StarDestroyer.Net BBS

what is the evidence for and against?

edit and by bolts I do mean the bit that does the damage.

on screen evidence kinda points twoards no, right?

i mean, IMO the bolts dont seem to move THAT fast...

It's on the Turbolaser commentaries.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Nature/index.html

Check This site's "beam weapons" entry on the technology page, Curtis Saxton's "combat PHysics" under misc. technicalities on the SWTC site, the Ep2 ICS, etc.

"speed of light" weapons have recently made an appearance in the NJO novels - both Rebel Dream and Destiny's Way.

meNNis wrote:on screen evidence kinda points twoards no, right?

i mean, IMO the bolts dont seem to move THAT fast...

The visibile portion is simply a side effect of the beam weapon - its really invisible and moves at lightspeed (the glowing pulse merely has the appearance of moving at sub-lightspeed.)

The glowing part cannot be physical (particle or plasma) because of the lack of emitted energy (in the case of a plasma - think about how much heat would be radiating from a plasma in the GJ-TJ range), they don't arc noticibly in gravity (especially at the "observed" speeds), they don't expand at all - and there is no known "bottle" tio contain a plasma (or a charged particle beam) that would last more than an instant.. Again, Mike goes over the arguments for/against various theories pretty heavily on his beam weapons page.

I would liken it to a kind of energy that leaves some sort of trail, like the equivalent of a sonic boom in a supersonic jet. Or the gasoline leak in Die Hard 2

Connor MacLeod wrote:

meNNis wrote:on screen evidence kinda points twoards no, right?

i mean, IMO the bolts dont seem to move THAT fast...

The visibile portion is simply a side effect of the beam weapon - its really invisible and moves at lightspeed (the glowing pulse merely has the appearance of moving at sub-lightspeed.)

The glowing part cannot be physical (particle or plasma) because of the lack of emitted energy (in the case of a plasma - think about how much heat would be radiating from a plasma in the GJ-TJ range), they don't arc noticibly in gravity (especially at the "observed" speeds), they don't expand at all - and there is no known "bottle" tio contain a plasma (or a charged particle beam) that would last more than an instant.. Again, Mike goes over the arguments for/against various theories pretty heavily on his beam weapons page.

So why do the majority of items we see hit by TL bolts in the films only react once the visible part arrives?

Really, I'd have a hard time saying that turbolaser or blaster bolts are lightspeed weapons because I don't think even a Jedi could move FTL to block. Also, energy weapons would impact their target INSTANTLY and it would immensely increase the likelihood of being able to hit something the size of a starfighter, for example.

ClaysGhost wrote: So why do the majority of items we see hit by TL bolts in the films only react once the visible part arrives?

Because its delivering the energy during the entire time prior to the bolt's delivery. We occasionally see the "damage before contact" effect a number of times in various movies - some objects react more readily than others - and perhaps TLs and blasters vary in intensity along the bolt.

Mike's also proposed alternate theories as to how the bolt moves so "slowly" or why the effects are delayed (If you want the better discussion as to what the TL is and isn't, read his beam weapons page. Or Saxton's "combat physics" under Misc Technicalities - which I already stated.

This theory as I understand it is no more difficult to rationalize than any "magic bottle contained plasma" or similar theory one might try to propose, so don't expect by creating a "contradiction" that you shoot the theory down. Its not my theory (its more derived from what Curtis and Mike have proposed - I myself used to believe they were particle/plasma) but I've come to believe they have a very strong case for it. (which is why if you don't think it's massless, you should at first READ their rationale behind it. I am never sure if people actually do this or not before engaging in this discussion. Often it seems like they do not.)

Kerneth wrote:Really, I'd have a hard time saying that turbolaser or blaster bolts are lightspeed weapons because I don't think even a Jedi could move FTL to block.

As I understand it, their ability to parry bolts is due to precognition, not superhuman speed. It would be likewise impossible to "ReacT" to block bullets, I believe (its impossible to dodge them, at least) - Besides which, how do you account for the apparent lack of momentum (or arcing of a slow moving bolt in gravity)? In Dark Empire, Luke is able to bounce back a blaster bolt from a WALKER without having the lightsaber yanked from his hands.

