Blaster fire speed

[McC]

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

Wasn't aware that I had done anything like that...

Your standing isn't very firm, obviously.

Nope, not even remotely. Changes (either a little or a lot) each time someone makes a new post with new information. I certainly don't know everything there is to know about this topic (far from it, obviously), so my ideas (I'm not even going to call them theories anymore) are easily influenced by new information.

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.

Not sure what comprehensive theory I originally posted...all I said is that I've always subscribed to the particle bolt idea, that the beam doesn't necessarily travel at c, and that there is insufficient evidence from ANH and ESB to conclude that the beams are massless.

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

*nod* We're basically discussing how to interpret what we're seeing at the moment. But clearly this discussion "depends greatly upon your own point of view"

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*)

*nod* But even the ICS books are subservient to the films themselves. The trick is finding an instance wherein there aren't multiple ways to interpret what's going on. The problem with the c beam theory is that it's vague in terms of describing the visible element. If there weren't the visible element problem to deal with, that'd be one thing and I'd almost certainly have no leg to stand on (and probably wouldn't have brought it up in the first place). But the visible element not propogating with the beam seriously bothers me. Either the luxons are intelligent and know when to show a visible element, or there's something else at work here. You later say this (sorry for quoting out of order):

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".

The waste glow is decaying in a manner that is not only consistent with the vector of the beam, but in a manner that is STL in nature and directly presents the visual appearance of a forward-moving bolt. This seems way too specific to be just a "waste glow" side effect of the beam. The particle decay would likely simply give off a general waste glow, creating a more visible ray, such as the 'beams' seen in something like Trek or B5 -- actual rays rather than 'bolts.' Consider the notion: what would cause the particles to decay in just that fashion, more often than not precisely timed with the timing of the beam power ramp-up? It doesn't make sense, given the explanation provided for the nature of the beam. This suggests to me that either the nature of the beam is described inaccurately or that it really isn't moving at c.

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

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

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

Well, in order to use the rate of expansion to measure the distances involved, you have to know some reference distance to get a frame of reference for your calculations. We do know Alderaan has a diameter of 12,500 km (based on its Earth-like properties and the statement in the WotC Coruscant and the Core Worlds RPG supplement), so are you saying that you're using that to measure the distances and expansion rate? Further, how does this negate a 75,000km figure, which is allegedly stated in the ANH novelization? I'm very confused as to what you're saying here

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

Well, I consider the canon hierarchy in terms of analogy. The films are flawless depictions of what actually transpired. The radio dramas, novelizations, and so forth are exactingly accurate recreations of these events, to the point where they can almost be regarded as "true," like the film. Then you get the technical journals, such as the ICS and VD books, which we assume to be written by "experts" in the SW universe. Then you get the novelizations, which are written by historical authors, constructing their assessment of what happened based on researched fact. As such, anything in this level is immediately suspect, especially when it comes to technical detail. This type of author would, in my estimation (which is, of course, subjective), focus more on accurately describing the historical events and their figures rather than the technology, which s/he would leave up to the technical journals to account for. As such, it's nice when this type of source does corroborate other information, but when it doesn't, it's very easy to ignore.

That's the way I interpret the canon hierarchy under the SoD mentality.

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

I'm uncertain what you mean here -- I was explaining my approach, reasoning, and what I feel I have thus far accomplished. I'm not entirely sure what your response is meant to indicate. Can you calrify?

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

Oh, I wouldn't say that's true at all. In research, people focus on very specific aspects of a greater whole all the time. That's simply what I'm doing in this instance -- looking at one particular piece of data and assessing the validity of its accepted interpretation.

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.

Converting from 24 to 30 fps is called 3:2 pull down. More information here on 3-2 pulldown. It's not a matter of frames being different but a matter of fields being added.

I can do a reverse 3:2 pulldown on my footage if you really insist on me doing so and recalculate all my figures. I'm fairly sure they'll remain at least mostly the same if not completely unchanged.

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.)

Okay, that's what I figured.

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

Not based on what threads I've read so far (the one with Marc and then the really long one called "Observed Properties..." that Mad pointed out). At least, not in the same way with the same type of explanation behind it.

[Connor MacLeod]

Nope, not even remotely. Changes (either a little or a lot) each time someone makes a new post with new information. I certainly don't know everything there is to know about this topic (far from it, obviously), so my ideas (I'm not even going to call them theories anymore) are easily influenced by new information.

In this case, its made a damn sight unlikely.

Not sure what comprehensive theory I originally posted...all I said is that I've always subscribed to the particle bolt idea, that the beam doesn't necessarily travel at c, and that there is insufficient evidence from ANH and ESB to conclude that the beams are massless.

Actually, there is. We never see any arcing of bolts in or near a source of gravity (both for hand blasters, vehicle artillery, and starfighters.) which would be present for any sort of particle beam, which would be especially apparent at some of the claimed "low" velocities.

*nod* But even the ICS books are subservient to the films themselves. The trick is finding an instance wherein there aren't multiple ways to interpret what's going on. The problem with the c beam theory is that it's vague in terms of describing the visible element.

No, it isn't. Its a "waste glow" (AOTC ICS) and a "Harmless byproduct" (EGW&T). Its merely a unintentional side effect of the weapon.

If there weren't the visible element problem to deal with, that'd be one thing and I'd almost certainly have no leg to stand on (and probably wouldn't have brought it up in the first place). But the visible element not propogating with the beam seriously bothers me.

It *doesn't* propogate with the beam neccesarily - we've already mentioned the numerous intsances of "damage before contact". There's also the small fact that the visible tracer was able to pass through an A-wing harmlessly.

Either the luxons are intelligent and know when to show a visible element, or there's something else at work here. You later say this (sorry for quoting out of order):

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".

