Blaster fire speed

[Mad]

Problem is that we know they don't arc in the atmosphere and that they are pure energy weapons, so there is no "homing warhead" explanation available. So they are not projectiles, despite what the novel says.

Not arcing in an atmosphere can be explained with matter. According to the Visual Dictionary, Tibanna gas is "anti-gravitational." Since Tibanna is used in blasters, the anti-gravitational effect should carry over. The AotC VD calls them "plasma bolts," though it's obvious it's not pure plasma. Turbolasers aren't pure lasers, either, so we shouldn't worry too much about semantics.

The ANH novel says they are lasers, so we just have to accept that they are subordinate and conflicting.

Got a quote? Even so, lightsabers have been referred to as "laser swords" in both canon and EU. They obviously aren't laser weapons.

It can't be plasma, that would arc and it wouldnt' be green.

Particle bemas would reacct more with atmosphere and arc over the lond distances like AOTC and ESB

The "anti-gravitational" property of Tibanna should be able to take care of the arcing problem. Them not being pure plasma (or plasma as we know it; TL's aren't lasers as we know them) should cover the problems with a pure plasma weapon.

There are explicit statements saying that blasters and TLs work in the same manner.

Like starwars.com's "based on the same theories and principles"? That doesn't mean they work in the exact same manner.

Both turbolasers and blasters require exotic particles. These particles may be related to each other, perhaps decaying or converting into each other depending on circumstances, causing them to look similar.

Turbolasers redirect in midflight. Blasters don't. Once the beam ramps up to full power, a turbolaser is effectively instant-hit at close range. Blasters aren't -- after a delay, they can reflect off of a lightsaber and then, after another delay, hit and damage a target. In between these actions, the blaster and lightsaber are free to do anything without affecting the outcome of the bolt (the bolt doesn't redirect as the blaster moves, and the lightsaber can do whatever after it deflects the bolt before the bolt strikes its new target).

In ANH, Han fired a blaster in the trash compactor. The resulting bolt bounced around the room, sparking and being a potential threat to anything it might have hit. Han's blaster did not stay still during that scene, but the blaster's movement did not affect the bolt's directions. Further, the bolt lasted far longer than one would expect it to if it were moving alongside a lightspeed carrier beam.

Blasters cannot be rationalized as lightspeed weaponry because of that. This does not affect turbolasers at all, because TLs have been explicitly stated to propagate at c and the bolts have been observed to redirect in mid-flight.

[Ender]

Problem is that we know they don't arc in the atmosphere and that they are pure energy weapons, so there is no "homing warhead" explanation available. So they are not projectiles, despite what the novel says.

Not arcing in an atmosphere can be explained with matter. According to the Visual Dictionary, Tibanna gas is "anti-gravitational." Since Tibanna is used in blasters, the anti-gravitational effect should carry over. The AotC VD calls them "plasma bolts," though it's obvious it's not pure plasma. Turbolasers aren't pure lasers, either, so we shouldn't worry too much about semantics.

Tibanna gas acts as coolant. It is the coolant for the hyperdrive and cools the barrels of TLs. I see no reason to assume it is anything but a coolant for blasters in light of te heat dissapation problems it would have.

The ANH novel says they are lasers, so we just have to accept that they are subordinate and conflicting.

Got a quote? Even so, lightsabers have been referred to as "laser swords" in both canon and EU. They obviously aren't laser weapons.

Don't have a quote on hand, give me a bit to dig for it. And yes, but those descriptions were from a person speaking (I really don't think a 9 year old slave child would count as a good source for how a lightsabre woudl work, do you?). This was a 3rd person POV

The "anti-gravitational" property of Tibanna should be able to take care of the arcing problem. Them not being pure plasma (or plasma as we know it; TL's aren't lasers as we know them) should cover the problems with a pure plasma weapon.

Coolant doesn't leave the barrel dude.

Like starwars.com's "based on the same theories and principles"? That doesn't mean they work in the exact same manner.

Both turbolasers and blasters require exotic particles. These particles may be related to each other, perhaps decaying or converting into each other depending on circumstances, causing them to look similar.

Point.

Turbolasers redirect in midflight. Blasters don't. Once the beam ramps up to full power, a turbolaser is effectively instant-hit at close range. Blasters aren't -- after a delay, they can reflect off of a lightsaber and then, after another delay, hit and damage a target. In between these actions, the blaster and lightsaber are free to do anything without affecting the outcome of the bolt (the bolt doesn't redirect as the blaster moves, and the lightsaber can do whatever after it deflects the bolt before the bolt strikes its new target).

In ANH, Han fired a blaster in the trash compactor. The resulting bolt bounced around the room, sparking and being a potential threat to anything it might have hit. Han's blaster did not stay still during that scene, but the blaster's movement did not affect the bolt's directions. Further, the bolt lasted far longer than one would expect it to if it were moving alongside a lightspeed carrier beam.

I attempted to explain this to Gil earlier about being weaker and taking more time. I no longer see that as a fit explanation, but I do see it as a better one then that they are some kind of plasma weapon, in light that the plasma should explode upon losing consistency from interaction, shold degrade to basically being a flame thrower due to atmospheric interaction, and that they would not be green like Amidala's blaster in TPM and do not arc since the antigrav bit is part of the cooling system, not the projectile.

Blasters cannot be rationalized as lightspeed weaponry because of that. This does not affect turbolasers at all, because TLs have been explicitly stated to propagate at c and the bolts have been observed to redirect in mid-flight.

I am changing my position from that they must be C speed weapons, to the position that I have no idea what they are but I think we can hammer out what they are not and go from there.

[McC]

ANH Tantive IV scene, ANH Death Star attack, AOTC clones shooting. Distances are such it should have been noticable, particularily the first two which have been gone over with a fine tooth comb.

I definitely disagree with that, actually. Somebody needs to check their combs. First, in the ANH Tantive IV scene, you actually can make an argument for sinking turbolaser bolts. I watched ANH:SE again just two days ago, and there is a definite 'drift' to the bolts in this sequence. If I get a chance, I'll try and get a vidcap of the specific shot I'm thinking of to present to you. The same goes for the ANH Death Star attack (again, referring to the SE). There is a very clear instance of a TIE fighter chasing an X-wing very closely with the TIE's lasers arcing towards the surface of the Death Star. Now, this is partly due to the fact that the two fighters are whipping past the surface so quickly and that the bolts were directed too low, but it cannot be ignored and ruled out in its entirety.

Its temperature based to the extent of my knowledge, and since that has been supported by everyone I've talked too, and seen in my research, I'm sticking with that. Now if you can find a pic of green plasma and the corresponding temp, present it.

*nod* You're probably correct, but I'll keep my eyes open.

Picking and choosing is not allowed. Explanation is as was stated above: Firing contol circuits usually time is so the damaging portion hits at same instance as bolt hits.

My intention was not to suggest picking and choosing, merely indicating that the non-visible component does not necessarily need to be traveling at c in order to hit before the visible component.

Such a theory was put forth in the early debates when the C thing came out (along with a number of others such as luxons moving in a circular pattern). It doesn't work because you can't get a containment field to propegats at C.

Would an electromagnetic containment field of some form not propogate at c? By its very nature EM must travel at c, right? It's a moot point, anyway, since I agree with you on this

Real physics is what we are trying to mesh with here.

Well, yes, which is why the theory itself is inaccurate. However, my intention was to use it as a potential launch-point for other ideas that I may not be acquainted with.

If you look on the site (I think you have to go to the index for this page, so missing it is understandable), you will see that not only is that false, but that you can get a yield from it.

