Just had a new blasters thought

[airBiscuit]

wouldn't it make more sense to say it is a particle beam weapon that is slower than light with several emited radiation side effects that would explain the result???.

If we were to accept that there were early incineration effects consistently happening, then I would subscribe to this idea. I don't like the two-beam/combo-weapon because it sounds way too complicated for what I could imagine Lucasfilm Ltd. envisioning.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I found the article on Turbolasers describing the purported early-incineration effect. So much of the argument seemed to step around the short sequence with shooting the asteroids. Are there other cases to back this up? Otherwise, I would take it to be a one-time gaffe with SFX timing, and not worth taking the time to explain.

IIRC there were a few incidents in the prequels where the SFX artists duplicated the effect. In any case, one can hardly argue that it's overly nitpicky to go through the film frame by frame when this particular type of special effect was constructed frame by frame. You don't think they actually filmed a turbolaser bolt hitting that asteroid, do you?

[airBiscuit]

IIRC there were a few incidents in the prequels where the SFX artists duplicated the effect. In any case, one can hardly argue that it's overly nitpicky to go through the film frame by frame when this particular type of special effect was constructed frame by frame. You don't think they actually filmed a turbolaser bolt hitting that asteroid, do you?

Aw, you mean that this isn't all real? Man, now my world is shattered.

No, I understand that the SFX guys used the optical technique called 'glowpainting' in the 70's and 80's do perform this effect. They would have also composited explosion footage, perhaps with some animation thrown in for the asteroid purverizing. However, I wouldn't up and say they can't make mistakes, even with frame by frame representations. They might have even done some intentional tricks to fool the eye that wouldn't have been evident to viewers in 1980, but are now detectable in the digital media format. These tricks would be used to enhance a desired effect when played at 24 FPS.

If you did composite filmed explosive footage and were forced to slow the effect down for scaling, then it's possible that the SFX guys had to stretch the onset of ignition slightly before the bolt contact was drawn in so that the overall timing and duration of the explosion looked right when played back. They would have fudged it because nobody would notice when watching the film.

However, if there are other examples of this, especially with the Prequels using digital FX, then maybe there is some intent to it. It would be good to know what to look for when I watch them again.

[Robert Treder]

In TPM, when the Naboo use their speeder-mounted anti-tank gun, the AAT they were targeting blows up before the bolt hits. That's the only incident I can think of right now, but that's enough to show that it extends to the prequels. I don't know if there are any pre-bolt damage incidents in AOTC or ANH, though.

[Connor MacLeod]

Conner

The gravity might to a degree be neutralised by a good targeting system that I would presume to be fitted, but would some of the parts of this beam stabilize it in atmosphere like (but different of course since it cannot possibly be one...) using a laser to create a path for the beam?? (as we do today).

Gravity would still act to pull the beam downwards, producing an arcing effect we should see, which we do not. No targeting system is going to alleviate this. The visible bolts don't move nearly fast enough to negate this fact, and if they were invisible... there's not really much differencec form the massless theory anyhow.

[Connor MacLeod]

Now that several people have started to discern the problems involved with the reconciliation of film and text, does any body have any idea that can explain what we all saw?

Well, I found the article on Turbolasers describing the purported early-incineration effect. So much of the argument seemed to step around the short sequence with shooting the asteroids. Are there other cases to back this up? Otherwise, I would take it to be a one-time gaffe with SFX timing, and not worth taking the time to explain.

There are many cases in the OT of "damage before contact" (one other in the Hoth Battle at least, one in ROTJ, and at least one in TPM.. some in ANH as well I believe)

[Connor MacLeod]

Aside from other thinks i don´t like the idea of a projectile, because that would mean different calibres for different orders of firepowers.

You do see this demonstrated, though, in the various classes of weapons. Your larger weapon systems have larger bore diameters. As you have greater power output in the bolt, assuming you can't increase the density of the bolt itself, it must either elongate, or have a wider crossection. I am sure that the bolt collimators can accomodate both approaches, but not to an extreme either way.

