ST Galaxy vs Star Destroyers

[SirNitram]

So long as you can also cite how long we've known a temperature at which an incandescent surface will glow green, sure.

The invisible beam theory is consistant with observations. I'm yet to see another theory that is.

Ignoring, you know, recoil. As in there's no recoil. Whether this is better or worse than inconsistant recoil, that's another kettle of fish.

[Straha]

Has anyone noticed how in the A-Wing animation the second shot from the right cannon goes at a much different angle than the first shot, in fact it goes across the A-Wing all together...


Chalk this one up to a Technical Goof methinks...

[Straha]

Ghetto Edit:

Has anyone noticed how in the A-Wing animation the second shot from the right cannon goes at a much different angle than the first shot, in fact it goes across the A-Wing all together...


Chalk this one up, on a whole, to a Technical Goof methinks...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If I throw a ball up in a train it'll keep going forward even though nothing is acting on it. The A-Wing there is pulling up at a constant rate, which would make a projectile go up at the same rate as well, explainng why it looks like the bolts are tracking with the ship.

As the bolt gets farther from the fighter, it would have a higher circumference to follow to keep in synch with the fighter's turn. It would have to be accelerating in that case, which cannot be explained by momentum.

[Alan Bolte]

Has anyone noticed how in the A-Wing animation the second shot from the right cannon goes at a much different angle than the first shot, in fact it goes across the A-Wing all together...


Chalk this one up to a Technical Goof methinks...

1. It's an X-Wing.
2. Fighter lasers do that a lot, probably more often than they all fire in the same direction.

[Mad]

If I throw a ball up in a train it'll keep going forward even though nothing is acting on it. The A-Wing there is pulling up at a constant rate, which would make a projectile go up at the same rate as well, explainng why it looks like the bolts are tracking with the ship.

This is a bit different, though. If you swing something around in a circle and let go, it'll fly out in a straight line. However, these bolts are curving (if viewed from one of the other starships)... they're accelerating up.

Basically, if you turned around in a circle and fired a bunch of nerf shots out, they would not stay in front of you like these bolts stayed in front of the X-wing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Suck it.

Something worth noting. The entire body of the SPHA-T rocks when it initialy fires the weapon. That could very well be recoil and the recoil is mostly absorbed by some sort of compensation system, but the "kick" from the very start of the firing sequence still bleeds through.

Ok, that changes the crux of the matter how? There is no empirical evidence tying visible barrel recoil in a correlative effect with damaging emissions from SW turbolasers.

By the way:

http://www.robothobos.com/misc/images/a ... y_fast.gif

http://www.robothobos.com/misc/images/a ... y_slow.gif

[SirNitram]

Yes, several frames after the shot begins but several frames before the visible portion hits, damage occours. No one's suggested otherwise. However, this can equally be addressed by hypothesizing the bolt is bigger than the visible core we see.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So long as you can also cite how long we've known a temperature at which an incandescent surface will glow green, sure.

The invisible beam theory is consistant with observations. I'm yet to see another theory that is.

Ignoring, you know, recoil. As in there's no recoil. Whether this is better or worse than inconsistant recoil, that's another kettle of fish.

There is no evidence the barrel recoil is the shot recoil, and the footage seems to contradict that without excessively complex theories. Quite frankly, I think the barrel recoil is the initial ejection of waste gases from the last firing cycle (both the XX-9s on the Death Star and the SPHA-T's have an initial flash which I suggest is some superheated plasma quickly being expelled), while the emission recoil is absorbed directly into the endostructure of the warship. We already know these ships take the incident momentum of turbolaser blasts on-film without visible movement when they're hit, so why we should be surprised when its not visible when its counter-momentum from the guns, I don't know.

The entire point real-world slugthrowers slid back into their mountings is to dissipate recoil. However, the amount of recoil observed is completely insignificant with regard to the total force, and besides has been inconsistent with damaging emissions in other examples. The recoil is clearly not connected to the enormous momentum of the actual shots, but some side-effect, which I offered.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So it just couldn't possibly be some sort of compensation system that prevents the recoil of the weapon from crushing itself, right? Oh and I LOVE how you pretend to know what recoil would look like when you know damn well they have technology available to compensate for this.

You are a moron; the force would continue to be exerted all the while the gun was being fired; the barrel should not slide UP back into rest position while the beam is still being emited, if the barrel recoil is caused by the beam's momentum. Therefore, they are independent events. Get it, clueless?