Momentum = energy / C

Ah, very interesting! The precise location is here for those looking for an immediate link.

They aren't lasers. They are an exotic, unknown material. It is a particle beam and thus can be affected by EM fields, and by applying the high energy to it, it becomes both damaging and starts to decay from the particles into visable light that leaves at all angles. "spinning" the beam makes it decay less, thus retain more energy. As it loses the energy as it flies, it depletes in strength until it is gone. One of the advantages of white armor for the stormies is tat white shoudl cause it to decay more as it is more reflective, thus increasing survivability.

Okay, but how do you reconcile the flak bursts with this notion? "Programmable" massless particles? In any case, given the relatively short distance over which most starfighter/space combat takes place, there's no way to justify the notion that it travels at c. There are too many instances where the bolt does accurately indicate the position of the damaging element (and can be visibly tracked over a few frames, thereby refuting the notion that it is traveling at c, which should make its travel time virtually instantaneous).

You are incorrect. Look at the TL page on this site, or look to the old debates on this topic, particularily he one with Marc Xaiver. It has been throughly checked.

Well, in terms of the TL page on the IWYFTGE site, it agrees with what I'm saying: turbolasers travel at varying speeds (point 10) and that at least some of the visible portion can be affected by gravity (point 7, and as illustrated prominently in the heavy turbolaser turret image). While point 6 does suggest gravity does not influence the bolts, I pointed out above where I believe that to be inaccurate.

Well, if so it is yet to be presented in a form that cannot be explained, picked apart, contradicted, or anything else.

Well, anything can be picked apart or contradicted. It simply depends on how ludicrous you want to get with your justifications (I don't mean to implt you're being ludicrous by any means, of course). Consider the topic we're debating: armament on space warships in a fictional universe set in a galaxy far from our own a long time ago wherein the individuals have mastered physics in a way we can still only dream about. There's no airtight argument to be made here

[McC]

Tibanna gas acts as coolant. It is the coolant for the hyperdrive and cools the barrels of TLs. I see no reason to assume it is anything but a coolant for blasters in light of te heat dissapation problems it would have.

It's a coolant? Where is that stated? Everything I've read on the topic (at least, as far as I can remember) suggests that Tibanna gas is an ammunition of sorts.

I attempted to explain this to Gil earlier about being weaker and taking more time. I no longer see that as a fit explanation, but I do see it as a better one then that they are some kind of plasma weapon, in light that the plasma should explode upon losing consistency from interaction, shold degrade to basically being a flame thrower due to atmospheric interaction, and that they would not be green like Amidala's blaster in TPM and do not arc since the antigrav bit is part of the cooling system, not the projectile.

Hmm, good point on the flamethrower bit. That rules out an exclusively plasma bolt altogether, I think.

I am changing my position from that they must be C speed weapons, to the position that I have no idea what they are but I think we can hammer out what they are not and go from there.

Sounds like a good plan!

[Mad]

Tibanna gas acts as coolant. It is the coolant for the hyperdrive and cools the barrels of TLs. I see no reason to assume it is anything but a coolant for blasters in light of te heat dissapation problems it would have.

Clone troopers are issued plasma guns of two types. Like all standard blaster weapons, these guns create a charged plasma bolt using a small amount of Tibanna gas. Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of plasma bolts.

...

Tibanna gas is carried in a replacable cartridge that lasts about 500 shots, depending on the weapon's settings and traits. Power-charge magazines supply the gun with energy to hyper-ionize the gas into charged plasma in an igniter chamber. The resulting bolt is accelerated out of the gun electromagnetically.

Blaster Weaponry
Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma.

These quotes, when put together, basically say that the Tibanna gas is the ammunition. Tibanna's high energy capacity makes it a great coolant, and, apparently, when highly energized, it does a great job of transmitting that energy to a target. In other words, it's both a coolant and a weapon.

Don't have a quote on hand, give me a bit to dig for it. And yes, but those descriptions were from a person speaking (I really don't think a 9 year old slave child would count as a good source for how a lightsabre woudl work, do you?). This was a 3rd person POV

I've seen it used in one of the SW games (Jedi Academy) by a much older person. Where would Anakin get the idea that it was a "laser sword" if somebody else hadn't called it that first, anyway?

Coolant doesn't leave the barrel dude.

It's not always used as a coolant.

I attempted to explain this to Gil earlier about being weaker and taking more time. I no longer see that as a fit explanation, but I do see it as a better one then that they are some kind of plasma weapon, in light that the plasma should explode upon losing consistency from interaction, shold degrade to basically being a flame thrower due to atmospheric interaction, and that they would not be green like Amidala's blaster in TPM and do not arc since the antigrav bit is part of the cooling system, not the projectile.

Just like a turbolaser isn't a laser weapon as we know it, I don't expect these "plasma bolts" to be plasma weapons as we would know them. I'm not arguing that they are plasma weapons. The bolts could be Tibanna-flavored Jell-O for all I care...

I am changing my position from that they must be C speed weapons, to the position that I have no idea what they are but I think we can hammer out what they are not and go from there.

Yeah. They're not massless/lightspeed weapons, and they're not plasma weapons. However, they do consist of something that somehow remains "coherent" and can be loosely described as a "plasma bolt" in the same sense that a TL can be loosely described as a laser weapon.

[Ender]

I definitely disagree with that, actually. Somebody needs to check their combs. First, in the ANH Tantive IV scene, you actually can make an argument for sinking turbolaser bolts. I watched ANH:SE again just two days ago, and there is a definite 'drift' to the bolts in this sequence. If I get a chance, I'll try and get a vidcap of the specific shot I'm thinking of to present to you.

Do so, and then you need to evaluate if it is arcing, or if it is just moving along the beam line.

The same goes for the ANH Death Star attack (again, referring to the SE). There is a very clear instance of a TIE fighter chasing an X-wing very closely with the TIE's lasers arcing towards the surface of the Death Star. Now, this is partly due to the fact that the two fighters are whipping past the surface so quickly and that the bolts were directed too low, but it cannot be ignored and ruled out in its entirety.

We've long known Ties can be fired off axis, so again you need to show that it visably arcs and that the visable portion bends as it were, and not that it is following containment.

Then, like I mentioned, there is the fact that the SL does move at C.

*nod* You're probably correct, but I'll keep my eyes open.

Right, so til then plasma is out.

Such a theory was put forth in the early debates when the C thing came out (along with a number of others such as luxons moving in a circular pattern). It doesn't work because you can't get a containment field to propegats at C.

Would an electromagnetic containment field of some form not propogate at c? By its very nature EM must travel at c, right? It's a moot point, anyway, since I agree with you on this [/quote]EM? SUre. But shields have some kind of exotic "liquid energy" matter to them that would not.

Okay, but how do you reconcile the flak bursts with this notion? "Programmable" massless particles?

There are two types of things that are termed "flak bursts". One of them is an actual burst of flak, you see it in the hoth battle, and the ANH novel describes them, saying "solid explosives" are uses. It is a solid missile in an energy coating, like with proton torpedos or CMs.

The other, mroe commonly mislabeled, is an energy shield interaction. Shield are forcefields and thus have a volumetric effect. The "flak burst" you see there is them hitting the outer protions of that field. Otherwise you need to explain away the lack of conservation of energy with those, and why it happens with the nonvisable portion a lot.

In any case, given the relatively short distance over which most starfighter/space combat takes place, there's no way to justify the notion that it travels at c. There are too many instances where the bolt does accurately indicate the position of the damaging element (and can be visibly tracked over a few frames, thereby refuting the notion that it is traveling at c, which should make its travel time virtually instantaneous).

