Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory

[Marc Xavier]

Geez Louise. I work my ass off on this and people don't even say as much as "cool."

You'd think SD.neters would have more to say about things like this.

[His Divine Shadow]

OK, I believe you have it wrong, sorry, but there are no magnetic fields containing turbolaser bolts(and definitly not plasma), they're just energy weapons, like lasers or masers.
Secondly the shield is a field effect, not a definite hull hugging one, it's the strongest just above the hull and then quickly drops off as the distance increases, this is why bolts can "explode" when they pass too close to a ship since the bolt passing through the shield creates a sort of cascade that causes the bolt, or part of the bolt, to degrade.

[Marc Xavier]

OK, I believe you have it wrong, sorry, but there are no magnetic fields containing turbolaser bolts(and definitly not plasma), they're just energy weapons, like lasers or masers.

Well, that may or may not be the case. In terms of absolute canonicity, I don't think there's any one unarguable definition of turbolasers. Because, just as there are conflicting reports on the location of shield domes, as I understand it, there are a *lot* of conflicting reports on how turbolasers operate.

You're saying they are energy weapons like lasers or masers? Like "lasers or masers" in what sense?

I know lasers are simply photon weapons, they shoot amplified light at a target. Their beams move at the speed of light. And I know that masers are the same exact concept, except the electromagnetic radiation that they toss off is in the 1 - 300 GHz range. But, for reasons that I think are obvious, I don't think turbolasers are simple lasers at all.

But in any event, this really isn't the major thrust of the theory. I assumed, at the beginning, a specific interpretation of how turbolasers operate. So, in the context of taking that as a given, are there any suggestions you may have on how I can improve the theory?

Secondly the shield is a field effect, not a definite hull hugging one, it's the strongest just above the hull and then quickly drops off as the distance increases, this is why bolts can "explode" when they pass too close to a ship since the bolt passing through the shield creates a sort of cascade that causes the bolt, or part of the bolt, to degrade.

What is the nature of this cascade in your theory? How is the bolt being degraded, exactly? This question ties into your definition of turbolasers as "like lasers or masers." So are you saying that the ray shield somehow causes photons to "degrade" in some fashion?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Geez Louise. I work my ass off on this and people don't even say as much as "cool."

You'd think SD.neters would have more to say about things like this.

I didn't notice any differences, aside from a line or two. I'd already read the whole deal. High-quality; nice work.

[Master of Ossus]

Hmmm.... Some of the explanations are quite good, but I disagree with some of the statements made regarding particle shielding. I don't see evidence that the hulls of Imperial starships take damage from particle weapons. It is known that the armor of starships on Imperial vessels is immensely strong, even with the shields lowered. It is also known that starship shields do not "cancel" each other out, as Boba Fett's starship Slave II bounced off a planetary shield, (rather than penetrating it), and it would be expected to penetrate the shield had the "cancelling" property been present. This is further demonstrated in Truce at Bakura, in which Han explains that a ramming starship lowers its shields prior to the attack, so as to transfer more energy into the target. Otherwise (with both ships being shielded), the two simply bounce off of each other. Since this incident is supported by the Slave II incident, I tend to believe it as being accurate.

[Marc Xavier]

I didn't notice any differences, aside from a line or two. I'd already read the whole deal. High-quality; nice work.

Thank you very, very much. I just wanted a little recognition. Sorry if I came off sounding a little upset.

[Marc Xavier]

Hmmm.... Some of the explanations are quite good,

Thank you, Ossus *bows* I strived to make it so.

but I disagree with some of the statements made regarding particle shielding. I don't see evidence that the hulls of Imperial starships take damage from particle weapons.

When you say particle weapons, do you mean explosives or other solid objects?

It is known that the armor of starships on Imperial vessels is immensely strong, even with the shields lowered. It is also known that starship shields do not "cancel" each other out, as Boba Fett's starship Slave II bounced off a planetary shield

There are 2 possibilities that come to mind, but I would have to do further research into (is this from Truce at Bakura?) that and some other sources in order to see if they are supportable.

1. I'm thinking, that perhaps the "cancel out" effect only applies to shields of *relatively* close class, or design. I.E. starship-to-starship fields would cancel each other out, but the big-ass planetary shields (obviously an entirely different class of device) might have simply overpowered Slave II's shielding system. (This might necessitate that Slave II took damage from the impact, however, and I do not know that information at this time.)

2. Perhaps the planetary shield in question was of a different design than the shields used on starships. Perhaps planetary particle shielding is achieved through an entirely different mechanism when it comes to planets, as the "polar molecular dispersion/reinforcement field" presents some sort of risk to planetary biospheres. Perhaps they are mildly radioactive, or perhaps an accident that brought the field into contact with the ground could cause a geological disaster. In that case, I would have to devise a theory to explain it.

3. Perhaps planetary shields are so powerful that they need no particle component at all. I.E. the magnetic fields that they project are so powerful that it would take no less than a high-mass relativistic impact to pierce them. In this case, Slave II might have simply been tossed off the shield like a stray charged particle.

Those are just what pop into mind. I'll have to do further research on the point to see if any of those hold up.

(rather than penetrating it), and it would be expected to penetrate the shield had the "cancelling" property been present. This is further demonstrated in Truce at Bakura, in which Han explains that a ramming starship lowers its shields prior to the attack, so as to transfer more energy into the target.

Well in the case of a ramming starship, under the Operational Theory, I think it would make more sense that the ramming ship lower it's particle shields. At the moment of impact, the particle shield of the defending ship would vaporize the front portion of the offending ship, releasing energy. But since the offending ship obviously has a hell of a lot of mass and momentum barreling straight into the defending ship, this initial explosion might not be powerful enough to force the ship away in a "bounce" effect.

In that case, the offending ship continues along it's path, all the while the dispersal side of the particle shields doing what it can to vaporize the mass of the ship as it impacts. If the particle shield is not powerful enough to outright vaporize the entire mass of an offending star cruiser, the shields eventually go down, the particle-field induced explosions stop and the remaining momentum of the offending vessel carries it's half-destroyed carcass further into the offending vessel.

In the case of a ramming with the particle shields on the offending vessel up, it becomes much harder for the offending vessel to break up on impact (because the reinforcement side of the field is still increasing the hull's durability) and release energy in the form of an explosion. In that case, it might be much more likely for the ships to "bounce" off of each other (and perhaps make a slight dent in the hull ) as Han indicated.

Otherwise (with both ships being shielded), the two simply bounce off of each other.

Exactly.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, that may or may not be the case. In terms of absolute canonicity, I don't think there's any one unarguable definition of turbolasers. Because, just as there are conflicting reports on the location of shield domes, as I understand it, there are a *lot* of conflicting reports on how turbolasers operate

There are, but all of them agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers.
Only people who do not understand physics and have this mental image of plasma being something hot and glowy argues for plasma.

The movies show them to be massless and very likely to be just power-variations or something like that along an invisible beam, as we can see in ANH when TIE fighters fire rapid bursts and the guns move, the bolts already fired change direction along with the movement of the weapon, indicating they're pulses along a beam instead of independant entities.

Secondly no blaster weapon shows any drop due to gravity, a projectile with mass at such velocites would show a clear parabolic trajectory.

But, for reasons that I think are obvious, I don't think turbolasers are simple lasers at all

So, in the context of taking that as a given, are there any suggestions you may have on how I can improve the theory?

I'd reccomend MW's page on turbolasers and Saxton's page, under misc. technicalities.

What is the nature of this cascade in your theory? How is the bolt being degraded, exactly? This question ties into your definition of turbolasers as "like lasers or masers." So are you saying that the ray shield somehow causes photons to "degrade" in some fashion?

Degrade, destabilize or somthing like that, so the bolt(or just part of the bolt) splinters up into billions of tiny things which then degrade into photons and are then absorbed by the shield(I guess, they could be absorbed before they degrade into photons too, it's all very random)

For this I also reccomend Saxton's site to get more info.
Should also be under misc. technicalities.

I also believe Connor Macleod and Mad have a few good theories on turbolasers.

