StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Again, upon request, I have a document here that I've written up that outlines a Science Fiction theory I have as to how Turbolasers operate. I gathered a bunch of information from various sources, including novels and the movies themselves to put together this document, which includes a bit of my own invention (which is what I consider the fun of sci fi theories).

In relation to my other theory, the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory, it was requested by some here that I post this. As such, I have done exhaustive amounts of research to make this theory work. As before, I'm posting this here to get some thoughts and feedback as to how well the theory fits into what we know about Star Wars holistically. Critiques are welcome, please, I'm not a particle physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I want to get constructive feedback if anyone has any.

This theory, like most of my sci fi theories, is a "how" theory, as opposed to a "how much" theory. There have already been complicated and mathematically elegant arguments put forth by other folks that deal with the how-many-kilo/mega/gigatons question (especially for turbolasers); I find it more enjoyable to try to weave together ideas of what's going on inside the various little black boxes that make it work that way.

The link to the appropriate page is below:

Turbolasers.

Some initial impressions:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote: Among one of the stranger features of this substance is that it has some anti-gravitational properties, which make it even more suited to use both in space and on land, because it can be targeted and fired largely without having to take planetary or in-system gravity fields into consideration.

This is miserably unscientific. We ignore the translucency and green glow of turbolasers in the plasma theory, and now we’re to expect they simply always ignore gravity? Dovin basals absorb turbolasers handily and are repetitively described as a gravitic shielding.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The excited tibanna gas, which can be thought of as plasma, but also shares some liquid-like properties as explained below, is contained in a magnetic bottle effect until the moment the weapon discharges. When it does, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber is released, and a ring-shaped magnetic pulse guides and accelerates the excited gas along the barrel and out of the apparatus. In space, this results in the effect shown at right; a violent exodus of the super-energized tibanna.

Ahh. The unworkable "self-generated magnetic containment" theory. The preference with the "pulse attached to lightspeed beam" is that it doesn’t use scientific terms that outright contradict its likelihood. By appealing to magnetism to explain the unworkable plasma theory, we see that magnetism is unworkable as some bizarre self-containment.

Also: flaking is 100% unworkable. We’ve observed flaking w/ out bolts, flaking with bolts going through the "burst" and the flakburst is NEVER equivalent to the yield of the energy bolt; violating CoE.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:But if this containment cylinder is suddenly tapered (the shape of the containment tube changed from a cylinder to a cone with a vertex point at it's far end), the tibanna is compressed. As it travels along the increasingly narrow cone, it's density dramatically increases. Once it reaches the vertex of the cone, it must either come to a stop or breach the containment field. If, at that exact moment the containment field is dropped, the super-compressed tibanna suddenly and violently explodes (right).

This would require that the "containment tube" is being still generated by the gun tip, however, we see that TL blasts are fired and others are fired while the first is still in flight.

Also, yield != burst and bolt going through burst is a problem.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:In blasters, a similar flak-like setting can be used to for area-of-effect destruction. At left, a single blaster bolt was responsible for breaking through more than a half dozen bars in a grating that closed off a tunnel which lead from one of the DEATH STAR's detention levels to one of it's garbage compactors.

Adding an unneccessary factor to an already satisfactory theory: conducted heat from a gigawatt range blaster carbine simply incinerated the grating.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:This is miserably unscientific. We ignore the translucency and green glow of turbolasers in the plasma theory, and now we’re to expect they simply always ignore gravity? Dovin basals absorb turbolasers handily and are repetitively described as a gravitic shielding.

Well, I agree about the antigravity part. But I also didn’t make it up:

Tibanna gas: a gas found in the atmosphere of many gas giants, it is useful because it can produce large amounts of energy when light passes through it. Thus, it can be used in large blasters to multiply the weapon's output. It also has certain anti-gravitional properties, and has exceptional properties as a hyperdrive coolant. The best tibanna gas is compressed and spin-sealed, since this kind of tibanna is four times as powerful as regular tibanna. Spin-sealing requires a great deal of energy to do artificially. Fortunately for many weapons manufacturers, the tibanna found in the atmosphere of Bespin is naturally spin-sealed. Much of Bespin's tibanna gas is produced as a waste product by the beldons that inhabit the gas giant's Life Zone. (The Empire Strikes Back, The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, The Illustrated Star Wars Universe). Emphasis Added.

I also didn’t ignore the translucency or green glow of the turbolaser in the theory, in fact I addressed and explained both those issues directly. (Note the parts of the TOT that discuss the absorption spectrum and stimulated emission).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Ahh. The unworkable "self-generated magnetic containment" theory. The preference with the "pulse attached to lightspeed beam" is that it doesn’t use scientific terms that outright contradict its likelihood. By appealing to magnetism to explain the unworkable plasma theory, we see that magnetism is unworkable as some bizarre self-containment.

Um. It's not self generated. An emitter at the mouth of the turbolaser barrel generates and maintains the containment beam. The Death Star superlaser (see ANH; the Destruction of Alderaan) uses a similar device.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Also: flaking is 100% unworkable. We’ve observed flaking w/ out bolts, flaking with bolts going through the "burst" and the flakburst is NEVER equivalent to the yield of the energy bolt; violating CoE.

Well, this strikes me as a nitpick. To quote myself from "Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters":

Marc Xavier wrote:1. If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how can they explode in open space [flak]? All of the explosions in real life science that I am aware of require mass of some sort (chemical, nuclear, etc). If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how do they produce an explosion?

Marc Xavier wrote:1. If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how can they explode in open space [flak]? All of the explosions in real life science that I am aware of require mass of some sort (chemical, nuclear, etc). If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how do they produce an explosion?

You're assuming that it is a gaseous explosion. It could be some bizarre photon-emitting effect within the volumetric shield.

Point is, if CoE is violated, the bolt energy is not being just blasted out at will. Its quite simple.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You're assuming that it is a gaseous explosion. It could be some bizarre photon-emitting effect within the volumetric shield.

"some bizarre photon-emitting effect" doesn’t sound like much of a theory to me. Especially when there are examples of said effect that have the same appearance as the TOT would predict.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Point is, if CoE is violated, the bolt energy is not being just blasted out at will. Its quite simple.

Well, despite the nitpicking, might I then suggest then that a great amount of the energy remains in the scattered iotas of tibanna? For example, something similar to what Curtis Saxton suggested:

Curtis Saxton wrote:The energy of a blaster bolt may be highly concentrated in non-thermal forms; there may be a spin or shear or circulation of whatever particles or massless quanta comprise the beam.