Explained above. The thing ramps up in power. It doesn't go "ZAP!", it goes "zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!"

So the ripple decay starts with the initial low power (which, incidently, ionizes the atmosphere and lets the rest of the shot through, you see tins inAOTC with the SPHAT how the final bema doesn't act like lightening like the tributaries) part and builds up to the killing part which usually hit at the same time.

Convienently, this also explains the varying damage things like starfighters get: By flying into the beam at different times, the recieve varying inputs of energy, thus varying damage.

Well, in terms of the TL page on the IWYFTGE site, it agrees with what I'm saying: turbolasers travel at varying speeds (point 10)

The speed of the ripple appears to depend on the power of the bolt. Also, length of the barrel and resultant spin would explain that, the less spin the lower the energy level before it starts to decay into light so the further it starts along the beam.

and that at least some of the visible portion can be affected by gravity (point 7, and as illustrated prominently in the heavy turbolaser turret image).

Thats part of the waste from the bolt forming process, not the shot itself. You see the same thing in blasters in ANH with flares in their muzzles.

While point 6 does suggest gravity does not influence the bolts, I pointed out above where I believe that to be inaccurate.

Yes, but are yet to present said proof beyond saying it is there.

[McC]

Do so, and then you need to evaluate if it is arcing, or if it is just moving along the beam line.

We've long known Ties can be fired off axis, so again you need to show that it visably arcs and that the visable portion bends as it were, and not that it is following containment.

Yes, but are yet to present said proof beyond saying it is there.

Give me some time I'm at work presently and my tapes most definitely aren't. It may be a day or two before I can get around to this.

Then, like I mentioned, there is the fact that the SL does move at C.

With all respect to Mr. Saxton, I'd actually like to verify this myself. I haven't examined his analysis lately (although I do frequent his site and enjoy reading it a great deal), so I'm not entirely sure how he came to the conclusions he did, but I always feel more comfortable when I can verify what someone else says for myself.

Right, so til then plasma is out.

Agreed. At least plasma in the traditional "hot, ionized gas" sense.

EM? SUre. But shields have some kind of exotic "liquid energy" matter to them that would not.

Oh, I wasn't talking about shields so much as I was referring to a bolt propogation method.

There are two types of things that are termed "flak bursts". One of them is an actual burst of flak, you see it in the hoth battle, and the ANH novel describes them, saying "solid explosives" are uses. It is a solid missile in an energy coating, like with proton torpedos or CMs.

The other, mroe commonly mislabeled, is an energy shield interaction. Shield are forcefields and thus have a volumetric effect. The "flak burst" you see there is them hitting the outer protions of that field. Otherwise you need to explain away the lack of conservation of energy with those, and why it happens with the nonvisable portion a lot.

Oh, right. Duh. I was thinking about (don't kill me!) how the turbolaser bolts from a Star Destroyer in X-wing Alliance (a game! he mentioned a game!) will occasionally detonate of their own volition. But this isn't ever evidenced in the films. Ignore this.

Explained above. The thing ramps up in power. It doesn't go "ZAP!", it goes "zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAP!"

Yes, but there's no mention of this type of functionality anywhere, canon, official, or otherwise. It's certainly an interesting concept, but it seems to go against what we've generally seen.

So the ripple decay starts with the initial low power (which, incidently, ionizes the atmosphere and lets the rest of the shot through, you see tins inAOTC with the SPHAT how the final bema doesn't act like lightening like the tributaries) part and builds up to the killing part which usually hit at the same time.

Convienently, this also explains the varying damage things like starfighters get: By flying into the beam at different times, the recieve varying inputs of energy, thus varying damage.

I don't think it does, though. The SPHAT weapons are very unique in that they are legitimate beam weapons. They don't appear to fire bolts, but actual beams. This suggests to me that they're mounting an entirely different weapons system than a turbolaser or blaster. I need to get my hands on a SW2ICS, however.

The speed of the ripple appears to depend on the power of the bolt. Also, length of the barrel and resultant spin would explain that, the less spin the lower the energy level before it starts to decay into light so the further it starts along the beam.

That's an interesting idea.

Thats part of the waste from the bolt forming process, not the shot itself. You see the same thing in blasters in ANH with flares in their muzzles.

But why would one design a system where the formation waste comes out of the barrel along with the shot itself? It seems like an invitation to reduce the overall effectiveness of the weapon, since the formation waste is bound to absorb some of the initial shot. It'd make far more sense to vent the waste through other exhaust ports (which some blasters and turbolasers do exhibit -- ports, not the actual venting). It seems more likely to me that this is actual blaster material that didn't manage to join the collimated part of the bolt.

Apologies for quoting out of order there.

[Ender]

These quotes, when put together, basically say that the Tibanna gas is the ammunition. Tibanna's high energy capacity makes it a great coolant, and, apparently, when highly energized, it does a great job of transmitting that energy to a target. In other words, it's both a coolant and a weapon.

One of the properties of a coolant is that it should take a significant amount of energy to cause a phase change (water is chosen because it has other, better factors despite that draw back) and that it should dump that heat back into the environment quickly. Both combine to make it almost unusable as any sort of effective weapon. That rationalization makes zero sense.

On top of that, if the anti G property is of a consistent strength, then we should see bolts either slightly rising or slighty falling as they cross the screen based upon the differences in local gravity. There is no reason to assume that the antigravity resistance varies everywhere through some mystery mechanism.

I've seen it used in one of the SW games (Jedi Academy) by a much older person. Where would Anakin get the idea that it was a "laser sword" if somebody else hadn't called it that first, anyway?

I'd imagine he saw a vid of one and just figued thats what it was. Look at how many people do it in the real world.

It's not always used as a coolant.

Its either a shitty coolant or its a shitty weapon then.

Just like a turbolaser isn't a laser weapon as we know it, I don't expect these "plasma bolts" to be plasma weapons as we would know them. I'm not arguing that they are plasma weapons. The bolts could be Tibanna-flavored Jell-O for all I care...

Then lets define a mechanism then. The EG explanation doesn't work since the basic properties that would make it a good coolant would make it a poor weapons, and the Turbolasers aren't lasers arguement for comparison doesn't work here because that was based off the name and this is based of a description of how it works. And irregardless of the properties of tibanna gas, it won't be green, so you woudl need to explain that.

Yeah. They're not massless/lightspeed weapons, and they're not plasma weapons. However, they do consist of something that somehow remains "coherent" and can be loosely described as a "plasma bolt" in the same sense that a TL can be loosely described as a laser weapon.

As I recall, a TL is never loosly described as a laser weapon, people extrapolate that from the name. This is an explicit explanation. The two are not really comparable.

In either case, just saying "it's like that, but different" doesn't really work at all as an explanation, it rests on a MUM to explain the differences.

[Ender]

With all respect to Mr. Saxton, I'd actually like to verify this myself.

Doctor.

I haven't examined his analysis lately (although I do frequent his site and enjoy reading it a great deal), so I'm not entirely sure how he came to the conclusions he did, but I always feel more comfortable when I can verify what someone else says for myself.

He counted the frames from when the SL beams joined to when the damage began to appear. If you count transit time for the tracer, I'm told its slightly STL, though Bobby was the source for that so there is a very good chance he was lying just to paint Saxton in a bad light, he's done so numerous times before.

Agreed. At least plasma in the traditional "hot, ionized gas" sense.

Well I doubt its blood, so I'd say its out all together.

Oh, I wasn't talking about shields so much as I was referring to a bolt propogation method.

I was referring to shielding as a method of keeping the bolt together and cohesive.