Also, energy weapons would impact their target INSTANTLY and it would immensely increase the likelihood of being able to hit something the size of a starfighter, for example.

Nothing is instantaneous. In some instances we DO see this occuring (some asteroids in TESB) - with the beam itself being invisible, we don't SEE this propogation - and the exact effects will depend on strength at any one instant as well as materials (so its possible that effects may not occur instantaneosuly as you believe)

Again, I suggest READING up on what Mike and Curtis say regarding the observed properties of blaster weapons - they cover this far better than I could ever do.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

ClaysGhost wrote: So why do the majority of items we see hit by TL bolts in the films only react once the visible part arrives?

Because its delivering the energy during the entire time prior to the bolt's delivery. We occasionally see the "damage before contact" effect a number of times in various movies - some objects react more readily than others - and perhaps TLs and blasters vary in intensity along the bolt.

I don't understand. If the bolt is purely waste and carries no useful energy, its arrival at the target should be uncorrelated with the explosion of the target. But this isn't so - the instances of damage before contact are outnumbered by the instances of damage at contact, whereas if the beam was doing significant damage you'd expect a spread, with the bolt arrival time having no special place. The distribution is strongly skewed towards the bolt arrival time.

Mike's also proposed alternate theories as to how the bolt moves so "slowly" or why the effects are delayed (If you want the better discussion as to what the TL is and isn't, read his beam weapons page. Or Saxton's "combat physics" under Misc Technicalities - which I already stated.

I believe His Divine Shadow has considered the issue in great depth, with input from at least one of the above. The first reference also contains a conclusion that the visible bolt inflicts most of the damage.

This theory as I understand it is no more difficult to rationalize than any "magic bottle contained plasma" or similar theory one might try to propose, so don't expect by creating a "contradiction" that you shoot the theory down.

What is this religious thing people have about questions? You ask a question out of curiosity, and you get accused of attempting to create a "contradiction", like you're a communist or something. The magnetic bottle is rubbish, as I believe I've also stated on these boards before. Plasma is rubbish, the colour's all wrong, the emission's too low and the range too high.

Its not my theory (its more derived from what Curtis and Mike have proposed - I myself used to believe they were particle/plasma) but I've come to believe they have a very strong case for it. (which is why if you don't think it's massless, you should at first READ their rationale behind it. I am never sure if people actually do this or not before engaging in this discussion. Often it seems like they do not.)

I've read the rationale behind all the popular theories that I'm aware of. I've discussed TL nature extensively with quite a few people, some of them on these boards. Have you read those pages? Specifically, http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Nature/index.html, "In any event, most of the destructive effects of turbolasers are caused by the visible portion of the bolt."

This is all aside from the main point. I have read a suggestion (I think by HDS, he'll no doubt correct me if I mis-remember) that the emission from the bolt marks an overdensity in the massless beam. Although the beam itself travels at c, the TL weapon is modulated somehow, and the group velocity of the modulated beam is the speed of the TL bolt. Most of the energy is carried at the group velocity by the overdensity, although the TL beam still contributes some energy. The Falcon only spins when hit by the bolt in the example I mentioned previously because the bolt carries the majority of the momentum and energy in the weapon.

I believe His Divine Shadow has considered the issue in great depth, with input from at least one of the above. The first reference also contains a conclusion that the visible bolt inflicts most of the damage

I believe the actual damaging bolt is invisible, but might be somewhat correlated with the glow.

Plasma is rubbish, the colour's all wrong, the emission's too low and the range too high

And the no arcing effect, translucency, and sometimes, optical reflectivity, and green bolts, booyeah.

This is all aside from the main point. I have read a suggestion (I think by HDS, he'll no doubt correct me if I mis-remember) that the emission from the bolt marks an overdensity in the massless beam. Although the beam itself travels at c, the TL weapon is modulated somehow, and the group velocity of the modulated beam is the speed of the TL bolt. Most of the energy is carried at the group velocity by the overdensity, although the TL beam still contributes some energy. The Falcon only spins when hit by the bolt in the example I mentioned previously because the bolt carries the majority of the momentum and energy in the weapon.

This is good, sounds better than what I said
I would say the glow is like a trail following the invisible bolt too, liken it to the exhaust of a rocket, and sometimes there is no glow whatsoever, I guess this is a random but lucky occurance when effiecency goes high enough that waste is too miniscule to be observed.

