and the Core worlds. link here

Yep, I have that book. I quoted it in a previous post, if you recall

Note that it takes several seconds easily for the "ring" to travel the same distance the Superlaser traveled in that same scene. The debris takes roughly ~4 seconds to cross the screen. Both indicate velocites that are near or at lightspeed (the beam cannot move faster than c = we can clearly see it - which we would not if it wer emoving FTL. Thus anything higher than c is ignored.) Thus it is consistent with Saxton's interpretation, but not with yours (The superlaser blast crosses the same distance in a fraction of a second that the debris/ring cover in seconds.)

The debris ring indicates with what explosive force the planet blows apart. In what way does this tells us anything about the speed of the beam?

We should also note that by assuming it is "progressive" as you note, we would also be required to ignore the novelization, which we are not required to under the assumption of "multiple scene cuts"

Why does assuming it is progressive require us to ignore the novelization? I don't have my copy yet.

Why? Its a side effect of the invisible beam. Whatever speed it moves at is largely irrelevant, when it comes down to it.

That's another thing that bothers me about the c beam theory itself. Why have a visible tracer at all, especially for something as big as a Death Star where the shot is lined up very precisely to begin with?

A parrticle beam is going to be invisible anyhow unless it is emitting light (IE if it is excited by something else - interaction with the atmosphere, or with another beam, or some such.) But I already addressed the problems with that.

Wouldn't the interactions between the particles in the beam itself cause it to be luminous? I'm asking this from a purely academic standpoint because I'm curious.

Like antimatter, it requires something to interact with to produce energy (it has to annihilate something, remember?) Its more efficient to use it to power a weapon than to use it as a weapon itself. (or, if you were going to use it as a weapon, using it as a missile or bomb would be more efficient - why bother flinging it at the planet as an unconfined beam?)

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up

Not just a black hole, but it could also be neutronium-dense annihilation product. It would probably behave more like a fission reactor, IIRC (which I believe does not really use a fuel tank, either.)

Oh, ok. That's an interesting thought.

That's merely your opinion though. IF you are going to claim your theory is the superior one, you must provide a theory that accounts for all available evidence with the fewest assumptions, and preferrably ignores the minimum of evidence. Thus far, your theory has not adequately met these requirements, and you only "think" it is the more logical of the two. That is not sufficient to claim that it is neccesarily "better" than Curtis's.

I stress again that I don't have a cohesive theory yet. I'm just addressing what I think are flaws in the current theory that merit revisiting and revision.

It is. Unfortunately, you have not *proven* it to be such. In fact, your theory thus far is less workable based on the various elements of evidence I have mentioned.

See above.

if we're to assume there was an in-universe camera filming the events pictured in the movies (and the characters failed to notice this or chose to ignore it), why assume it has anything like a "focal length" or whatever at all? they would've used a holo-camera, and there's no telling how those work, seeing as how for an example, R2D2 was able to record Leia in 3D while its optics only viewed one side of her, suggesting they work on a radically different basis than our cameras.

Good point. Although the entirety of the lens-based discussion has been shown to be an error in logic on my part already anyway, but nevertheless -- good point

and if we're to think it's a simply remake of historic events and not an actual recording from the events as they happened, why assume they used a camera at all? it could all be advanced Star Wars universe CGI, for all we know. I think all arguments that make assumptions on the nature of the recording device the movies were filmed with are fundamentally flawed from this perspective.

Whether it's in real life or in a CG world, there's still a camera with parameters involved. My figures for the camera came from LightWave3D, a high-end modeling and animation package made by NewTek and used in a number of high-profile industry projects (namely, Star Trek, but in many others as well). So, just because something's CG doesn't mean the camera isn't still a big factor.

another thing is, why would the Imperials bother spending precious energy adding a huge tracer component into the Death Star beam? after all, they know precisely where they're going to hit with the thing well in advance of firing it. perhaps it's meant to terrorize? or maybe they need it to focus the minor beams somehow?

Yeah, see my comment above about this. It's a valid point. I think it requires that the tracer be some kind of decay component of the beam itself, which thus requires a STL decay in the direction of the beam, which is somewhat farfetched.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm trying to open the possibility that we may not be looking at a c beam, that's all I feel like everyone else is attempting to straight-jacket the conversation into forcing some interpretation using a c beam, and I contend that the c beam's evidence is circumstantial enough to be questionable.