You'd still have to explain the lack of arcing in the projectile, though.

[airBiscuit]

Gravity would still act to pull the beam downwards, producing an arcing effect we should see, which we do not.

In which instances should we have seen it in the movies?

No targeting system is going to alleviate this.

True. It could only compensate for such effects. The effects would still happen.

The visible bolts don't move nearly fast enough to negate this fact...

True that they don't move fast enough to negate gravitational effects. However, you *couldn't* go fast enough to negate gravitational effects. Even (massless?) light is bent by gravity. For objects of any mass whatsoever, they will fall at a constant rate of acceleration. The question really is, are the bolts going of such velocity that you're not going to notice the ballistic arc in any reasonable frame of reference? We would have to be presented with a view of blaster fire in the presence of a gravitational body covering a great amount of distance in order to notice the bolt in a ballistic arc. I don't think we can claim this effect is not happening.

[General Zod]

True that they don't move fast enough to negate gravitational effects. However, you *couldn't* go fast enough to negate gravitational effects. Even (massless?) light is bent by gravity.

in order for "massless" light to be bent by gravity you need a gravity well on the equivalent of a black hole in order to have any significant effect.

[Connor MacLeod]

In which instances should we have seen it in the movies?

You've watched the movie, right? Haven't you seen the various examples of fighting in an planetary (natural or artificial - eg the Death Star or onboard a starship) setting? Particularily those across multi-km ranges (TESB at Hoth and AOTC at Geonosis)?

True that they don't move fast enough to negate gravitational effects. However, you *couldn't* go fast enough to negate gravitational effects. Even (massless?) light is bent by gravity.

Yes, but it takes a massively strong gravitational field to even slightly bend gravity. A mass even as small as a tiny grain of sand would arc in a gravity well (especially if it were glowing like a blaster bolt)

For objects of any mass whatsoever, they will fall at a constant rate of acceleration.

In a vaccuum yes. In atmosphere, you have to account for resistances (eg the atmosphere)

The question really is, are the bolts going of such velocity that you're not going to notice the ballistic arc in any reasonable frame of reference?
We would have to be presented with a view of blaster fire in the presence of a gravitational body covering a great amount of distance in order to notice the bolt in a ballistic arc. I don't think we can claim this effect is not happening.

[/quote]

Across the multi-km distances like Hoth and Geonosis? Hell yes you are.
What about weapons fire near the surface of the Death STar (which had a massive gravitational field of its own - enough to hamper the mobility of starfighters). This is reinforced by official statements found here

The incredible energies harnessed by the station combined with its great mass gave the Death Star magnetic and artificial gravitational fields equal to those found on orbital bodies many times greater in size.

[Ender]

Ok, before we lost internet for a week because some moron violated opsec, I was writing IP an email about this very topic. a couple of points:

1) I found a resolution to the plasma/blasters thing and how what we see is inconsistent with the descriptions of plasma. In Zahn's short story Duel (available as a ebook along with the rest on sw.com IIRC for free) one of the main characters makes mention of "blasters or plasma throwers". In otherwords, they are seperate systems, and thus if we want to go hard core SoD we treat that as a typo on the authors part.

2) I think there may be an explanation for the predamage and STL for blasters we see, and it was figured out by Bob Brown and Mr. Forge years ago

MODEL FIVE: Field assisted, self-containing substance
This model is a blend of (compromise between) the field and the self-contained models. It proposes that the 'plasmoid' is essentially a self-constraining meta-unity substance, but that it requires some external influence to help maintain its blade shape. Perhaps a field effect is generated as a framework for the 'plasmoid' to cling to ... perhaps the field sits at the core of the blade spinning (or similar) like a rotor, to provide gyroscopic angular inertia - which assist in retaining rigidity of the blade through rapid movements.
Perhaps it is NOT the 'plasmoids' themselves that BLOCK each other (or even blaster bolts) but the field-lattice at its core?

