How did the AT AT's breach the shield

[Khaat]

you cant prove that alderaan had a shield

You have substantially defined this such that in order to "prove it", you want "a canon statement saying so." That isn't proving a point, that's sourcing it.

************ (you can ignore everything past this, it isn't germane to discussion of shields in Star Wars.) ***************

That also isn't in the spirit of this board: We don't waste time discussing "Is his name Luke?", we waste it on crap like "why does Leia have memories ('feelings, really', 'beautiful, but sad' - RotJ) of her mother, when Padme died so soon after the twins' birth? (as shown in RotS)"

We (generalizing; there will be exceptions) also hold a certain degree of what triggered your pet peeve: there are things commonly accepted by many of us here as being reasonable conclusions that aren't sourced, but derived from observation. They make sense, canon is silent on the matter; they don't break canon. I'm not aware of anyone here holding these conclusions equal to or superior to canon (as you eventually reached in your fevered pitch, before being pulled off that ledge.)

As to this, I have to express concern: I don't think you will enjoy your time here, if your personal standards of proof do not allow for reasoning based on observation, only sourcing.

Completely Pointless Aside: Unless there are some special cut-outs (dunno, haven't seen the deal), Disney* owns LucasFilm, LucasFilm holds the rights to the films, thus Disney (not Lucas) holds the rights to the films. Disney can re-release the 1977 Star Wars film, the 1997 Special Edition Star Wars film, or the 2004 DVD Star Wars film, or any combination they like. This would put LucasFilm's copyright sunset at 2072 for Star Wars (the 1977 theatrical release and all derivative re-releases, special editions, and alterations of that film).

*Neat story there: Disney lobbied for the longer duration of entertainment rights (1976 Act), while all other intellectual property rights protection (say, design or medical patents) expires after only 20 years from original filing date. The 1909 Act gave the author 28 years from first published date (renewable, for up to 56 years total protection - enough to probably last the rest of the author's life), the 1976 Act gives 28 years from first published date (with a +67 years renewal available from the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act), copyrights obtained between 12/31/76 and 12/31/77 get an automatic extension to a total of 95 years. Not necessarily benefiting authors so much as undying corporations (like Disney).
source: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

[texanmarauder]

You have substantially defined this such that in order to "prove it", you want "a canon statement saying so." That isn't proving a point, that's sourcing it.

forget the source and "canon statement" as you put it. you said

The general weapon/shield effect had been witnessed already at that point: when the Tantive IV was being chased, right after the opening scroll. Unless you hypothesize a reason the visual effects of a planetary shield/weapon interaction wouldn't look the same?

yet it has been established that the superlaser is not your run of the mill turbolaser or at all alike. we have seen many shield interactions with the tantive iv, the millennium falcon, hell, even fighters from the prequels. the shield interactions look nothing like what we saw in the original version of alderaan getting destroyed. in fact, not one time has that kind of interaction been seen since. take the falcon in ESB. the shield interaction shows up as round green/white bursts and usually at some distance from the hull itself. or the blasters from a TIE hitting lukes X-wing in ANH where there is no shield interaction at all. you based your reasoning on the shield interactions of the devastator and tantive iv yet in those two situations the interactions were nothing alike.

That also isn't in the spirit of this board: We don't waste time discussing "Is his name Luke?", we waste it on crap like "why does Leia have memories ('feelings, really', 'beautiful, but sad' - RotJ) of her mother, when Padme died so soon after the twins' birth? (as shown in RotS)"

believe it or not, I do a lot of that too.

We (generalizing; there will be exceptions) also hold a certain degree of what triggered your pet peeve: there are things commonly accepted by many of us here as being reasonable conclusions that aren't sourced, but derived from observation. They make sense, canon is silent on the matter; they don't break canon. I'm not aware of anyone here holding these conclusions equal to or superior to canon (as you eventually reached in your fevered pitch, before being pulled off that ledge.)

I have no problem with that. I myself do that quite often. but I make sure to point out that its my opinion, not try to push it off as written in stone. after all, everybody had different opinions. some may agree, some may disagree, but then that's kind of the point of debating isn't it? and then, of course, you have people that go out of their way to treat people that disagree with them like shit. kinda like putting in tiny font size just to piss somebody off? whats the point to acting like an ass? wise man (dr nephew) say, just because you CAN do a thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that you SHOULD do that thing.

Completely Pointless Aside: snip This would put LucasFilm's copyright sunset at 2072 for Star Wars (the 1977 theatrical release and all derivative re-releases, special editions, and alterations of that film).