[SirNitram]

There is no evidence the barrel recoil is the shot recoil, and the footage seems to contradict that without excessively complex theories. Quite frankly, I think the barrel recoil is the initial ejection of waste gases from the last firing cycle (both the XX-9s on the Death Star and the SPHA-T's have an initial flash which I suggest is some superheated plasma quickly being expelled), while the emission recoil is absorbed directly into the endostructure of the warship. We already know these ships take the incident momentum of turbolaser blasts on-film without visible movement when they're hit, so why we should be surprised when its not visible when its counter-momentum from the guns, I don't know.

The entire point real-world slugthrowers slid back into their mountings is to dissipate recoil. However, the amount of recoil observed is completely insignificant with regard to the total force, and besides has been inconsistent with damaging emissions in other examples. The recoil is clearly not connected to the enormous momentum of the actual shots, but some side-effect, which I offered.

And this was not disputed. It'd be nice if people were literate, but I'm starting to wonder about this board.

What was pointed out, is that the invisible, massless beam will still produce recoil. U/c. Since this is not observed(You so gracefully show that, indeed, it couldn't be there), the massless beam theory fails. Ergo we're back to discussing the observed properties with no real mechanism for the overall.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, several frames after the shot begins but several frames before the visible portion hits, damage occours. No one's suggested otherwise. However, this can equally be addressed by hypothesizing the bolt is bigger than the visible core we see.

No, the trajectory of the shot changes but remains on-axis with the source. This is not consistent with a turning independent projectile, but is consistent with a swiveling beam.

Just what is your utter derision for the c-propogating beam theory, anyway, Martin? You disliked it way back in discussions before its current incarnation was even explained.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So it just couldn't possibly be some sort of compensation system that prevents the recoil of the weapon from crushing itself, right? Oh and I LOVE how you pretend to know what recoil would look like when you know damn well they have technology available to compensate for this.

You are a moron; the force would continue to be exerted all the while the gun was being fired; the barrel should not slide UP back into rest position while the beam is still being emited, if the barrel recoil is caused by the beam's momentum. Therefore, they are independent events. Get it, clueless?

And the compensation system, that I have shown does exist, couldn't be doing that? Please, take your righteous attitude and shove it up your ass.

[SirNitram]

Yes, several frames after the shot begins but several frames before the visible portion hits, damage occours. No one's suggested otherwise. However, this can equally be addressed by hypothesizing the bolt is bigger than the visible core we see.

No, the trajectory of the shot changes but remains on-axis with the source. This is not consistent with a turning independent projectile, but is consistent with a swiveling beam.

Just what is your utter derision for the c-propogating beam theory, anyway, Martin? You disliked it way back in discussions before its current incarnation was even explained.

Show me an object moving at a speed my eyes can track, and I will be naturally suspicious of someone telling me it's moving at the speed of light.

Correction accepted, however. I apologize for the mixup.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What was pointed out, is that the invisible, massless beam will still produce recoil. U/c. Since this is not observed(You so gracefully show that, indeed, it couldn't be there), the massless beam theory fails. Ergo we're back to discussing the observed properties with no real mechanism for the overall.

And who said that the beam theory claimed that massless beams did not have recoil? The recoil is obviously not visibly apparent. The ships are massive enough to absorb incoming fire without visibly rocking, so it stands to reason that their own gunfire would not noticably rock the vessel with incident momentum.

The recoil doesn't have to be readily apparent at the gun barrels to be present. If the turrets are bolted straight onto the hull, the momentum would be quickly distributed into the endostructure of the ship, and not necessarily be visible. Afterall, we already know due to momentum that shield generators must be similarly braced and we've observed them absorbing fire with momentum and not producing visible movement. So the assumption that the recoil must be readily visible is unjustified.

[SirNitram]

What was pointed out, is that the invisible, massless beam will still produce recoil. U/c. Since this is not observed(You so gracefully show that, indeed, it couldn't be there), the massless beam theory fails. Ergo we're back to discussing the observed properties with no real mechanism for the overall.

And who said that the beam theory claimed that massless beams did not have recoil? The recoil is obviously not visibly apparent. The ships are massive enough to absorb incoming fire without visibly rocking, so it stands to reason that their own gunfire would not noticably rock the vessel with incident momentum.

The recoil doesn't have to be readily apparent at the gun barrels to be present. If the turrets are bolted straight onto the hull, the momentum would be quickly distributed into the endostructure of the ship, and not necessarily be visible. Afterall, we already know due to momentum that shield generators must be similarly braced and we've observed them absorbing fire with momentum and not producing visible movement. So the assumption that the recoil must be readily visible is unjustified.