Yes, but there's no mention of this type of functionality anywhere, canon, official, or otherwise. It's certainly an interesting concept, but it seems to go against what we've generally seen.

How? It meshes what we see with the canon description in the ICS, and it explains a number of canon and official incidents as I pointed out below and meshes with further evidence.

I don't think it does, though. The SPHAT weapons are very unique in that they are legitimate beam weapons.

So are TLs, HDS has a GIF showing that they sweep like a bema weapon wold as the turret transverses. Plus the old marvel comics show them as such.

They don't appear to fire bolts, but actual beams. This suggests to me that they're mounting an entirely different weapons system than a turbolaser or blaster.

It fires at max output for an extended period, so you get a sustained ripple effect, but that is the only difference. Besides, the SPHA_T isn't the only example, just the easiest due to the contrast; we see the tributaries jumping around, then stopping in final form, for further evidence look at the lack of atmospheric interaction when the Nantex fighters fire their weapons in the atmosphere.

I need to get my hands on a SW2ICS, however.

Unfortunatly, that and the CIS droids got cut from the final publication.

But why would one design a system where the formation waste comes out of the barrel along with the shot itself? It seems like an invitation to reduce the overall effectiveness of the weapon, since the formation waste is bound to absorb some of the initial shot. It'd make far more sense to vent the waste through other exhaust ports (which some blasters and turbolasers do exhibit -- ports, not the actual venting). It seems more likely to me that this is actual blaster material that didn't manage to join the collimated part of the bolt.

Ejecting the wastes straight from the barrel is actually very efficient as the wastes act as a heat sink and their easy disposal minimizes the cooling needed.

[Mad]

One of the properties of a coolant is that it should take a significant amount of energy to cause a phase change (water is chosen because it has other, better factors despite that draw back) and that it should dump that heat back into the environment quickly. Both combine to make it almost unusable as any sort of effective weapon. That rationalization makes zero sense.

To my knowledge, the "ammunition" interpretation is far more prevalent among SW sources than the "coolant" interpretation, so throwing out the former in favor of the latter doesn't seem right. Do you have the quote for the coolant info?

On top of that, if the anti G property is of a consistent strength, then we should see bolts either slightly rising or slighty falling as they cross the screen based upon the differences in local gravity. There is no reason to assume that the antigravity resistance varies everywhere through some mystery mechanism.

I already have that worked out. Something that is anti-gravitational should react to gravity in the opposite manner of normal matter. So it would accelerate away from a large mass at the same rate a regular object would acceelerate towards it. -1 G instead of 1 G, or -1.5 G instead of 1.5 G, depending on the gravity of the planet. If there's an equal mass of normal matter and antigrav matter, they should cancel out and not respond to the gravity well at all.

If the force isn't exactly negated, then just alter the mixture until the result is negated.

I'd imagine he saw a vid of one and just figued thats what it was. Look at how many people do it in the real world.

Where would the association "laser" come from? People today only do it because games and TV shows/movies call STL energy weapons "lasers." It would seem that it's common to do that in SW, too. Would it be impossible for a narrative to pick up on such common terminology?

Then lets define a mechanism then. The EG explanation doesn't work since the basic properties that would make it a good coolant would make it a poor weapons, and the Turbolasers aren't lasers arguement for comparison doesn't work here because that was based off the name and this is based of a description of how it works. And irregardless of the properties of tibanna gas, it won't be green, so you woudl need to explain that.

What sources call it a coolant as opposed to the sources that call it ammunition? Why do you choose "coolant" above the "ammunition" descriptions?

As for the color, the glow obviously isn't a thermal phenomenon. EGW&T implies that the bolt color of lasers can be configured, and says most are intentionally configured for the visible spectrum for the benefit of the pilots using them. Blaster bolts would appear to have this feature, as well (same principles mean that there should be some similarities). Whatever causes the ripple in TL beams may be present in blasters.

As I recall, a TL is never loosly described as a laser weapon, people extrapolate that from the name. This is an explicit explanation. The two are not really comparable.

Several sources refer to laser-type descriptions. Hero's Trial calls them "directed light" and I recall Stackpole using the word "lightfight" in a book or two. Descriptions of turbolasers in SWSB and the SW.com databank use terms such as "laser pulse" or "super-charged laser."

In either case, just saying "it's like that, but different" doesn't really work at all as an explanation, it rests on a MUM to explain the differences.

Problem is, there's not much evidence to support most mechanisms. As you may have noticed, just about any time a mechanism is suggested, it is immediately shot down for either contradicting some source (well known or obscure) or not having enough support. Kinda makes one scared to suggest anything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The projectile problem can be solved with a simple level-flight program and a tiny repulsorlift coil accelerating in an opposite vector of the same magnitude of the gravity of whatever world it is on.

Moreover, if the tiny projectile runs off the energy content of the glowing bolt "warhead" surrounding it, it explains why blaster bolts are said to dissipate with range and lose accuracy beyond a certain point.

In this way, a tiny dart or such maintaining a simple forcefield which contains the energy warhead and applies anti-gravity force to avoid parabolic arcing. The energy warhead, the muzzle velocity, and perhaps even the forcefield are produced by the gun barrel and mechanism. The projectile "core" maintains the confining forcefield (which may also diminish air resistance as per the AOTC ICS), and applies force to to negate gravity and maintain the velocity.

The only problem remaining is no direct observation of the tiny projectile core, or where it is fed-from/contained. The only option in the E-11, for example, is that the power pack also contains a tiny magazine with a hundred tiny darts. Or perhaps in a compact magazine adjacent to the gas chamber, which are intended to be replaced together. This problem is more easily dealt with (in conjunction with the minor bolt size and translucent factor) if the projectiles are very, very small. To my knowledge there's little evidence on how miniturized a tiny repulsorlift and force field projector with a tiny level-flight program.

EDIT: Quite frankly the shit about anti-gravitational Tibanna properties is entirely retarded, if taken to mean "blaster bolts would arbitrarily ignore gravity because of Tibanna". That would mean it has no mass and is a self-contained bright blob, or it has negative mass which negates the mass of a force-field maintaining projectile. The former is assinine because Tibanna would be a luxon. The second is similarly assinine because negative mass matter would exhibit different properties.

I already have that worked out. Something that is anti-gravitational should react to gravity in the opposite manner of normal matter. So it would accelerate away from a large mass at the same rate a regular object would acceelerate towards it. -1 G instead of 1 G, or -1.5 G instead of 1.5 G, depending on the gravity of the planet. If there's an equal mass of normal matter and antigrav matter, they should cancel out and not respond to the gravity well at all.

If the force isn't exactly negated, then just alter the mixture until the result is negated.

....

Honestly Mad, I lack words to describe this. If you're maintaining this with the "confining projectile" bit, that means you're suggesting Tibanna arbitrarily changes its negative mass to off-set whatever the acceleration due to gravity happens to be on the projectile.

This means that the EM force applied on the Tibanna to accelerate it out of the barrel would be directed toward the stock (negative masses acceleration opposite of the force's vector), and when the negative mass hit the target, the target would be pulled toward the bolt. The momentum incident on the rifle would be negative (meaning the rifle would have negative accleration). It would be pulled forward out of the troopers' grip. This interpretation for the "anti-gravitational" properties of Tibanna is false.

[Mad]

EDIT: Quite frankly the shit about anti-gravitational Tibanna properties is entirely retarded, if taken to mean "blaster bolts would arbitrarily ignore gravity because of Tibanna". That would mean it has no mass and is a self-contained bright blob, or it has negative mass which negates the mass of a force-field maintaining projectile. The former is assinine because Tibanna would be a luxon. The second is similarly assinine because negative mass matter would exhibit different properties.

