StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The ICS2 described the visible pulse as a carrier along the lightspeed beam.

We can see these pulses moving along the Death Star beam.

The above are the two sentences that someone used to explain the ICS2 theory for the nature of turbolasers.

Do these two sentences make the ICS2 theory crystal clear to you? If you think you understand the sentences, write down your interpretation below.

Those who have already read or heard the full explanation in the ICS2 need not vote. I.e. if you already knew the ICS2 explanation before coming here you shouldn't vote.

edit: poll taken down by accident. I decided it was better to leave it out due to the realization that those with prior knowledge of the theory constitutes an overwhelming majority; if only 10% of the them voted the poll would be hopelessly skewed.




--------------------
My take on what happened in the other thread (take your pick):
I have attempted to stick to the truth at all turns. You can accuse me of stupidity (I'd have to admit that physics is not my strongest suite) but not dishonesty. Except for having the superior technical explanation, DW shows no respect for sticking to the actual content of other people's posts.

He escalated hostilities first (in his second post) and then later tried to claim that I was the one to do so, by making a twisted interpretation of my last post before his inflammatory one. (my post before his second post)

I pointed out the fallacy of theory #1 in his old page. Not willing to concede that he once favored a theory that turned out to be wrong, he defended his position by nitpicking that theory #1 was not his single most preferred theory, using a twisted interpretation of his outdated page (last post on p.1) and then stuck to that interpretation even though it was obviously wrong, throwing insults all the time while expecting me to take this lying down and not argue with him about the interpretation of that page, even if not arguing would mean that I accept all the names he called me over this dispute.

Then after starting flames on all these irrelevant fronts he came back and answered the technical question while accusing ME of dancing around by 'initiating' flames on said irrelevant fronts.

Now tell me who was dishonest?

Yes.





I voted even though I DO have ICS2. I did it out of spite, you damn morinic troll. So, how do you like them apples?! And why the hell are you dragging this outside of the debate? Now I realise that this is possibly some damn kind of trap, and that maybe I shouldn't have voted. Oh well, I guess.

Prior knowledge does not count.

Even if I didn't own it, I'd be able to understand the theory given the two sentences because of two reasons:

1. I already pretty much subscribed to that theory.
2. (And most importently) I'm not an idiot.

And individual interpretations are not required, as those sentences are self-explanitory.

1. I already pretty much subscribed to that theory.

That's why you're not eligible for this poll.

Jodoforce, you fucking idiot, are you still trying to embarrass yourself?

The ICS2 described the visible pulse as a carrier along the lightspeed beam.

Without the context of where the sentence came from for reference, it might mean a lot of things. But given that it's referring to SW lasers, it sounds just like "a visible pulse travels along the lightspeed beam".

We can see these pulses moving along the Death Star beam.

We can see visible pulses moving along the Death Star superlaser beams, what's so hard to understand about this?

JodoForce wrote:

1. I already pretty much subscribed to that theory.

That's why you're not eligible for this poll.

What poll?

And go fuck yourself. My "vote" counts because I'm not as stupid as you are.

If YOU can't understand the damn official theory, that's YOUR fucking problem, you pointy-headed troll.

I understand the official explanation NOW but was those two sentences enough to induce understanding?

Yes of course they are.

Are you mental or something? I mean, are you like missing part of your brain?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Yes of course they are.

Your saying so does not make it so.

(an erraneous accusation of the administrators taking down the poll was made here. Since someone insists I keep every outdated piece of junk in my posts, a note of it is made here.)

When you edit the first post in a poll thread, the poll often disappears.

Hey, Jodo, you jackass: the quote you gave is from a motherfucking debate on this board, not the ICS2. The quote is vague, yes, but that's because it was made in summation of the ICS' theory, not in replacement of it. THIS is what the ICS2 says:

ICS2 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.

I don't really see how either quote is hard to understand. They're both in plain English, and they both fit what's seen on screen.

Yes, quite simple really.

The direct Quote is quite clear.

Energy Weapons (= Turbolasers I would guess) fires a beam (not a bolt) that moves at c (as fast as light).

The 'bolt' (that we can see, as the other part is invisible) is something (a pulse) that moves along the beam (the invisible beam) at a speed below c (slower than light, aka slower than the beam).

The two sentences you posted aren't quite as clear, because it doesn't mention that the lightspeed beam is invisible otherwise it would be clear.
The sentence with the Death Star doesn't help that much, because I haven't seen Episode 4 or 6 in a long time.

And no: I don't have prior knowledge about the ICS - except of course for the direct quote from ICS.

So I would say that the explanation from 'someone' wasn't that clear, because he forgot one word (invisible).

I'm the biggest, most vocal opposition to this theory of turbolaser mechanics on this board.