[Marc Xavier]

There are, but all of them agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers.
Only people who do not understand physics and have this mental image of plasma being something hot and glowy argues for plasma.

This is simply untrue.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology clearly states:
"Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The small primary laser produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energised blaster gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons. Turbolasers also can target planetary surfaces for devastating ground bombardments."

This does not say that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

The Turbolaser Commentaries, hosted on this website, clarifies:

The controversial EGW&T states that TL technology and blaster technology are similar and describes the firing process this way:

When a blaster is fired, a small amount of high-energy blaster gas moves from the gas chamber to the gas conversion enabler (commonly called an XCiter). There the gas is excited by energy from the weapon's power source, which is a small power pack for hand weapons and a reactor or a power generator for a larger weapon [read, turbolaser]. The excited gas passes into the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light.

The Star Wars Visual Dictionary also states:

Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt.

Neither does this say that such weapons fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

The movies show them to be massless

You claim turbolaser weapons to be massless.

Force = Mass x Acceleration.

If either the Mass or Acceleration of a body are absolutely 0, then no force should be exerted by a turbolaser.
F = Mass x 0
F = (Mass)0
F = 0

or

F = 0 x Acceleration
F = 0(Acceleration)
F = 0


Turbolasers decelerate when they impact an object, so we know that the acceleration of turbolasers, when they hit something, is not 0. This is not critical however, because you did not claim that turbolasers in fact have no acceleration, you claimed they have no mass.

A bolt that has no mass should not impart a force on an object that it impacts with.



Here is a series of screen shots from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The Millennium Falcon, piloted by Han Solo, flees the pursuit of an Imperator Star Destroyer:


The Millennium Falcon fleeing through space.


A turbolaser bolt, glowing green, reaches through the black void toward the Millennium Falcon.


The bolt continues after the Falcon.


Still on it's way.


The bolt touches the extreme edge of the Falcon's ray shields.


The ray shields are either not correctly angled or not powerful enough to toss the bolt away. As such, the bolt begins to disperse across the shield.


The turbolaser imparts a distinct force on the Millennium Falcon, altering it's trajectory.


In fact, the momentum of the bolt is so substantial that it causes the Falcon to list wildly off course.


Still listing.


Massless turbolasers should not behave this way. Since we know that the turbolaser has an acceleration on impact (deceleration when it hits the ship) and that this impact imparts a large force to the Falcon, the bolt should therefore have mass.

and very likely to be just power-variations or something like that along an invisible beam, as we can see in ANH when TIE fighters fire rapid bursts and the guns move, the bolts already fired change direction along with the movement of the weapon, indicating they're pulses along a beam instead of independant entities.

In actuality, my theory of turbolaser operation lines up with this. Unfortunately, this thread was to discuss the finer points of my shielding theory, not my turbolaser one (which I have not even posted here). As such, I gather that you have an inaccurate idea of what my Turbolaser Operational Theory is, which is why you made this statement.

Secondly no blaster weapon shows any drop due to gravity, a projectile with mass at such velocites would show a clear parabolic trajectory.

Again, this detail is properly covered in my Turbolaser Operational Theory. This thread is to discuss the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory.

I'd reccomend MW's page on turbolasers and Saxton's page, under misc. technicalities.

You misunderstand. I meant do you have any thoughts on how to improve the finer points of the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, taking it as a given (for the purposes of this discussion) that the description of turbolasers is accurate.

Degrade, destabilize or somthing like that, so the bolt(or just part of the bolt) splinters up into billions of tiny things which then degrade into photons and are then absorbed by the shield(I guess, they could be absorbed before they degrade into photons too, it's all very random)

Yes, I understand that. My question is what are the details of this process? What exactly causes the bolt to splinter in your theory? What is the bolt made of, specifically? If not photons, then what? If they are massless, why do they not travel at the speed of light? What differentiates them from normal photons? When they decay or degrade, why do they turn into photons?


In any event, this part of the discussion is a digression from the point of the thread. This thread was not made to discuss the details of turbolaser operation. It was to get input and feedback on the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, taking it's description of turbolasers as a given. I do not feel it fair or appropriate to have to defend a theory I have not formally stated here.

[His Divine Shadow]

This is simply untrue.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology clearly states:
"Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The small primary laser produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energised blaster gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons. Turbolasers also can target planetary surfaces for devastating ground bombardments."

This does not say that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

That doesn't prove your point either, since it does not say what happens when this gas is energized(if you ask me, it's a high energy gas that releases intense radiation when bombarded with laser light, wich is then focused and channeled and thats the TL bolt in question).

The Turbolaser Commentaries, hosted on this website, clarifies:
Brian Young wrote:
The controversial EGW&T states that TL technology and blaster technology are similar and describes the firing process this way:

When a blaster is fired, a small amount of high-energy blaster gas moves from the gas chamber to the gas conversion enabler (commonly called an XCiter). There the gas is excited by energy from the weapon's power source, which is a small power pack for hand weapons and a reactor or a power generator for a larger weapon [read, turbolaser]. The excited gas passes into the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light.

This rather proves my point, the end result is a beam, not a particle with mass, that consists of some unknown particles and photons(part of the beam might be laser based), but then again, visuals support me so there could be a trillion quotes saying they are plasma weapons, they would merely be discarded for their ignorance and direct contradiction with canon.

Neither does this say that such weapons fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

And they're all disproven by the movies, plasma weapons are unrealistic(as in phasers are just as likely) and do not at all act like they do in the movies.

You claim turbolaser weapons to be massless

No, the movies does that.

If either the Mass or Acceleration of a body are absolutely 0, then no force should be exerted by a turbolaser

Utterly wrong. Massless particles have momentum (Energy in joules / 3e8m/s).
A 10MJ laser pulse fired from say a hand weapon will have recoil similar to that of a small calibre rifle, according to MW's page a 50Mt bolt of massless energy could knock the falcon around like that.

In fact, the momentum of the bolt is so substantial that it causes the Falcon to list wildly off course

And? Read up on physics, you obviously have no idea of it, given what you have just claimed(that massless particles have no momentum).

Massless turbolasers should not behave this way. Since we know that the turbolaser has an acceleration on impact (deceleration when it hits the ship) and that this impact imparts a large force to the Falcon, the bolt should therefore have mass

Yes they should, they should have momentum.
That does not disprove them being massless and there is way way way too much evidence saying they are massless.

You misunderstand. I meant do you have any thoughts on how to improve the finer points of the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, taking it as a given (for the purposes of this discussion) that the description of turbolasers is accurate

No, the principle is unknown, it's better to merely observe what it does than try to explain how, since it usually results in nonsense.

Yes, I understand that. My question is what are the details of this process? What exactly causes the bolt to splinter in your theory? What is the bolt made of, specifically? If not photons, then what?

If they are massless, why do they not travel at the speed of light? What differentiates them from normal photons? When they decay or degrade, why do they turn into photons?

Who knows why they don't travel at light speed, they might propagate in a helix like manner, so whilst the beam propagates forward at sub C velocities the particles move at C.
It might also have a non-squared waveform, notice how the delay to the target is almost always consistant to a few frames.

It might be that the invisible beam is a medium of sorts that the destructive energy travels across and the "tightness" of the helix is dependant on the range to the target, so a target furhter away would have a helix structure not as tight and the TL energies would propagate forward faster then.

Imagine a tube thats twirled in a semi-helix, you pour water down it and it'll fall slower of faster depending on how tight you have the tube twirled.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sorry, I know you wish to discuss shields, but I wish to discuss TL's, maybe we can have some moderator to split the topic?

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/misc.html#technology
Anyway, Saxton's page, and I'd put his word as pretty reliable, he did write the ICS:

Combat Physics
Question: What does the blast consist of?