The waste glow is decaying in a manner that is not only consistent with the vector of the beam, but in a manner that is STL in nature and directly presents the visual appearance of a forward-moving bolt. This seems way too specific to be just a "waste glow" side effect of the beam.

Why?

The particle decay would likely simply give off a general waste glow, creating a more visible ray, such as the 'beams' seen in something like Trek or B5 -- actual rays rather than 'bolts.' Consider the notion: what would cause the particles to decay in just that fashion, more often than not precisely timed with the timing of the beam power ramp-up? It doesn't make sense, given the explanation provided for the nature of the beam. This suggests to me that either the nature of the beam is described inaccurately or that it really isn't moving at c.

We see "rays" in the micro-superlasers, but those are compound weapons (that fire more like a series of pulses rather than a single burst.) This is also going to be true of "any" continuous-beam weapon (its largely made up of individual pulses fired rapidly enough to give the appearancee of a sustained beam.)

The glowing pulse is merely a "ripple" along the beam, much like we see ripples on the surface of a lake (if the lake were a beam.)

Well, in order to use the rate of expansion to measure the distances involved, you have to know some reference distance to get a frame of reference for your calculations.

The planet is a point of reference. We can clearly measure its diameter, and thereby judge the rate of expansion through timing. This is how the 1e38 joule figure is in fact derived.

We do know Alderaan has a diameter of 12,500 km (based on its Earth-like properties and the statement in the WotC Coruscant and the Core Worlds RPG supplement), so are you saying that you're using that to measure the distances and expansion rate?

We measure the rate of expansion of the debris (or more accurately, the "average" rate of expansion - which we of course know.) From this, we multiply that by the observed time onscreen that the debris expands by from the point of explosion (which is also done). Conservatively, the superlaser must *also* have crossed at least as much distance in order to strike Alderaan, and knowing the time it took there, we can measure the velocity of the beam.

We can do the same with the "rings" expanding outwards as well, which gives us a secondary means of establishing distance.

Further, how does this negate a 75,000km figure, which is allegedly stated in the ANH novelization? I'm very confused as to what you're saying here

Because with the observed distancee traveled and your insistance of a "progressive" series of events, the speed of the bolt is such that it would have propogated over a far greater distance than the novel indicates. it takes 1/4 of a second for the superlaser to strike Alderaan. and the debris expanded onscreen for maybe three, or foru seconds at least. that's roughly 30,000-40,000 kms for the superlaser to cross onscreen, at a minimum. Which translates to a rough velocity of 120,000 km/s. Since you insisted that the scene took around 1-2 seconds, this means we're looking at a range on the order of 120,000-240,000 km, not ~75,000 kilometers.

Well, I consider the canon hierarchy in terms of analogy. The films are flawless depictions of what actually transpired. The radio dramas, novelizations, and so forth are exactingly accurate recreations of these events, to the point where they can almost be regarded as "true," like the film. Then you get the technical journals, such as the ICS and VD books, which we assume to be written by "experts" in the SW universe. Then you get the novelizations, which are written by historical authors, constructing their assessment of what happened based on researched fact. As such, anything in this level is immediately suspect, especially when it comes to technical detail. This type of author would, in my estimation (which is, of course, subjective), focus more on accurately describing the historical events and their figures rather than the technology, which s/he would leave up to the technical journals to account for. As such, it's nice when this type of source does corroborate other information, but when it doesn't, it's very easy to ignore.


That's the way I interpret the canon hierarchy under the SoD mentality.

Yes, that is true. But youo have to prove an actual, direct contradiction exists before it can be ignored.

I'm uncertain what you mean here -- I was explaining my approach, reasoning, and what I feel I have thus far accomplished. I'm not entirely sure what your response is meant to indicate. Can you calrify?

You appear to be repeating the same "arguments" over and over again as if you do not comprehend the point I am trying to get across. Which is why I am asking what exactly remains unclear among the various explanations I have given.

Oh, I wouldn't say that's true at all. In research, people focus on very specific aspects of a greater whole all the time. That's simply what I'm doing in this instance -- looking at one particular piece of data and assessing the validity of its accepted interpretation.

Specialization isn't quite the same as ignoring all the factors involved in an analysis. Analysis requires looking at all the relevant factors of a particular situation (in this instance, we're looking into the speed of the superlaser blast and the range involved, as well as the implied nature of the weapon from such a conclusion.)

Converting from 24 to 30 fps is called 3:2 pull down. More information here on 3-2 pulldown. It's not a matter of frames being different but a matter of fields being added.

I can do a reverse 3:2 pulldown on my footage if you really insist on me doing so and recalculate all my figures. I'm fairly sure they'll remain at least mostly the same if not completely unchanged.

Go ahead, if you think it is. But I doubt its going to be inconsistent frfom what I observed.

Just to reinforce the point, Mike addresses this in the Alderaan page where the 1e38 joule figure is explained:

The films were available on CAV laserdisc on Earth during the 20th century, and CAV laserdisc had a very interesting advantage over VHS, CLV laserdisc, and even DVD: CAV laserdisc uses a precise 24 fps video rate, which exactly matches the video rate of the original film stock. In contrast, PAL video uses 25 fps so 1 fps is added, and NTSC video uses 30 fps so 6 frames per second are added. Therefore, only CAV laserdisc produces reliable time data.

Not based on what threads I've read so far (the one with Marc and then the really long one called "Observed Properties..." that Mad pointed out). At least, not in the same way with the same type of explanation behind it.

Just because some people might not have discussed it here doesn't mean it hasn't been considered elsewhere (this board isn't all that old relative to others, you may ntoice. For that matter, how do you know Curtis, Mike, or anyone who knows and associates them have not discussed this in a non-public manner?

[McC]

Actually, there is. We never see any arcing of bolts in or near a source of gravity (both for hand blasters, vehicle artillery, and starfighters.) which would be present for any sort of particle beam, which would be especially apparent at some of the claimed "low" velocities.