This idea is PURE speculation, and requires a lot of further thought


MODEL SIX: virtual light produced from a spinning field surface
The idea & physics behind, this model supplied by the incredible Mr Albert Forge.
This model is similar to model five, but is FAR more solidly based in REAL physics, and is a FAR better match for the observed sabre (and blaster) behaviours! It provides a theoretical answer to ''where does the 'stuff' of the blade come from'' *AND* actually NEEDS both a fields AND rotation!

According to astrophysicist Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich, a rapidly spinning conductor will cause the creation of virtual particle radiation at its surface. Particle production is controlled by the charge, angular velocity (of rotation) and radius of this charged conductor.

If we imagine a rod shaped charged field of atomic-scale cross-section, which is superconducting and rotating at near-lightspeed, then charge regulation becomes the control for the particle emission type and quantity. Such charged fields would tend to repel one-another (if they are of like polarity), which means the blades would BLOCK one another.

NOTE: a sabre would have to be built carefully and tuned correctly! A badly adjusted sabre would subject its user (and everyone in range) with considerable amounts of gamma radiation!.

The glow of the sabre blade consists of virtual-photons energised by the rotating field into real photons ... virtual light make real! The opaque 'thumb-thick' blade shape may be a swirl of ionised atmospheric particles (the AIR) drawn in and swirling about the core. When you IONISE a gas, you actually have a PLASMA (as it is meant by terrestrial physics) ... and this would glow JUST LIKE A FLUORESCENT TUBE (which is ALSO a plasma!) ... BUT this thumb-thick plasma zone is merely a by-product ... the REAL cutting is performed by minuscule core of the true blade ... leaving almost microscopically thin cuts. (The blade would STILL glow fiercely in even in a vacuum, as it throws off 'virtual photons - made real' ... but the thumb-thick core may not be visible.)

Such a tight rapidly spinning charged superconducting field would rend (tear) through most matter by stripping off electrons which bind atoms together. The ionized matter about the 'cut', as well as field-excited atomic movement in the localized area of the 'cut', would mimic great point-of-contact heat. A wound to a soft-tissue organic being would appear to be a microscopically thin BURN - and such a wound would usually tend to be cauterized (depending on how slowly the blade passed through - a large blood vessel cut too quickly may not be sufficiently 'burned' to cauterize).

Dense metals which have loosely bound electrons (which are free to wander about their lattice structure) would be more resistant to cutting. The 'atom stripping' effect would take a little longer to cut through, because such materials have more electrons 'to spare' before their lattice structure becomes 'torn'. Metals are also more highly conductive, and the localized 'heat' effects are minimized because the heat is carried away and dispersed through the material more quickly.

This means that even though with varying amounts of effort, a lightsabre could cut through virtually anything, some materials would offer more resistance to a sabre blade, and therefore we can now understand how Lord Vader's armour was able to ward off most of Luke's glancing blow, saving his life.


Lord Vader's life is spared despite this glancing blow to the shoulder by Luke Skywalker
because the dense metallic armour he wears is more resistant to the 'atom sheering' effect of a lightsabre blade.
Luke just didn't hit HARD enough to get all the way through!
Mr Albert Forge has gone further, and has postulated a mechanism for the generation of the spinning field which creates the blade described above. Imagine a tiny sphere of unknown composition (perhaps some of the 'hypermatter' referred to in the SWICS & SWVD books by LFL's Dr Reynolds). Rapidly spin this into a disk by the effect of inducing fields (probably EM). The disk deformed and elongated into a tube, or rod (imagine the sleeve of a shirt being turned inside out) by an axially mounted and powerful electron gun (like the tube of your TV). Field extension/retraction would be controlled by altering the output of the electron gun (which incidentally also controlled the charge of the conducting field ... the spin rate is determined by the inducing EM fields that created the disk from the sphere in the first place).

