Massless != not affected by gravity

[JodoForce]

DW said in the TL analysis page that TLs can't be simple particle beams because they are for the most part not affected by gravity. He then endorses the interpretation of TLs being subliminal massless particles.

However, even light is affected by gravity, it only appears to be not much affected by it because its velocity is so high. Is its rate of acceleration by gravity the same as for all massive particles? Would massless particles travelling at normal-object speeds be pulled by gravity at the same acceleration as normal objects and so exhibit the same trajectories under gravity as normal objects?

[ClaysGhost]

I think light = photons which are not massless. Light can even cause pressure (Earth average is ~10^-5 Pa) and our sun is continuously loosing mass due to light production (~ 4.4x10^9 kg/s). So, massless = not affected by gravity.

In that case, your "massless" = energy-less and momentumless, and hence unobservable. Bit of a problem, especially in a weapon (needs to interact with matter!). Photons have zero rest-mass, which is a different thing.

[SirNitram]

What Mike meant was rather simple: It's not affected by gravity as much as we would expect mass to be.

[JodoForce]

My point is: doesn't common (scientific) wisdom tell us that the trajectory (and hence gravity's visible effect on any object) depends not on its mass but on its velocity?

[phongn]

My point is: doesn't common (scientific) wisdom tell us that the trajectory (and hence gravity's visible effect on any object) depends not on its mass but on its velocity?

Common and scientific wisdom are not the same, but I digress.

The trajectory of an object depends on initial velocity (s=vt+0.5*at^2).

In a gravity well, we should see particle beams or whatnot fall appreciably, of which they do not. That implies some sort of massless particle beam, perhaps with the particles travelling in a helix so that while their apparent forward motion is less than c, their actual velocity is indeed lightspeed (yay vectors!)

[Mad]

Common and scientific wisdom are not the same, but I digress.

The trajectory of an object depends on initial velocity (s=vt+0.5*at^2).

In a gravity well, we should see particle beams or whatnot fall appreciably, of which they do not. That implies some sort of massless particle beam, perhaps with the particles travelling in a helix so that while their apparent forward motion is less than c, their actual velocity is indeed lightspeed (yay vectors!)

Except that massless does not mean immune to gravity:

F = GMm/d^2

F = ma, so: ma = GMm/d^2

The m's cancel out, leaving: a = GM/d^2

Thus, the acceleration of an object does not depend on the object's mass. Which is why photons are affected by gravity.

That blaster bolts aren't affected by gravity cannot imply that they are massless, because massless != immune to gravity. Instead, it implies that they either have an acceleration against gravity, or are made up of exotic particles that ignore gravity.

[phongn]

Wait wait, I wasn't trying to imply that massless objects are not attracted to gravity! I was trying to saw that they aren't affected enough to be particles with mass.

[Mad]

Why would a massless particle be affected less than a massive one, when the equation works out the same whether the mass is 0, 1E-10 or 1E10?

[phongn]

Why would a massless particle be affected less than a massive one, when the equation works out the same whether the mass is 0, 1E-10 or 1E10?

Generally a massive particle would be going at some much lower fraction of lightspeed and thus you'd see it curve, as opposed to something going at lightspeed?

[Mad]

Why would a massless particle be affected less than a massive one, when the equation works out the same whether the mass is 0, 1E-10 or 1E10?

Generally a massive particle would be going at some much lower fraction of lightspeed and thus you'd see it curve, as opposed to something going at lightspeed?

That's what I figure. The reason real-life lasers don't appear to bend in earth's gravity is because the photons don't exist long enough in the gravity well. For photons, going a kilometer would take about 0.000003 seconds. In earth's gravity, that's a drop of about 0.04 nanometers. So we don't see the drop.

However, if we simply have massless particles going around in a helix, still traveling at c but taking longer to reach the target because they're literally going in circles, they will exist in the gravity well for a much longer period of time and thus drop just like anything else, because they're being affected just like everything else.

Thus, saying that blaster bolts consist of "massless particles" is not enough to explain why the bolts do not appear to drop in a gravity well.

[phongn]

D'oh, I concede

I was thinking of that right after I posted it, but meh.

[JodoForce]

Mad summed it up pretty well

[Darth Wong]

DW said in the TL analysis page that TLs can't be simple particle beams because they are for the most part not affected by gravity. He then endorses the interpretation of TLs being subliminal massless particles.

However, even light is affected by gravity, it only appears to be not much affected by it because its velocity is so high. Is its rate of acceleration by gravity the same as for all massive particles? Would massless particles travelling at normal-object speeds be pulled by gravity at the same acceleration as normal objects and so exhibit the same trajectories under gravity as normal objects?

Does the word "nitpick" mean anything to you? The difference between "effects are immeasurably small and therefore insignificant in this situation" and "no effect" is technically there, but practically unimportant and has no effect on the conclusion.