I contend that this is not true. The data for arcing is inconclusive. The weapon tracers are moving fast enough or in such a way wherein arcing may be present. See my AT-AT firing analysis for an example of this. I also just watched the clone battle from AOTC again last night. I haven't digitized and looked at anything frame-by-frame yet, but I'm fair certain that the weapons' visible movement can be consistent with arcing or arcless weapons, due to the fact that we don't see them on screen for very long.

No, it isn't. Its a "waste glow" (AOTC ICS) and a "Harmless byproduct" (EGW&T). Its merely a unintentional side effect of the weapon.

It *doesn't* propogate with the beam neccesarily - we've already mentioned the numerous intsances of "damage before contact". There's also the small fact that the visible tracer was able to pass through an A-wing harmlessly.

The waste glow is decaying in a manner that is not only consistent with the vector of the beam, but in a manner that is STL in nature and directly presents the visual appearance of a forward-moving bolt. This seems way too specific to be just a "waste glow" side effect of the beam.

Why?

Especially in light of the last statement, consider what I'm saying. A c beam would/should not demonstrate a waste glow that appears as a visible bolt with a measurable (non-c) velocity if it's based on a decay of the particles or an interaction of the particles with the environment (the latter being an irrelevant concept in space). In space, a c-beam particle decay should exhibit a visible tracer similar in appearance to that of a continuous ray, out to the point where the particles are too diffuse to create an intense enough glow. This idea that the decay propogates down the beam at a measurable velocity doesn't make any scientific sense. That's why the current theory bothers me. If someone could explain how this idea makes any sense whatsoever, I'd much appreciate it.

We see "rays" in the micro-superlasers, but those are compound weapons (that fire more like a series of pulses rather than a single burst.) This is also going to be true of "any" continuous-beam weapon (its largely made up of individual pulses fired rapidly enough to give the appearancee of a sustained beam.)

The glowing pulse is merely a "ripple" along the beam, much like we see ripples on the surface of a lake (if the lake were a beam.)

As stated above, the "ripple" should not move at a sub-c velocity if this is a c-speed beam, even under the ramp-up of power notion. Particle decay should create a continuous ray, and the ramp-up idea should only be creating a glowing ray that gradually increases in intensity as the power builds up.

The planet is a point of reference. We can clearly measure its diameter, and thereby judge the rate of expansion through timing. This is how the 1e38 joule figure is in fact derived.

We measure the rate of expansion of the debris (or more accurately, the "average" rate of expansion - which we of course know.) From this, we multiply that by the observed time onscreen that the debris expands by from the point of explosion (which is also done). Conservatively, the superlaser must *also* have crossed at least as much distance in order to strike Alderaan, and knowing the time it took there, we can measure the velocity of the beam.

We can do the same with the "rings" expanding outwards as well, which gives us a secondary means of establishing distance.

Oh, okay. That's kinda what I figured, but I wanted to hear it from someone before I just assumed that's what I was reading.

Because with the observed distancee traveled and your insistance of a "progressive" series of events, the speed of the bolt is such that it would have propogated over a far greater distance than the novel indicates. it takes 1/4 of a second for the superlaser to strike Alderaan. and the debris expanded onscreen for maybe three, or foru seconds at least. that's roughly 30,000-40,000 kms for the superlaser to cross onscreen, at a minimum. Which translates to a rough velocity of 120,000 km/s. Since you insisted that the scene took around 1-2 seconds, this means we're looking at a range on the order of 120,000-240,000 km, not ~75,000 kilometers.

So the novel's figure is actually wrong, then?

Yes, that is true. But youo have to prove an actual, direct contradiction exists before it can be ignored.

Fair enough. Point conceded.

You appear to be repeating the same "arguments" over and over again as if you do not comprehend the point I am trying to get across. Which is why I am asking what exactly remains unclear among the various explanations I have given.

Well, I just think that the c-beam theory is being too hastily accepted without justifying everything we see on-screen. If there were a reasonable explanation behind the waste glow's subluminal effects, then I'd probably have less room to complain, but from what I've read and understood of it thus far, no such explanation exists or has even been publicly examined.

Specialization isn't quite the same as ignoring all the factors involved in an analysis. Analysis requires looking at all the relevant factors of a particular situation (in this instance, we're looking into the speed of the superlaser blast and the range involved, as well as the implied nature of the weapon from such a conclusion.)

Sure, that's fair. But bringing in all sorts of external references from novels wherein this situation isn't being depicted is more of what I'd call an adjunct to this current analysis rather than part of it.

Go ahead, if you think it is. But I doubt its going to be inconsistent frfom what I observed.

I think I will, just to make sure that I'm not making any foul-ups that I can avoid.

Just to reinforce the point, Mike addresses this in the Alderaan page where the 1e38 joule figure is explained:

Speaking of which, I'm not disputing the analyzed capabilities of these weapons, just their nature.

Just because some people might not have discussed it here doesn't mean it hasn't been considered elsewhere (this board isn't all that old relative to others, you may ntoice. For that matter, how do you know Curtis, Mike, or anyone who knows and associates them have not discussed this in a non-public manner?

Sure, I suspect that they have. But I don't know about it And I'd very much like to be a part of those/this/that discussion, because it interests me and at the very least I'll learn something. Just because it may have already happened doesn't mean I'm going to accept that it 'is' that way at face value. That'd be the most unscientific thing to do.

[McC]

I don't know what standing the Clone Wars cartoons have around these parts, but in one episode, a SPHA-T is clearly shown firing an arcing blue bolt over a great distance (here, Sorenson QuickTime, ~2.7 MB).

[McC]

Got awful quiet around here...