'Focussing' in this case may then be the very-rapid application of 'tuning' precession forces upon the extended field in order to 'follow' the orientation of the hilt, as left to itself it would tend to gyroscopically resist orientation changes.

[NOTE: Mr Forge would like to say that all the above, which having its roots in 'real' physics, is speculative, and must be taken with "several solar masses of sodium chloride" *grin* ... IMHO however, it is a VASTLY more consistent and believable model than any other. It just 'could' possibly work! *AND* it matches ALL the observed and ascribed conditions!]

ADVANTAGES OF MODEL SIX

it SPINS - matching my 'gyroscopic angular inertia' ideas (independently supported by the SWVD)
no 'plasma' or 'fuel' required other than raw power
the blade is PURE energy
the blade is opaque
there is a sensible 'focussing' (tuning) role for crystals which COULD see them able to adjust the colour!
the blades would block one another AND blaster bolts!
it hums
it glows, even in a vacuum!
the cuts are microscopically thin
it cuts by 'shearing away' the electrons in the substance, leaving a locally 'induced' heat-like reaction
in other words: .. leaving burns & cauterized wounds!
dense metallic surfaces with many stray electrons in their matrix would provide higher resistance to the 'electron stripping' cutting action ... thus Vader's armour stops the glancing blow from killing him!
Mr Forge has built upon the 'sabre/blaster relationship' idea (presented in Model Three above) using his 'virtual-light' model ...


A question from Mr Doran Skalak about gravitic effects prompted me to ask an astrophysicist (Curtis Saxton) questions about high-speed rotations and relativistic effects:
the following comments are my own attempts to explain what he told me, and I may have made any number of scientific errors ...

In Model#6 there is a 'virtual' object ROTATING at the core of the blade .. a forcefield of almost zero mass (I assume) which has a NON-MECAHNICAL induced spin applied at near lightspeed [c] to achieve the Zeldovich effect as described above.

Apparently, objects moving at near 'c' WILL undergo the mass-effects predicted by Eientstein even if they have near zero mass ... because the equations effect ENERGY, and mass is merely one form of energy. As a result, the spinning blade will NOT ONLY undergo gyrospcopic resistance to changes in angular orientation (being waved around), but will ALSO suffer SOME DEGREE (unknown) of relativistic gravitic effects. In effect, the blade may acquire some 'virtual mass' - FROM the relative standpoint of the user.

Further, these effects will produce a form of 'event horizon' effect at the boundary (not incompatable with Zeldovich's 'virtual light' predictions I assume) which you would expect could account for the noise, the glow and the terrible destructive capabilities of the 'light' blade.


Sabres and Blasters related?

Now comes the REAL speculation!
It was postulated in Model Three (Field contained plasmoids) that the Sabre beam may be related to the Blaster Bolt - as though the sabre were a 'static' gunshot, or more correctly, that the blaster bolt is a 'mobile sabre blade'. This is a fascinating idea, but it has a serious drawback ... there are instances in the films where damage is done BEFORE the visible part of the bolt arrives. the 'contained' model CANNOT explain this...

BUT the 'virtual light' model CAN. *IF* Blasters and sabres originate from the same principle technology, then blasters MAY be such 'spinning fields' which can exist for a time on their own, and can be projected along a vector (ie: fired!). Such a 'bolt' would indeed leave a TRAIL OF LIGHT in its wake! The 'damage' may well be done BEFORE the visible part of the bolt arrives!

Since a blaster is like a sabre, and since sabres block one-another, a sabre can block a blaster bolt! BUT this would be VERY VERY difficult to do because the sabre blade is so thin, and the blaster bolt so very fast!

A Turbolaser may be a rotating field of larger diameter. Perhaps such larger fields would retain their coherence for longer (after leaving the emitter) and thus have greater range. If the field integrity decays beyond a certain point, its rapid rotation may cause it to 'explode' beyond a certain distance from the emitter. This would explain the 'flak bursts' observed in the film when some shots miss their targets.