There is no sure answer in terms of real life science; so far we can only place constraints on the nature of the beam by making careful observations about the filmed behaviour. The shots create light which is emitted sideways, otherwise the bolts would not be seen. The visible bolts appear to travel at various velocities, which usually appear to be slower than the speed of light. However there is an invisible component of the beam which often propagates far ahead of the visible bolt. The invisible forerunner is probably an aspect of the fundamental beam itself, and the luminosity of the bolt is a side-effect. The forerunner beam is known to damage targets before the visible bolts arrive, and this component of the shot may actually propagate at lightspeed.

Question: How much momentum does a blaster bolt have?

Probably very little. When blaster shots are deflected off a lightsabre, the change of the bolt's momentum would be felt as a force on the lightsabre, which the wielder would feel through the coupling of the 'sabre beam to the hilt. Consider it like bullets being deflected off a sword: if blaster bolts had as much momentum as an Earthly bullet then Luke Skywalker's lightsabre would have been jarred visibly in his grip. Therefore shots from a blaster carry much less momentum than material shots from a primitive slugthrower weapon.
The fact that blaster shots are momentumless (or nearly so) does not mean that they lack energy. A beam of light, or low-mass elementary particles, can carry intense energy without having much momentum. (Many an insect has discovered this at the hands of a cruel child with magnifying glass.) The explosion when a blaster bolt hits a solid object is not due to impact. It is primarily due to the sudden heating and explosive vaporisation of the opaque matter. The small puff of violently expanding vapour (from the blaster wound or crater) pushes out in any unobstructed direction. That motion exerts a force on the surrounding solid object, like a recoil kick or the reaction of a rocket expelling burning fuel from its exhaust. That is why people and objects shot with blasters may be knocked over.

There is one interesting morbid consequence of all this. A person who is shot with a low-powered blaster shot (or who is wearing armour that absorbs the shot partially) has a crater wound only on the side nearest the firer, but a sufficiently high-powered shot will affect a column of flesh from one side to the other. The person in the former case may feel a more violent kick because the blasted material only expands in the forward direction, whereas the person who is shot right through has hot matter blasting out from both the entry and exit wounds.

Sometimes a recoil is felt in the firing blaster weapon, especially in the case of turbolasers where part of the cannon mechanism springs backwards with every shot. This would best be explained by some kind of explosive event inside the weapon. Flashes or air-bursts are indeed seen near the barrels of some blasters of the movies, especially stormtrooper blasters in ANH.

Question: How does a blaster bolt inflict damage?

The bolt from a personal blaster is visible because some part of the energy beam emits (or decays into) light directed transverse to the blast ray. The emission appears to be monochromatic and non-thermal. (This is proven by the existence of green blaster bolts, because there is no temperature at which an incandescent surface appears subjectively "green.") Nevertheless a bolt propagating from a hand blaster appears to emit at least several dozen watts of luminous power. When that light falls upon an opaque, absorbing surface its energy is thermalised. The energy loss from the bolt ought to be faster in an opaque medium (eg. human flesh) than in open air, so this may be one way in which the entire energy of the bolt is deposited in a target.
There are other possibilities which cannot yet be eliminated. Maybe blaster bolts do have a high characteristic temperature, in terms of the disordered energy component of the beam's constituents? If the beams are innately "hot" the temperature can not be high enough for blackbody emission to outshine the transverse luminousity described above. The energy of a blaster bolt may be highly concentrated in non-thermal forms; there may be a spin or shear or circulation of whatever particles or massless quanta comprise the beam.

If spontaneous (or stimulated) decay of the blaster bolt into transverse light radiation is important to the bolt's damaging effects, then one aspect of stormtrooper armour is explained. A white surface would help reflect the decay light, and may even slow or ameliorate the light-conversion of blaster energy.

Question: How do blaster bolts affect light from other sources?


The visible part of a blaster bolt creates obvious monochromatic emission, but it is less obvious how the destructive beam affects ambient light from other sources. Lightsabre beams have an opaque core cylinder which casts shadows in strong ambient light (eg. in the Emperor's throne room aboard the second Death Star). There are other circumstances in which the beams of energy weapons are not totally opaque. As shown in the indoor and ground battles of the movies, the long, invisible forerunner of the visible trace bolt is blatantly transparent and has negligible effect on natural light. Some bolts from personal blasters are sufficiently transparent for background objects to be seen through them. It's harder to tell in other cases where the bolt is luminous enough to saturate the recorded image. The opacity of blaster (etc) beams is probably dependent on the energy density, with a threshold that is higher than the threshold for spontaneous emission of visible light

Some points from MW's page:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html

The bolts are composed of light-speed particles which move in a very tight helix, so their forward propagation rate is distinctly subluminal

One possibility this is.

[The Silence and I]

I like your theory (it does assume plasma-based weapons, but for the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that) as it explains many observed effects in the movies. For example, angling. I recently watched ROTJ's space battle frame by frame, and I noticed that Stardestroyers have picky shielding! I watched as some bolts were harmlessly absorbed, and others passed clean through, impacting the hull! A great example is early in the battle, the Rebel fleet having just engaged the Stardestroyers. The camera takes a fly-by view of a bridge tower, and two smallish, fighter-sized bolts impact the hull of the bridge as if the shields were not there. Much later, trench guns on two ships ~200 meters away were duking it out, hitting shields most if not all the time.

So, a supposedly fresh ship was damaged by fighter scale weapons-when it is supposed to be able to survive multi-TT broadsides. That part of your theory explains this nicely.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It IS besides the point, Marc, as the Episode II ICS clarifies, proving HDS' point:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

Your picture from ESB is quite meaningless. Massless particles do have momentum, which is given by the formula: (energy)/(speed of light) = (momentum).

[Marc Xavier]

This is simply untrue.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology clearly states:
"Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The small primary laser produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energised blaster gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons. Turbolasers also can target planetary surfaces for devastating ground bombardments."

This does not say that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

That doesn't prove your point either,

Does not prove my point? I'm not making a point about turbolasers at this time. I was pointing out that the quote does not indicate that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers" as you claim it did. You made an incorrect assertion and I pointed it out.

If you recant on this position, please indicate so. If not, please show how all the sources indicate that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

I feel it necessary to reiterate that this discussion is about Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, not Turbolaser Operational Theory. If you wish to discuss Turbolaser Operational Theory in this forum, please start a new thread and discuss such issues with the other denizens of the message board. I am not prepared to get involved in such a discussion at this time.

since it does not say what happens when this gas is energized(if you ask me, it's a high energy gas that releases intense radiation when bombarded with laser light, wich is then focused and channeled and thats the TL bolt in question).

1. Radiation in what form? Electromagnetic radiation or particle radiation?

If electromagnetic radiation, then the device is simply emitting light again. Are you claiming turbolasers are lasers?

If particle radiation, then that means (according to your assertions) that the exotic reaction must produce massless energetic slower-than-light particles that readily interact with matter. Is there such a thing in known real life physics? (You did say that you strive to be "as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible")

Also, would "particle radiation" that has no mass be properly considered particle radiation? If not, then what?


2. This has absolutely no bearing or relevance to this thread. Again, I am here to discuss Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, not turbolasers. I am not even properly researched to discuss Turbolasers at a great depth at this time. As such, I am at a disadvantage to engage in such a discussion. If you wish to discuss Turbolaser Operational Theory in this forum, please start a new thread and discuss such issues with the other denizens of the message board. I am not prepared to get involved in such a discussion at this time.

The Turbolaser Commentaries, hosted on this website, clarifies:
Brian Young wrote:
The controversial EGW&T states that TL technology and blaster technology are similar and describes the firing process this way:

When a blaster is fired, a small amount of high-energy blaster gas moves from the gas chamber to the gas conversion enabler (commonly called an XCiter). There the gas is excited by energy from the weapon's power source, which is a small power pack for hand weapons and a reactor or a power generator for a larger weapon [read, turbolaser]. The excited gas passes into the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light.

This rather proves my point, the end result is a beam, not a particle with mass

The quote reads: "...processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light."


1. It says a beam comprised of particles. You just said it was a beam, not a particle (and you added on the assertion) that it has no mass, although this is not stated in the quote. Please clarify.