So perhaps there is a flak explosion, but not all of the energy goes into creating that explosion.

Marc Xavier wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You're assuming that it is a gaseous explosion. It could be some bizarre photon-emitting effect within the volumetric shield.

"some bizarre photon-emitting effect" doesn’t sound like much of a theory to me. Especially when there are examples of said effect that have the same appearance as the TOT would predict.

But demand the vanishing of 99% of the energy content of the bolt?

All a theory has to do is produce the results on screen.

Your criticisms of the bolt-shield interaction theory have been mere nitpicks; demanding that the interactions should roughly occur the same radii from the ship in each burst; but this ignored the fact we're talking about a volumetric shield in the first place, shield depletion, AND differing yields of bolts.

Your demand was a false dilemma and no appropriate criticism has yet been made. Your claims are made worse by pictures of bursts followed by continued bolts and violation of CoE.

This is the equivalent of saying that there could be explosive bullets that vanish 99% of the mass of the bullet on detonation.

Marc Xavier wrote:So perhaps there is a flak explosion, but not all of the energy goes into creating that explosion.

You can't use Saxton's feeling about shear caused by massless quanta supports your gravity-defining plasma. By its nature, plasma would transfer energy in the form of heat and kinetic impact. Almost all the energy has to be in the supercharged tibanna in your theory; if it is exploded, where does all that energy go? The plasma should detonate outward in a blinding flash for multiple seconds.

Even if it doesn't go into the explosion--it has to go SOMEWHERE. This is not observed.

The photon affect caused by bolt-shield interactions predicts an energetic burst w/ in the volumetric shield caused by a slight bleed off of energy from the bolt as it passes through--most of the energy is absorbed and dissipated by the shield system, as designed. Exactly fitting observation and not violating any basic science principles.

Just to let you know, I feel somewhat misrepresented by what you’re saying.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:But demand the vanishing of 99% of the energy content of the bolt?

See below.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You can't use Saxton's feeling that shear caused by massless quanta supports your gravity-defining plasma.

First off, the gravity defying part isn’t mine; please stop saying so. I showed where such information came from (see the part above about tibanna gas), so please do not behave as if I made it up.

Second, I took the quote from a post made by HDS, sourcing back to Saxton. It was under the heading "Question: How does a blaster bolt inflict damage?" I remembered there was a part about what he said, that "The energy of a blaster bolt may be highly concentrated in non-thermal forms," so I suggested it as something similar. You are nitpicking.

By its nature, plasma would transfer energy in the form of heat and kinetic impact. Almost all the energy has to be in the supercharged tibanna in your theory

That's not true, especially given the fact that I suggested otherwise (two times now). Let me quote from the TOT:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:Tibanna helps this issue greatly, because it acts as an enormous energy bank when it is exposed to a power source.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The substance also has an enormous energy capacity (which is also why it finds use as a hyperdrive coolant), both in raw and spin-sealed form.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:Because tibanna is such a ravenous energy-consumer, sometimes it will behave quite oddly in the presence of intense light sources

In (at least) three different occasions, the TOT refers to the enormous energy capacity of tibanna. Because it's energy capacity grossly outperforms any periodic or molecular gasses in the known galaxy, it is used in turbolaser weaponry instead of normal gasses. This is why places like Cloud City in Bespin exist, because tibanna is such a grossly superior energy carrier, and is therefore valuable.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The heart and lifeblood of turbolaser technology is an exotic gas known as tibanna; it is naturally occurring and usually forged in the deeper layers of some gas giants such as Bespin. It's peculiar properties make it ideal for use in high-energy transfer weapons such as turbolasers and blasters

Illuminatus Primus wrote:; if it is exploded, where does all that energy go? The plasma should detonate outward in a blinding flash for multiple seconds.

You say this because you are misunderstanding the nature of tibanna. You are thinking of it as a traditional plasma that holds most (if not all) of its energy in the same way as normal gasses would. I can suggest that perhaps tibanna stores much of it's energy in non-thermal forms (similar to what Saxton suggested), and perhaps this is why it's such a wondrous energy carrier. But this is only a suggestion.

The best alternative you seem to be able to provide is an extremely vague "some bizarre photon-emitting effect." Instead of further explaining this (which, if I am correct, you cannot) you seem content to nitpick at my theory without giving me a conventional alternative to examine in return.

Illuminatus Primus, might I suggest you not editing your posts after you make them. It makes it difficult to keep up with the nitpicks you are throwing at my theory.

Illuminatus Primus, allow me to clarify the term "nitpick:"

A person who attacks a theory from the periphery but never presents a target for conventional counterattack.

You claim that my criticisms of the bolt-shield interaction theory have been mere nitpicks; however, my theory explains bolt-shield interactions much much more clearly than yours does.

The best that your theory presents is "some bizarre photon-emitting effect." That is about as clear as saying "turbolasers are cool and make stuff go boom."

When I ask you to explain your theory in more detail (so that it becomes available for conventional counterattack) you claim false dilemma. As it stands, the only reason that your theory can predict anything is because it is an intentionally vague supposition. If I were to stand up and say "turbolasers are cool and make stuff go boom," my statement would fit with observation and not violate any basic science principles either.

Instead of clarifying your position, you remain intentionally vague and toss nitpick after nitpick after nitpick at my theory. All I am asking you to do is explain what your position is.

Marc Xavier wrote:First off, the gravity defying part isn’t mine; please stop saying so. I showed where such information came from (see the part above about tibanna gas), so please do not behave as if I made it up.

Don't whine.

If you can't tell the difference between observation: "gas has anti-gravity applications/properties," and conclusion: "plasma bolt caused by said gas completely ignores gravitational affects," than I have nothing more to say about that to you.

I will also add that the "invisible-to-gravity plasma" would not explain why the containment energy tube is unaffected by gravity.

Marc Xavier wrote:Second, I took the quote from a post made by HDS, sourcing back to Saxton. It was under the heading "Question: How does a blaster bolt inflict damage?" I remembered there was a part about what he said, that "The energy of a blaster bolt may be highly concentrated in non-thermal forms," so I suggested it as something similar. You are nitpicking.

Bullshit, Marc.

Your theory is being critiqued. If the energy in your theory by its very nature is in the plasma, than when it is exploded, all the energy should be there.