Nobody have any comments on the various stuff I've put forward regarding arcing not being ruled out by the films (or even secondary sources)? No one have any substantiation for why the c beam would decay in a STL fashion?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't know what standing the Clone Wars cartoons have around these parts, but in one episode, a SPHA-T is clearly shown firing an arcing blue bolt over a great distance (here, Sorenson QuickTime, ~2.7 MB).

Its not a SPHA-T. Its a derivitive SPHA non-LOS artillery firing glowing projectiles, like the AT-TE.

I hate to appeal to authority, but an "area of disturbance" or "ripple" can move STL along a c-velocity beam. I don't quite understand the precise physics, but DW has argued this many times. I suggest asking him or waiting for him to post.

[Mad]

Nobody have any comments on the various stuff I've put forward regarding arcing not being ruled out by the films (or even secondary sources)?

Personally, I'm waiting for you to tear into my theory. Until you do that, these smaller points don't really mean anything.

No one have any substantiation for why the c beam would decay in a STL fashion?

If you think of the ripple analogy, it's really a kind of chain reaction. Once started, it continues on until the reaction fizzles out. In one of the quotes I had provided earlier, the bolts do fizzle out before the rampup occurs and hits the Falcon.

[McC]

Its not a SPHA-T. Its a derivitive SPHA non-LOS artillery firing glowing projectiles, like the AT-TE.

Ah, okay. Their different visual firing appearance did sorta make me somewhat hesistant to post about it, but I figured, why not? But that makes sense.

I hate to appeal to authority, but an "area of disturbance" or "ripple" can move STL along a c-velocity beam. I don't quite understand the precise physics, but DW has argued this many times. I suggest asking him or waiting for him to post.

Really? Huh. I'd be interested in hearing the explanation behind that, then.

Personally, I'm waiting for you to tear into my theory. Until you do that, these smaller points don't really mean anything.

Well, what are you expecting, exactly? I'm basically just bringing up things right now that (I think) show that, aside from the fanciful descriptions of "historical authors" (using SoD), there's only one real instance in a technical book/source that states there's a c-beam and plenty of others that say otherwise. The movies are inconclusive, which is another point I've been trying to illustrate, since the evidence can be interpreted either way. Admittedly, the ICS does hold a higher status than the other sources, but the thing that I'm still really caught up on is the visible element. Although IP has said that Mike apparently knows of a way wherein some kind of ripple will propogate STL, I haven't ever heard of anything like this (that I know of), so without hearing more, I'm skeptical (not that I'm saying this couldn't happen -- I'm quite the novice, obviously, I just have never heard of it).

If you think of the ripple analogy, it's really a kind of chain reaction. Once started, it continues on until the reaction fizzles out. In one of the quotes I had provided earlier, the bolts do fizzle out before the rampup occurs and hits the Falcon.

Right, but that means that the chain reaction has to be set-off at the barrel end deliberately, then, with some kind of meaning behind doing so. If it was just a chain reaction due to decay or some such, it wouldn't show a disecrete STL bolt but rather a contiguous beam. At least, that's my current understanding.

[Mad]

Well, what are you expecting, exactly?

Showing where it is wrong would be a start.

I'm basically just bringing up things right now that (I think) show that, aside from the fanciful descriptions of "historical authors" (using SoD), there's only one real instance in a technical book/source that states there's a c-beam and plenty of others that say otherwise.

There's some recent novel sources that indicate c-beam, and older sources such as Shadows of the Empire imply a massless beam. (The use of "of course" in "you couldn't see the laser itself in vacuum, of course" is telling.) Further, several novels and tech books give combat ranges impossible given observed bolt propagation velocities.

We're stuck with those references, so to speak, so incorporating them into the a theory strengthens it over a theory that discards them.

The movies are inconclusive, which is another point I've been trying to illustrate, since the evidence can be interpreted either way.

Let's take our theories and compare them to canon. Okay, fine. According to you, they both fit. Now, let's bring the EU into it. Mine fits as much EU references into it as I could find, while yours ignores several important ones.

Guess which theory wins?

Admittedly, the ICS does hold a higher status than the other sources, but the thing that I'm still really caught up on is the visible element.

And ICS explains that visible element. So there shouldn't be any problem.

Right, but that means that the chain reaction has to be set-off at the barrel end deliberately, then, with some kind of meaning behind doing so.

Not necessarily. It may be impossible to avoid the reaction all together, but they do appear to be able to exert a measure of control over it. Basically, they can control its velocity (perhaps within certain limits) and apparently color. EGW&T implies that they can configure the bolt to be outside the visible spectrum, but letting it be visible helps the pilots. (No matter what they do, the decay will still be visible on sensors if nothing else.)

[McC]

Showing where it is wrong would be a start.

That's what I thought I was doing.

There's some recent novel sources that indicate c-beam, and older sources such as Shadows of the Empire imply a massless beam. (The use of "of course" in "you couldn't see the laser itself in vacuum, of course" is telling.) Further, several novels and tech books give combat ranges impossible given observed bolt propagation velocities.

*nod* A straight plasma bolt wouldn't have nearly the range we've heard of/observed these weapons as having, that's true.

Let's take our theories and compare them to canon. Okay, fine. According to you, they both fit. Now, let's bring the EU into it. Mine fits as much EU references into it as I could find, while yours ignores several important ones.

Guess which theory wins?

Gaaaaaaaaaah! I feel like a broken record. "Our theories" is an erroneous term. I don't have a theory that I'm trying to put forward. I'm just pointint out instances wherein the current theory doesn't seem to fit.

The current theory is based on the ideas of massless particles, assuming that all instances we've seen depict massless weapons. This is, however, an assumption, not a proven fact.

The current theory is based on a beam that moves at c (which necessitates the above). The only visible evidence we have to go with suggests that there is a delay between the time of firing and the time of damage. This does not preclude a c beam, but it does not imply one, either.