2. Nowhere in this quote does it indicate that a turbolaser fires "massless particles like lasers or masers" as you claim it did. Again, you made an incorrect assertion and I am pointing it out. If this assertion is not an incorrect one, please demonstrate how the quote above claims "massless particles like lasers or masers" that travel slower-than-light. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.


Also, you left out an essential piece of the equation, from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary:

Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt.

You left the quote out when you claimed above that the Essential Guides to Weapons and Technology supported your assertion that turbolasers are massless.


The quote clearly describes "the plasma" released from the magnetic bottle as a "coherent energy bolt." If you assume that this is absolute strict non-ambiguous scientific literature, that creates a difficulty, as it would have been better to say "coherent bolt of charged particles" or something to that effect.

If you assume that this is absolute strict non-ambiguous scientific literature, it creates even more of a difficulty in trying to equate "the plasma" with "massless particles like lasers or masers." Instead of saying "the plasma" if they meant "massless particles like lasers or masers" they should have said "massless particles like lasers or masers" or something to that effect. Since you made the inference, I ask you to support it in terms of the Star Wars Visual Dictionary quote, and do so as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible." If you recant on this position, please indicate so.


Now, if you don't assume that this is absolute strict non-ambiguous scientific literature (and I feel that it should not be handled as such, this is a science fiction universe after all) when you take into account that the quote clearly describes "the plasma" released from the magnetic bottle as a "coherent energy bolt" it's not as much of a problem. It just means that the writer is focusing more on the energy content of the bolt when he or she describes it because that is ultimately what is important. Given that, "energy particles" from the EGW&T can be easily interpreted as high-energy plasma.


"Energy particles," is a term rarely used in scientific literature unless it's being used to indicate the energy content of a photon (such as a gamma ray) or a particle with mass (such as an electron). IE, "high energy particles" like electrons released in beta minus decay. "Energy particles" by itself is almost nonsensical in terms of modern scientific dogma.



The Star Wars Visual Dictionary does not indicate any sort of conversion process between "the plasma" and "coherent energy bolt" that would turn "the plasma" into your unidentified, massless, "like lasers or masers" particles before being fired. In fact, the only thing happening between "the plasma" and "coherent energy bolt" is that "the plasma" released from a "magnetic bottle effect" fires through "collimating components" and exits as a "coherent energy bolt."


Collimate:

1. To make parallel; line up.
2. To adjust the line of sight of (an optical device).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Collimating:

Collimate \Col"li*mate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Collimated; p. p. & vb. n. Collimating.] [See Collimation.] (Physics & Astron.) To render parallel to a certain line or direction; to bring into the same line, as the axes of telescopes, etc.; to render parallel, as rays of light.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.



"collimating components" can be therefore be interpreted in 1 of 3 ways.



1. A pure-light style focusing lens, as in "an optical" device as per definition "2" in the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Considerations: This would mean that turbolasers are simply lasers. This is simply not the case for a myriad of reasons which should be obvious and will not be explained here. This interpretation is also not supported by the quote. It says that the "plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt." Nowhere in that sentence does it describe a conversion of "the plasma" into light (however one might go about converting a cloud of charged particles into photons) before it enters the "collimating components."



2. A special kind of lens that focuses your massless slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles along a parallel trajectory.

Considerations: These particles are supposed to be like photons in that they carry energy and are massless, but they travel slower-than-light. As Curtis Saxton says that there "is no sure answer in terms of real life science" (as to what turbolasers are made of) I take it then that this is simply a made-up particle.


If it is not a made-up particle, please explain it's workings in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms.


Even if we accept this particle as being existent, it still must deal with the quote: "plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt." Nowhere in that sentence does it describe a conversion of "the plasma" into something like massless "lasers or masers," but slower-than-light, before it enters the "collimating components."



3. Magnetic fields of some sort that cause the charged particles of "the plasma" to line up along a set of parallel vectors as they exit the barrel.

Considerations: This makes the most sense, as the quote says the "plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components..."

It does not say the "plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect and then converted through an unknown process into massless, slower-than-light particles which then pass through collimating components..."

Option 3 is also in line with definition "1" in the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. The collimating components simply serve to "collimate" (that is, to make parallel; line up) the charged particles of the plasma.



No conversion to massless and slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles is indicated in this quote as you claimed. If you recant on this position, please indicate so. If not, please show how this source, and all the other sources indicate that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."


Now, you claimed that all reports (conflicting or otherwise) agree in indicating that turbolasers fire massless particles like lasers or masers. I'm simply showing how your assertion is incorrect. I do not appreciate being dragged into a discussion which I did not wish to discuss. I feel it necessary to reiterate yet again that this discussion is about Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, not Turbolaser Operational Theory. If you wish to discuss Turbolaser Operational Theory in this forum, please start a new thread and discuss such issues with the other denizens of the message board. I am not prepared to get involved in such a discussion at this time.


Continuing,

that consists of some unknown particles and photons(part of the beam might be laser based), but then again, visuals support me so there could be a trillion quotes saying they are plasma weapons, they would merely be discarded for their ignorance and direct contradiction with canon.

So now, you've changed your position from claiming that all reports of turbolaser operation agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers to admitting "there could be a trillion quotes saying they are plasma weapons." Noted.

Neither does this say that such weapons fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

And they're all disproven by the movies, plasma weapons are unrealistic(as in phasers are just as likely) and do not at all act like they do in the movies.

Please back up this assertion with evidence.

You claim turbolaser weapons to be massless

No, the movies does that.

Allow me to clarify:

There are [conflicting reports], but all of them agree that they [turbolasers] fire massless particles like lasers or masers.

You did claim, yourself, that turbolaser weapons are massless. You are now asserting that "the movies" somehow put forth this argument. This is simple wordplay.


Again, why are we discussing turbolasers? I do not wish to do so. You are making the claims, please support them. Do not just say that they are supported.

If either the Mass or Acceleration of a body are absolutely 0, then no force should be exerted by a turbolaser

Utterly wrong. Massless particles have momentum (Energy in joules / 3e8m/s).
A 10MJ laser pulse fired from say a hand weapon will have recoil similar to that of a small calibre rifle, according to MW's page a 50Mt bolt of massless energy could knock the falcon around like that.

I must congratulate you. I made a mistake and you pointed it out.

Although I feel it necessary to also point out that a bolt with mass could just as easily have caused the Falcon to fly off course and list as it did. So, as you put it at the beginning of your post:

That doesn't prove your point either,

Additionally, Curtis Saxton, of whom you said:

I'd put his [Curtis Saxton's] word as pretty reliable, he did write the ICS

had this to say:

The fact that blaster shots are momentumless (or nearly so) does not mean that they lack energy. A beam of light, or low-mass elementary particles, can carry intense energy without having much momentum.

I would like to note here that Curtis Saxton is not saying that whatever blasters do shoot, that they are made of "massless particles like lasers or masers" that travel slower-than-light, as you asserted.

In fact, he suggests two possibilities, that perhaps they are made of:

1. "low-mass elementary particles"

or

2. a "beam of light."

Nowhere does this indicate "massless particles like lasers or masers" that travel slower-than-light. The closest Saxton comes to this is when he says:

The visible bolts appear to travel at various velocities, which usually appear to be slower than the speed of light

Both plasma bolts (as the Star Wars Visual Dictionary indicates) and the "massless particles like lasers or masers" (that you claim are in operation) would travel slower than light. Thusly,

That doesn't prove your point either,

You claim such weapons create bolts with no mass, but are not photons (Saxton says "beam of light" or "low-mass elementary particles" you say no, something else, although I'm still unclear on what that "else" is), and travel slower than light. I am under the impression that this is a made-up particle constructed ad hoc to describe turbolasers. If it is not a made-up particle, please explain their nature, how they would be created, and where they can be found in the real world in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms. If it is indeed made up, please indicate so.

(Many an insect has discovered this at the hands of a cruel child with magnifying glass.) The explosion when a blaster bolt hits a solid object is not due to impact. It is primarily due to the sudden heating and explosive vaporisation of the opaque matter. The small puff of violently expanding vapour (from the blaster wound or crater) pushes out in any unobstructed direction. That motion exerts a force on the surrounding solid object, like a recoil kick or the reaction of a rocket expelling burning fuel from its exhaust. That is why people and objects shot with blasters may be knocked over.