You posted some stuff about Saxton that has to do with the massless quanta beam theory. It is totally irrelevent considering the validity of your conclusions. Not to mention its a red herring because even if some of the energy in a TL might not be thermal, that energy must still always go somewhere.

Read this: ALL ENERGY MUST BE CONSERVED; REGARDLESS OF FORM IT MUST GO SOMEWHERE.

Marc Xavier wrote:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:Tibanna helps this issue greatly, because it acts as an enormous energy bank when it is exposed to a power source.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The substance also has an enormous energy capacity (which is also why it finds use as a hyperdrive coolant), both in raw and spin-sealed form.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:Because tibanna is such a ravenous energy-consumer, sometimes it will behave quite oddly in the presence of intense light sources

In (at least) three different occasions, the TOT refers to the enormous energy capacity of tibanna. Because it's energy capacity grossly outperforms any periodic or molecular gasses in the known galaxy, it is used in turbolaser weaponry instead of normal gasses. This is why places like Cloud City in Bespin exist, because tibanna is such a grossly superior energy carrier, and is therefore valuable.

Red herrings.

The point is that the energy is contained in the Tibanna-plasma bolt. Thus, the energy is contained in the mass/velocity of plasma particles (kinetic energy), and the heat content of the plasma (thermal energy).

Thus, when that simply explodes, the rapid cooling/energy release should yield the said gigatons of energy in hyperfast particles and dissipated EM radiation. Where is that?

Marc Xavier wrote:You say this because you are misunderstanding the nature of tibanna. You are thinking of it as a traditional plasma that holds most (if not all) of its energy in the same way as normal gasses would. I can suggest that perhaps tibanna stores much of it's energy in non-thermal forms (similar to what Saxton suggested), and perhaps this is why it's such a wondrous energy carrier. But this is only a suggestion.

Circulation/shear/spin is all kinetic energy. This kinetic energy would cause the particles to go spinning off and releasing energy by cooling as its kinetic energy was expended.

This ignores the fact that flakbursts would be more or less useless against their targets due to the fact the shields operate on wattage thresholds and there would be very poor power conduction to the shields that'd simply be dissipated.

Marc Xavier wrote:The best alternative you seem to be able to provide is an extremely vague "some bizarre photon-emitting effect." Instead of further explaining this (which, if I am correct, you cannot) you seem content to nitpick at my theory without giving me a conventional alternative to examine in return.

You don't get it.

All that matters is that I say, when a bolt enters a volumetric shield, it bleeds off photons in a flash of light similar to splatter or explosion effect at times. I don't have to explain why.

As long as it fits observations, that's all that matters.

The fact remains, my theory does not produce tactically useless flakbursts that violate CoE.

Yours does. Get it?

Marc Xavier wrote:When I ask you to explain your theory in more detail (so that it becomes available for conventional counterattack) you claim false dilemma. As it stands, the only reason that your theory can predict anything is because it is an intentionally vague supposition. If I were to stand up and say "turbolasers are cool and make stuff go boom," my statement would fit with observation and not violate any basic science principles either.

Ok very well.

When turbolasers wear down a shield, or differing TL yields are used, the volumetric shield can contract or force-energy bleed-off from the absorbing bolt at differing distances from the hull. Depending on the make of shield, power of shield, or geometry of incoming energy beams, the bursts can fall closer or further from the hull than average.

The only thing that bursts of varying distances from the hull prove is how thick the volumetric shield is.

Your plasma bursts have to be caused by barrels that have fired other blasts since the one that is being detonated while simultaneously vanishing over 99% of the energy content of the bolt, leaving behind a harmless burst which lacks anywhere close to the energy-impact on the shield to reach the wattage level.

I'll also add that your plasma bursts violate Conservation of Momentum because they don't conserve the forward propogating momentum and instead explode almost uniformly (esp. in AOTC LAAT/i near hits).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Don't whine.

You're characterizing the anti-gravity effect as something I came up with. I didn't. Don't misrepresent the theory or it's patron.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:If you can't tell the difference between observation: "gas has anti-gravity applications/properties," and conclusion: "plasma bolt caused by said gas completely ignores gravitational affects," than I have nothing more to say about that to you.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:Among one of the stranger features of this substance is that it has some anti-gravitational properties, which make it even more suited to use both in space and on land, because it can be targeted and fired largely without having to take planetary or in-system gravity fields into consideration.

Stop misrepresenting the theory.

I will also add that the "invisible-to-gravity plasma" would not explain why the containment energy tube is unaffected by gravity.

Look at the Death Star beams. I don't have to explain how they work, I just have to point them out, because I did not make them up.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Your theory is being critiqued.

No, it's being nitpicked, and furthermore I asked for feedback on how to improve the theory. You're not doing that, you're just attacking.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:If the energy in your theory by its very nature is in the plasma, than when it is exploded, all the energy should be there.

You posted some stuff about Saxton that has to do with the massless quanta beam theory. It is totally irrelevent considering the validity of your conclusions. Not to mention its a red herring because even if some of the energy in a TL might not be thermal, that energy must still always go somewhere.

I didn't say it went nowhere. I suggested that it remains in the free-floating iota of the tibanna gas in some non-thermal form. It may be released, it may simply remain until it comes into contact with a colder object I do not know, but I did not say it went nowhere.

Well, despite the nitpicking, might I then suggest then that a great amount of the energy remains in the scattered iotas of tibanna? For example, something similar to what Curtis Saxton suggested

Instead of recognizing the analogy, you responded with a condescending retort.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Red herrings.

No, they are not. In fact, I'm drawing attention to why I suggested that tibanna stores energy in a non-thermal form in addition to its thermal component (which makes it superior to other plasmas). You keep ignoring this. In fact, you seem to refuse to even accept the possibility that the energy could be stored in any other way.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The point is that the energy is contained in the Tibanna-plasma bolt. Thus, the energy is contained in the mass/velocity of plasma particles (kinetic energy), and the heat content of the plasma (thermal energy).

Thus, when that simply explodes, the rapid cooling/energy release should yield the said gigatons of energy in hyperfast particles and dissipated EM radiation. Where is that?

Perhaps here:


Again, I feel it unnecessary to repeat myself, especially in the light of your hostile attitude. But, I will, for clarity (and an alternative suggestion):

Well, despite the nitpicking, might I then suggest then that a great amount of the energy remains in the scattered iotas of tibanna? For example, something similar to what Curtis Saxton suggested:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Circulation/shear/spin is all kinetic energy. This kinetic energy would cause the particles to go spinning off and releasing energy by cooling as its kinetic energy was expended.