*Neat story there: Disney lobbied for snip

you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about copyright. I was talking about distribution rights. physical and digital. "In 2012, The Walt Disney Company bought Lucasfilm for $4.06 billion and earned the distribution rights to all subsequent Star Wars films, beginning with the release of The Force Awakens in 2015.[8] The former distributor, 20th Century Fox, retains the physical distribution rights for the first two Star Wars trilogies, owns permanent rights for the original 1977 film and continues to hold the rights for the prequel trilogy and the first two sequels to A New Hope until May 2020.[9][10] Walt Disney Studios owns digital distribution rights to all the Star Wars films, excluding A New Hope.[10][11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars ... al_trilogy so actually, its fox. not lucas.

[Khaat]

it has been established that the superlaser is not your run of the mill turbolaser or at all alike

a) When did that happen? Are you now taking in-universe history as a whole, or are you sticking to your previous "real-world release dates" framing? Either way, you're wrong. I again recommend you avoid absolutes: tubolasers and superlasers are very much alike: they are sub-lightspeed beam-like weapons of a common technology-based origin in-universe where only the scale and power of the superlaser weapon is remarked as significant (and the specific means of achieving that power are a plot device, i.e., kyber crystals). Also: they blow shit up when they hit, like the shielded Tantive IV. Leia readily accepts that the Death Star is capable of harming Alderaan: she is neither incredulous to Takin's claim, nor dismissive. In 1977 she believes they can do it: the audience was told in the opening scroll that the DS can. Of course with Rogue One we know she has already seen a demonstration on Scarif before escaping.
b) You've done this a couple of times, now: "It has been established..." when nothing of the kind has. I find it odd that you want others to call out their opinion for you, but skip right past any qualifying language yourself and outright claim a status beyond doubt for your own. At the very least, it's lazy writing; at worst, it's a lie.

point out that its my opinion, not try to push it off as written in stone

So you want everyone to post with "my opinion" flags so you can't misunderstand, but it has to be short. And lack any prose. Or ridicule. I have to tell you: I don't see that happening. As to the second half of your quote, see b), above. It's leaning hard toward "lie".

One of the common invitations for new posters is "read the boards for a while, learn the culture before posting." Granted, they don't include the would-be-useful follow-up statement of "the vs-related stuff is generally considered settled, we have found our opinions pretty much fixed, so don't think you've got a magic bullet that others missed for over 20 years."

kinda like putting in tiny font size just to piss somebody off?

I included it to better identify this board's culture for you. I made it small so a casual reader who has grown tired of us going back and forth can just skip over it (as if they don't already ) and maybe save you some embarrassment. I'd have used a spoiler tag, but I'd already used a quote, so a spoiler wouldn't work. And I'll add this: we have members for whom English is a second (or third or more) language. That's why I asked: English is a language of exceptions, so if a poster's language doesn't say what they mean to say (by the manner in which they frame a post or follow-up), or they don't appear to understand what I have written, I want to know why. I can thus make allowances, and adjust my own writing to avoid unintentionally creating pitfalls for them: [sarcasm] just my way of being a bigger dick [/sarcasm].

More irrelevant crap: Copyright (ownership of intellectual property) isn't distribution rights. Distribution rights for movies are like publishing rights for books: the author (or in this case film-owner) must distribute through the distribution rights holder, they can't shop it to another distributor (for a better deal). Copyright expires, and the subject becomes public domain. Again, I'm not privy to the specific deal here: the distributor may retain (sales-driven?) marketing prerogative to re-release, they'd just owe the copyright holder whatever they were obligated to pay them if and when they did. Otherwise: irrelevant crap is irrelevant to this discussion.

[texanmarauder]

tubolasers and superlasers are very much alike: they are sub-lightspeed beam-like weapons of a common technology-based origin in-universe where only the scale and power of the superlaser weapon is remarked as significant (and the specific means of achieving that power are a plot device, i.e., kyber crystals). Also: they blow shit up when they hit, like the shielded Tantive IV.

let me rephrase. you are right that I sometimes do not correctly articulate what I am trying to say. turbolasers are to a .22 rifle as the superlaser is to a .50 caliber sniper rifle using anti-tank rounds. the basic principle might be the same, but that's about it. the superlaser uses composite beams and is many magnitutes more powerful, more focused due to the kyber crystal, and has an actual beam rather than a bolt like your ordinary turbolaser. one would think it had more in common with a lightsaber, which doesn't require tibanna gas to increase the power. plus, the range on the superlaser far exceeds any conventional turbolaser. another thing, according to the novel "rogue one catalyst", using the superlaser actually drains the kyber crystals, inferring that the laser is literally powered by the crystals instead of just focusing them.

[Rhadamantus]

The beam is just an extended bolt, and it doesn't have a longer range.