Low mass or no mass, the energy content of this bolt being transferred to the "opaque matter" is what causes the "small puff of violently expanding vapour" according to Mr. Saxton. Furthermore, he asserts that this puff of vapor and the force that it causes is from matter taken from the impacted object. IE "from the blaster wound or crater."

He does not claim, as you do, that the turbolasers and blasters exert force of their own volition. They heat matter, causing it to explosively vaporize, and that explosive vaporization is what imparts the "jolt" to a target in Saxton's view. Since you yourself said that you feel Saxton's word is "pretty reliable" and that you provided these quotes, I ask you to please show how Saxton is supporting your assertion that turbolasers fire massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles, and furthermore that those particles are what impart momentum to a target, despite the fact that he clearly says it is the explosive vaporization of the opaque matter which does it.



In any event, this is another non-point. As the point of this discussion was Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, not turbolasers. You attempted to use this text by Curtis Saxton to support your assertion that turbolaser bolts are massless. Curtis Saxton is not making that assertion here.

In fact, Curtis Saxton goes on to say even more on this point. Read below:

Sometimes a recoil is felt in the firing blaster weapon, especially in the case of turbolasers where part of the cannon mechanism springs backwards with every shot. This would best be explained by some kind of explosive event inside the weapon. Flashes or air-bursts are indeed seen near the barrels of some blasters of the movies, especially stormtrooper blasters in ANH.

Note, specifically, nowhere in this excerpt (again which you yourself provided) does Saxton say that the recoil effect is due to massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles. In fact, he suggests some sort of explosive effect as "Flashes or air-bursts are indeed seen near the barrels of some blasters of the movies, especially stormtrooper blasters in ANH."


Again, since you yourself said that you feel Saxton's word is "pretty reliable" and that you provided these quotes, I ask you to please show how these examples that Mr. Saxton puts forth directly supports your assertion that turbolasers fire massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles. Also, please show how Saxton's analysis is either incorrect or indicates that the "recoil" effect seen in blasters is due to a momentum interaction with these massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles.

Also, please indicate, in your theory, the meaning of the "flashes or air-bursts seen near the barrels of some blasters of the movies" in terms of a weapon firing bursts of massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles. Please do so as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible.




If you insist on following this line of discussion, please realize that the gist of this is not for me to explain my Turbolaser Operational Theory. I will explain and discuss it if and when I am prepared to do so. For the purposes of this discussion on shields, I asked thread contributors to take it as a given. You have not honored this request.

As of now, this sub-thread of the discussion is for you to reconcile, explain, and support your assertion that turbolasers fire massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles, while trying to "be as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible." You make the statements, please prove them.



I will continue to engage in constructive discussion about the finer points of the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory with persons willing to give input on how to improve it.




Moving on,

In fact, the momentum of the bolt is so substantial that it causes the Falcon to list wildly off course

And? Read up on physics, you obviously have no idea of it, given what you have just claimed(that massless particles have no momentum).

Your insulting insinuation is duly ignored. Please, lets keep this professional. I'm not insulting anyone, I would like the same courtesy in return. I made a mistake. You pointed it out. I've pointed out several incorrect statements on your part and I have not insinuated that you are ignorant or have "no knowledge" of Star Wars. Do me the same courtesy, and treat me with respect.

Massless turbolasers should not behave this way. Since we know that the turbolaser has an acceleration on impact (deceleration when it hits the ship) and that this impact imparts a large force to the Falcon, the bolt should therefore have mass

Yes they should, they should have momentum.
That does not disprove them being massless and there is way way way too much evidence saying they are massless.

Please present such "way way way too much evidence saying they are massless" to be looked over in detail and use it to support your assertion.

You misunderstand. I meant do you have any thoughts on how to improve the finer points of the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, taking it as a given (for the purposes of this discussion) that the description of turbolasers is accurate

No, the principle is unknown, it's better to merely observe what it does than try to explain how, since it usually results in nonsense.

So you have no ideas or thoughts on how to improve the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory. I understand.

Also, I put to you this question, His Divine Shadow:
Are you therefore saying, trying to describe the operation of turbolasers in a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" fashion "usually results in nonsense." ?


As for my questions:

My question is what are the details of this process [massless, "like lasers or masers" slower-than-light particle decay]?

""

What exactly causes the bolt to splinter in your theory?

""

What is the bolt made of, specifically? If not photons, then what?

""

If they are massless, why do they not travel at the speed of light?

Who knows why they don't travel at light speed, they might propagate in a helix like manner, so whilst the beam propagates forward at sub C velocities the particles move at C.

So I take it you do not know the answer to my question. Your theory does not explain this point.


Side notes to your suggestions: You're differentiating between a (massless) beam that moves at sublight and particles(?) that move at lightspeed.

What are these secondary particles you speak of? Normal photons?

Why would the beam "propagate in a helix like manner" ? According to you, this "beam" is comprised of massless "like lasers or masers" particles. A force acting on a moving object will speed it up, slow it down, or change the direction in which it is moving. So, are you saying that these particles have some form of constant force applied on them which causes them to move in a spiral? What is this force? Where does it come from? From the secondary luminal particles (photons?) If so, how do they create this force?

It might also have a non-squared waveform, notice how the delay to the target is almost always consistant to a few frames.

In what context are you making this statement?

It might be that the invisible beam is a medium of sorts

In what sense? This is related to my question above, what is this invisible c-speed beam composed of? Another type of particle (instead of a photon)? If so, please explain it's nature in technical, factual and scientifically accurate terms.

that the destructive energy travels across and the "tightness" of the helix is dependant on the range to the target, so a target furhter away would have a helix structure not as tight and the TL energies would propagate forward faster then.

Imagine a tube thats twirled in a semi-helix, you pour water down it and it'll fall slower of faster depending on how tight you have the tube twirled.

I understand the metaphor. But what is the technical, factual and scientifically accurate nature of the mechanism?

What differentiates them from normal photons?

""

When they decay or degrade, why do they turn into photons?

""

Again, as I've stated before. This thread is for a discussion concerning the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, taking it's description of turbolasers as a given for the time being. You're ignoring this in order to attack a theory of Turbolaser Operation which I have not yet stated, and have indicated time and time again that I do not wish to debate about at this time. I have indicated, repeatedly, that for the purposes of this theory, that the participants in this thread please take the definition that the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory provides for Turbolasers as a given when giving suggestions as to how to improve the theory.

You are neither giving suggestions as to how to improve the theory, nor are you even discussing the main thrust of the argument. Instead, you're pulling me into a discussion about a subject which I have indicated I am not prepared to discuss at length at this time. As you've probably noticed from the first page of this discussion, I like to conduct a lot of research when I'm working with my theories, and as such I prefer the opportunity to study what sources I can in depth before I decide to bring a theory or statement to these boards to be looked over.

I have not decided to invest the time, energy, or thought into researching turbolasers at the length that this board seems to demand. And moreover, regardless of whether you wish to discuss it or not, I will only enter such a thread when I feel I am appropriately equipped. You are the one who is completely altering the direction of this thread, despite my pleas for you to stay on topic. If you wish to discuss turbolasers at an extreme length, feel free to start your own thread and discuss with the other board members. But I ask you, please stop attempting to drag me off of a topic I am not here to discuss at this time. This is not a proper way to conduct ourselves.



For emphasis, I will state this again:

As of now, this sub-thread of the discussion is for you to reconcile, explain, and support your assertion that turbolasers fire massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles, while trying to "be as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible." You make the statements, please prove them.

[Marc Xavier]

It IS besides the point, Marc, as the Episode II ICS clarifies, proving HDS' point:

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

Your picture from ESB is quite meaningless. Massless particles do have momentum, which is given by the formula: (energy)/(speed of light) = (momentum).