Yes. Now, I do not know how long it would take for those particles to release the rest of their energy, or in what form they may release it in. I suggested above:

It may be released, it may simply remain until it comes into contact with a colder object I do not know, but I did not say it went nowhere.

Do you have a suggestion?


Your theory, as I understand it, does not even explain (beyond "some bizarre photon-emitting effect") how massless particles would explode in the first place.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:This ignores the fact that flakbursts would be more or less useless against their targets due to the fact the shields operate on wattage thresholds and there would be very poor power conduction to the shields that'd simply be dissipated.

Again, allow me to quote from the Turbolaser Operational Theory:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:This technique is used by skilled gunners when targeting small, fast moving, weak, and hard to hit objects. It can also be used for area of effect or suppression fire in order to drive an enemy along a desired escape vector.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:All that matters is that I say, when a bolt enters a volumetric shield, it bleeds off photons in a flash of light similar to splatter or explosion effect at times. I don't have to explain why.

Well it seems to me that you're saying it bleeds off photons, giving off a small portion of it's energy. Where does the rest go? And what is the nature of this volumetric field? In my theory, it is (to quote from the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory):

Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory wrote:...a series of carefully angled and controlled ultrathin electrostatic repulsion fields.

My theory explains itself on this point. Explain yours.


Moving on,

Illuminatus Primus wrote:When turbolasers wear down a shield, or differing TL yields are used, the volumetric shield can contract or force-energy bleed-off from the absorbing bolt at differing distances from the hull. Depending on the make of shield, power of shield, or geometry of incoming energy beams, the bursts can fall closer or further from the hull than average.

This does not explain the nature of the field; all "volumetric" means is "Of or relating to measurement by volume." The rest of this seems tossed together ad hoc in order to explain a potential difficulty in your vague shield theory (this is an example of exactly why I want the theory defined in clearer terms).

Furthermore it leaves the nature of the turbolaser bolt unexplained as well (unless you go with the made-up panacea particle, which has its own difficulties and itself is widely unexplained).

My theories have strived to define both of these, exhaustively, I might add. Fill out your theory more concretely or stop nitpicking.

Your plasma bursts have to be caused by barrels that have fired other blasts

Your nitpicking attacks on my theory are straying farther and farther from what is stated in the TOT:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt (which also affects the gas' convection rates); dense and hot masses of tibanna will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:since the one that is being detonated while simultaneously vanishing over 99% of the energy content of the bolt, leaving behind a harmless burst which lacks anywhere close to the energy-impact on the shield to reach the wattage level.

I'll quote it again;

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:This technique is used by skilled gunners when targeting small, fast moving, weak, and hard to hit objects. It can also be used for area of effect or suppression fire in order to drive an enemy along a desired escape vector.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I'll also add that your plasma bursts violate Conservation of Momentum because they don't conserve the forward propogating momentum and instead explode almost uniformly (esp. in AOTC LAAT/i near hits).

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:But if this containment cylinder is suddenly tapered (the shape of the containment tube changed from a cylinder to a cone with a vertex point at it's far end), the tibanna is compressed. As it travels along the increasingly narrow cone, it's density dramatically increases. Once it reaches the vertex of the cone, it must either come to a stop or breach the containment field. If, at that exact moment the containment field is dropped, the super-compressed tibanna suddenly and violently explodes

You are still nitpicking. As it stands, your theory is barely any less vague than it has ever been, and it is only by this intentional vagueness that it avoids counterattack. If it is impossible for you to simply explain your theory in more concrete terms, so that it becomes available for conventional counterattack, then either try to find ways to improve the TOT or stop nitpicking it.

Until you form a viable theory outside of vague suppositions mixed with technical terms which do not clarify the fundamentals of the theory I no longer feel compelled to intellectually deliberate with you.

Examples of fundamentals: what, exactly, are these massless slower-than-light propagating particles and why do they rotate around a central axis in a helix-like manner? These particles were invented for the theory, so I want to know what their properties are and why they behave as they do.

Or, to use your own example, how do these particles cause an explosion that forms a smoke-like cloud, if they have no mass?

Or, what are these volumetric shielding fields in your theory composed of?

I have a 69 post thread and a 4 page singled space term paper dealing with the details and related subjects of my shielding theory. I have another 5 page single space term paper dealing with the turbolaser operational theory. What do you have?

Until you form up your theory, I have no reason to continue trying to fend off your nitpicks, because your theory is too vague to be addressed in return in any detail (it maintains some form of accuracy only because it absolutely refuses to be precise). Stop attacking my theory until you form a viable one yourself.

If this theory argues for the plasmoid theory(in any shape or form), it has no merit.

Plasma weaponry is a buzzword used by people who have no idea what plasma is.

It would not be far off to say that I actually hate, yes hate, the plasma theory, it's as annoying as the 8km Executors.

I also notice from the comments that flakbursting is mentioned, which in itself is a far gone concept, thought up in the early days by lay people without the neccesary skills for such work.

Today we know that flakbursting is a false notion and that it's really the weapon quanta degrading from interaction with shields, and that only a small fraction of the energy is released in that way.

And it appears that you have used, to my utter dissapointment, to go with the horribly wrong notions of both plasma and flakbursting.

You want your theory to be somewhat true and accepted?
Loose this anti-gravity, plasma and flakburst nonsense.

Or, to use your own example, how do these particles cause an explosion that forms a smoke-like cloud, if they have no mass?

Reaction with atmosphere, duh, thats not a flakburst either, it's a bolt/shield interaction

Or, what are these volumetric shielding fields in your theory composed of?

Utterly fucking irrelevant(you always focus on these irrelevancies), they're official fact, in the ICS

Marc Xavier wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:This is miserably unscientific. We ignore the translucency and green glow of turbolasers in the plasma theory, and now we’re to expect they simply always ignore gravity? Dovin basals absorb turbolasers handily and are repetitively described as a gravitic shielding.

Well, I agree about the antigravity part. But I also didn’t make it up:

Tibanna gas: a gas found in the atmosphere of many gas giants, it is useful because it can produce large amounts of energy when light passes through it. Thus, it can be used in large blasters to multiply the weapon's output. It also has certain anti-gravitional properties, and has exceptional properties as a hyperdrive coolant. The best tibanna gas is compressed and spin-sealed, since this kind of tibanna is four times as powerful as regular tibanna. Spin-sealing requires a great deal of energy to do artificially. Fortunately for many weapons manufacturers, the tibanna found in the atmosphere of Bespin is naturally spin-sealed. Much of Bespin's tibanna gas is produced as a waste product by the beldons that inhabit the gas giant's Life Zone. (The Empire Strikes Back, The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, The Illustrated Star Wars Universe). Emphasis Added.

