What evidence is there for MJ blasters and GJ tank weapons

[Batman]

Nobody ever said current technology could make a worthwhile photon drive, we're countering your blanket statement that due to having no mass photons can't exert force on a massive object, which is patently wrong.

[Formless]

Everything you just said to me fully confirms my suspicions that you are intentionally trolling. You have backpedaled about photon drives when you were clearly dismissing that photons have mass, you ignored my reasoning about dirt being rock and thus melt-able back into lava when you said it can't be done, you are in denial about the implications of your own distinctions about sublimation vs vaporization, and now you are strawmanning my words about science and its relationship to fiction. You can't go back and change the conversation, and everyone can see you lying through your ass. I hope your stay here is short, brief, and full of well deserved mockery. Fuck off, you dime a dozen anti-science whore.

[Batman]

If you use something with a high enough burn temperature, yes, absolutely.

There are not enough facepalms in the world for this statement.
You actually just said you could melt a human.

And you absolutely can.

Feel free to ignore me. I thought this site had some smart people on it but wow I mean you said human beings could melt.

Well I suppose you could argue that by the point melting actually occurs the pile of ashes you're melting is no longer a living breathing human being, but you can definitely melt the remains of a human.

[Formless]

I just noticed that my last post said photons have mass. I obviously meant that photons have momentum (as I have been saying all along), but in my frustration I typed the wrong word. My bad.

[malguslover]

Everything you just said to me fully confirms my suspicions that you are intentionally trolling. You have backpedaled about photon drives when you were clearly dismissing that photons have mass, you ignored my reasoning about dirt being rock and thus melt-able back into lava when you said it can't be done, you are in denial about the implications of your own distinctions about sublimation vs vaporization, and now you are strawmanning my words about science and its relationship to fiction. You can't go back and change the conversation, and everyone can see you lying through your ass. I hope your stay here is short, brief, and full of well deserved mockery. Fuck off, you dime a dozen anti-science whore.

I ignored it because it was a stupid statement. Dirt isn't small rocks. Not sure where you got that idea from but its pretty stupid.

What is an anti science whore? How am I being anti science? What you are saying isn't possible by science.

I haven't backpedaled about photon drives they are still not real. They are a theory at best. They still do not exist and due to the power required to make them function would make them impracticable in the first place.

The quality of these boards really has gone down over the years. Its sad to see whats left of what used to be a great community.

[malguslover]

If you use something with a high enough burn temperature, yes, absolutely.

There are not enough facepalms in the world for this statement.
You actually just said you could melt a human.

And you absolutely can.

Feel free to ignore me. I thought this site had some smart people on it but wow I mean you said human beings could melt.

Well I suppose you could argue that by the point melting actually occurs the pile of ashes you're melting is no longer a living breathing human being, but you can definitely melt the remains of a human.

wow you are really doubling down on that huh.

here you go

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+you+melt+a+human

[Batman]

Everything you just said to me fully confirms my suspicions that you are intentionally trolling. You have backpedaled about photon drives when you were clearly dismissing that photons have mass, you ignored my reasoning about dirt being rock and thus melt-able back into lava when you said it can't be done, you are in denial about the implications of your own distinctions about sublimation vs vaporization, and now you are strawmanning my words about science and its relationship to fiction. You can't go back and change the conversation, and everyone can see you lying through your ass. I hope your stay here is short, brief, and full of well deserved mockery. Fuck off, you dime a dozen anti-science whore.

I ignored it because it was a stupid statement.Dirt isn't small rocks. Not sure where you got that idea from but its pretty stupid.

Very well, I'll bite. What is dirt? Show me the scientific definition. Show me what makes it so extra special that unlike every other substance in the universe, it cannot be melted or vapourized.

What is an anti science whore? How am I being anti science? What you are saying isn't possible by science.

The term 'Um, yeah, wrong' comes to mind. Methinks you're confusing 'hasn't been done yet' with 'isn't possible'. By your for want of a better word reasoning, since the Mongol Hordes didn't have the fission bomb, it must have been physically impossible at the time. And yet, somehow, I don't think the laws of physics have changed much since then.