The current theory does not logically account for the STL nature of the visible tracer (unless Mike shows up to explain what IP was talking about ).

Those are my grievances with it. Maybe they arise from me not understanding it completely, in which case, please feel free to show me where I'm wrong. I'm just as content to be wrong as I am to be right, but I'm not just going to say I'm wrong unless someone actually shows me that I am.

And ICS explains that visible element. So there shouldn't be any problem.

The ICS is actually very vague in its description. It mentions waste glow. It doesn't explain anything. It makes some general comments about the nature of the weapon.

This is redundant, but hey:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed. Therefore, targets can explode instants before the "bolt" actually arrives. The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow. A gun's range also depends on its aiming precision and the time-lag required to detect and anticipate the target motion at a distance.

So, the visible bolt somehow negatively affects the beam while propogating at sublight speeds. It's also a waste product. Efforts are made to reduce it, not to encourage it. This explanation also is somewhat hard to reconcile with "programming" the bolt color. At least, I can't really figure out why the bolts would be different colors unless different types of exotic luxons decayed into different photonic wavelengths. But this would require the Empire to exclusively use one type of luxon for their turbolasers and the Rebels to use another (hence the consistant red/green difference). I dunno, I'm writing this response out of order, and this is the last part, and I'm tired, so I'm not even sure what I'm saying anymore.

Not necessarily. It may be impossible to avoid the reaction all together, but they do appear to be able to exert a measure of control over it. Basically, they can control its velocity (perhaps within certain limits) and apparently color. EGW&T implies that they can configure the bolt to be outside the visible spectrum, but letting it be visible helps the pilots. (No matter what they do, the decay will still be visible on sensors if nothing else.)

Right, but what about the superlaser? Why sense does configuring a tracer for that make? The shot has to be precisely calculated to begin with, and it takes time to line it up. The tracer is only to aid shooters in knowing how accurate their aim is. With the superlaser, that's not in question -- every shot we've seen hits without fail.

Like I said above, I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong. But I'm not just going to sit here and accept someone saying, "This is the way it is because we say so. We don't need to show you proof. Go find it yourself (even though I can't search through the archives yet, so the only posts I can search are from the beginning of January or later)." Pardon me if I seem to be losing my temper, but I'm getting just as tired of repeating myself here as I'm sure you are of repeating yourself whenever these discussions come up.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The current theory is based on the ideas of massless particles, assuming that all instances we've seen depict massless weapons. This is, however, an assumption, not a proven fact.

WRONG

It is canon, and paramount until you prove that it's mechanism cannot work. It is fact in the SWU until you do that. This is canon.

[McC]

WRONG

It is canon, and paramount until you prove that it's mechanism cannot work. It is fact in the SWU until you do that. This is canon.

Actually, no. It's not wrong. There is no on-screen evidence that the weapons we see are completely massless, just as there's no conclusive evidence that they possess mass, either. It's inconclusive.

If you're touting ICS again, yes, ICS states that energy weapons fire invisible energy beams. Energy beams would travel at c. Done deal, right? Massless energy weapons, right? What about the (at least) two other sources, one of which is on equal footing with ICS, that quote another mechanism? Lemme guess, we ignore them, right? So it's a flame-worthy offense when I ignore sources, but when you do it, it's okay?

I'm not saying that any of this is conclusive regarding massed or massless weapons. I'm saying that the primary sources are inconclusive and the secondary ones are conflicting. As such, there is insufficient evidence in any source to make an absolute declaration here without a theory that addresses all of the other grievances first. If this is the last one, then I'm more than happy to say, "Meh, okay, it's ambiguous enough to say they're massless." That hasn't happened yet, so I leave it as one of my grievances.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, you still don't get it. Mad's theory takes into account other EU sources, and allows for the AOTC ICS theory to be completely true. Thus the beam travels at c. Thus it is massless.

You must prove that the explanation must be wrong. Mad's theory clearly shows it can be right, and as far as we know, always is. The ball is in your court. Until then, there's no reason to assume canon is invalidated. It is always right until shown through contradiction with a higher source that it cannot be.

You can't interprete the AOTC ICS theory your own way, show it doesn't work, and declare victory. Mad's theory is an obvious mechanism by which it works, so you must disprove it, otherwise it stands as explaining observed phenomenon.

[McC]

No, you still don't get it. <snip> Mad's theory is an obvious mechanism by which it works, so you must disprove it, otherwise it stands as explaining observed phenomenon.

I explained a grievance I have with the theory (well, several). This doesn't mean that I think the theory is necessarily wrong because of it, but that I have yet to see sufficient explanation to justify the assertion of the theory, and would like that aspect explained in further detail before I accept it. You apparently aren't reading what I'm saying closely enough to see the parts where I've said, over and over that I'll be quite content to be shown that I'm wrong if someone can elaborate on the current theory and tell me why my grievances are invalid. "You're wrong because it's canon" doesn't tell me a damn thing.

You want to bash me over the head with your source/reference without elaborating? Fine. Then I'll lump you in with creationists.

You want to explain something to me? Fine. Then I'll listen.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is canon. AOTC ICS tells us hyperdrives can turn ships in tachyons arbitrarily and back, even though this violates casuality.

AOTC ICS says that a pulse (therefore not a c-traveling or ray-like) travels down the c-beam, therefore it is STL. Even if it is not based on RL physics, canon says it does, therefore it does.

Canon says repulsorlifts, intertial compensators, and AG arbitrarily manipulate gravity. It does.

[Mad]

That's what I thought I was doing.

No, what you're doing isn't that. What you're doing is pointing to various scenes and saying "hey, look, it doesn't have to be that way." But in the process, you're contradicting very explicit statements from canon and EU sources. Oh, and my theory accounts for both onscreen and EU. So it still stands.