I think that quote is quite interesting, partly for the comedy reference to anti-gravity properties (which I suppose we have to take seriously) but mainly because it says nothing about the weapons directly utilising tibanna as the mechanism for transferring energy to the target. It says only that tibanna can release much energy when stimulated with light. What form the energy is released in, it doesn't specify. Primarily though, it doesn't state that the tibanna itself is used as the primary carrier of energy to the target.

I also didn’t ignore the translucency or green glow of the turbolaser in the theory, in fact I addressed and explained both those issues directly. (Note the parts of the TOT that discuss the absorption spectrum and stimulated emission).

The problems with plasma containment are:

1) Radiation of internal energy.

2) Dispersal of the plasma through expansion.

You have interposed a liquid barrier between the true plasma and the vacuum (with pretty fantastic surface tension if it can hold itself together in vacuum, let alone the battering from the plasma) and the liquid has a fortuitious absorption spectrum. The liquid minimises the thermal radiation losses, and the expansion of the gas is constrained by the magnetic field (whose wondrous nature I'll think about in a second). Ok so far. However, if the liquid is absorbing the radiation output of the plasma (excepting the green bit) it must rapidly heat up itself, until it is certainly plasma (and gas before that). The liquid containment would fail.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Um. It's not self generated. An emitter at the mouth of the turbolaser barrel generates and maintains the containment beam. The Death Star superlaser (see ANH; the Destruction of Alderaan) uses a similar device.

The problem with the magnetic field interpretation is one of the shape of field required. You could only generate field lines parallel with the direction of TL propagation, beyond the exit port of the weapon. However, this is insufficient for containment over any distance, partly because some charges will follow diverging field lines off to infinity (spreading the bolt) and partly because the non-uniform field strength across the bolt cross-section will tend to separate positive and negative charges (spreading the bolt). The end result is that you need a helical containment field, but you can't enforce that very well once the bolt has passed out of the weapon and is in free space.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:If the energy in your theory by its very nature is in the plasma, than when it is exploded, all the energy should be there.

What's the assessment of the yield based on? Must all the stored energy necessarily appear at visible wavelengths?

Frankly, HDS, all I have to say to you is the same thing I said to Illuminatus Primus:

"Until you form up your theory, I have no reason to continue trying to fend off your nitpicks, because your theory is too vague to be addressed in return in any detail (it maintains some form of accuracy only because it absolutely refuses to be precise). Stop attacking my theory until you form a viable one yourself."

Basically all you're doing is throwing abhorrence at my theory because you don’t like the idea of plasma. This is not my problem. Sitting there and complaining about how horrid an idea you think it is is not valid. Create a coherent theory outside of vague suppositions and endless ad hoc that does the job better and then we can deliberate.

ClaysGhost wrote:I think that quote is quite interesting, partly for the comedy reference to anti-gravity properties (which I suppose we have to take seriously)

That's all my theory does on this point. If there was an official source that said turbolasers shoot globs of green jello, a theory that somehow reconciled this with the fact that "they make things go boom" would be better than a theory that simply ignored the source. I agree it's silly, but I didn’t make it up.

ClaysGhost wrote:but mainly because it says nothing about the weapons directly utilising tibanna as the mechanism for transferring energy to the target. It says only that tibanna can release much energy when stimulated with light. What form the energy is released in, it doesn't specify. Primarily though, it doesn't state that the tibanna itself is used as the primary carrier of energy to the target.

Well no, not these sources. The part about the gas being the energy-transfer component is culled from other sources.

ClaysGhost wrote:The problems with plasma containment are:

1) Radiation of internal energy.

2) Dispersal of the plasma through expansion.

You have interposed a liquid barrier between the true plasma and the vacuum (with pretty fantastic surface tension if it can hold itself together in vacuum, let alone the battering from the plasma) and the liquid has a fortuitious absorption spectrum. The liquid minimises the thermal radiation losses, and the expansion of the gas is constrained by the magnetic field (whose wondrous nature I'll think about in a second). Ok so far. However, if the liquid is absorbing the radiation output of the plasma (excepting the green bit) it must rapidly heat up itself, until it is certainly plasma (and gas before that). The liquid containment would fail.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt (which also affects the gas' convection rates); dense and hot masses of tibanna will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively.

In open space, eventually (and rather quickly) the liquid wall fails. The magnetic containment tube (who's properties I am not entirely familiar with, I only point to the existence of a larger device of the same operation on the DEATH STAR)



perhaps, whatever particles it may be composed of, siphon off small amounts of energy from the tibanna liquid wall while in transit, keeping it liquefied. That would be in keeping with the part of the TOT that says:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The containment beam itself can carry energy (evidenced above by the fact that the superlaser version is releasing photons in ring patterns)

Perhaps if the magnetic containment beam absorbs too much of this energy that is one possibility for the "misfire" which results in:

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:a significant amount of energy [being shunted] through the containment beam itself when the weapon is fired. This can result in apparent "damage before impact,"

ClaysGhost wrote:The problem with the magnetic field interpretation is one of the shape of field required. You could only generate field lines parallel with the direction of TL propagation, beyond the exit port of the weapon. However, this is insufficient for containment over any distance, partly because some charges will follow diverging field lines off to infinity (spreading the bolt) and partly because the non-uniform field strength across the bolt cross-section will tend to separate positive and negative charges (spreading the bolt). The end result is that you need a helical containment field, but you can't enforce that very well once the bolt has passed out of the weapon and is in free space.

I don't claim to know the nature of this magnetic containment tube. I'm simply pointing it out. I don't know exactly how it works, but it does. You seem to know a lot about magnetic fields, do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to rationalize this containment technology? If we could figure out a way, it would make the TOT even more complete. I'm sure it's possible, given enough thought. I'm just not that well versed in the details of magnetic fields and their operation on charged particles. If you could help, I’d greatly appreciate it.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:If the energy in your theory by its very nature is in the plasma, than when it is exploded, all the energy should be there.

What's the assessment of the yield based on? Must all the stored energy necessarily appear at visible wavelengths?