Then you shouldn't have insinuated your theory was superior and that you had "proven" the alternate theor(ies) wrong.

No, again, of course not. My "I feel" is not meant to be a scientifically valid assertion, simply my expression of where I stand on this current point of contention.

Your standing isn't very firm, obviously.

Well, hold on there. My proposed method is very freeform at the moment, and not meant to actually pose any kind of challenge to anything yet. It's not nearly refined or thought-through enough. It's mostly idle talk.

Thats apparently what you are saying now, but you weren't saying that before, and that is what is/was being reacted to. If you are now admitting that your theory is not as comprehensive as you originally asserted, whcih it sounds like you are, then there is no further problem.

My main point is to demonstrate wherein the c beam theory is inconsistent, using the major canon evidence that others have stated supports it. I'm basically trying to cut out what others perceive to be rock-solid support for the c beam theory so as to open the conversation to alternative ideas. Taking off the straight-jacket, to use your metaphor from earlier.

I thought I've shown its *not* inconsistent with the evidence... or rather an interpretation of it.

As to the other evidence you have mentioned (I'm assuming you mean the EU evidence -- stop me if I'm wrong), it's EU. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it holds a lot less weight (at least with me) than something we can see.

Unless you can demonstrate it represents a direct contradiction with a higher-order source, there is no contradiction( And technically, the AOTC ICs is *canon*)

But in this instance, I am also referring to other evidence (like the explosion of the planet, and the distances involved there.)

I know I'm going to get yelled at for this, but EU evidence just doesn't prove anything to me. If it can be worked in to support a theory, great. But it's corroborating and circumstantial non-expert observational evidence at best, not technically accurate evidence to be regarded as nigh-infallible. That's my stance on it. If that doesn't agree with everyone else, well, that would certainly explain the source of some problems we've had thus far

Doesn't matter what your opinion is. If you're going to ignore it, you have to have a valid reason for doing so.

I don't think I ever claimed my theory is superior. As I've said, I'm pointing out ways in which the c beam evidence can be interpreted to show a STL beam just as easily, thereby reducing some of the canon support for the idea. I realize that I should have some kind of actual goal other than taking apart the standing theory (i.e. I should have something with which to replace it), but for the moment I have nothing more than an instinct saying "c beam is not what we see, so it must be wrong." I think I've done a fair job of showing instances where canon evidence for the c beam theory starts to waver.

I've already discussed this in detail. Just what point remains unclear to you, exactly?

I'm not deliberately ignoring so much as deliberately focusing on this specific example. I just want someone to say (and mean) that yes, this scene does not conclusively show that the SL fires a c beam.

That's the probelm. You can't focus on just one aspect. That's overly simplistic.

I'm going to get back to you on this, but using one version or the other shouldn't matter -- the idea is that you can easily jump from one version to the next without significant differences in running time or sound synchronization. IIRC, the 30fps version simply either blends or duplicates frames to get the additional numbers. I'll have to go back and read-up. But I'm fairly sure this is an irrelevant fact.

It makes a difference. Not only in terms of accuracy (theatrical trailer is the "orginal" cut basically) but it *does* make a difference. timing a single frame at 30 fps is going to result in a drastically different time compared to 1 frame at 24 fps.

The debris ring indicates with what explosive force the planet blows apart. In what way does this tells us anything about the speed of the beam?

Because we can use the rate of expansion to measure the distances involved, in an approximate fashion, don't you think?

Why does assuming it is progressive require us to ignore the novelization? I don't have my copy yet.

Because the distances involved would be clearly greater than 75,000 km

That's another thing that bothers me about the c beam theory itself. Why have a visible tracer at all, especially for something as big as a Death Star where the shot is lined up very precisely to begin with?

It can be *used* as a tracer, but thats not neccesarily why its there. Technically its simply a side effect of the beam - the massless partticles are decaying into visible light - hencee the reference of "waste glow".

Wouldn't the interactions between the particles in the beam itself cause it to be luminous? I'm asking this from a purely academic standpoint because I'm curious.

Yes, it would, but it would also lead to the beam scattering I mentioned. (plus it would be hard to have an invisible component, since a massless beam moves faster than a particle beam.)

I stress again that I don't have a cohesive theory yet. I'm just addressing what I think are flaws in the current theory that merit revisiting and revision.

But they *aren't* flaws. Do you think these considerations haven't been taken into account before?