Illuminatus, yes, see above, I am aware of my momentum error. Also, I am quite aware of that AOTC quote, and in fact I would love to explain how my Turbolaser Operational Theory actually takes that quote into account when describing the operation of Star Wars Turbolasers, but I am not prepared to make an assertion about it at this time. But the Turbolaser Operational Theory does account for this in it's own fashion.

I like your theory (it does assume plasma-based weapons, but for the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that) as it explains many observed effects in the movies. For example, angling. I recently watched ROTJ's space battle frame by frame, and I noticed that Stardestroyers have picky shielding! I watched as some bolts were harmlessly absorbed, and others passed clean through, impacting the hull! A great example is early in the battle, the Rebel fleet having just engaged the Stardestroyers. The camera takes a fly-by view of a bridge tower, and two smallish, fighter-sized bolts impact the hull of the bridge as if the shields were not there. Much later, trench guns on two ships ~200 meters away were duking it out, hitting shields most if not all the time.

So, a supposedly fresh ship was damaged by fighter scale weapons-when it is supposed to be able to survive multi-TT broadsides. That part of your theory explains this nicely.

I'll have to re-watch that scene from RoTJ, but I am glad to hear the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory making a meaningful explanation and prediction of events seen in the movies now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its quite simple Marc: the bolts in SW neither look nor behave like sublight blobs of plasma, which can not even shine green or translucent. Nevermind the unworkability of a planet-destroying plasma beam. Flakbursting is a farce disproved by the simple point that the bolts continue going past the burst and the burst does not equal the yield of the bolt, AND the "pulse along a c beam" is backed up by the Episode 2 ICS.

Not to mention the "self-generated EM jacket" concept is a farce.

Here's how it works (what it is is really irrelevent to me, as just what it does matters):

TLs are somesort of destructive pulse that is usually incident with the visual bolt but often travels slightly ahead that passes on a c carrier beam of somesort at sublight speeds that are roughly proportional to bolt length. This speed tops off about c when dealing w/ weapons approaching superlaser scale.

[Marc Xavier]

Its quite simple Marc: the bolts in SW neither look nor behave like sublight blobs of plasma, which can not even shine green or translucent. Nevermind the unworkability of a planet-destroying plasma beam. Flakbursting is a farce disproved by the simple point that the bolts continue going past the burst and the burst does not equal the yield of the bolt, AND the "pulse along a c beam" is backed up by the Episode 2 ICS.

Not to mention the "self-generated EM jacket" concept is a farce.

Illuminatus, please, I'm asking you as a favor, please don’t get me caught up into the details of explaining my Turbolaser Operational Theory until I get my cards straight. When I do present the theory, I will do my best to take into account all the information I possibly can.

The details of the Turbolaser Operational Theory are a harmony, and as such some of the concepts commonly related to other theories as Turbolasers as plasma do not apply to it.

I ask, respectfully, that everyone wait until I get my notes together, give my brain a rest, and settle the finer points of the TOT and then post it here before we begin analyzing the argument in any depth.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its ok Marc, I posted that before I sent you my PM.

[Marc Xavier]

Its ok Marc, I posted that before I sent you my PM.

A thousand thanks, Illuminatus.

[His Divine Shadow]

Furhter replies to this will be uneccesary Marc, as I will make a new thread on turbolasers and their behaviour, I will show there what it is that invalidates certain theories and make certain facts right.

Does not prove my point? I'm not making a point about turbolasers at this time. I was pointing out that the quote does not indicate that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers" as you claim it did. You made an incorrect assertion and I pointed it out

It does not indicate they have mass either, which is my point.

If you recant on this position, please indicate so. If not, please show how all the sources indicate that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers.

Movies, ICS, Destiny's Way and so on.

1. Radiation in what form? Electromagnetic radiation or particle radiation?

It's not important nor relevant just what kind of radiation it is, stop with the red herrings.

The quote reads: "...processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light."

Yes and a beam coupled with particles of mass and light, that would be utterly disastrous, the beam would interact and destroy itself, both particles must be massless ones.

Also, you left out an essential piece of the equation, from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary:

Quote:
Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt.

You left the quote out when you claimed above that the Essential Guides to Weapons and Technology supported your assertion that turbolasers are massless.

Essentially contradicted by the movies, so it's not important.

If you assume that this is absolute strict non-ambiguous scientific literature, it creates even more of a difficulty in trying to equate "the plasma" with "massless particles like lasers or masers."

Oh yes, those things, I didn't include them since they've been discarded as evidence prior to this.
I don't find it very hard to say, contradiction and discard the useless material.
Facts of the matter is that a plasma weapon does not act in the slighest like it should, and it's clearly massless in the movies, and translucent and the damaging part does not always keep up with the visible part either.
Clear and explicit contradictions.
You may find any and all quotes indicating that they are plasma so we can discard them if you wish.

*snip irrelevant discussions*

Considerations: This would mean that turbolasers are simply lasers.

Uhh... no, it would not...
You just simply make too much of everything.
Now my theory on what they do, the tibanna gas is reacted with and releases high amounts of radiation that is collected and collimated as a coherent energy beam.

Considerations: These particles are supposed to be like photons in that they carry energy and are massless, but they travel slower-than-light.

They don't have to, they can still travel at light speed but not propagate forward at the speed of light.

As Curtis Saxton says that there "is no sure answer in terms of real life science" (as to what turbolasers are made of) I take it then that this is simply a made-up particle

Turbolasers are made up of unknown particles.

3. Magnetic fields of some sort that cause the charged particles of "the plasma" to line up along a set of parallel vectors as they exit the barrel.

Sorry, plasma does not exist, the concept itself is as illogical as Star Destroyers firing packets of orange juice and directly contradicted by the movies.

*snip - do not use discarded factually incorrect material*

If you wish to discuss Turbolaser Operational Theory in this forum, please start a new thread and discuss such issues with the other denizens of the message board. I am not prepared to get involved in such a discussion at this time

This issue is settled here, I am brining it up because it is in your page

Please back up this assertion with evidence

What do you need? screenshots?!?
Look at the movies, and if you have an ounce of scientific knowledge on the behavioral characteristics of plasma you'd get it in a heart beat.
Secondly, turbolasers do not arc even with sub-c velocities, they are massless by the highest source of canon, visuals.

You did claim, yourself, that turbolaser weapons are massless. You are now asserting that "the movies" somehow put forth this argument. This is simple wordplay

I have shown, time and again, how the movies disprove the plasma theory, and indeed, any theory involving mass in the shots.
Please do not ignore this again as it is the ultimate evidence in any debate and higher than any source and it's message is clear.

Again, why are we discussing turbolasers? I do not wish to do so. You are making the claims, please support them. Do not just say that they are supported

Because they where on your sit, and whats on your site is scientifically wrong and in contradiction of the movies.

I would like to note here that Curtis Saxton is not saying that whatever blasters do shoot

I never said he did, infact you've gotten so hung up on that one quote

that they are made of "massless particles like lasers or masers" that travel slower-than-light, as you asserted

One very vauge analogy, you interprept it to it's very extremes, do not do that, christ it was just an analogy!
This is pretty much how I would describe your behaviour:

Person 1: "Look, that plane is going to crash and it's going to hit us!"
Person 2: *looks at plane* "That is not a plane, it is a jet-fighter, such aerodynamic contraptions are not called planes, but fighters, or jet fighters"
Person 1: "WHO CARES? WE'RE GOING TO DIE!!!"
Person 2: "But not by a plane we're not"

A total and utter focus on a vauge sentiment until it's blown out of proportion and importance.

Nowhere does this indicate "massless particles like lasers or masers" that travel slower-than-light. The closest Saxton comes to this is when he says:

You confuse forward propagation with the speed of the particle.

You claim such weapons create bolts with no mass, but are not photons (Saxton says "beam of light" or "low-mass elementary particles"

Actually saxtons says they travel at C, in his book(ICS).
Those pages are older than his book

I am under the impression that this is a made-up particle constructed ad hoc to describe turbolasers. If it is not a made-up particle, please explain their nature, how they would be created, and where they can be found in the real world in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms. If it is indeed made up, please indicate so

It's not made up since no particular turbolaser particle has ever been spoken of, but yeah, it's clearly nothing we know of today.
But it can be, I have explanied that already with my continuation on Wong's helix theory.