Tibanna is described as "anti-gravitational" in the Visual Dictionary. What can you do?

Honestly Mad, I lack words to describe this. If you're maintaining this with the "confining projectile" bit, that means you're suggesting Tibanna arbitrarily changes its negative mass to off-set whatever the acceleration due to gravity happens to be on the projectile.

Not at all.

First off, I'll freedly admit that I'm making up physics for this. As far as I am aware, there's no theories on anti-grav particles for me to refer to, so I have to make my own behaviors up. While I'm at it, I'm trying to minimize the rules I break in describing behaviors for this exotic particle. If there is something I'm unecessarily breaking in order to come up with a description that fits an anti-grav particle, let me know.

Now, if I define the AG particle as a particle that's normal in every respect except in how it deals with gravity, I shouldn't have to worry about your negative mass thing.

(EDIT: Besides, the particle's own mass is completely irrelevant when determining acceleration due to gravity -- the particle's mass cancels itself out of the equation, like so:

F = GMm/d^2
ma = GMm/d^2
a = GM/d^2 // particle's mass cancels out
)

The way I envision it, the AG particle will gain potential energy as it approaches a mass and lose it as it is pushed away from the mass. As it gets closer to the mass, the greater the effect of gravity. When proportioned correctly with normal matter, the force of gravity on the normal matter and the force of anti-gravity on the AG particles will cancel out, no matter the distance. It's not arbitrary, because I defined the force of anti-gravity as directly proportional to the gravity well. (Actually, I think it'd be incredibly stupid to think a particle could always accelerate at a constant rate away from a gravity well no matter the strength or distance of said well. It'd be the same thing as expecting something to always fall at 1 G no matter how far away it was from the surface of the earth.)

Do you have a more consistent definition that can fit the VD's assertion of the existance of a particle with "anti-gravitational properties"?

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's a vast leap-in-logic for the fluff of "anti-grav" properties. Perhaps it is involved in the production or application of repulsorlifts. Perhaps Tibanna is the basis of the process for producing the "subnuclear knots of space-time" which are the integral component of inertial compensators and repulsorlifts.

You cannot change the way mass is influenced by gravity without changing what the mass is. That is what determines the influence by gravity, which is distortions in four-dimensional space-time.

Quite frankly, since you're obviously creating highly energetic matter which is contained coherently, you already need the confining projectile, and why make up all that shit when you can simply add a level-flight program and a tiny repulsorlift coil to it without making up new stuff and violating any extra physics?

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm not ignoring the movies. The damage always occurs in and around when the glowing part hits the target. Unless you can point to a scene where the damage was way off, as in more than a few frames, we've got nothing to argue about here.

I think your assumption that the visible component is damaging because the damage mostly occurs near it needs backing up on your part, because when it comes down to it, thats exactly what it is.

Secondly a frame or two is plenty enough, esp. when a frame has enough time for a bolt to move away from the area by a KM or so, like say the ISD in ROTJ being blown up, the bolts miss the ISD, yet a frame or two later when the bolts are around an ISD lenght beyond it the ISD explodes and the bolts vanish.
The time-delay theory brought forth by Mad, coupled with Saxton's official invisible beam statement easily explains this otherwise stellar FX fuckup.

So we have two instances mentioned, TESB damage before impact, ROTJ Damage after a miss and other weird shit.

There's also from ROTJ this little thing:
http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/misc/med ... _beams.avi

Don't you agree that it's exceedingly strange for independant objects to move sideways like that? So nicely lined up with the ship firing and it's weapon arrays? You'd think they'd drop behind.

Similar behavior is exhibited by Luke's snowspeeder in TESB:
http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/misc/med ... peeder.avi

There is also another ROTJ instance where the bolts moving sideways, following along with the ship is really easy to spot.

Interesting results where also found with the classic TESB scene you know, not only is there damage before impact, but check out the path of the bolt, which I have outlined in this GIF for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.hisdivineshadow.com/misc/ima ... y_fast.gif

[ClaysGhost]

Problem is that we know they don't arc in the atmosphere and that they are pure energy weapons, so there is no "homing warhead" explanation available. So they are not projectiles, despite what the novel says.

Not arcing in an atmosphere can be explained with matter. According to the Visual Dictionary, Tibanna gas is "anti-gravitational." Since Tibanna is used in blasters, the anti-gravitational effect should carry over. The AotC VD calls them "plasma bolts," though it's obvious it's not pure plasma. Turbolasers aren't pure lasers, either, so we shouldn't worry too much about semantics.

You can explain the absence of arcing without anti-gravitational matter. If you fire anything fast enough it will adopt a nearly flat trajectory. Instead of an anti-gravitational gas, you just have a near-c beam of massive particles, with the conventional ramp-up in power. Arcing would only be a problem for massive particles more than massless particles if the beam really did travel as slowly as the tracer.

It can't be plasma, that would arc and it wouldnt' be green.

You can get green plasma, but it requires special circumstances not compatible with a weapon (a cool or very rarified plasma). One example would be the green light seen in some nebulae, like the Dumbbell nebula (M27). I suppose there must be other examples (I think that some vapour lamps can be conditioned to emit green light without phosphors, but I can't remember the metal that makes up the vapour), but I don't think any of them work at reasonably high temperatures and densities, as a plasma weapon should.

Particle bemas would reacct more with atmosphere and arc over the lond distances like AOTC and ESB

Arcing depends on the speed of the particle beam. The interaction just needs to be no stronger than the interaction that takes place with massless particles.

[Mad]

That's a vast leap-in-logic for the fluff of "anti-grav" properties. Perhaps it is involved in the production or application of repulsorlifts. Perhaps Tibanna is the basis of the process for producing the "subnuclear knots of space-time" which are the integral component of inertial compensators and repulsorlifts.

If it has "anti-gravitational properties," then those properties will show up before the particles are used in some other application. Diamond has the property of being incredibly hard. Does coal? No.

You cannot change the way mass is influenced by gravity without changing what the mass is. That is what determines the influence by gravity, which is distortions in four-dimensional space-time.

An object's mass is completely irrelevant to how it is affected by gravity, since said object's mass cancels itself out of the equation. Photons have no mass at all (they have momentum, but momentum doesn't require mass, just energy), yet they are also affected by gravity. I don't care if the mass is 1 billion kg, 1 kg, 0 kg, or -500 kg, the object's acceleration due to gravity will be the exact same in any case -- and in the same direction.

Further, to my knowledge, just what gravity is hasn't been settled yet. Some say a distortion in space-time, while others say it's a force that uses gravitons as carrier particles.

Quite frankly, since you're obviously creating highly energetic matter which is contained coherently, you already need the confining projectile, and why make up all that shit when you can simply add a level-flight program and a tiny repulsorlift coil to it without making up new stuff and violating any extra physics?

Blasters carry enough power to blast decent-sized holes in walls stronger than concrete. And this tiny repulsorlift is supposed to somehow survive being packaged right alongside that much energy??? (Energy that is trying to escape, I might add, hence the need for containment.) I just don't see it.

As far as I'm concerned, repulsorlifts break physics far more than my hypothetical particles do. A repulsorlift changes the amount of force it applies to gravity, which would seem to require it to push anti-grav in and out of reality itself. If it wasn't controllable, it'd be useless, but it's exactly that control that makes no sense. My particle just has an inverse reaction to gravity, which is something repulsors have to do anyway.

In addition, I'm not throwing out the VD's quote (a source as canon as ICS).