[JodoForce]

I don't know what you are saying. For one thing, I can't find the sentences you put in quotes in the TL page, or even the word 'immeasurably'.

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.

For another thing, all I was saying here was that, when the main bolt of a TL isn't affected by gravity, that does not support the hypothesis that the bolt is massless, in fact it doesn't say either way, because massive and massless objects are accelerated by gravity in the same way (at least that's my understanding...). It's not a matter of 'big' or 'immeasurably small', it's just 'yes' or 'no'.

To be sure, TLs have such a large set of characteristics that it is hard to explain all of them in one theory, but I don't see what evidence you're drawing from when you say that TLs are probably massless. Care to enlighten me?

[Darth Wong]

I don't know what you are saying. For one thing, I can't find the sentences you put in quotes in the TL page, or even the word 'immeasurably'.

That's because that's the phrase I'm saying is equivalent, dumb-fuck.

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.

For another thing, all I was saying here was that, when the main bolt of a TL isn't affected by gravity, that does not support the hypothesis that the bolt is massless, in fact it doesn't say either way, because massive and massless objects are accelerated by gravity in the same way (at least that's my understanding...). It's not a matter of 'big' or 'immeasurably small', it's just 'yes' or 'no'.

You're an idiot. Massless objects always move at c. You would not be able to measure a gravity drop from a massless object in a gravity well of anything less than stupendous size.

To be sure, TLs have such a large set of characteristics that it is hard to explain all of them in one theory, but I don't see what evidence you're drawing from when you say that TLs are probably massless. Care to enlighten me?

This has already been explained to you several times, and you have clearly demonstrated that you are too fucking stupid to understand it.

[JodoForce]

Why would a massless particle be affected less than a massive one, when the equation works out the same whether the mass is 0, 1E-10 or 1E10?

Generally a massive particle would be going at some much lower fraction of lightspeed and thus you'd see it curve, as opposed to something going at lightspeed?

That's what I figure. The reason real-life lasers don't appear to bend in earth's gravity is because the photons don't exist long enough in the gravity well. For photons, going a kilometer would take about 0.000003 seconds. In earth's gravity, that's a drop of about 0.04 nanometers. So we don't see the drop.

However, if we simply have massless particles going around in a helix, still traveling at c but taking longer to reach the target because they're literally going in circles, they will exist in the gravity well for a much longer period of time and thus drop just like anything else, because they're being affected just like everything else.

Thus, saying that blaster bolts consist of "massless particles" is not enough to explain why the bolts do not appear to drop in a gravity well.

Well DW, Can you READ?

And present your argument more clearly rather than use ad homs like a stupid troll?

I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved.

[Marc Xavier]

Well DW, Can you READ?

And present your argument more clearly rather than use ad homs like a stupid troll?

I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Dude, Jodo. What are you doing? All this is going to do is cause passions to flare up in this thread, and passions have a strange way of overtaking reason in the human mind. I understand that hard-knocks-argumentation might be the way of things on this board, but I question the wisdom of flaming the administrator of the BBS.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Shhh!

Don't question it, Marc. I want to see the fool DIEEeeee....

[Marc Xavier]

Well, as a wise imperial once said. "Commence Primary Ignition..."

[Darth Wong]

However, if we simply have massless particles going around in a helix, still traveling at c but taking longer to reach the target because they're literally going in circles, they will exist in the gravity well for a much longer period of time and thus drop just like anything else, because they're being affected just like everything else.

That's why the ICS2 described the visible pulse as a carrier along the lightspeed beam, Mr. Stupid Asshole. We can see these pulses moving along the Death Star beam, remember?

Thus, saying that blaster bolts consist of "massless particles" is not enough to explain why the bolts do not appear to drop in a gravity well.

Do you have a better explanation, moron? Oh yeah, you don't! In fact, you haven't even TRIED. That's what nitpicking and trolling is all about; attacking a theory by nitpicking at it, without even bothering to provide qa better theory. So what's your explanation, smart-ass? They go in a straight line through a gravity well because they're MASSIVE? After all, that's the only alternative to "massless", isn't it?

Let's all hear it for JodoForce, the only fucking moron in the universe who thinks that a massive object should move in a straighter line through a gravity well than a massless object

Well DW, Can you READ?

Yes. And unlike you, I also possess the ability to think, which is why I did not bother addressing your worthless attempt at dealing with the point until it became obvious that you are so mentally incompetent that you must think it works.

And present your argument more clearly rather than use ad homs like a stupid troll?

Too bad you're too stupid to recognize the difference between an ad-hominem fallacy and an insulting rebuttal. I see you derived your personal concepts of logic from crack-smoking.

I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved.

You seem to think I give a fuck what morons think of me.

[Marc Xavier]

Like I said, not wise.

[Mad]

Wow, now that's just screwed up. Darth Wong flames JodoForce, but is responding to the words that I said to phongn regarding the helix theory he brought up.