This isn't directed at me, I don’t think. That's for Illuminatus Primus. (But no, I don't see any reason that "all the stored energy necessarily appear at visible wavelengths")

Marc Xavier wrote:Frankly, HDS, all I have to say to you is the same thing I said to Illuminatus Primus:

"Until you form up your theory, I have no reason to continue trying to fend off your nitpicks, because your theory is too vague to be addressed in return in any detail (it maintains some form of accuracy only because it absolutely refuses to be precise). Stop attacking my theory until you form a viable one yourself."

Basically all you're doing is throwing abhorrence at my theory because you don’t like the idea of plasma. This is not my problem. Sitting there and complaining about how horrid an idea you think it is is not valid. Create a coherent theory outside of vague suppositions and endless ad hoc that does the job better and then we can deliberate.

When your theory is directly contradicted and unworkable it does not matter.
If you would have said turbolasers fire magic dragons it would still be wrong and the movies clearly indicate it, this is no different.

I don't have to create another theory and I most certainly don't have to measure up to your own standards of assigning technobabble to things.

Face it, we know nothing about turbolasers, but the movies show what they are not.

In that instance it is better to assign some unknown mechanism rather than go with an inherently unworkable and contradicted one.

As it stands, nearly all visuals contradict your theory in ways that you cannot circumvent by ignoring it and challenging us to make up some counter theory, as you have done.
We merely point out the insurmountable flaws here, nothing can be done about that.

Oh and plasma would radiate so much energy that the liquid would itself glow, or it would be some form of super-liquid that can absorb enourmous amounts of energy without heating that much, that would only cause the turbolaser to loose all punching power after a few measly kilometers, your lack of knowledge on the required physics and mechanics prevent you from seeing what would otherwise be so clear.

And they travel at C, unlike plasma.

Marc, we don't have to like your theory, and we are permitted to see plasma as bullshit.

Characterizing any statements about the unworkability of plasma as nitpicks and demanding that I give you a precise theory that explains all of turbolasers' properties perfectly is a false dilemma.

Marc Xavier wrote:1. If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how can they explode in open space [flak]? All of the explosions in real life science that I am aware of require mass of some sort (chemical, nuclear, etc). If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how do they produce an explosion?

Just a quick comment here:

There are those of us who think there's no such thing as "turbolaser flak bursts," FWIW. Brian (Young, of course!) is the man to talk to about this.

Marc Xavier wrote:Stop misrepresenting the theory.

Look at the shots. They always fly too straight with respect to gravity. Thus, the bolts are either ignoring gravity for all basic concerns entirely, or is somehow an illusion caused by something that is in the gravity well only briefly.

I'm talking observation here. Regardless of what your theory says verbatim, this is what we see, and if you believe the anti-gravity properties of tibanna are the cause, than you are suggesting that Tibanna plasma basically totally ignores gravity--because we see that in observation.

So complaining that I was misrepresenting you is total bunk. I pointed out that you couldn't say that that bit was straight from official--official never says that tibanna is the actual medium of energy transfer from weapon-to-target, and never says that a tibanna plasma would totally ignore gravity. Both are YOUR assumptions and YOURS to justify.

Marc Xavier wrote:Look at the Death Star beams. I don't have to explain how they work, I just have to point them out, because I did not make them up.

Bullshit.

You're using your conclusions as evidence. "The containment tubes also avoid gravity because what I say is a containment tube on the Death Star ignored gravity." Your point requires the premise that the rings are, in fact, your "containment tubes." Thus, you cannot appeal to observation to prove your point that containment tubes would ignore gravity.

Furthermore, the DS beam in free-flight is never anything but parallel to the Alderaanian and Death Star gravity wells, so we wouldn't observe any example of the supposed "containment tubes" defying gravity in the Death Star example.

I also question your theory's explanation for the Death Star's superlaser propogating at C.

Marc Xavier wrote:No, it's being nitpicked, and furthermore I asked for feedback on how to improve the theory. You're not doing that, you're just attacking.

This is debate. If you didn't want it cut-apart and questioned, you should never have posted the link.

I do not have to tell you its wonderful when I feel the key error is the premise of the entire theory in the first place.

Marc Xavier wrote:I didn't say it went nowhere. I suggested that it remains in the free-floating iota of the tibanna gas in some non-thermal form. It may be released, it may simply remain until it comes into contact with a colder object I do not know, but I did not say it went nowhere.

Marc! Kiloton-range energy bolts "exploding" in AOTC. All that kinetic energy or whatever would be released into the air (along with obeying CoM, which it does not). Where is the energy? Where did it go?

Your theory's predictions do not fit canon observation.

Marc Xavier wrote:Instead of recognizing the analogy, you responded with a condescending retort.

Marc doesn't offer an explanation, and instead cites more "You're being mean." Even if it was an analogy, I'm not fixing your theory's holes.

You tell me what happens to the missing majority of kilotons of destructive energy when the bolts explode in the atmosphere.

Your comment about condescending retorts is completely irrelevent. I urge you to stay to the point.

Marc Xavier wrote:No, they are not. In fact, I'm drawing attention to why I suggested that tibanna stores energy in a non-thermal form in addition to its thermal component (which makes it superior to other plasmas). You keep ignoring this. In fact, you seem to refuse to even accept the possibility that the energy could be stored in any other way.

Then WHERE IS IT? Is it kinetic? Is it thermal? It has to go somewhere when the bolt is detonated in an atmosphere.

And if it does not, what use are energy bolts which exploded with less than a tenth of their true yield, thus inflicting no damage on the target, because Star Wars shields are based on wattage threshholds.

Marc Xavier wrote:Perhaps here: *snip*

All it takes is one counter-example. AOTC. LAAT/is.

And a high-gigaton range bolt should leave a longer flash, IIRC.

Marc Xavier wrote:Again, I feel it unnecessary to repeat myself, especially in the light of your hostile attitude. But, I will, for clarity (and an alternative suggestion):

Style over substance fallacy.

Marc Xavier wrote:Yes. Now, I do not know how long it would take for those particles to release the rest of their energy, or in what form they may release it in. I suggested above:

It may be released, it may simply remain until it comes into contact with a colder object I do not know, but I did not say it went nowhere.

Do you have a suggestion?

The kinetic energy; shear; whatever, would generate extremely vast movements of air in AOTC; enough to strip electrons free of the atoms and create a large storm of plasma; a fireball.

My suggestion is plasmoids are an unworkable theory.

Marc Xavier wrote:Your theory, as I understand it, does not even explain (beyond "some bizarre photon-emitting effect") how massless particles would explode in the first place.