I haven't backpedaled about photon drives they are still not real. They are a theory at best. They still do not exist and due to the power required to make them function would make them impracticable in the first place.

Completely irrelevant to your claim. You didn't say we couldn't make a working photon drive, you effectively said that since photons don't have mass they couldn't exert force on massive objects period. The latter part of which is definitely wrong, and the former part is arguably wrong in a discussion involving Wars level technology (especially as once more, turbolasers cannot possibly be actual lasers).

[Vance]

Brian released part three to his beam weapon collateral theory a couple of days ago.
http://www.scifights.net/SciFights.net/Misc.html
He covers geometry, volatility of the target, and input duration. Blasters for example input their energy in 1 or 2 frames which is tens of thousands times slower than C4.

that doesn't make any sense.

For that to happen it would have to keep the adjacent particles from moving.

There's a reason why if a bomb explodes you don't have to be next to it to be hurt by the force of it.

Its the same reason why no action star can slowly walk away from an explosion and not be dead.

His theory is that a beam weapon equivalent in energy to say a ton of TNT, like the AT TE and LAAT "anti-personnel" guns would result in less than 10 cubic meters of collateral, he explains his theory in the videos.

[gigabytelord]

Just a clarification.

The average human body is made of these components give or take small percentages.

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

All of these (that do not naturally already exist in a gaseous form) can be, and have been melted and/or vaporized/sublimated in numerous lab tests and industrial refineries across the globe.

The point stands that if the individual components of the human body can be melted/sublimated then so can the biomechanical construct that together they construct.

Secondary to the subject at hand, it is well known that muscle tissue and fat tissue both melt rather that burn at certain temperatures.


I see a troll.

Addendum: All of this information is easily found via a simple Google search.

[Connor MacLeod]

Frankly the moment it became 'Science doesn't have to apply to science fiction' the whole complaint about HORRIBLE MEGAJOULES OR GIGAJOULES in energy weapons ceased to matter. If we can't apply science to science fiction (or at least to Star Wars) then the meanings of the yield figures cease to have any meaning, as does arguing about them. If he's arguing, its either out of ego, or as Formelss said, just to troll.

Nevremind that this is largely just an arbitrary value judgement about what 'makes sense' - most of the 'you can't apply science/logic to Trek/Wars/Anime/Fantasy' bullshit usually means 'You can't make sense of it by the arbitrarily narrow definition of what 'makes sense.' but people treat it as an absolute rather than a relative. Just because you can't or won't try to figure it out doesn't mean that other people can't, and yet you get others who insist on lecturing those who do about 'wasting their time' like they possessed some great secret of the universe.

Oh and the 'kinetic force' thing. He's lecturing people about being scientifically stupid, yet he's conflating force and energy (or he's being deliberately imprecise, which is hilarious when he's nitpicking the difference between vaporization and sublimation.) Totally not hypocrisy there.

And if you actually use google there's actually a ton of shit that you can be moved around just with 'lazers' - from starships to subatomic particles. Rather fascinating what they've managed to do with photons, really.


Oh and the timeframe issue: Yes that does make the explosive bit less of a danger (at least to an extnet), but that doesn't remove all problems. If you dump megajoules or gigajoules of energy into something you STILL have megajoules and gigajoules present in said something, and that energy does not just disappear. That can be problematic in some cases (eg having living beings nearby and unburnt) Its one of the non-trivial problems with BIG YIELDS I've run across actually, and it does actually require some creative interpretation (or rather, juggling) to work around it (EG CAves of ice melta figure.)

This is one reason why Mike in the past has tried rationalizing the ICS figures with combat like in AOTC as depending greatly on the manner in which energy interacts iwth the targets. The composite beam lasers on the Clone gunships, for example, he argued could be depositing their energy in a narrow yet deeply penetrating line in the ground (hence the lack of explosive effects.)

Mind you, even if you do rationalize the huge yields into some non-dangerous to the enviroment manner, you've basically also just admitted your universe has (for whatever reason) voluntarily opted for a much more inefficient, brute force way of doing damage to the target. (Using a flamethrower to kill as opposd to a bullet.)