My thoughts (and, of course, others' thoughts) on turbolaser and blaster nature are available in HDS' turbolaser thread. (I can't tell if DW was trying to flame me or if it was only intended for JF for using my statements for his own purposes.) My hypothesis offers explanations for turbolasers being lightspeed weaposn but still having a relatively consistent delay between firing and impact as an extention to the visible pulse along a carrier beam theories. Unfortunately, I'm still having problems rationalizing blaster behavior using the same theories, since their bolts are inconsistent with something following the path of a lightspeed carrier beam, as explained in that thread. The helix hypothesis mentioned by phongn and HDS helps to explain blaster behavior some and yet still rely on the same basic principles as turbolasers, but doesn't explain the lack of gravity drop.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, now that's just screwed up. Darth Wong flames JodoForce, but is responding to the words that I said to phongn regarding the helix theory he brought up.

He tried to use your ideas as evidence that his own post was not a useless nitpick. He was also an insufferable smart-ass about it, which is all the more contemptible considering he had to quote someone else in order to defend his blithering idiocy.

[JodoForce]

The bolts are composed of massless particles which move at subluminal speed, even though no such particle has ever been observed or even theorized to exist. Some of these particles would presumably radiate light in the visible spectrum while others would radiate light well out of the visible spectrum. The visible gas is most likely a simple "tracer", and it is generated through an entirely separate mechanism in the cannon, so a damaged or poorly maintained cannon might fail to properly synchronize the visible and invisible portions of the bolt, hence causing the rare "preceding damage" effect. However, this wouldn't explain the fact that excess visible gas is affected by gravity when it leaks from the gun barrels (see the picture at the top of this page).

Do you or don't you stand by your first-choice explanation of turbolasers?

'The ICS2 described the visible pulse as a carrier along the lightspeed beam'. In this case the lightspeed beam would not be significantly affected by gravity, while the tracer (assuming that's what 'visible pulse as carrier' means) would lag behind the light pulse and would still be affected by gravity. Unless there's supposed to be some field effect keeping the visible pulse within the trail that the lightspeed beam had taken?

Using your first-choice explanation however, the WHOLE beam is moving at subliminal speed (~ the speed at which we see them moving?) Whether the visible portion of the beam keeps track with the invisible portion or not, the problem remains that the visible portion is travelling much slower than lightspeed and should be affected by gravity, whether or not it is massive.

DW wrote:
Do you have a better explanation?

No but you have one. In light of the evidence I prefer your explanation #2 to #1, since #2 explains why the visible beam is not affected by gravity while #1 does not. Or, go with the ICS and add that the visible pulse is kept in the lightspeed beam by a field effect--which is actually a variant of #2.

Let's all hear it for JodoForce, the only fucking moron in the universe who thinks that a massive object should move in a straighter line through a gravity well than a massless object

Never said that. I think they would be affected to the same extent if they are travelling at the same speed--although frankly I don't know if relativistic effects would come into play for an imaginary massless particle at slow speed that does not happen to the massive particle.

Marc Xavier wrote:
Dude, Jodo. What are you doing? All this is going to do is cause passions to flare up in this thread

You think they hadn't already flared up? There I was, trying to pose a question about TL theory and clarify my understanding of DW's take on things, and then he started calling me names when I wasn't even trying to argue about anything with him. I guess I would have first person experience with his reputed caustic personality sooner or later

Oh well, time to learn having flamewars for fun

[Darth Wong]

Do you or don't you stand by your first-choice explanation of turbolasers?

Are you or are you not too fucking stupid to recognize when someone is throwing out a bunch of hypotheses?

No but you have one. In light of the evidence I prefer your explanation #2 to #1, since #2 explains why the visible beam is not affected by gravity while #1 does not. Or, go with the ICS and add that the visible pulse is kept in the lightspeed beam by a field effect--which is actually a variant of #2.

The ICS makes one theory the official theory. Therefore, it falls upon us to rationalize it with the evidence.

Never said that. I think they would be affected to the same extent if they are travelling at the same speed--although frankly I don't know if relativistic effects would come into play for an imaginary massless particle at slow speed that does not happen to the massive particle.

You claimed that there's something wrong with the massless particle explanation because they should still fall in a gravity well. I pointed out that the only alternative to massless is massive, so if you think there's something wrong with the massless explanation (unless you go with the idea that it's a miniscule guided projectile, which carries its own problems), you MUST be going with "massive".

You think they hadn't already flared up? There I was, trying to pose a question about TL theory and clarify my understanding of DW's take on things, and then he started calling me names when I wasn't even trying to argue about anything with him. I guess I would have first person experience with his reputed caustic personality sooner or later

Yes, I'm "caustic" because I respond to nitpicks accordingly, and flame you right back when you try to up the ante Or didn't you notice that my first post was actually civil, until you started playing games with that bullshit about looking for the word "immeausrable" on my site?

Worthless twat.