It doesn't have to explain how!

The massless quanta simply interfere with the volumetric shield and cause energy bursts as a small percentage of radiant energy is bled-off as the energy bolt penetrates and absorbs into the shield.

We know directly that these energy bursts are an inherent result of bolt-shield interactions from the AAT assault on the Gungan's theater shield.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:This technique is used by skilled gunners when targeting small, fast moving, weak, and hard to hit objects. It can also be used for area of effect or suppression fire in order to drive an enemy along a desired escape vector.

Look. Let's say the Falcon is fleeing from a SD and it has a threshold of 1 gigaton/sec. The SD will lay suppression fire from the guns that are capable of targeting something small and manuverable with any accuracy to lay suppression fire.

The say...5 gigaton LTLs lay a withering barrage of bursts along the Falcon's flight path. But these bursts' yield incident on the Falcon's shield is a small faction of the overall bolt energy content; because it explodes some distance away from the Falcon and omnidirectionally.

The only guns which could score shield damage from high-proximity bursts are the HTLs. These traverse so slowly they were impractical for combat in the Battle of Endor. A simple vector change by the Falcon would prevent the constricted-field-of-fire HTLs from scoring a burst anywhere near the Falcon.

Beyond that, it is an enormous energy waste to do so little damage. Point-defense guns that actually try and hit the target.

But its irrelevent: the bursts in the movies do not possess the yield of the bolt, and we have canon evidence of bursts being an inherent result of a bolt/shield interaction.

Marc Xavier wrote:Well it seems to me that you're saying it bleeds off photons, giving off a small portion of it's energy. Where does the rest go? And what is the nature of this volumetric field? In my theory, it is (to quote from the Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory):

Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory wrote:...a series of carefully angled and controlled ultrathin electrostatic repulsion fields.

My theory explains itself on this point. Explain yours.

Your theory is cute technobabble. Its a false dilemma for mine to need be like yours, but I'll entertain you for a sec.

"The infinite set of 11-dimensional branes that compose the volumetric shield interact with the penetrating rotating field surface of the penetrating quanta and a degree of radiant energy is expended as loss as the invisible beam is broken up and absorbed; its energy content isabsorbed into the shield capacitors for radiating out of the vessel."

The invisible quanta/bolt-shield interactions merely say that the entire bolt is absorbed; a small percentage of energy is lost as inefficiencies that manifests itself in various scatterings of radiant energy.

Marc Xavier wrote:This does not explain the nature of the field; all "volumetric" means is "Of or relating to measurement by volume." The rest of this seems tossed together ad hoc in order to explain a potential difficulty in your vague shield theory (this is an example of exactly why I want the theory defined in clearer terms).

Furthermore it leaves the nature of the turbolaser bolt unexplained as well (unless you go with the made-up panacea particle, which has its own difficulties and itself is widely unexplained).

I do not go with the particle.

My explanation does not require a precise definition of the shield. Who the hell cares whether your theory specifies "ultrathin electrostatic repulsors" or whatnot? That's not testable or critiqueable and thus useless.

I think turbolasers are somesort of projected rotating field surface, similar to Bob Brown's theory on lightsabres, that propogates at c, but generates an inherent stasis effect that slows the practical movement of the beam to below c and proportionally degrades gravitational affects.

I believe the speed of the bolt is a function dependent on its yield that also influences bolt length. Small handweapons generate beams that are more unstable and generate proportionally greater stasis effects. Large scale capital weapons have smaller stasis affects with higher yield.

The laterally-emitting section of the beam is merely an inherent decay affect that follows a "tail" portion of the overall pulse. Eventually the speed tops off at C as stasis effects cease with very high yield.

Marc Xavier wrote:My theories have strived to define both of these, exhaustively, I might add. Fill out your theory more concretely or stop nitpicking.

I don't owe you technobabble.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt (which also affects the gas' convection rates); dense and hot masses of tibanna will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively.

The "surface tension" of the plasma exceeds the truely ENORMOUS kinetic energy build up from electrostatic repulsion from the immense heat and density?

Marc Xavier wrote:You are still nitpicking. As it stands, your theory is barely any less vague than it has ever been, and it is only by this intentional vagueness that it avoids counterattack. If it is impossible for you to simply explain your theory in more concrete terms, so that it becomes available for conventional counterattack, then either try to find ways to improve the TOT or stop nitpicking it.

I'm pointing out errors in your theory. Tell me how your theory is still teniable when it has some problems.

Look at Master of Ossus' critique of DarkStar's website. Did he have to go into detail on each personal theories of his own to show that DarkStar reached bullshit assumptions? Absolutely not. There is a time and a place for critique. And I feel plasmoids are totally unteniable.

Marc Xavier wrote:Until you form a viable theory outside of vague suppositions mixed with technical terms which do not clarify the fundamentals of the theory I no longer feel compelled to intellectually deliberate with you.

Then don't. I and the other denizens of this forum will feel free to pick apart your theory and demonstrate how it is not workable with, or without your rebuttal.

Marc Xavier wrote:Examples of fundamentals: what, exactly, are these massless slower-than-light propagating particles and why do they rotate around a central axis in a helix-like manner? These particles were invented for the theory, so I want to know what their properties are and why they behave as they do.

Who the fuck cares!

Your plasma, by your own statements, purposely ignores the properties of real life plasma for the sake of your arguments.

All that matters is we have a description, based on combined observation, of what these things do.

Explaining what they truly are and how is so impossible I won't bother dealing with it. I don't want to descend into the technobabble and meaningless pseudoscientific explanations.

Marc Xavier wrote:Or, to use your own example, how do these particles cause an explosion that forms a smoke-like cloud, if they have no mass?

Geonosis' atmosphere contains slight combustables or other chemicals that produce smoke when subjected to a sudden infusion of high heat that causes them to react.

Marc Xavier wrote:Or, what are these volumetric shielding fields in your theory composed of?

Who cares?

Your theories' nitty-gritty is just imaginative technobabble and pseudoscience.

Marc Xavier wrote:I have a 69 post thread and a 4 page singled space term paper dealing with the details and related subjects of my shielding theory. I have another 5 page single space term paper dealing with the turbolaser operational theory. What do you have?

Less technobabble.

Marc Xavier wrote:Until you form up your theory, I have no reason to continue trying to fend off your nitpicks, because your theory is too vague to be addressed in return in any detail (it maintains some form of accuracy only because it absolutely refuses to be precise). Stop attacking my theory until you form a viable one yourself.