But at least I attempt to discredit it by using canon evidence, not dishonest, underhanded, moronic tactics.

Fuck the fuck off, fucker.

Edit: edited for clarification.

D.Turtle wrote:The direct Quote is quite clear.

Energy Weapons (= Turbolasers I would guess) fires a beam (not a bolt) that moves at c (as fast as light).

The 'bolt' (that we can see, as the other part is invisible) is something (a pulse) that moves along the beam (the invisible beam) at a speed below c (slower than light, aka slower than the beam).

The two sentences you posted aren't quite as clear, because it doesn't mention that the lightspeed beam is invisible otherwise it would be clear.
The sentence with the Death Star doesn't help that much, because I haven't seen Episode 4 or 6 in a long time.

And no: I don't have prior knowledge about the ICS - except of course for the direct quote from ICS.

So I would say that the explanation from 'someone' wasn't that clear, because he forgot one word (invisible).

Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the things that compose the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

SirNitram wrote:I'm the biggest, most vocal opposition to this theory of turbolaser mechanics on this board.

But at least I attempt to discredit it by using canon evidence, not dishonest, underhanded, moronic tactics.

Please read the thread more closely before deciding on the character of my replies.

JodoForce wrote:

SirNitram wrote:I'm the biggest, most vocal opposition to this theory of turbolaser mechanics on this board.

But at least I attempt to discredit it by using canon evidence, not dishonest, underhanded, moronic tactics.

Please read the thread more closely before deciding on the character of my replies.

I have read the thread. I've read a few more of your posts. I am of the conclusion you are a moron attempting dishonest tactics because your ass is kicked.

I have attempted to stick to the truth at all turns. You can accuse me of stupidity (I'd have to admit that physics is not my strongest suite) but not dishonesty. Except for having the superior technical explanation, DW shows no respect for sticking to the actual content of other people's posts.

He escalated hostilities first and then later tried to claim that I was the one to do so, by making a twisted interpretation of my last post before his inflammatory one.

I pointed out the fallacy of theory #1 in his old page. Not willing to concede that he once favored a theory that turned out to be wrong, he defended his position using a twisted interpretation of his outdated page and then stuck to that interpretation even though it was obviously wrong, throwing insults all the time.

Then after starting flames on all these irrelevant fronts he came back and answered the technical question while accusing ME of dancing around by 'initiating' flames on said irrelevant fronts.

Now tell me who was dishonest?

Stop letting your bias cloud you.

JodoForce wrote:I have attempted to stick to the truth at all turns. Except for having the superior technical explanation, DW shows no respect for sticking to the actual content of other people's posts. Stop letting your bias cloud you.

Surprisingly, JodoForce, just because someone doesn't agree with your whining doesn't mean they are biased. You, however, are making it pretty clear you don't care about facts, logic, or debate: You just want to smear now. Go away, you bore me.

Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

Where did anyone say that?
In no thread have I found anyone saying that the visible portion is moving at light speed - nayone who watched the movies can see that.
Now if you are talking about the thread 'Massless !=not affected by gravity' I can only say that nothing DW said there goes against the provided quote from the ICS - and what I said how I understand it.
He says the beam goes at light speed, because it is massless - the ICS says the beam goes at light speed.

The thing is the following: According to the provided quote from the ICS, the beam moves at light speed, and the bolt you see moves ALONG (ie ON) the beam, slower than light speed. DW said the beam moves at light speed.
Where is the problem? Where is the conflict?

JodoForce wrote: Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

It's really simple you fucking retard. As stated in ICS, the bolt is spun. Now look at a spring. Measure it's lenth. Now uncurl it. Measure it's length again. Note that the uncurled length is far greater then the curled length. now imagine that the wire is a road. If you have to drive along it while it is coiled, it will take the tiem it would take to drive the uncurled distance, not the time it would take to drive the curled distance. THAT is how it moves at C and yet doesn't. The photons are traveling in a coiled pattern, not straight line. So they move at C but only travel a straightline distance at far slower speeds.

Still beating this dead horse, eh?

Does the term "sore loser" mean anything to you? You were caught being a nitpicking weasel. Even after admitting that your theory was shot down, you still tried to claim that somehow, being beaten doesn't mean you were wrong. Face it kid, your pride is writing cheques that your brain can't cash.

JodoForce wrote:Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

I doubt he will, since that is a strawman distortion of my argument and that of those who have tried to explain the ICS2 to you. However, if you wish to continue embarrassing yourself and trying to compensate for your incompetence and failure, go right ahead.

JodoForce, do you realise how suspicious it looks with "Last edited by JodoForce on..." in your posts, and no acknowledgement of what was edited? You could have at least said something about your accusation of someone taking out the poll.