And for some reason the bolt speed seems to vary, and an upper limit seems to be C, and it seems to reach this speed and plain out when firing ranges go above 75tkm:
I refer to most weapons taking 2-6 frames to hit an object, regardless of distance, at the upper limit it would plain out at 75tkm, interestingly the DS1 beam in ANH at 75tkm travels at C, and in ROTJ at distinctivly lower ranges it travels below C.

The only time you see things explode before impact of the beam is in the asteroid scene in ESB right?

Well that is easy to explain. There is a whole squadron of SD's out there blasting rock. On ocassion you may see a rock targeted by two SD's at once.

The result is you can see one bolt but another bolt from the opposite side hits the rock first. Since you cannot see that bolt it appears as if the rock starts to explode before the turbolaser bolt connected.

No weird science needed at all.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and Rogue Squadron games are considered canon. If this is true, then explain why you never see a TIE fighter blow up until it is impacted by the laser bolts as opposed to the instant you squeeze the trigger, which would be true with a lightspeed weapon at the kind of ranges you're shooting at targets.

While Jedi have precognition, I believe it has also been stated that they have superhuman reflexes and speed in addition. It can be demonstrated there is a physical impact to a blaster bolt by the fact that, when a charging target is struck in the chest, he is knocked over backwards in the movies. If they were a pure energy weapon, and thus lightspeed, it makes sense to me that a charging person would continue forward once struck until his momentum wore out, ie, he'd fall forwards when the beam impacted him.

Specifics such as the X-Wing/TIE Fighter games' are not part of continuity due to game-mechanics problems.

According to your argument, the ISD's guns are only as powerful as a starfighter's lasers and only have a range of a couple kilometers and the laser bolts explode after flying for awhile. They're also slow as fuck.

Not continuity.

Sources in movies and in high-level official say the true damaging component of the TL beam can travel up to C and is invisable. Period.

DocMoriartty wrote:The only time you see things explode before impact of the beam is in the asteroid scene in ESB right?

No, there is also ROTJ and numerous incidents in the prequels and they also show no visible bolt whatsoever at times.

Just ringing in here... the one thing I must say is that it is HIGHLY unlikely, IMO, that the bolts move up to C. Even with precognition, the Jedis would have ot move at near C. We see a visible time lag between the shot and and the hit, meaning it can't move at C. Plus, it would be VERY easy to off fighters in space combat- if they move at C, we wouldn't even see the shots move. The fact that we can see the beams move contradicts the C speed theory.

Anyway, just IMO.

Badme wrote:Just ringing in here... the one thing I must say is that it is HIGHLY unlikely, IMO, that the bolts move up to C.

Yes, it is written fact, turbolaser bolts move at different speeds relative to the distance of the target, it seems at ranges of 75.000km they plan out at C.

Even with precognition, the Jedis would have ot move at near C. We see a visible time lag between the shot and and the hit, meaning it can't move at C

In the movies we see jedi moving and placing the swords in the way of a bolt before it's even fired from the barrel.

Plus, it would be VERY easy to off fighters in space combat- if they move at C, we wouldn't even see the shots move. The fact that we can see the beams move contradicts the C speed theory

Nope, for various reasons, most importantly, variable bolt speeds and no upper limit except what is said in the books, C.

I'd say the fact that we see superlasers, which are based on the same tech as turbolasers, moving at C and below C in the movie is definite proof.

ClaysGhost wrote: I don't understand. If the bolt is purely waste and carries no useful energy, its arrival at the target should be uncorrelated with the explosion of the target.

The visible portion is apart of the invisible, massless beam (Saxton describes it as a "ripple" along the entire beam) - it only exists within the TL beam itself. The TL is assumed to be delivering energy up to and possibly even beyond the "arrival" of the luminous portion (then visible "bolt") - the fact that the bolt may "arrive" when the explosion occurs does not invalidate this.

But this isn't so - the instances of damage before contact are outnumbered by the instances of damage at contact, whereas if the beam was doing significant damage you'd expect a spread, with the bolt arrival time having no special place. The distribution is strongly skewed towards the bolt arrival time.