The asteroid hit by the Star Destroyer in TESB would first be 'drilled into' by the bolt, then exploded (vaporized in fact!) from within when the bolt's rotation collapsed - it would essentially have had its constituent atoms ripped apart from the inside out!

Could this mechanism explain it? It has the advantage of making all bolts effecrtively Armor Piercing rounds, and if it is a tracer after a controled shot it would explain the bouncing we see in TPM. Connor brought up the "no drop by blaster bolts in a grav well" issue. But as I recall, in the last debate with McC, it was found that there where no scenes in the movies of blasterfire shots long enough that gravitational influence should be noticable.

Does this resolve all issues, or need some more work?

[Ender]

When I say long enough, I mean time wise, we never see a shot fully cross those distances, merely them shooting and a scene change.

[airBiscuit]

You've watched the movie, right? Haven't you seen the various examples of fighting in an planetary (natural or artificial - eg the Death Star or onboard a starship) setting? Particularily those across multi-km ranges (TESB at Hoth and AOTC at Geonosis)?

Yes, but did you personally have a view of those multi-km ranges in the film? I acknowledge that these battles occurred over some impressive distances, but did you ever see more than 500 - 1000 meters of it at a time? Even on the Death Star, we saw blaster fire coming down the trench, but could you really tell if there was a ballistic arc when you were looking at the screen?

Yes, but it takes a massively strong gravitational field to even slightly bend gravity.

Of course, my point was simply that light is not immune to gravitational effects, even if it is due to space-time distortion.

A mass even as small as a tiny grain of sand would arc in a gravity well (especially if it were glowing like a blaster bolt)

Yes, but you have to look at the *velocity* of that grain of sand. If it's going 2 meters per second, then yes you'll probably notice the arc. If it's going 1000 meters per second, you're going to have to get out your binoculars to notice it drop much, because it will be a kilometer away before it's dropped 30 feet. I don't think we're given that kind of distance perspective in the film. Blaster bolts might even have a higher velocity, but I am sure some analysis of that has been performed already, so someone can chime in on that.

Across the multi-km distances like Hoth and Geonosis? Hell yes you are.
What about weapons fire near the surface of the Death STar (which had a massive gravitational field of its own - enough to hamper the mobility of starfighters). This is reinforced by official statements found here

The incredible energies harnessed by the station combined with its great mass gave the Death Star magnetic and artificial gravitational fields equal to those found on orbital bodies many times greater in size.

Okay, well that makes a good case for the Death Star gravity thread, but I still don't see the claim where you have *seen* a blaster bolt travel more than maybe a kilometer (even though it certainly is) on the Death Star, Hoth, or Geonosis. I am not talking about the bolt coming out of the blue from more than a kilometer away, I am talking about tracking it the entire time from a bird's eye view. The contention I am making is that the blaster bolts travel so fast that it's maybe 10 or 20 kilometers down range before you're even done blinking. But maybe if we can get an assessment of the bolt's velocity, like on the Battle of Hoth, we can see whether we should expect a noticable parabolic drop.

[Darth Wong]

Look at the Rebels aiming their rifles in the TESB Hoth trench scene. They're firing at walkers which are several kilometres away, and their guns are roughly level. Even if the shot moves at 1 km/s, it should hit the ground far short of the walkers if it's falling at 1g.

[McC]

Look at the Rebels aiming their rifles in the TESB Hoth trench scene. They're firing at walkers which are several kilometres away, and their guns are roughly level. Even if the shot moves at 1 km/s, it should hit the ground far short of the walkers if it's falling at 1g.

Why would they be aiming at the AT-ATs? The AT-ATs could obviously shrug off emplaced weaponry -- small arms would have no chance of dealing damage. However, in one analysis, wasn't there some conjecture that there were Imperial troops leading the attack ahead of the walkers and scouts? I don't remember where I read this, but perhaps the rebel soldiers were shooting at them. It seems kind of silly to be firing small arms at enemy units that can ignore them...