To put it another way, the EU says that the Rebels have used Z-95 Headhunters. You can't look at the movies and say that "well, it's inconclusive whether or not the Rebels ever used Z-95s..." The EU says they did, and the movies don't contradict it. Therefore, they've used them.

Gaaaaaaaaaah! I feel like a broken record. "Our theories" is an erroneous term. I don't have a theory that I'm trying to put forward. I'm just pointint out instances wherein the current theory doesn't seem to fit.

From what I've seen, it looks more like you're saying "but it doesn't have to be that way." I haven't noticed anything that would actually invalidate my theory.

The current theory is based on the ideas of massless particles, assuming that all instances we've seen depict massless weapons. This is, however, an assumption, not a proven fact.

Is the EU inadmissable for some odd reason?

The current theory does not logically account for the STL nature of the visible tracer (unless Mike shows up to explain what IP was talking about ).

Have you read the full current theory? It's described there. What's wrong with a chain reaction propagating along the beam? It doesn't violate any laws of physics that I can think of. It's just particle interactions.

The ICS is actually very vague in its description. It mentions waste glow. It doesn't explain anything. It makes some general comments about the nature of the weapon.

And none of those comments are necessarilly wrong.

So, the visible bolt somehow negatively affects the beam while propogating at sublight speeds. It's also a waste product. Efforts are made to reduce it, not to encourage it.

Yes.

This explanation also is somewhat hard to reconcile with "programming" the bolt color. At least, I can't really figure out why the bolts would be different colors unless different types of exotic luxons decayed into different photonic wavelengths.

Or perhaps different energy states for those luxons before they decay. Red photons carry slightly less energy than green ones, so something that decays into a pair of green photons would have had a slightly higher energy state to start off with.

Right, but what about the superlaser? Why sense does configuring a tracer for that make? The shot has to be precisely calculated to begin with, and it takes time to line it up. The tracer is only to aid shooters in knowing how accurate their aim is. With the superlaser, that's not in question -- every shot we've seen hits without fail.

The decay chain reaction will occur no matter what. It appears that for superlaser weapons, they don't really try to control it. The entire beam exhibits the decay, whereas it's confined to a small pulse in turbolaser weapons (which would mean that most of the energy lost is from the weak starter beam, which doesn't really matter).

[McC]

No, what you're doing isn't that. What you're doing is pointing to various scenes and saying "hey, look, it doesn't have to be that way." But in the process, you're contradicting very explicit statements from canon and EU sources. Oh, and my theory accounts for both onscreen and EU. So it still stands.

To put it another way, the EU says that the Rebels have used Z-95 Headhunters. You can't look at the movies and say that "well, it's inconclusive whether or not the Rebels ever used Z-95s..." The EU says they did, and the movies don't contradict it. Therefore, they've used them.

Touché.

From what I've seen, it looks more like you're saying "but it doesn't have to be that way." I haven't noticed anything that would actually invalidate my theory.

At this point, I'm mainly bringing up things that I don't understand/don't make sense to me about the theory rather than trying to actually knock it down.

Is the EU inadmissable for some odd reason?

Personal preference. I generally don't worry about including the EU in a theory if it's going to make life more difficult. It's historical fiction (SoD), and therefore a medium which is prone to error, but permissable error that most readers go in expecting to encounter some of. But, that's me, and not the general policy around here. Nevertheless, my knee-jerk line of thinking is probably going to reflect this personal bias more often than not until I get used to the "preferred" method.

Have you read the full current theory? It's described there. What's wrong with a chain reaction propagating along the beam? It doesn't violate any laws of physics that I can think of. It's just particle interactions.

I don't think I have, actually. I read the entirety of the "Observed..." and Marc's threads, but I haven't been pointed to any location that lays down the current functional theory. I've read the Turbolaser Commentaries and Mike's own energy weapon article attached to IWY, but since I can't search the archive yet, I haven't found a thread that actually says, "This is the Current Theory!"

And none of those comments are necessarilly wrong.

Right, that's true. But (and I'm exaggerating) saying, "The sky...is a color" isn't necessarily wrong either, but it's not particularly helpful.

Or perhaps different energy states for those luxons before they decay. Red photons carry slightly less energy than green ones, so something that decays into a pair of green photons would have had a slightly higher energy state to start off with.

Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that Rebel TLs are red too? Unless I'm not entirely following your point (which could easily be the case), shouldn't higher energy weapons exhibit this transition? That is, if we assume Rebel lasers are the lowest-powered weapons, then Imperial lasers are the next on the list, Rebel TLs would then come after that, followed by Imperial TLs. If the decay color is due to energy state, wouldn't all four exhibit a different decay color (or at least, one for lasers and one for TLs)?

The decay chain reaction will occur no matter what. It appears that for superlaser weapons, they don't really try to control it. The entire beam exhibits the decay, whereas it's confined to a small pulse in turbolaser weapons (which would mean that most of the energy lost is from the weak starter beam, which doesn't really matter).

Hm, ok...

A few other questions, in addition to my previous ones, if you will:

1) What is the orange "core" in the superlaser/Rebel laser? Imperial lasers might have this too (and probably do). How does it figure into the luxon decay?

2) Wave mechanics is something I haven't dealt with in 4 years, so I've almost entirely forgotten it (as much as I like learning about physics, my physics teachers in HS were terrible). Connor MacLeod tried explaining this to me via AIM, but I still don't quite understand it. I'm gonna try looking it up via Google, but could you explain to me how wave mechanics justifies STL bolt propogation?

And, of course, if you could point me towards the complete write-up of the theory, I'd be most grateful.

[Mad]

At this point, I'm mainly bringing up things that I don't understand/don't make sense to me about the theory rather than trying to actually knock it down.

In light of that, the following exchange appears weird:

Showing where it is wrong would be a start.

