Blaster fire speed

[Mad]

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).

I don't think you fully get it. And you're apparently mixing up terms.

The reason negative mass reacts opposite to force is because you need negative force to acompany the negatieve mass to get positive acceleration. When using vectors, a negative vector is the same as a positive vector at a 180 degree angle.

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.

The thing is, using that equation, negative mass still results in positive acceleration. Unless the mass of the larger object is negative, but that's different.

I digress.

I defer to Dr. Michio Kaku

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

He never defines "negative matter" as having negative mass.

However, other sites say that "negative matter" has negative mass in addition to other specific negative properties. An object with just negative mass wouldn't be negative matter, then. (An anti-proton has a negative charge, but that doesn't mean something with a negative charge is automatically an anti-proton!) (On the other hand, the sites that were discussing this didn't seem quite as authorative, and didn't show the calculations... and a lot of them are just sci-fi stuff.)

However, assuming they're correct, that could be where the confusion is coming in, then. Negative matter and negative mass are related, but do not mean the same thing.

So then the question becomes: can a particle have the anti-gravity property without having the negative mass property? Don't know. Nothing I've seen even tries to go near that direction.

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

<snip>

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.

This is exactly what I've been saying. Negative mass falls downward, just like positive mass.

[revprez]

Negative matter is matter with negative mass. It is precisely because of this it can be used for weird shit like acceleration-without-energy...

Negative mass has energy...negative energy, which is still conserved.

...and time travel--

Hypersurfaces need not form closed timelike curves. One hypothesis maintains that vacuum fluctuations will grow asymptotically more energetic before a superluminal hypersurface becomes acausal, thereby preventing a CTC from forming.

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.[/quote]

How can you have an sort of superluminal technology without negative mass-energy?

Rev Prez

[Illuminatus Primus]

Negative mass has energy...negative energy, which is still conserved.

A lot of really theoretical physics was bouncing around about a "negative matter drive." The whole point was unlimited acceleration without violating CoM or CoE.

How can you have an sort of superluminal technology without negative mass-energy?

Star Wars FTL is supposed to rely on tachyons--they can arbitrarily alter the complex mass of their ships, and turn them into tachyons.

The Star Wars anti-physics leap is in imaginary mass, not the negative mass-energy for wormholes or Alcubierre's (fuckit I can't spell his name) warp drive.

And yes, we know tachyons violate causality.

[revprez]

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.)

To put it simply, two masses of equal magnitude but opposite signs initially at rest with respect to each other will remain separated by a constant distance, the positive mass accelerating away from the negative and the negative mass accelerating to towards the positive. The same thing with two oppositely charged particles.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Star Wars FTL is supposed to rely on tachyons--they can arbitrarily alter the complex mass of their ships, and turn them into tachyons.

How'd that happen?

The Star Wars anti-physics leap is in imaginary mass, not the negative mass-energy for wormholes or Alcubierre's (fuckit I can't spell his name) warp drive.

And yes, we know tachyons violate causality.

They can if they interact with tardyons.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I tried looking up tachyon and tachyons in the canon database. Try to remember I'm really only familiar with SW's and ST's hardcore aspects thanks to the information on this site.

Rev Prez

[Illuminatus Primus]

How'd that happen?

This guy (our resident fellow Aussie astrophysicist fellow fan) made it so when he was tapped to pen the Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections.

They can if they interact with tardyons.

The whole "reverting to normal space" and "smashing into stars" would kind of mean that yeah, they mean information can be sent by tachyons.

[McC]

Okay, sorry for being away for so long.

Ender: I have managed to capture some stuff from ANH just this evening, and I will be examining it shortly to continue our discussion

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.

Actually, if you examine one of the shots of a TIE fighter pursuing an X-wing in ANH:SE, they do drop behind. I'll post it later along with my analysis of the shots.

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.

I believe that some form of thermal transfer must be involved, however. After all, what's leaving the char marks on the stormtrooper armor if there's no actual heat involved? Or did I misunderstand your statement?

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).

Well, what about:

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.

I actually rather like this notion, assuming there's a perpetuated containment field involved at all. It makes a lot of sense.

I, for one, am not convinced that blasters and lasers (and turbolasers and superlasers) function differently. In fact, Mike's own analysis of the superlaser suggests it's simply scaled-up turbolaser technology. As such, we're ignoring one potentially very useful iota of information: the fact that we can see the Death Star tributary beams form from within the 'barrel of the gun.' I'll post this once I do my aforementioned analysis as well.

[revprez]

[quote="revprez"This guy (our resident fellow Aussie astrophysicist fellow fan) made it so when he was tapped to pen the Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections.

Damn you Saxton!

The whole "reverting to normal space" and "smashing into stars" would kind of mean that yeah, they mean information can be sent by tachyons.

I see.

Rev Prez

[Connor MacLeod]

Coolant doesn't leave the barrel dude.