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, but did you personally have a view of those multi-km ranges in the film? I acknowledge that these battles occurred over some impressive distances, but did you ever see more than 500 - 1000 meters of it at a time? Even on the Death Star, we saw blaster fire coming down the trench, but could you really tell if there was a ballistic arc when you were looking at the screen?

link

Turbolaser bolts do not appear to be affected by gravity, as demonstrated when multiple shots were fired in low orbit over Tatooine (so low that Luke Skywalker was able to see the battle through his binoculars). Given the relatively low propagation velocity, we should have been able to detect gravitational effects. The same is true of ground and airspeeder blasters.

Yes, but you have to look at the *velocity* of that grain of sand. If it's going 2 meters per second, then yes you'll probably notice the arc. If it's going 1000 meters per second, you're going to have to get out your binoculars to notice it drop much, because it will be a kilometer away before it's dropped 30 feet. I don't think we're given that kind of distance perspective in the film. Blaster bolts might even have a higher velocity, but I am sure some analysis of that has been performed already, so someone can chime in on that.

In the case of say, TESB, the range we're talking about is many tens of kilometers (Veer's At-ATs fired on the shield generator from at least 17 km away. The Rebels were firing both rifles and artilelry at the AT ATs (and frrom a lower position, as Mike noted) - we WOULD have seen arcing. The same is true of the AT-AT's own bolts, particularily towards the shield generator.)

Geonosis wasn't nearly as long but it was still multi-km - so we would have seen arcing of some kind.

Okay, well that makes a good case for the Death Star gravity thread, but I still don't see the claim where you have *seen* a blaster bolt travel more than maybe a kilometer (even though it certainly is) on the Death Star, Hoth, or Geonosis. I am not talking about the bolt coming out of the blue from more than a kilometer away, I am talking about tracking it the entire time from a bird's eye view. The contention I am making is that the blaster bolts travel so fast that it's maybe 10 or 20 kilometers down range before you're even done blinking. But maybe if we can get an assessment of the bolt's velocity, like on the Battle of Hoth, we can see whether we should expect a noticable parabolic drop.

You apparently have not been reading anything that has been said then.

[Connor MacLeod]

Look at the Rebels aiming their rifles in the TESB Hoth trench scene. They're firing at walkers which are several kilometres away, and their guns are roughly level. Even if the shot moves at 1 km/s, it should hit the ground far short of the walkers if it's falling at 1g.

Why would they be aiming at the AT-ATs? The AT-ATs could obviously shrug off emplaced weaponry -- small arms would have no chance of dealing damage. However, in one analysis, wasn't there some conjecture that there were Imperial troops leading the attack ahead of the walkers and scouts? I don't remember where I read this, but perhaps the rebel soldiers were shooting at them. It seems kind of silly to be firing small arms at enemy units that can ignore them...

Isn't it kind of silly to assume that the Imperial troops were running across tens of kilometers of open space towards the Rebels? Besides, his poitn still stands (the tower and dish guns were ALSO firing on the AT-AT, and they weren't much taller than a man either)

[harbringer]

Sorry Conner I ment alleviated/compensated but it was late and I tired. Ender I will go with theory 6 until I get my own SD or blaster rifle. And if the rebel troops were on a rise or hill the shot may have dropped on hoth, however it didn't on Genosis so I would on reflection rule out gravity affecting these things.

Mr Wong you really think Stewart wants you to kick his butt again because he made up a theory thats insane or irrelevant to the situation?? of course he is going to let someone else do the leg work.

[Ender]

You've watched the movie, right? Haven't you seen the various examples of fighting in an planetary (natural or artificial - eg the Death Star or onboard a starship) setting? Particularily those across multi-km ranges (TESB at Hoth and AOTC at Geonosis)?