So those tiny walker-artillery peices are as massive as starships? I'm referring to those, as they're what you made the calc's of, and where we should see recoil.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And the compensation system, that I have shown does exist, couldn't be doing that? Please, take your righteous attitude and shove it up your ass.

First of all, why would your fabricated "compensation system" remove 99.9% of the recoil, and leave just enough visible for the initial slide? Why would the "compensation system" force the gun backward against the recoil force while the gun was still firing?

A sliding barrel consistent with the recoil force of the destructive beam will NOT RETURN TO ITS NORMAL POSITION WHILE THE GUN IS FIRING.

This explanation is needlessly complex.

Yes, several frames after the shot begins but several frames before the visible portion hits, damage occours. No one's suggested otherwise. However, this can equally be addressed by hypothesizing the bolt is bigger than the visible core we see.

No, the trajectory of the shot changes but remains on-axis with the source. This is not consistent with a turning independent projectile, but is consistent with a swiveling beam.

Just what is your utter derision for the c-propogating beam theory, anyway, Martin? You disliked it way back in discussions before its current incarnation was even explained.

Show me an object moving at a speed my eyes can track, and I will be naturally suspicious of someone telling me it's moving at the speed of light.

Correction accepted, however. I apologize for the mixup.

You know, you don't have to be an asshole at every possible exchange. I'm just being short with your friend above because he's being obtuse.

We have a second-only-to-canon source that says TLs travel at c. We observe bolt behavior consistent with it simply being part of an invisible beam swiveling. You admit the possibility of invisible destructive components of which the bolt is only part of. And most importantly, that same second-only-to-canon source tells us that there is a beam, and the bolt is only a small part of it.

Sorry, but if you can reconcile to contain ALL the evidence, you should. And you're disregarding it in favor of a more simplistic view of things. And sorry, you can't call parsimony when it means NOT ACCOUNTING for canon that can be. Rationalization is always before dismissal.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So those tiny walker-artillery peices are as massive as starships? I'm referring to those, as they're what you made the calc's of, and where we should see recoil.

I did not calculate the predicted newtons of force, Saxton did. And he wasn't disturbed by it even though he's the one who is the principle proponent of beam theory.

The recoil force implied by a beam of this power is on the order of 4×1014 N, a horrendous and almost incredible magnitude for a vehicle of this size. It's enough to propel a million-ton object with an acceleration of 40000G, or a 2km wide iron ball at 1G. This is a severe problem. One possible solution would be a principle like that of a “recoilless rifle”: a mechanism that applies an equal counterforce, e.g. a harmless neutrino counter-beam firing in the opposite direction. Otherwise, the gun requires some form of extensive force-field anchorage to the surrounding terrain (perhaps akin to the tensor fields and inertial compensators that hold an accelerating starship together). The way walkers and troops leave areas of clear ground behind a SPHA-T may be a clue to where the recoil pressure is distributed.

[Illuminatus Primus]

At the unfortunate cost of triple-posting, I'd also like to point out the recoilless rifle theory has been proposed for the Death Star and other superlaser platforms before by others.

[SirNitram]

First, I'll snicker at your initial post. I don't need to be an asshole, no, but I don't need to show you a lick of respect for immediately starting a rant about how dare I not agree with you in the past. I don't need to show you a lick of respect period, and I feel no real desire to. So I won't. Too bad for you if you dislike this.

And don't try and paint yourself as inclusive. You're the guy who shrieks at the idea of including the official data which limits the number of SD's produced to the tens of thousands. Indeed, even in this we can't even be as inclusive as you try to paint it: All the evidence would include previous sources which claimed the bolts were plasma.

As for the recoilless option, yes, I heard similar for the Superlaser platforms, but they carry vastly more mass to help, along with all sorts of options like engines to fire in the other direction.

Now we hit the idea of it being compensated. A possibility, yes.. Except we run into the claim that a system that takes a moment to warm up, in your post above it, is impossible and overly complex. And yes, the explanation for the barrel sliding back and then sliding back up could be as simple as the compensator taking a moment.

Now. In a related note, does anyone have any gif's or movie files of Slave I's barrage? I may be able to fashion one, but it'd be great if anyone has one laying around.

[Darth Wong]

Anyone who is concerned with recoil in any way, shape, or form should naturally gravitate toward a massless particle explanation for the obvious reason that it will produce less recoil for any given amount of energy.

As for the other problems, it is quite obvious that there is no "perfect" theory of SW beam weapon operation. But it is also obvious that any theory which completely ignores the explicit "massless particle" statement in an officially sanctioned movie-related SW source is not making a sufficient attempt to rationalize it. It's not as if "plasma bolt" theories don't suffer from massive problems of their own, not least of which is the problem of explaining why a plasmoid would have a large invisible damage-causing fringe whose size varies from bolt to bolt.