Watch ANH. You can witness stormtrooper rifles ejecting what is clearly a gas from their barrels. We also know there are portions of TLs affected by gravity (Again, ANH.) This is further reinforced by referencese in the AOTC ICS about the Geonosian fighter's laser cannon ejecting its own "waste gasses".

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.

Except that doesn't quite work with the AOTC VD, nor the OT VD, OR the AOTC novelization (all of which is of comparable status to the ICS and cannot be arbitrarily ignored because it is inconvenient.). In fact, the whole point of the "projectile" weapon theory is because that the massless theory cannot clearly encompass all elements of observed blaster, laser, or turbolaser behaviour, even in canon.

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.

Neither of us actually talked about something as silly as inserting an entire repulsor coil into the projectile (if such is even *possible*.) The subnuclear knots alone would be more than likely sufficient, if neccessary at all (in repulsors, tractor beams, or acceleration compensators after all, its the knots themselves that are supplying the required force)

*EDIT* accidentally quoted wrong statement I was intending to address. Fixed it.

[Ender]

Mad: Coolant statment comes from AOTC ICS and from one of the old WEG Galaxy Guides if memory serves.

Watch ANH. You can witness stormtrooper rifles ejecting what is clearly a gas from their barrels. We also know there are portions of TLs affected by gravity (Again, ANH.) This is further reinforced by referencese in the AOTC ICS about the Geonosian fighter's laser cannon ejecting its own "waste gasses".

Good; now prove thats the coolant.

Except that doesn't quite work with the AOTC VD, nor the OT VD, OR the AOTC novelization (all of which is of comparable status to the ICS and cannot be arbitrarily ignored because it is inconvenient.). In fact, the whole point of the "projectile" weapon theory is because that the massless theory cannot clearly encompass all elements of observed blaster, laser, or turbolaser behaviour, even in canon.

And as we've seen, the plasma theory exposued in other sources just plain doesn't work.

None of us actually talked about something as silly as inserting an entire repulsor coil into the projectile (if such is even *possible*.) The subnuclear knots alone would be more than likely sufficient, if neccessary at all (in repulsors, tractor beams, or acceleration compensators after all, its the knots themselves that are supplying the required force)

The problem with the minirepulsor theory is as follows:

Materials science: We know the intensity of the power in the blaster shot is mroe then sufficient to damage or penetrate the armor on other vehicles. The repulsor would need to be made out of or covered in such material, and if that is the case, why is it not used as armor since it can already resist that much energy? Cost isn't the issue, they can manufacutre the stuff enough to waste shots of it.

Lightsabres: A lightsabre is far and away more intense then a blasterbolt, as we can see from the fact that lightsabres can cut through blastdoors that blastes can't even score. It should destroy the minirepulsor on contact.

Material component: Blasters are straight energy weapons, a physical bit inside them conflicts with that.

[McC]

Lightsabres: A lightsabre is far and away more intense then a blasterbolt, as we can see from the fact that lightsabres can cut through blastdoors that blastes can't even score. It should destroy the minirepulsor on contact.

Actually, what makes a lightsaber necessarily more intense than a blaster bolt? A blaster bolt (if you go with the idea that the bolt represents the entirety of the phenomenon) is simply much less sustained than a lightsaber, and consequently less powerful. I might be off with my terminology here, but what I'm trying to suggest is that blasters and lightsabers might have the same instantaneous power without having the same average power (the lightsaber would clearly have a much higher average or sustained power output).

[revprez]

I might be off with my terminology here, but what I'm trying to suggest is that blasters and lightsabers might have the same instantaneous power without having the same average power...

If a blaster bolt has the same instantaneous power, the average power over a series of shots is less than the sustained output of the lightsaber.

Question, how are lightsabers cooled and replenished?

Rev Prez

[Ender]

Lightsabres: A lightsabre is far and away more intense then a blasterbolt, as we can see from the fact that lightsabres can cut through blastdoors that blastes can't even score. It should destroy the minirepulsor on contact.

Actually, what makes a lightsaber necessarily more intense than a blaster bolt? A blaster bolt (if you go with the idea that the bolt represents the entirety of the phenomenon) is simply much less sustained than a lightsaber, and consequently less powerful. I might be off with my terminology here, but what I'm trying to suggest is that blasters and lightsabers might have the same instantaneous power without having the same average power (the lightsaber would clearly have a much higher average or sustained power output).

You have zero idea whatsoever what intensity is, do you?

[Connor MacLeod]

Good; now prove thats the coolant.

Tibanna gas is the only *known* gas involved in the operations of blaster weapons. That's all I need to know. If you are going to invent more unknowns, the burden is on *you* to prove otherwise.

And as we've seen, the plasma theory exposued in other sources just plain doesn't work.

No, we've seen that you refuse to acknowledge it just because you don't like it, rather than actually attempting to rationalize it.

The problem with the minirepulsor theory is as follows:

Materials science: We know the intensity of the power in the blaster shot is mroe then sufficient to damage or penetrate the armor on other vehicles. The repulsor would need to be made out of or covered in such material, and if that is the case, why is it not used as armor since it can already resist that much energy? Cost isn't the issue, they can manufacutre the stuff enough to waste shots of it.