Yes, but did you personally have a view of those multi-km ranges in the film? I acknowledge that these battles occurred over some impressive distances, but did you ever see more than 500 - 1000 meters of it at a time? Even on the Death Star, we saw blaster fire coming down the trench, but could you really tell if there was a ballistic arc when you were looking at the screen?

The SPHAT firing at geonosis. This was determined last tiem we went through this.


Now Connor, Mike, IP, anyone want to comment about the likelyhood or contradictions presented with BB's theory of blaster operation with what we see?

[airBiscuit]

Turbolaser bolts do not appear to be affected by gravity, as demonstrated when multiple shots were fired in low orbit over Tatooine (so low that Luke Skywalker was able to see the battle through his binoculars). Given the relatively low propagation velocity, we should have been able to detect gravitational effects. The same is true of ground and airspeeder blasters.

Low orbit combat would require that the ships are moving relatively fast to maintain acceleration against gravity. The space shuttle maintains an elliptical orbit at about 7.7 km/s, just as an example. Therefore, the blaster bolts would have to be travelling at minimum orbital velocity, plus whatever it's capable of being accelerated to, which may be on the order of 10-20 km/s versus Tatooine's frame of reference. Would we really notice an arc deflection of perhaps 8 meters between the two ships with the ranges they were engaging at?

In the case of say, TESB, the range we're talking about is many tens of kilometers (Veer's At-ATs fired on the shield generator from at least 17 km away. The Rebels were firing both rifles and artilelry at the AT ATs (and frrom a lower position, as Mike noted) - we WOULD have seen arcing. The same is true of the AT-AT's own bolts, particularily towards the shield generator.)

And how long did it take the blast to get from the AT-AT to the Shield Generator? No more than a second, assuming the edits weren't leaving some travel time out. This means the blaster bolts were going at least 17km per second. In addition, doesn't the movie show the sequence, looking toward the front of the AT-AT, first blasting the infantry down with the small guns, followed by a big blast from the main guns, then a switch to the point of view of the generators just before they are hit? We don't see the intervening 15 kilometers of travel, which may have demonstrated a small amount of deflection. Same goes with the P-Towers and Laser cannon arrays that the Rebels were firing back. Very quick firing to contact, no more than a second, so a quick traversal time means very small ballistic deflection will be noticed.

Geonosis wasn't nearly as long but it was still multi-km - so we would have seen arcing of some kind.

One thing I will hand to the no-arc camp: I can't claim to have observed ballistic arcing, yet we see pretty straight trajectories in the movies suggesting no ballistics, so without some proof to this effect, I can only argue for ambiguity about which case is true. Still, I was searching for an observation that would throw ballistics out the window, and while we're getting there, I am not completely convinced.

You apparently have not been reading anything that has been said then.

I would call that an unqualified dismissal in the presence of argument.

[Darth Wong]

A 1-second travel time to target would produce a 5-metre drop. I suppose one could simply try to find shots depicting blaster bolts flying around and draw straight lines through their trajectories to prove that there is no "arc".

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think that the only solution if one adopts an STL explanation for blaster bolts, is that there must be some way of negating gravitational attraction on the bolt.

[airBiscuit]

I think that the only solution if one adopts an STL explanation for blaster bolts, is that there must be some way of negating gravitational attraction on the bolt.

STL explanation? Oh...slower than light. Gotcha.

Perhaps it's some form of ionic property that would cause the bolt to suspend against gravity. OR, is it believable that a bundle of free electrons, photons, whatever, could be a massless entity?

[Illuminatus Primus]

It isn't the fact that it is massless that would give the weapon the advantage of not arcing in gravity, it is the fact it is traveling through a gravity well at 300,000 km/sec.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps it's some form of ionic property that would cause the bolt to suspend against gravity. OR, is it believable that a bundle of free electrons, photons, whatever, could be a massless entity?

Since electrons and protons have mass, no. And the only interesting property of ionic matter is electric charge, which won't help it suspend against gravity.