More false dilemmas from someone who wants a specific scientific explanation for the content and behaviors of a turbolaser.

Move on folks; nothing to see here.

ClaysGhost wrote:What's the assessment of the yield based on? Must all the stored energy necessarily appear at visible wavelengths?

AOTC LAAT/i near-misses. It has to be somewhere.

EDIT:

On second thought--this is all useless. The Episode II ICS makes "visible carrier pulse along a lightspeed beam" the official theory and it overtly contradicts nothing.

My theory is the official theory. The end.

His Divine Shadow,

my response to you remains the same. I could, as I have done before, break down what you are saying line-by-line and ask you to substantiate and support the generalizations and statements that you make. But I suspect that you will, as you have done before, avoid the points, change the subject, refuse to admit you ever said anything wrong or just plain refuse to read what I have to say. I'm not putting up with that anymore. If you want to go with a totally unknown and unknowable mechanism instead of trying ways to help improve a much more grounded theory, then go right ahead. This is not an argument, I am simply speaking to you--directly. Do what you like. I've tired of trying to reason with you, because you are determined to be obtuse. There's no point in fending off the endless slings and arrows worth of nitpicks, because in the end you just don't listen.


Seanrobertson,

If I can get a hold of Brian Young, perhaps I will discuss with him some of my theories. Hopefully, any discussion I have with him will be more productive than the general intolerance I've received by HDS and IP here.


Illuminatus Primus,

Your response to my theory has been more tolerable than that of HDS, but like HDS, no matter what I say, no matter what material I present or what arguments I make, you simply won't even consider the possibility. You're too caught up in nitpicking (yes, that is all that this is, nitpicking) while your "theory" doesn't require an unknown mechanism, it is an unknown mechanism. So, while you can comfortably try to poke holes in my theory, I cannot address your theory in detail because it is a big huge metaphysical cloud of nothingness. Even any attempt I make at trying to ask basic questions (or requesting you to show how your theory explains examples that are difficult to it) is simply waved aside or dodged. What kind of a theory inherently denies itself close analysis? Stop nitpicking and form a real theory.


If not, we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. This game of playing "I say tomato, you say tomahto" is a waste of time and energy. You say I'm not getting my facts right, I say you're making up facts and making up magical ad hoc objects designed to fit your theory, what little theory you truly have.

When one of you, (this point applies especially to His Divine Shadow) makes incorrect or contradictory statements, I drive the point home that these are such, and the issue is neatly avoided. I ask valid questions about your theory, I ask you to explain your position, and you refuse, preferring the safety of ambiguity to risking to make a coherent theory.

Neither of us seems willing to give an inch on this, so further discussion is pointless. You can continue to nitpick, and try to tear down the theory all you want, and try make it look like it's better to just have a theory that is a big fat unknown, but I've had enough. Feel free to obscure and obfuscate the issue, to ignore the countless questions I've posed to your theory, and even try to pretend that your "lack-of-theory" theory (and all it's unanswered questions) is superior. What kind of a theory inherently denies itself close analysis, conviently putting up shields when anyone gets too close? In any event, I've grown weary of it.

If anything, I've learned a lot of valuable information here, and my research and discussion (the productive part, at least) has helped me gain a better insight into Star Wars. At least for that, I say thank you.

Good day.

Marc Xavier wrote:Stop nitpicking and form a real theory.

Rebut my assertions on the illogical, inconsistent, and counter-to-official-sources problems with your theory.

The demand for a theory as chock-full of technobabble and as needlessly long-winded as yours with a precisely defined and explained pseudoscientific mechanism is a false dilemma.

Turbolaser Operational Theory wrote:In space, this results in the effect shown at right; a violent exodus of the super-energized tibanna.

Unless this super-energized plasma is massless, it doesn't work. Here's why:

Episode 2: Incredible Cross Sections wrote:Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

If something travels at lightspeed, then the unavoidable conclusion is that it must be massless.

My theory (posted in the turbolaser thread you already linked to in this thread) explains the delays between firing and damage (as a low-powered warm-up beam with a power spike once the weapon is charged enough), and why it tends to occur upon the visible bolt's impact (and why it could be intentional).

I also don't see where your theory accounts for the changing direction in mid-flight HDS' clips demonstrated.

Now, weaker weaponry doesn't always appear to be lightspeed (especially blasters; I think fighter-level weapons can switch modes). I'm still working on explaining that, trying out the helix theory. The same particles have to be used, as visual effects are the same and the weapons are said to all operate on the same basic principles.

Anyway, that's the biggest problem that I see with your theory. It doesn't account for the ICS2 reference. The ICS2 explanation has worked its way into newer novels, as well, explicitly mentioning lightspeed propagation rates for the weapon. It's here to stay.

Mad wrote:

Episode 2: Incredible Cross Sections wrote:Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

If something travels at lightspeed, then the unavoidable conclusion is that it must be massless.

You did not construct a full theory around this thats not as massive as his and which explains in detail all possible workings, so it's not valid.
Yes, apparently the fact that his theory is contradicted again and again in the movies and the highest ranking official technical source matters not, it's all just nitpicks.

I also don't see where your theory accounts for the changing direction in mid-flight HDS' clips demonstrated.

It doesn't, his tactic was a red herring which pointed to another sequence where the shots travel at different angles, well guess what, that's irrelevant because his theory does not work with it still, while it does not really contradict the other theory, tho he claims so.
Diversionary tactics, thats all it is.

Ironically enough when called upon all these errors he's responded in the same way he's accused us of doing, by sticking his fingers in his ears, that and accusations of how obtuse I am and such.

Well gee, I do get quite obtuse when faced with a theory that makes no sense and is unworkable anyway, and I do get cranky when I see that the guy in question has dismissed errors pointed out because we're not nice enough and have not constructed a massive theory around it like he has.
Again with the false dilemmas.
We don't have to create a new theory when the evidence at hand clearly disproves his assertions, we need merely point out that his theory does not:
a) Mesh with visual evidence
b) Make any sense(it's a bunch of unworkable technobabble)

Anyway, that's the biggest problem that I see with your theory. It doesn't account for the ICS2 reference. The ICS2 explanation has worked its way into newer novels, as well, explicitly mentioning lightspeed propagation rates for the weapon. It's here to stay.

By default the plasma theory cannot explain the instaces of damage before the bolt arrives either, nor all the other indications of how the bolt is not damaging part, or the translucency of bolts, two impossibilities with plasma.