He does not claim, as you do, that the turbolasers and blasters exert force of their own volition

Christ... *shakes head*
I dunno, did you like just totally loose it now?
Do you know the meaning of wrongfully interprepting something, and interprepting something out of context?

They heat matter, causing it to explosively vaporize, and that explosive vaporization is what imparts the "jolt" to a target in Saxton's view.

OK, try and follow here for a second, you obviously have lost all grip here on what he's saying.
First of all, I know how they work, thats the veyr basic principle on how they work, thats how lasers/masers work too, this we have all know for ages.

Understand that Saxton earlier said they have very little momentum, which is clear, not that they have absolutely no momentum, and what he describes with the heating and such is the effect of a rapidly transferred energy pulse, like a laser pulse for example.

Do you get it know what saxton is saying? Saxton is saying they have little momentum and that they work by heating their targets, like any energy weapon would.

Note, specifically, nowhere in this excerpt (again which you yourself provided) does Saxton say that the recoil effect is due to massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles.

Again with that crap, man, are you trying to piss me off??????
Stop wasting time on red herrings and irrelevancies and debate the POINT!!!!!!!!

In fact, he suggests some sort of explosive effect as "Flashes or air-bursts are indeed seen near the barrels of some blasters of the movies, especially stormtrooper blasters in ANH."

Well duh, a rifle firing massless particles like a rifle would have very little recoil and the bursts of gas are likely waste products from the rifle mechanism or just dirt thats inside the barrel as the weapon fires.

*snip*

Clearly you have proceeded to take every opportunity in this debate to come up ignore my points, over interprept others, focus on vauge statements and generally avoid the issue, you clearly mis interprept several of saxton's words, indicating how little you know of the physics involved, or that you are

For the purposes of this discussion on shields, I asked thread contributors to take it as a given. You have not honored this request

Is that why you have debated me in a manner as to focus on non-essential points?

You make the statements, please prove them

They have been proven already. Evidence has been provided, thats all you need to know.

I'm not insulting anyone, I would like the same courtesy in return. I made a mistake.

Your entire reply feels as if you're insulting me infact, it's entierly subjective I guess.

Please present such "way way way too much evidence saying they are massless" to be looked over in detail and use it to support your assertion

Movies.
Why do I have to say anymore?

So you have no ideas or thoughts on how to improve the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory. I understand

Under modern physics we cannot come up with any feasible or rational explanation for the behaviour of deflector shields, to try would not be possible, or it would result in abandoning physics

Also, I put to you this question, His Divine Shadow:
Are you therefore saying, trying to describe the operation of turbolasers in a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" fashion "usually results in nonsense."?

No. But ascribing a bunch of techno-babble nonsense to a process that we have utterly no idea how it works is not accurate, honest or scientifically correct.

My question is what are the details of this process [massless, "like lasers or masers" slower-than-light particle decay]?

Unknown, we cannot say for sure beyond observing their properties, going further than that in this instance would not yield any credible results.

Marc Xavier wrote:
What exactly causes the bolt to splinter in your theory?

The shield.

Marc Xavier wrote:
What is the bolt made of, specifically? If not photons, then what?

That is not important, it's actually irrelevant, we can only observe it's behaviour and try and make some estimates on how it might work, but anything specific is impossible without making stuff up.

So I take it you do not know the answer to my question. Your theory does not explain this point

False premise, you act as if I need to prove what sort of particle it is, I do not, I only need to show that whatever it is exhibits certain properties and I can therefore rule out what it is not.

Side notes to your suggestions: You're differentiating between a (massless) beam that moves at sublight and particles(?) that move at lightspeed

What are these secondary particles you speak of? Normal photons?

I have no designation for them, would it be better if I made something up?

Why would the beam "propagate in a helix like manner" ?

I think it MIGHT do that because it's the only scientifically valid theory, to a degree anyway.
Because we know they are massless from the movies and other materials, but they propagate forward at apparent sub-light velocities, this is the only explanation that would allow some scientific integrity.
For such a behaviour

In what context are you making this statement?

Based on observation.

In what sense? This is related to my question above, what is this invisible c-speed beam composed of? Another type of particle (instead of a photon)? If so, please explain it's nature in technical, factual and scientifically accurate terms

Listen, your idea that I have to explain it in scientific terms, when such a thing is clearly impossible if a false premise, we cannot do this, it would just be lying or making assumptions.
We can only observe it's behaviour and theorise on how it might work for the results we see to occur.

I understand the metaphor. But what is the technical, factual and scientifically accurate nature of the mechanism?

Unknown, it is merely a theory I have.

Marc Xavier wrote:
What differentiates them from normal photons?

Thats irrelevant

Marc Xavier wrote:
When they decay or degrade, why do they turn into photons?

Also irrelevant and unanswereable since they clearly work on principles we have no idea of.

As of now, this sub-thread of the discussion is for you to reconcile, explain, and support your assertion that turbolasers fire massless, slower-than-light "like lasers or masers" particles, while trying to "be as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible." You make the statements, please prove them

I have, beyond the shred of a doubt proven the behaviour of turbolaser based weapons, they do not fit with the behaviour of plasma weapons.
They exhibit properties of massless particles and seem to propagate slower than light directly forward.

Those are facts that disprove some theories on what they are, but does not prove what they are.
There is no such thing as proving what they are with todays science, asking for it is nonscensial

[His Divine Shadow]

Here you go:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=17112

[Marc Xavier]

Furhter replies to this will be uneccesary Marc, as I will make a new thread on turbolasers and their behaviour, I will show there what it is that invalidates certain theories and make certain facts right.

I disagree on your point of further replies. At least one further reply indeed is necessary because there are points of my previous major post, the one which I made on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 6:12 pm, which you have simply ignored. If ignoring a question or a point is an adequate response to it, then the best way to debate would simply be to keep silent. I do not believe it so.


In your post, on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 4:20 pm, you said the following:

OK, I believe you have it wrong, sorry, but there are no magnetic fields containing turbolaser bolts(and definitly not plasma), they're just energy weapons, like lasers or masers.

I responded with the following:

Well, that may or may not be the case. In terms of absolute canonicity, I don't think there's any one unarguable definition of turbolasers. Because, just as there are conflicting reports on the location of shield domes, as I understand it, there are a *lot* of conflicting reports on how turbolasers operate.

You replied with:

There are, but all of them agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers.

This was an incorrect assertion.


I responded with:

This is simply untrue.

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology clearly states:
"Turbolasers are two-stage supercharged laser cannons. The small primary laser produces an energy beam that enters the turbolaser's main actuator, where it interacts with a stream of energised blaster gas to produce an intense blast. The energy bolt's destructive power is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons. Turbolasers also can target planetary surfaces for devastating ground bombardments."

As I said before, this report does not say that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."


As additional evidence of your incorrect assertion, I offered the following:

The Turbolaser Commentaries, hosted on this website, clarifies:

The controversial EGW&T states that TL technology and blaster technology are similar and describes the firing process this way:

When a blaster is fired, a small amount of high-energy blaster gas moves from the gas chamber to the gas conversion enabler (commonly called an XCiter). There the gas is excited by energy from the weapon's power source, which is a small power pack for hand weapons and a reactor or a power generator for a larger weapon [read, turbolaser]. The excited gas passes into the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light.

As still more evidence of your incorrect assertion, I offered yet another quote:

The Star Wars Visual Dictionary also states:

Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt.

Yet again, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of such weapons firing "massless particles like lasers or masers."

So, in light of this, your assertion:

There are, but all of them agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers.

is plain and simply incorrect.


However, you changed your point and reduced your statement to avoid conceding that you had taken an incorrect position in the first place. This is but one example of a pattern of behavior which I am no longer willing to entertain.