Again, the beam is constantly delivering energy, up until we see the effects occur (and possibly beyond) - the fact the "bolt" impacts at or nearly at this point has no relevance. The "damage before contact" instances are only relevant for establishing that the damaging component is invisible - the energy required to create an effect (such as with the asteroids in TESB) is delivered over the entire time between "firing" (whenever it occurs) and the observed result.

Since the visible "pulse" is a fundamental aspect of the beam (luminous emisisons from the decay of the massless TL particles into visible light - much like the "Flashes" we see in shield interactions.) Lack of effec tor delay in effect can be explained by difference in materials (for blatantly artificial objects), variations in intensity along the beam (at least, I think that was one of the possibilities presented - its been awhile since I reviewed the explanations Saxton has provided when I asked - I do recall this as being part of his discussion of the superlaser on SWTC, which is similar in nature to lasers and turbolasers), or even variation in power levels.

I believe His Divine Shadow has considered the issue in great depth, with input from at least one of the above. The first reference also contains a conclusion that the visible bolt inflicts most of the damage.

I am aware that Curtis and HDS have corresponded some on the issue of blasters. Curtis' response to HDS's points I neither recall nor can comment on. One would have to ask Curtis directly.

What is this religious thing people have about questions? You ask a question out of curiosity, and you get accused of attempting to create a "contradiction", like you're a communist or something. The magnetic bottle is rubbish, as I believe I've also stated on these boards before. Plasma is rubbish, the colour's all wrong, the emission's too low and the range too high.

I misunderstood. My apoloizes for the accusation.

I've read the rationale behind all the popular theories that I'm aware of. I've discussed TL nature extensively with quite a few people, some of them on these boards. Have you read those pages? Specifically, http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Nature/index.html, "In any event, most of the destructive effects of turbolasers are caused by the visible portion of the bolt."

I have been privy to discussions and explanations of Saxton's theories regarding blaster nature and his reasons for putting it forth in the ICS as he did (This is not to say that I am right, but that I am aware of what goes on. In fact I argued against the massless beam interpretation for some time with Curtis. Any inability on my part to explain his theories shoudl be attributed to my limited understanding. If all else fails, ask him yourself and he probably would give you a better answer than I could.)

As for Mike's page, yes, I did realize that. He presented a number of theories which included massless components as well as others. I also noticed he hasn't updated that page in some time. To my knowledge he has not disagreed with Saxton's interpretation. Perhaps we should ask him to clarify?

This is all aside from the main point. I have read a suggestion (I think by HDS, he'll no doubt correct me if I mis-remember) that the emission from the bolt marks an overdensity in the massless beam. Although the beam itself travels at c, the TL weapon is modulated somehow, and the group velocity of the modulated beam is the speed of the TL bolt. Most of the energy is carried at the group velocity by the overdensity, although the TL beam still contributes some energy. The Falcon only spins when hit by the bolt in the example I mentioned previously because the bolt carries the majority of the momentum and energy in the weapon.

Again, I can't comment on HDS's theory and what input he may or may not have had from anyone else. I'm not sure how that sounds, but I'm pretty sure Curtis doesn't consider the visible portion to be anything but a side effect (and indication of the dissipation/attentuation of the bolt's energy) of the massless beam itself - it does not contribute anything in the way of destructive effects any more than the rest of the beam does (Unless the "varying intensity" possibility I brought up earlier is true - then there can be substantial variation along the beam in destructive power.) Given that it was Curtis who penned the definition in the AOTC ICS, I'm inclined to give him Author's right to explain his intent and rely on that.

Again, the beam is constantly delivering energy, up until we see the effects occur (and possibly beyond)

So what do the firepower numbers mean ?


Is the total firepower of a single shot 200 gigatons/whatever, spread out over the beams duration, or is it a sustained delivery ?

If the blaster were lightspeed, it should be easy to kill jedi w/ multiple shots. But it isn't

white_rabbit wrote:

Again, the beam is constantly delivering energy, up until we see the effects occur (and possibly beyond)

So what do the firepower numbers mean ?


Is the total firepower of a single shot 200 gigatons/whatever, spread out over the beams duration, or is it a sustained delivery ?