[Illuminatus Primus]

You can explain the absence of arcing without anti-gravitational matter. If you fire anything fast enough it will adopt a nearly flat trajectory. Instead of an anti-gravitational gas, you just have a near-c beam of massive particles, with the conventional ramp-up in power. Arcing would only be a problem for massive particles more than massless particles if the beam really did travel as slowly as the tracer.

The problem with this is listed above. The gun is quite obviously not held-on-target until the bolt impacts, so ramp-ups are out. This means the damage can't be traveling faster than the bolt. At the bolt's velocity, it doesn't arc.

You can get green plasma, but it requires special circumstances not compatible with a weapon (a cool or very rarified plasma). One example would be the green light seen in some nebulae, like the Dumbbell nebula (M27). I suppose there must be other examples (I think that some vapour lamps can be conditioned to emit green light without phosphors, but I can't remember the metal that makes up the vapour), but I don't think any of them work at reasonably high temperatures and densities, as a plasma weapon should.

Right, I have a theory below which I believe is sufficient.

Arcing depends on the speed of the particle beam. The interaction just needs to be no stronger than the interaction that takes place with massless particles.

Doesn't work as listed above.

So we know that blaster bolts aren't straight plasma being spit-out. Poof, and no green.

Anti-gravity plasmas? Still containment issues, still green, and only fixes arcing problems with a magic mechanism.

I propose that blaster bolts are a high-energy matter (akin or somehow related to a plasma) is electromagnetically injected into a thin, dart-like forcefield which gives a blaster bolt its color. The high-energy matter "warhead" may be invisible, or glow with a brilliant white-core. Different manufacturers make different forcefields. Only certain areas of the forcefield may glow; some of the energetic warhead may actually propogate ahead of the glowing "tracer" section of the containing forcefield.

At the bolt's heart is a very small and thin projectile containing a forcefield generator or maintainer, a tiny computer chip while analyzes the vector of gravitational acceleration and the rate of slowing from air resistance, and a small repulsorlift coil which acts counter to gravitational accleration and air resistance to maintain the level-flight trajectory and velocity. This projectile in some models may travel behind the glowing "tracer" portion of the forcefield (which explains translucency in some blaster bolts.

Now many may say these are leaps-in-logic. We already know from the VD and blaster bolt observations that a high-energy matter is probably the best candidate. Can it be invisible? Mike has suggested that shields may be composed of somesort of exotic matter, which is obviously invisible under normal conditions. What about the energy core of the blaster bolt being invisible? We know from Vision of the Future the Empire produces just such a weapon, without the visible tracer on the blaster bolt, the Xerrol Nightstinger. Now, it required special operation, which suggests that the "tracer" section of the blaster bolt is unavoidable under normal circumstances, but is probably controllable in opacity and color by the manufacterer. Glowing forcefields? Numerous examples. Ammunition? The tiny projectiles may be small enough to be stored integrally (akin to old-model tubular magazines on the first multi-shot rifles) to be replaced with blaster gas. This explains the lack of secondary magazines.

The only leap-in-logic in my humble opinion is the proposed miniturization of repulsorlift, field generation, and simple computer technology in SW.

EDIT:

If it has "anti-gravitational properties," then those properties will show up before the particles are used in some other application. Diamond has the property of being incredibly hard. Does coal? No.

You admit you have no idea what those properties are. So your below theories are still guesswork.

I don't care if the mass is 1 billion kg, 1 kg, 0 kg, or -500 kg, the object's acceleration due to gravity will be the exact same in any case -- and in the same direction.

Wrong. The vector of gravitational force will accelerate negative mass in an opposite vector than the force.

Further, to my knowledge, just what gravity is hasn't been settled yet. Some say a distortion in space-time, while others say it's a force that uses gravitons as carrier particles.

One has been verified experimentally, the other exists nowhere outside a math equation, just like negative mass. In fact, gravitons utterly fuck the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, which is one of the reasons we know it isn't the theory of everything.

Blasters carry enough power to blast decent-sized holes in walls stronger than concrete. And this tiny repulsorlift is supposed to somehow survive being packaged right alongside that much energy??? (Energy that is trying to escape, I might add, hence the need for containment.) I just don't see it.

You're still thinking like this is a plasma bolt. The matter may not be physically hot, in fact, thermal stuff is ruled out by green bolts.

Furthermore, we're asking a forcefield to both contain the blast outside, so what's the big deal about inside. Connor, Poe, and Mike both think that projectiles are the only way to make things work. The containment is to keep the bolt cohesive, not to prevent it from blowing up. Moreover, my repulsorlift's acceleration can be applied to all the matter particles equally, giving them straight-line velocity. This is precisely what inertial compensators due to not paste the components of human bodies during 1000s of Gees acceleration. And according to ICS and common sense, repulsorlifts and inertial compensators (as well as artifical gravity) are all related application of similar technology.

Your AG plasma doesn't address this problem at all, only arcing. How does it contain itself?

As far as I'm concerned, repulsorlifts break physics far more than my hypothetical particles do. A repulsorlift changes the amount of force it applies to gravity, which would seem to require it to push anti-grav in and out of reality itself. If it wasn't controllable, it'd be useless, but it's exactly that control that makes no sense. My particle just has an inverse reaction to gravity, which is something repulsors have to do anyway.

This is a profound break with Suspension of Disbelief. Repulsorlifts are canonical, and not an additional assumption like your magic inverse-reaction stuff (which is only not an additional assumption unless you say because they make up blaster bolts which don't arc, then they have inverse reaction, therefore they make up blaster bolts...I think you see the problem), which I remind you would never be able to collect in star systems or gas giants if that's what the properties meant. The canon movie plot requires that that interpretation of the AG properties be incorrect.

In addition, I'm not throwing out the VD's quote (a source as canon as ICS).

I've been iffy about the canon as ICS since all they do is mention DK Publishing's nonfiction, but I'm fine with it.

It still can't have an inverse reaction to gravity because it would never be gathered in stellar accretion disks in the first place. Repulsorlifts, regardless of their sillyness, are a built-in assumption to the canon reality of SW, and thus not an additional assumption. Yours is, which also contradicts canon as shown above. I've also listed the other similarities between my theory and other observations.

[ClaysGhost]

The problem with this is listed above. The gun is quite obviously not held-on-target until the bolt impacts, so ramp-ups are out. This means the damage can't be traveling faster than the bolt. At the bolt's velocity, it doesn't arc.

Oops. I'm getting TL evidence and hand blasters mixed up again.

Now many may say these are leaps-in-logic. We already know from the VD and blaster bolt observations that a high-energy matter is probably the best candidate. Can it be invisible? Mike has suggested that shields may be composed of somesort of exotic matter, which is obviously invisible under normal conditions. What about the energy core of the blaster bolt being invisible? We know from Vision of the Future the Empire produces just such a weapon, without the visible tracer on the blaster bolt, the Xerrol Nightstinger. Now, it required special operation, which suggests that the "tracer" section of the blaster bolt is unavoidable under normal circumstances, but is probably controllable in opacity and color by the manufacterer. Glowing forcefields? Numerous examples. Ammunition? The tiny projectiles may be small enough to be stored integrally (akin to old-model tubular magazines on the first multi-shot rifles) to be replaced with blaster gas. This explains the lack of secondary magazines.

The only leap-in-logic in my humble opinion is the proposed miniturization of repulsorlift, field generation, and simple computer technology in SW.