As you have ignored valid questions about your theory and have largely only replied when it serves to obfuscate the issue and sidetrack the thread, I do not feel compelled any longer to engage you in long winded intellectual discussion. In fact, instead of engaging in intellectual discussion, you seem more interested in making a scene than helping to reach a workable and clearly defined theory of shield operation.

The Bottom Line is that you have snipped apart my post, waving your hand and calling valid points "irrelevant" rather than acknowledging them. When you make incorrect statements and I point them out, you dodge the issue. When you present material as evidence of your point, and I ask you to please explain how such material supports your point, I am more likely to be given a condescending reply instead of actually receiving a reasoned response.

If asking you to explain your theory, which you thus far in this thread have not been able to explain in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms, is free license for you to ignore what I have to say, then no profit or progress comes from me replying to you at any length.

As for your new thread, (which as of the time of this posting I have not looked at; rest assured that I will look it over very carefully), my position on responding remains unchanged at this time. I am currently conducting research on my Turbolaser Operational Theory and when it is completed I plan to post it in this forum. I thank you for finally at least agreeing to vacate your off topic discussion from this thread and take it to a more appropriate location.

[His Divine Shadow]

I disagree on your point of further replies. At least one further reply indeed is necessary because there are points of my previous major post, the one which I made on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 6:12 pm, which you have simply ignored. If ignoring a question or a point is an adequate response to it, then the best way to debate would simply be to keep silent. I do not believe it so

Ditto here.
As with each new reply you make points I feel I have to answer.

As I said before, this report does not say that turbolasers fire "massless particles like lasers or masers."

Yes, infact it does not really say anything of value here, nor does it say they are plasma cannons.

is plain and simply incorrect

OK, so it is.

However, you changed your point and reduced your statement to avoid conceding that you had taken an incorrect position in the first place. This is but one example of a pattern of behavior which I am no longer willing to entertain

Would you prefer I kept to my original statement instead of changing it when it is proven wrong?

As you have ignored valid questions about your theory and have largely only replied when it serves to obfuscate the issue and sidetrack the thread, I do not feel compelled any longer to engage you in long winded intellectual discussion. In fact, instead of engaging in intellectual discussion, you seem more interested in making a scene than helping to reach a workable and clearly defined theory of shield operation

Excuse me? I feel that it is you who have obfuscated the issue with irrelevant side tracks and incredibly long winded replies where you repeatedly try and ge me to explain such as exactly how something would operate(when such a thing is clearly impossible) and constantly refer to a vauge statement I made purely as an analogy.

The Bottom Line is that you have snipped apart my post, waving your hand and calling valid points "irrelevant" rather than acknowledging them. When you make incorrect statements and I point them out, you dodge the issue

Am I now? So I made a wrong statement, done and done.

When you present material as evidence of your point, and I ask you to please explain how such material supports your point, I am more likely to be given a condescending reply instead of actually receiving a reasoned response

I believe I have answered it plenty of times, many many times, it is being asked for it repeatedly that gets me.
Must I really answer it again?
No, I will not, go to my new thread instead.

If asking you to explain your theory, which you thus far in this thread have not been able to explain in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms, is free license for you to ignore what I have to say, then no profit or progress comes from me replying to you at any length

You continue to state this, it's a false premise and an impossible request for you to make.
Don't you understand that to explain a process that so violates current standards of physics is clearly impossible, we cannot say how or why it does it, we can theorize on what it does and see how well our theories fit observations.
Take that section you have of strenghtening the hull with the shields, it's nonsense, pure nonsenscial technobabble that does not mean anything.
It seems to me you want me to ascribe a few technobabble sounding words to the process, this is a request that makes utterly no logical sense to me.

It is like asking me how a hyperdrive(a physics defying device) works, I cannot say that beyond that it goes faster than light, and possibly make some estimates on it's speed, but you keep asking me for a detailed explanation.
Do you understand now?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes; the "massless particles like a laser or maser" comment by HDS was him just expressing why how he believes TLs are composed of luxons.

[Marc Xavier]

OK, so it is [incorrect].

Thank you.

Would you prefer I kept to my original statement instead of changing it when it is proven wrong?

Not at all. I would, however, like you to do as I asked, which was "if you recant on this position, please indicate so."

Thank you for finally indicating so.

Excuse me? I feel that it is you who have obfuscated the issue with irrelevant side tracks and incredibly long winded replies where you repeatedly try and ge me to explain such as exactly how something would operate(when such a thing is clearly impossible)

Thank you for indicating, as I wished, that being "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" in explaining a comprehensive theory of turbolasers is impossible.

and constantly refer to a vauge statement I made purely as an analogy.

If you meant your assertion "There are, but all of them agree that they fire massless particles like lasers or masers" as an analogy (although for what, I'm not sure), you should have simply said so.

The Bottom Line is that you have snipped apart my post, waving your hand and calling valid points "irrelevant" rather than acknowledging them. When you make incorrect statements and I point them out, you dodge the issue

Am I now? So I made a wrong statement, done and done.

Yes you are.

And yet again, thank you for admitting the incorrect statement.

When you present material as evidence of your point, and I ask you to please explain how such material supports your point, I am more likely to be given a condescending reply instead of actually receiving a reasoned response

I believe I have answered it plenty of times, many many times, it is being asked for it repeatedly that gets me.

Actually, you replied with something like this:

Again with that crap, man, are you trying to piss me off??????

Moving on,

Must I really answer it again?

No, you are not required to answer it. But I won't ignore the fact that you choose not to.

No, I will not, go to my new thread instead.

Again,

As for your new thread, (which as of the time of this posting I have not looked at; rest assured that I will look it over very carefully), my position on responding remains unchanged at this time. I am currently conducting research on my Turbolaser Operational Theory and when it is completed I plan to post it in this forum. I thank you for finally at least agreeing to vacate your off topic discussion from this thread and take it to a more appropriate location.

Now,

If asking you to explain your theory, which you thus far in this thread have not been able to explain in "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" terms, is free license for you to ignore what I have to say, then no profit or progress comes from me replying to you at any length

You continue to state this, it's a false premise and an impossible request for you to make.

The fact that it is impossible is the point. You presented your theory in noncontiguous bits and pieces in this thread, giving me very little more than ad hoc slower than light "like lasers or masers" particles who's nature and characteristics you admittedly can not define outside of what your theory needs them to be. Since you claimed that you strive to be "as technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I asked you (nine times) to explain your theory in such a manner.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot explain your theory in such terms.

Don't you understand that to explain a process that so violates current standards of physics is clearly impossible,

Yes, I do. In light of your claim to strive be as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" I thought it a prudent question to ask. Because your inability to answer it in such terms is a demonstration that the theory requires some fiction (IE, you must make Sh*t up ).

we cannot say how or why it does it, we can theorize on what it does and see how well our theories fit observations. Take that section you have of strenghtening the hull with the shields, it's nonsense, pure nonsenscial technobabble that does not mean anything.

Quite correct. But, at the beginning of this entire thread, I posted notification that this was a "sci fi" theory. One designed to harmonize information gathered from LucasFilm sources and explain the operation of Imperial deflector shields. A great deal of my efforts since you entered this thread (to discuss material at length) has revolved around getting you to admit that your theory involves a bit of creative fiction as well.

It seems to me you want me to ascribe a few technobabble sounding words to the process, this is a request that makes utterly no logical sense to me.

If you're referring to my theory, see above. If you're referring to your theory, no that is not the case. I was asking you, since you previously claimed that you strive to be as "technically, factually and scientifically accurate as possible" to simply be so. If you could not be so then it was unwise for you to make the statement to begin with.

It is like asking me how a hyperdrive(a physics defying device) works, I cannot say that beyond that it goes faster than light, and possibly make some estimates on it's speed, but you keep asking me for a detailed explanation.
Do you understand now?

See above. If you can not create a cohesive scientific, technical, and factual argument, then simply say so. Or, as I put to you previously:

Are you therefore saying, trying to describe the operation of turbolasers in a "technically, factually and scientifically accurate" fashion "usually results in nonsense." ?

You replied in the negative. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.