Sustained delivery means "spread out over the beam's duration" and yes, tahts what it means. Remember though, that turbolasers rarely, if ever, last more than a second (witness observed rates of fire for TLs on Star Destroyers, the Death Stars, and so on. Even the massive superlasers (as well as the smaller ones) tended to have a second duration or so. And in many cases, the energy delivery occurs in a FRACTION of a second (The TESB asteroid scene with 1/15th of a second).

Add to this that SW shielding would also neccesitate energy delivery to be at least a second (Less than a second would be better) in order to overcome shielding (remember that the ICS shield ratings are measured in watts - a measure of their ability to dissipate a given quantity of energy.) Having the TL deliver the energy over longer than a second simply reduces its effectiveness against shielding. This again argues for energy discharges to occur in a second or less.

Its the rare laser or Turbolaser that fires a sustained barrage (to my knowledge, the only one occured in "Rebel Dream" - but that one lasted fully a minute)

(Keep in mind that when I say "sustained" I am talking in terms of frames - IE it takes several frames for damage effects to manifest, usually.)

Pu-239 wrote:If the blaster were lightspeed, it should be easy to kill jedi w/ multiple shots. But it isn't

Jedi's have precognition which helps. Besides which, they don't have their arms jarred when they block/reflect blaster bolts (any sort of mass-bearing weapon, even a low one, would carry momentum, and we would see the effects on the saber from the impact.)

Besides which, its impossible to dodge a bullet (from the older thread about the "science of dodging bullets" - I dont see how it would be possible to move one's arm or weapon fast enough to block bolts of a similar velocity either.

And further, I *again* remind people that at least one rationalization for a subluminal-propogating bolt has been proposed by Mike *should* it be neccessary. (it might make sense in blasters perhaps, but there would be very little reason to deliberately slow the bolt down in space combat, especially at multiple light-second ranges.

Connor MacLeod wrote: Again, the beam is constantly delivering energy, up until we see the effects occur (and possibly beyond) - the fact the "bolt" impacts at or nearly at this point has no relevance. The "damage before contact" instances are only relevant for establishing that the damaging component is invisible - the energy required to create an effect (such as with the asteroids in TESB) is delivered over the entire time between "firing" (whenever it occurs) and the observed result.

If that's the case, why is there no outgassing or heating apparent on objects hit by TL bolts (in pre- and post-bolt asteroids)? Why does the Falcon's spin change significantly only when the bolt arrives? In short, why does the bolt appear important as regards the effect of TLs on objects? The asteroids should exhibit the effects of the beam transferring energy into them continuously, and the Falcon should demonstrate the effects of the beam transferring momentum continously. Instead, both appear to react discontinously.

Since the visible "pulse" is a fundamental aspect of the beam (luminous emisisons from the decay of the massless TL particles into visible light - much like the "Flashes" we see in shield interactions.) Lack of effec tor delay in effect can be explained by difference in materials (for blatantly artificial objects), variations in intensity along the beam (at least, I think that was one of the possibilities presented - its been awhile since I reviewed the explanations Saxton has provided when I asked - I do recall this as being part of his discussion of the superlaser on SWTC, which is similar in nature to lasers and turbolasers), or even variation in power levels.

Asteroids should exhibit ablation and outgassing at least, shouldn't they?

I misunderstood. My apoloizes for the accusation.

No problem.

As for Mike's page, yes, I did realize that. He presented a number of theories which included massless components as well as others. I also noticed he hasn't updated that page in some time. To my knowledge he has not disagreed with Saxton's interpretation. Perhaps we should ask him to clarify?

Yes, I agree.

Again, I can't comment on HDS's theory and what input he may or may not have had from anyone else. I'm not sure how that sounds, but I'm pretty sure Curtis doesn't consider the visible portion to be anything but a side effect (and indication of the dissipation/attentuation of the bolt's energy) of the massless beam itself - it does not contribute anything in the way of destructive effects any more than the rest of the beam does (Unless the "varying intensity" possibility I brought up earlier is true - then there can be substantial variation along the beam in destructive power.) Given that it was Curtis who penned the definition in the AOTC ICS, I'm inclined to give him Author's right to explain his intent and rely on that.

I think the evidence is strongly in favour of a variation of intensity down the beam. Perhaps the less intense section of the beam is capable of acting as a "finder", ranging the target (and sometimes carrying enough energy to do damage on its own).