McC:That's what I thought I was doing.

In any case, I'll try to keep what you just said in mind. I keep getting the impression that you're trying to do more than that with certain exchanges.

Personal preference. I generally don't worry about including the EU in a theory if it's going to make life more difficult. It's historical fiction (SoD), and therefore a medium which is prone to error, but permissable error that most readers go in expecting to encounter some of. But, that's me, and not the general policy around here. Nevertheless, my knee-jerk line of thinking is probably going to reflect this personal bias more often than not until I get used to the "preferred" method.

Well, there are multiple references to back up the c-beam theory, so it's not like it is clinging to any one quote.

I don't think I have, actually. I read the entirety of the "Observed..." and Marc's threads, but I haven't been pointed to any location that lays down the current functional theory. I've read the Turbolaser Commentaries and Mike's own energy weapon article attached to IWY, but since I can't search the archive yet, I haven't found a thread that actually says, "This is the Current Theory!"

It's buried insdie the "Observed..." thread. Specifically, this post should be it. I'm not sure if my local text file has been updated since then, but I think that's the most recent I've posted.

Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that Rebel TLs are red too? Unless I'm not entirely following your point (which could easily be the case), shouldn't higher energy weapons exhibit this transition? That is, if we assume Rebel lasers are the lowest-powered weapons, then Imperial lasers are the next on the list, Rebel TLs would then come after that, followed by Imperial TLs. If the decay color is due to energy state, wouldn't all four exhibit a different decay color (or at least, one for lasers and one for TLs)?

There could be other mechanisms involved. However, assuming the same energy levels for the luxons in most Rebel weaponry, and a slightly higher but consistent level for Imperial weaponry, it'd just mean that a turbolaser pumps out a higher number of luxons than a laser-class weapon, even though the individual luxons have the same energy.

A few other questions, in addition to my previous ones, if you will:

1) What is the orange "core" in the superlaser/Rebel laser? Imperial lasers might have this too (and probably do). How does it figure into the luxon decay?

SotE mentions an ionized marker. Using my full theory, perhaps the core is the luxons that decay into charged particles. Those charged particles then decay into photons. (There is nothing preventing a massless->mass->massless decay order from being possible.)

2) Wave mechanics is something I haven't dealt with in 4 years, so I've almost entirely forgotten it (as much as I like learning about physics, my physics teachers in HS were terrible). Connor MacLeod tried explaining this to me via AIM, but I still don't quite understand it. I'm gonna try looking it up via Google, but could you explain to me how wave mechanics justifies STL bolt propogation?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. There may be more advanced details on the subject than what I've covered. As far as I'm concerned, explaining it in terms of decay reactions should work.

The way I view it, the ripple starts at the head of the beam. It then propagates down to the tail at a very high rate (near the speed of light). However, because the reaction cannot occur instantly, there will be a small delay, and thus the decay will be carried along with the beam as it (relatively) slowly falls away from the tail (at least, as long as the beam is active).

[McC]

In any case, I'll try to keep what you just said in mind. I keep getting the impression that you're trying to do more than that with certain exchanges.

Sorry. My stance continually changes based on new information/ideas/statements/etc. Initially, at the very beginning, my stance was, "Come on, it's clear that these things are particle bolts." My stance now is, "Okay, there's enough evidence against the particle bolt idea, and this luxon idea seems interesting, but there's a lot about it I don't understand, so I want to learn more before accepting it."

Well, there are multiple references to back up the c-beam theory, so it's not like it is clinging to any one quote.

Oh, I know. Again, this is just my preference -- use the "facts" and the technical analysis sources first, and then incorporate the historical fiction if it's convenient to do so.

It's buried insdie the "Observed..." thread. Specifically, this post should be it. I'm not sure if my local text file has been updated since then, but I think that's the most recent I've posted.

Okay, I'll give it a read-through when I get to work later this evening.

There could be other mechanisms involved. However, assuming the same energy levels for the luxons in most Rebel weaponry, and a slightly higher but consistent level for Imperial weaponry, it'd just mean that a turbolaser pumps out a higher number of luxons than a laser-class weapon, even though the individual luxons have the same energy.

...yep, I definitely shouldn't try thinking about this stuff when I'm tired. This of course makes plenty of sense.

SotE mentions an ionized marker. Using my full theory, perhaps the core is the luxons that decay into charged particles. Those charged particles then decay into photons. (There is nothing preventing a massless->mass->massless decay order from being possible.)

Okay, that sounds feasible enough, I suppose. So the idea, then, is luxon -> ionized particles (yellow/gold/orange) -> waste photons (red/green)?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. There may be more advanced details on the subject than what I've covered. As far as I'm concerned, explaining it in terms of decay reactions should work.

The way I view it, the ripple starts at the head of the beam. It then propagates down to the tail at a very high rate (near the speed of light). However, because the reaction cannot occur instantly, there will be a small delay, and thus the decay will be carried along with the beam as it (relatively) slowly falls away from the tail (at least, as long as the beam is active).

Oh, that's kinda neat...so the idea is that it only appears to be traveling towards the intended target at STL because it's actually moving away from the beam head at near-c, which is also moving away from the emitter at c? I think that makes sense, but something still bothers me...lemme digest that for a bit and see if I can't figure out what it is. I think it might be something about there being more than one visible decay portion in this type of situation, thus creating more than one bolt (if not a beam)...but maybe I'm just not thinking it through correctly.

[Ender]

So did this idiot bother to explain the lack of atmospheric arching that would result from his slow moving particle beam theory in ATOC?

And I'm failing to see how that AT-AT thing proves a damn thing. As stated it is doesn't prove or disprove, and on top of that they were aiming at something lower then them, so of course it will go down.

[McC]

So did this idiot <irrelevant>

Is this necessary? Really?