[Kamakazie Sith]

First of all, why would your fabricated "compensation system" remove 99.9% of the recoil, and leave just enough visible for the initial slide? Why would the "compensation system" force the gun backward against the recoil force while the gun was still firing?

Okay, now that does piss me off. It's not fabricated, do you know why? Because it is apart of canon, which I was kind enough to quote.

And your explanation is that it is ejecting waste from the last firing cycle. Why would they wait till the next firing cycle to eject the waste?

A sliding barrel consistent with the recoil force of the destructive beam will NOT RETURN TO ITS NORMAL POSITION WHILE THE GUN IS FIRING.

This explanation is needlessly complex.

Perhaps it is. I'll take a moment to review everything.

[SirNitram]

Anyone who is concerned with recoil in any way, shape, or form should naturally gravitate toward a massless particle explanation for the obvious reason that it will produce less recoil for any given amount of energy.

As for the other problems, it is quite obvious that there is no "perfect" theory of SW beam weapon operation. But it is also obvious that any theory which completely ignores the explicit "massless particle" statement in an officially sanctioned movie-related SW source is not making a sufficient attempt to rationalize it. It's not as if "plasma bolt" theories don't suffer from massive problems of their own, not least of which is the problem of explaining why a plasmoid would have a large invisible damage-causing fringe whose size varies from bolt to bolt.

Well, they act like massless, sublight, homing blobs of highly energetic something, with the thermal damage coming before the visible part but not when the trigger is depressed. Having discussed such an impossible thing, it's now time for breakfast at Milliways.

[Illuminatus Primus]

First, I'll snicker at your initial post. I don't need to be an asshole, no, but I don't need to show you a lick of respect for immediately starting a rant about how dare I not agree with you in the past. I don't need to show you a lick of respect period, and I feel no real desire to. So I won't. Too bad for you if you dislike this.

Talk about stretching the diction. I said I didn't understand why you'd never liked the idea - and I certainly did not mean agreeing with me personally; you were already debating it with others before Mad or Mike or Kaz or anyone explained it, and certainly before I argued it with you at all. Don't assume I'm personalizing everything, Martin.

And don't try and paint yourself as inclusive. You're the guy who shrieks at the idea of including the official data which limits the number of SD's produced to the tens of thousands.

And how is this relevent to anything? This isn't about how inclusive I AM. I didn't even develop this theory, I'm just a proponent. Mad developed it in its current form, and what matters is that the theory is most inclusive, not whether you or I am.

Indeed, even in this we can't even be as inclusive as you try to paint it: All the evidence would include previous sources which claimed the bolts were plasma.

Yes, but who said all of them were the same? Kaz, Mad, Mike, and most people who agree with the massless beam theory awknowledge it only works for larger emplacements. Smaller weapons, especially small arms, cannot be massless beams, and this is usually where projectile and plasma quotes refer.

As for the recoilless option, yes, I heard similar for the Superlaser platforms, but they carry vastly more mass to help, along with all sorts of options like engines to fire in the other direction.

Now we hit the idea of it being compensated. A possibility, yes.. Except we run into the claim that a system that takes a moment to warm up, in your post above it, is impossible and overly complex. And yes, the explanation for the barrel sliding back and then sliding back up could be as simple as the compensator taking a moment.

Which is absurd. The compensator can absorb nearly all of the recoil, then fights the recoil to return the barrel to the start position? Its irrational. And its more complex than, say, "the barrel slides back with the expulsion of waste gases, while much heavier mechanisms handle the beam's recoil itself."

Now. In a related note, does anyone have any gif's or movie files of Slave I's barrage? I may be able to fashion one, but it'd be great if anyone has one laying around.

And this all or nothing attitude came from where? Maybe if you had the literacy or attention you had been yapping about earlier, you'd be able to use that search button to find that Mad had hypothesized about seperate types of "bolt" or "projectile" based weaponry, in addition to the c-propogating "beam" weaponry.

[Darth Wong]

Well, they act like massless, sublight, homing blobs of highly energetic something, with the thermal damage coming before the visible part but not when the trigger is depressed. Having discussed such an impossible thing, it's now time for breakfast at Milliways.

What the fuck does this "trigger is depressed" shit have to do with anything? The point here is that while a somewhat variable multi-stage particle decay and delay process is clunky, it still works better than a self-confining fluid blob with an invisible leader that is sometimes present and sometimes not.