Some gross speculation follows, be warned:

Hot enough plasma could appear transparent, and most of its thermal emission would be outside the visible range. It is then a slight hazard, because anyone firing the weapon could receive cumulatively harmful doses of ionising radiation over many firings of the weapon. The forcefield contains the plasma and prevents loss of heat to the air through conduction, but it also contains the ionising photons (and hence curtails the radiation losses from the bolt as well as eliminating a hazard associated with superhot plasma). In the visible, the energy loss is miniscule and non-hazardous, and to save energy the forcefield does not block most of the visible light, the particular frequencies blocked depending on convenience and manufacturer's preference. You then no longer need an exotic core material for most blasters.

I think the last section on the colour is quite weak, since the forcefield opacity cannot drop off smoothly in frequency from high to low, but must be "patchy" to let through green only (red is fine).

[Illuminatus Primus]

My theory is that the bolt color is a side-effect of the containment field, and that the color doesn't come from the energetic matter within the blast.

[Mad]

You admit you have no idea what those properties are. So your below theories are still guesswork.

I've only provided one definition, and it doesn't violate anything that repulsorlifts don't already. My definition is even more precise than repulsorlifts.

Wrong. The vector of gravitational force will accelerate negative mass in an opposite vector than the force.

Proof?

F = GMm/d^2 reduces to a = GM/d^2

The kinematic equation only relates to velocities, acceleration, and time, so mass doesn't enter in there. That light with 0 mass is affected further shows that the mass of the object is irrelevant. (If mass was a factor, then something with 0 mass wouldn't be expected to be affected by a gravity well.)

Now, a negative mass object would produce a negative gravity field... but then you'd have the problem of getting an object big enough to make a noticable antigrav well. I think this is what you're thinking of, because the mass of the object being pulled is completley irrelevant.

One has been verified experimentally, the other exists nowhere outside a math equation, just like negative mass. In fact, gravitons utterly fuck the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, which is one of the reasons we know it isn't the theory of everything.

Any links?

You're still thinking like this is a plasma bolt. The matter may not be physically hot, in fact, thermal stuff is ruled out by green bolts.

Okay, fine. However, you're still attaching a device which is never said to be a part of the bolt to it. Several of them, in fact. On the other hand, anti-gravitational Tibanna gas is stated to be the ammunition in use. I only have to use SoD and make the VD description work. You have to assume components that were never alluded to are in use. I'm sticking with official statements more closely than you are.

Furthermore, we're asking a forcefield to both contain the blast outside, so what's the big deal about inside.

If it's not hot, then why do we have to assume it needs a forcefield to stay together? Maybe it's a thicker substance, closer to a liquid (or more Jell-O like?) that undergoes a reaction that causes it to emit light.

How would devices so tiny handle the shock of sudden direction changes? (Reflecting off of walls, certain energy shields, and light sabers.)

Connor, Poe, and Mike both think that projectiles are the only way to make things work. The containment is to keep the bolt cohesive, not to prevent it from blowing up. Moreover, my repulsorlift's acceleration can be applied to all the matter particles equally, giving them straight-line velocity. This is precisely what inertial compensators due to not paste the components of human bodies during 1000s of Gees acceleration. And according to ICS and common sense, repulsorlifts and inertial compensators (as well as artifical gravity) are all related application of similar technology.

It's too bad that Tibanna being the ammunition is pretty consistent among descriptions, while repulsor coils being used is never mentioned, then, eh?

I agree that some mangling of official quotes are required, especially in regards to lenses and/or crystals being used to focus the bolt (depending on the source). That hurts both sides, since any kind of matter will have difficulty in passing through that (especially repulsor coils).

Your AG plasma doesn't address this problem at all, only arcing. How does it contain itself?

However yours does, as far as I care. The thing that really bugs me is your need to insert a repulsor coil into it.

This is a profound break with Suspension of Disbelief. Repulsorlifts are canonical, and not an additional assumption

However, miniturizing them and placing them into blaster bolts is an assumption.

like your magic inverse-reaction stuff (which is only not an additional assumption unless you say because they make up blaster bolts which don't arc, then they have inverse reaction, therefore they make up blaster bolts...I think you see the problem),

Tibanna gas being anti-grav is not an assumption, it's an official statement.

which I remind you would never be able to collect in star systems or gas giants if that's what the properties meant. The canon movie plot requires that that interpretation of the AG properties be incorrect.

Tibanna has to be refined before it is used. That would remove it from the heavier particles it comes naturally attached to.

It still can't have an inverse reaction to gravity because it would never be gathered in stellar accretion disks in the first place.

It can if it's natural state is combined with heavier normal particles. That way we don't have to throw out an official statement.

Repulsorlifts, regardless of their sillyness, are a built-in assumption to the canon reality of SW, and thus not an additional assumption.

Having them used in blasters is an assumption. Tibanna being used as ammo for blasters is not an assumption. Neither is Tibanna being AG.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Before this debate goes further I want to know: how is the bolt kept cohesive?

If it holds itself together: why does it not slow down from air resistance?

If it needs to be held cohesive by a means (ie., the same projectile as suggested by Mike and Connor), why isn't it a leap in faith to say the same projectile could have what we know can negate gravity. We don't know exactly what the AG properties of Tibanna mean.

How would we know if the mass were negative? The basic equation of all of physics is that the acceleration of an object is given by the equation

acceleration = F / m
where
F is the force (push or pull) acting on the object
m is the object's mass

A negative mass would mean that the particle would accelerate in the opposite direction from the force (push on the particle, the particle comes towards you). Unfortunately we might have some difficulty deciding which direction the force was, since we usually infer that direction by the response of the object! In particular, electrical forces on a charged object are given by

http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146nosr6.html

In fact, as acceleration is a vector, even "negative" acceleration is really an accurate term. An object that is getting faster (without turning) is accelerating in the direction of it motion, one who's velocity is decreasing is accelerating in the opposite direction. An ojects that is turning experiences an acceleration in a different direction entirely.

http://physics.about.com/cs/acceleration/a/060703.htm

F = G * m1 * m2 / d^2

If you have a lot of particles acting on a single particle, you have to add up the contribution of all the individual particles. For objects near the earth, the sum of the mass of all the particles is simply the mass of the earth and the distance is then measured from the center of the earth. On the surface of the earth the distance is about 4000 miles. Scientists have combined the universal gravitational constant, the mass of the earth, and the square of the radius of the earth to form the gravitational acceleration, g . On the surface of the earth, it's value is 9.8 meters per square second or 32.2 feet per square second.

g = G * m earth / (d earth)^2

The weight W, or gravitational force, is then just the mass of an object times the gravitational acceleration.

W = m * g

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wteq.html

So it would accelerate away from a large mass at the same rate a regular object would acceelerate towards it. -1 G instead of 1 G, or -1.5 G instead of 1.5 G, depending on the gravity of the planet. If there's an equal mass of normal matter and antigrav matter, they should cancel out and not respond to the gravity well at all.

Direct from you.

1 g = 9.8 m/s^2 downward (acceleration on normal matter)

-1 g = -9.8 m/s^2 upward, or opposite (acceleration on equal in Tibanna)

The force is moving toward the ground--gravity's direction doesn't reverse--it is constant.

1 N = (m) x -9.8 m/s^2

1 kg m/s^2 = (m) x -9.8 m/^s^2

- 1 kg = (m)

Even if your frame of reference has the force negative, the acceleration must be positive. Tibanna's vector of acceleration must always be opposite the direction of the vector of gravitational force, which never changes. Your theory requires that the vector of force is opposite the vector of acceleration. The only other way to change this is to make the gravitational constant negative, which is absurd. One must be negative, and another positive. Therefore the mass is always negative.

This should've been obvious. The gravitational force is always directed downward, but Mad's Tibanna accelerates upward?!