[Illuminatus Primus]

So did this idiot <irrelevant>

Is this necessary? Really?

Style-over-substance bullshit will get you flamed and mocked, because it is an irrational excuse to dodge the point.

Answer the question or concede. Lacing something with the word "idiot" is not a blank cheque for you to ignore an opponent's query.

[McC]

Style-over-substance bullshit will get you flamed and mocked, because it is an irrational excuse to dodge the point.

Answer the question or concede. Lacing something with the word "idiot" is not a blank cheque for you to ignore an opponent's query.

Oh please, I'm already getting flamed and mocked far more than my posts in this discussion warrant. Someone being misinformed or uninformed isn't any excuse to be an asshole. Yes, you're correct in that it doesn't make whatever the person says less valid, but it adds unnecessary crap to a discussion that ought to be a civilized, intellectual discussion. The only bullshit is screaming "style-over-substance fallacy" as a shield for infantile behavior, when in truth the actual named fallacy isn't in effect.

What's more, I'm not dodging a damn thing. I'm addressing the only thing that stands out in his post as being necessary to address. Everything else he asks about he can read in recent posts to get an answer regarding. Its one thing to ask me to do a search on an archive board that I don't (well, didn't until two days ago) have access to. It's quite another to ask someone to scroll up. You are among the people getting upset about having to repeat yourself on the same issues over and over. Well, guess what, I'm beginning to feel the same way on this particular point as well. The difference is I've actually made an effort to get more informed, and my ideas and opinions have adjusted accordingly. *play broken record* I came in here espousing particle beam, and now I'm talking about things in Mad's theory that I either don't understand or think need to be addressed in order to make it more solid. However, I do now think the fundamentals of his theory have a lot of promise.

Right now, I'm going to re-read Mad's theory in its entirety and await for his reply, since he seems to be the only guy still responding, actually paying attention to what I'm saying, and interested in actually having a discussion on this.

*waits for the predictably ensuing rebuttal*

[McC]

Ok, Mad, just re-read your theory. It's starting to make more sense to me now, and I'm also starting to be able to mentally reconcile it. However, it's very counter-intuitive (to me, anyway), so I did up a graphic to try to explain it to myself. See if this looks right to you.

The white lines indicate set intervals of distance. The different TL turrets represent a single TL turret at different time intervals. The blue beams indicate the invisible luxon streams, travelling at c (so either the time intervals in this image are very short, or the distance intervals are very big). The green dots represent the position of the chain reaction tracer. This look about right to you? It suggests an externally-observed STL forward propogation of a visible tracer while also suggesting a c beam.

One thing that bothers me still though is the damaging pulse. If we assume, for the moment, that the target is at a relatively short distance away (making beam travel time negligable), then the ray would basically temporarily surge before totally shutting off to deliver its damage, right? And it would do so roughly when the visible tracer arrived on-target?

Another concern -- in what way are luxons different from the more familiar light-emitting photons? Specifically, what prevents them from passing harmlessly through one another (aside from possible interference patterns) as photon rays would. I'm asking this specifically in reference to the SL, where the luxons travel to a fixed point and then stop.

Another problem -- wouldn't this form of chain reaction decay create an arrowhead-shaped 'bolt' with the point facing towards the vector of the luxon ray rather than the blunt end?

Additionally, why would 'spinning' a luxon beam (what does this mean, anyway?) help reduce waste glow?

I'll probably think up some more questions later, but these are what I've got for right now.

[Mad]

Okay, that sounds feasible enough, I suppose. So the idea, then, is luxon -> ionized particles (yellow/gold/orange) -> waste photons (red/green)?

Yeah, something like that.

Ok, Mad, just re-read your theory. It's starting to make more sense to me now, and I'm also starting to be able to mentally reconcile it. However, it's very counter-intuitive (to me, anyway), so I did up a graphic to try to explain it to myself. See if this looks right to you.

Yeah, that's pretty much it at a conceptual level. The past couple months, I've been thinking of how I could do an animation of the concept somehow...

One thing that bothers me still though is the damaging pulse. If we assume, for the moment, that the target is at a relatively short distance away (making beam travel time negligable), then the ray would basically temporarily surge before totally shutting off to deliver its damage, right? And it would do so roughly when the visible tracer arrived on-target?

Not quite sure what you mean here. At short distance, the weak beam will be on the target, but it won't be powerful enough to do any damage until the final surge. I think that's what you're asking about, anyway. What you said seems to be basically how it goes.

Another concern -- in what way are luxons different from the more familiar light-emitting photons? Specifically, what prevents them from passing harmlessly through one another (aside from possible interference patterns) as photon rays would. I'm asking this specifically in reference to the SL, where the luxons travel to a fixed point and then stop.

First off, photons don't emit light; they are light.

As for the superlaser... since these are exotic particles we're talking about here (in other words, particles that more than likely don't exist in our reality), so they may have unusual properties.

However, the superlaser appears to employ some kind of control over the beam similar to the Yuuzhan Vong dovan basals. This is because conservation of momentum would prevent the beam from just stopping when it collides with the other beams, so something else has to be holding the beam in place.

Another problem -- wouldn't this form of chain reaction decay create an arrowhead-shaped 'bolt' with the point facing towards the vector of the luxon ray rather than the blunt end?

Are you referencing how the bolt appears to be an arrow that points toward the barrel? I agree, you'd think it'd be reversed when one thinks about half-lives and everything.

But this is a chain reaction, and not just a decay. So perhaps it starts off with as small number of interactions, then grows to a large number of interactions until there's a certain expected maximum, then the reaction quickly stops.

Additionally, why would 'spinning' a luxon beam (what does this mean, anyway?) help reduce waste glow?

Honestly, no idea. Nobody seems to know. At this point, I don't see how it'd do much to change my theory.. might add a couple details, but shouldn't change any of its major points.