Lightsabres: A lightsabre is far and away more intense then a blasterbolt, as we can see from the fact that lightsabres can cut through blastdoors that blastes can't even score. It should destroy the minirepulsor on contact.

Material component: Blasters are straight energy weapons, a physical bit inside them conflicts with that.

the miniature repulsor was never part of the original theory.

[McC]

You have zero idea whatsoever what intensity is, do you?

Well, according to Dictionary.com, the physics-related definition is "The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume." That's pretty consistent with what I understand to be the definition of intensity. What definition are you working with?

[His Divine Shadow]

Actually, if you examine one of the shots of a TIE fighter pursuing an X-wing in ANH:SE, they do drop behind. I'll post it later along with my analysis of the shots.

Yes they do, but that doesn't mean they fire independant energy projectiles either, because if they did, they would not exhibit the properties shown in my shots at all, so it's not like you can say "oh but they do it like this in that shot so those other shots are invalidated"

Some sort of explanation that can fit both explanations is required, one idea I had was that the beam from the ship terminated, and the bolt, being a side effect of the beam, doesn't immediatly dissipate after the beam has stopped, and continues on it's current trajectory, maybe a frame or two before it just *poof*, vanishes, and vanishing bolts are a repeatedly observed SW phenomenom.

[McC]

Yes they do, but that doesn't mean they fire independant energy projectiles either, because if they did, they would not exhibit the properties shown in my shots at all, so it's not like you can say "oh but they do it like this in that shot so those other shots are invalidated"

Oh, I know! I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Personally, I don't think they're projectiles, pure plasma, or beam weapons, but something else altogether. What that is...well, I don't know yet

Some sort of explanation that can fit both explanations is required, one idea I had was that the beam from the ship terminated, and the bolt, being a side effect of the beam, doesn't immediatly dissipate after the beam has stopped, and continues on it's current trajectory, maybe a frame or two before it just *poof*, vanishes, and vanishing bolts are a repeatedly observed SW phenomenom.

Interesting idea. It'd be fantastic if there were some way to rationalize the beam-as-a-conduit notion with the bolt-as-damaging-unit notion.

[revprez]

You have zero idea whatsoever what intensity is, do you?

Well, according to Dictionary.com, the physics-related definition is "The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume." That's pretty consistent with what I understand to be the definition of intensity. What definition are you working with?

It's a measurement of energy flux averaged over time. The lightsaber is sustained, it delivers on target higher average power than a repeated series of blaster bolts. He basically just said what you said, but in less words (in one, actually).

Nevermind about the lightsaber cooling question, I found what I was looking for.

Rev Prez

[Ender]

You have zero idea whatsoever what intensity is, do you?

Well, according to Dictionary.com, the physics-related definition is "The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume." That's pretty consistent with what I understand to be the definition of intensity. What definition are you working with?

Its energy over area, like you said.

Which has fuck all to do with power, like you were talking about.

It doesn't matter if is delivers 10 joules over 1 m^2 over 1 second, or 10 joules over 1 m^2 over .000000001 seconds.

It still has the same intensity of 10 joules per m^2

[McC]

Can you humor my ignorance and tell me why that's relevant for a sustained device like a lightsaber?

[Ender]

Tibanna gas is the only *known* gas involved in the operations of blaster weapons. That's all I need to know. If you are going to invent more unknowns, the burden is on *you* to prove otherwise.

For the blasters it could be the gas and moisture from the atmosphere that was heated and is coming out. For the TLs, could be wear products, of parts of the matter stream that wasn't energized and accelerated out.

And as we've seen, the plasma theory exposued in other sources just plain doesn't work.

No, we've seen that you refuse to acknowledge it just because you don't like it, rather than actually attempting to rationalize it.

In attempting to rationalize it you are chaning it from being as stated. In other words, we are agreeing on this Connor.

the miniature repulsor was never part of the original theory.

Nor the refined rationalization, I know, I was just poking holes in it.

[Ender]

Can you humor my ignorance and tell me why that's relevant for a sustained device like a lightsaber?

The fact that is it sustained vs instantanous is irrelevent because we are talking energy, not power.

[McC]

Right, but why? I mean, I understand that assessing the power of a lightsaber necessarily requires understanding how much energy (work) was used (done) and then back-tracking to determine a possible power estimate, but...

what are we talking about again?

[revprez]

Can you humor my ignorance and tell me why that's relevant for a sustained device like a lightsaber?

Sure. Assuming a blaster and lightsaber deliver the same instantaneous power on target over some amount time, the sustained average output of the lightsaber is more intense than the output of a broken series of blaster bolts. That is for any given t < T while power is being delivered to the target, a lightsaber's average power, and thus average intensity, is the same as its instantaneous power and intensity. The instantaneous power and intensity of a series of bolts swings between 0 and x, so its average is lower.

Rev Prez