[Soulman]

If it is some kind of contained plasma couldn't interaction between the plasma and magical mystery container cause the colour?

[Mad]

Before this debate goes further I want to know: how is the bolt kept cohesive?

I haven't figured that out. Trying to tie together everything is a huge undertaking, so at the moment I'm letting others figure that part out.

If it holds itself together: why does it not slow down from air resistance?

That's the implication, since the bolt is said to be "coherent" and loses coherency over time.

How much drag will air resistance cause? Would it be enough to slow the bolt down noticibly?

If it needs to be held cohesive by a means (ie., the same projectile as suggested by Mike and Connor), why isn't it a leap in faith to say the same projectile could have what we know can negate gravity. We don't know exactly what the AG properties of Tibanna mean.

You assert that there is solid (yet invisible) material in the bolt, and that a repulsorlift coil is used, despite the fact that they are never mentioned in any source ever used. I assert that AG Tibanna pushes against gravity just like repulsorlifts do.

How would we know if the mass were negative? The basic equation of all of physics is that the acceleration of an object is given by the equation

acceleration = F / m
where
F is the force (push or pull) acting on the object
m is the object's mass

A negative mass would mean that the particle would accelerate in the opposite direction from the force (push on the particle, the particle comes towards you). Unfortunately we might have some difficulty deciding which direction the force was, since we usually infer that direction by the response of the object! In particular, electrical forces on a charged object are given by

http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146nosr6.html

F = GMm/d^2
a = GM/d^2

If a is negative, then either the mass of the planet is negative, or the gravitational constant is negative.

1 kg object near earth's surface:

F = ma
9.8 N = 1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2

But what if it falls up (meaning negative acceleration)? Either the force or the mass is negative (but not both, or else acceleration will still be positive). Which one will it be?

What happens if we use negative mass?

ma = GMm/d^2
-1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = GM(-1kg)/d^2

(GM/d^2 is 9.8 m/s^2 near earth's surface, of course.)

Acceleration is still positive! Not only that, but the force is negative, as well. We could make the acceleration negative to make the force positive, but that would require us to negate the gravitational constant. Of course, you'd have to do that in order to get positive mass to fall up, as well. Basically, negative mass will not fall up simply by being negative.

Note that repulsorlifts also push against gravity, and cannot work outside of a gravity well. (Inertial compensators and artificial gravity can work outside of a grav well, however.)

Direct from you.

1 g = 9.8 m/s^2 downward (acceleration on normal matter)

-1 g = -9.8 m/s^2 upward, or opposite (acceleration on equal in Tibanna)

The force is moving toward the ground--gravity's direction doesn't reverse--it is constant.

1 N = (m) x -9.8 m/s^2

1 kg m/s^2 = (m) x -9.8 m/^s^2

- 1 kg = (m)

Nitpick: that's -.1 kg

Okay, let's run those numbers through the gravitational force equation:

1 N = GM(-.1 kg)/d^2
1 N = 9.8 m/s^2 * -.1 kg

Um, oops... it broke...

Even if your frame of reference has the force negative, the acceleration must be positive. Tibanna's vector of acceleration must always be opposite the direction of the vector of gravitational force, which never changes. Your theory requires that the vector of force is opposite the vector of acceleration. The only other way to change this is to make the gravitational constant negative, which is absurd. One must be negative, and another positive. Therefore the mass is always negative.

Just having the mass be negative doesn't work, either, as I've shown.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What happens if we use negative mass?

ma = GMm/d^2
-1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = GM(-1kg)/d^2

(GM/d^2 is 9.8 m/s^2 near earth's surface, of course.)

Acceleration is still positive! Not only that, but the force is negative, as well. We could make the acceleration negative to make the force positive, but that would require us to negate the gravitational constant.

Not so. Acceleration is a vector. Downward acceleration can be expressed as negative (- 9.8 m/s^2)--as long as you keep your frame of reference (your opposite vectors) correctly situated, it should come out the same.

That is, if your force is negative (in this case, downward), your acceleration should be positive (ie., upward).

How does this disprove my point? With negative mass you'll always accelerate opposite of the vector of force. Gravitational force is always downward. It is the constant.

F = GMm/d^2
1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 = GM(1kg)/d^2

Now the standard equation shows a positive force, and a positive acceleration. Well that's fine. But unless you're somehow arguing that gravity selectively repels Tibanna, and that gravity all-of-a-sudden flows opposite for Tibanna, you need negative mass to get the force opposite of the acceleration.

I digress.

I defer to Dr. Michio Kaku

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php ... 156&page=3

One example is negative matter, not to be confused with anti-matter. Negative matter falls up, while anti-matter falls down (although no one has ever proven this). Negative matter would also have anti-gravity. We have looked for this matter and have never found it. If negative matter existed when the earth was formed, it would have fallen up and hence disappeared into deep space.

Negative matter is matter with negative mass. It is precisely because of this it can be used for weird shit like acceleration-without-energy, and time travel--all kinds of shit I'd prefer to not try and explain why it isn't there in SW. For the same reason I oppose any FTL technology beyond hyperdrive/hyperwave technology.

No more additional assumptions. We know through the power of sillytech to quote OA that repulsors have these abilities. We know the Death Star jammers can warp space-time without the energy and matter necessary and without the troublesome curvature problems on the station's structure. Magic.

But you're assigning the properties of negative matter to Tibanna, claiming its not (despite naming its definitive characteristics) and refusing to deal with the inevitable problems with your thesis. Until I hear Tibanna refered to as the reason why blaster bolts fall, I'm not going to assume they are "negative matter, now with half the properties."

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/negative.htm

Negative Mass
© Copyright 1998, Jim Loy

Mass is related to weight. But, an object still has all of its mass, even in the weightlessness of outer space or in freefall. A bowling ball would still hit the pins, just as hard, in outer space as it does at the local bowling alley.

Is it possible for an object to have a negative mass? How would we recognize such an object? People think that such an object would fall upward. So, things with negative mass might be floating around out in space, negative rocks and negative dust.

But, let me show you that a negative mass would fall downward:

F=-Gm1m2/d2
This is Newton's Law of Gravity. G is a constant. The negative sign is there to show that the force (F) is usually downward. m1 and m2 are the two masses in question, usually the mass of the earth and the mass of some object which is attracted to it (actually they are attracted to each other). And d is the distance between the centers of these two objects. We see that in the case of one of these masses being negative, the negative signs cancel, and the force on this object (F) is positive (upward).

F=ma
This is Newton's Second Law of Motion. It shows the relationship between force (F), mass (m), and acceleration (a). It can be taken to be the definition of mass. We want to restate it as a=F/m, to solve for acceleration. Normally, we have a negative force (downward), and a positive mass, producing a negative acceleration (downward). In the case we are studying (negative mass), we have a positive force (upward), and a negative mass, which produce a negative acceleration (downward). A negative mass falls downward.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can actually confirm this deduction, by conducting Einstein's elevator thought experiment. Einstein showed that light would be bent by gravity, by arguing that gravity and constant acceleration were equivalent. In an elevator, which accelerates constantly upward in zero gravity, a light beam would curve downward, just like any flying object. This curving of light has been verified by experiment. Well, a negative mass, in the same circumstances, would fall downward, as the elevator accelerates upward.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Parsimony and the other properties of negative matter (being anti-gravitational is either wrong, or a colloquialism, because taken as Mad does, it defines negative matter) shoot the "AG bolt" to shit.

EDIT: And projectiles have been named numerous times in conjunction with blasters. I remind you that the blaster cannon of the AAT shows fragements upon impact without being said to contain one. And I didn't say the projectile was invisible, simply small.