[texanmarauder]

The beam is just an extended bolt, and it doesn't have a longer range.

but it is a beam and does have a much longer range. in the movie you see it fire from well outside of high orbit in a continuous beam, not an extended bolt. the beam is also shown in rogue one. cap ships only have an effective range in triple digits at best. alderaan was at least 3 or 4 planet diameters from the death star. that's roughly 40,000km+ easily. even legends gives 2 million+ km range.

[Rhadamantus]

The beam is just an extended bolt, and it doesn't have a longer range.

but it is a beam and does have a much longer range. in the movie you see it fire from well outside of high orbit in a continuous beam, not an extended bolt. the beam is also shown in rogue one. cap ships only have an effective range in triple digits at best. alderaan was at least 3 or 4 planet diameters from the death star. that's roughly 40,000km+ easily. even legends gives 2 million+ km range.

Do you understand the difference between a beam and a bolt?
Star Destroyers have multimillion kilometer range, they engage at closer range because of unique circumstances and high acceleration.

[texanmarauder]

Do you understand the difference between a beam and a bolt?
Star Destroyers have multimillion kilometer range, they engage at closer range because of unique circumstances and high acceleration.

I'm not sure you do. the superlaser is obviously a beam. hell, during the first battle of geonosis, the LAATs had pods that used small composite beam weapons and those weren't bolts either. and that range is bullshit. they have never engaged at that range. or even close to a small fraction of that range. hell, they have never been seen to fire at a target more than10-20km tops, unless you count blanketing an entire area from orbit like in SWR zero hour. so how do you get multimillion kilometers? whats your source?

[CetaMan]

Here's a related question. Given that a beam is not instant (still takes time to reach target), if the distance is sufficient and a beam is cut off before the leading end of it hits the target, Is the portion still approaching the target a beam, or a large bolt?

[Rhadamantus]

Do you understand the difference between a beam and a bolt?
Star Destroyers have multimillion kilometer range, they engage at closer range because of unique circumstances and high acceleration.

I'm not sure you do. the superlaser is obviously a beam. hell, during the first battle of geonosis, the LAATs had pods that used small composite beam weapons and those weren't bolts either. and that range is bullshit. they have never engaged at that range. or even close to a small fraction of that range. hell, they have never been seen to fire at a target more than10-20km tops, unless you count blanketing an entire area from orbit like in SWR zero hour. so how do you get multimillion kilometers? whats your source?

The ICS, which gives ranges that large. Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable. It wouldn't be useful against something that could dodge (i.e, not a planet), given 4000g accelerations. You would expect about 10Mm ranges. However, most space battles we see take place in low orbit over a specific objective, which makes ships come much closer.

[texanmarauder]

Here's a related question. Given that a beam is not instant (still takes time to reach target), if the distance is sufficient and a beam is cut off before the leading end of it hits the target, Is the portion still approaching the target a beam, or a large bolt?

that's a good question. the point I was making was that its not just a short burst like your standard turbolaser. it actually has to build up to a beam from the tributary beams. but that is something to think about.

[Galvatron]

Have we reached consensus yet?

[texanmarauder]

The ICS, which gives ranges that large. Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable. It wouldn't be useful against something that could dodge (i.e, not a planet), given 4000g accelerations. You would expect about 10Mm ranges. However, most space battles we see take place in low orbit over a specific objective, which makes ships come much closer.

I figured it would be something like that. the ICS isn't even canon anymore and their super inflated figures are ridiculous even to most star wars fans. for that matter, IIRC they weren't even canon for the films. I wouldn't use them as a source.

Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable.

the nature of their weapons? you mean the much slower than light bolts of plasma fired from manually targeted weapons requiring line of sight from naked eyeball visual range (as is the case with most ship mounted turbolasers) ? no, that's not even close to reasonable. that's like trying to hit a NASA lunar excursion module that's sitting on the moon from earth with a slingshot. plus their targeting system couldn't even reliably hit a stationary shielded target from orbit. they blanketed the area instead of focusing on the shield (SWR "zero hour") the bolts might, MIGHT stay cohesive for a few thousand kilometers, but millions is absurd.

[Rhadamantus]

The ICS, which gives ranges that large. Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable. It wouldn't be useful against something that could dodge (i.e, not a planet), given 4000g accelerations. You would expect about 10Mm ranges. However, most space battles we see take place in low orbit over a specific objective, which makes ships come much closer.

I figured it would be something like that. the ICS isn't even canon anymore and their super inflated figures are ridiculous even to most star wars fans. for that matter, IIRC they weren't even canon for the films. I wouldn't use them as a source.

Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable.

the nature of their weapons? you mean the much slower than light bolts of plasma fired from manually targeted weapons requiring line of sight from naked eyeball visual range (as is the case with most ship mounted turbolasers) ? no, that's not even close to reasonable. that's like trying to hit a NASA lunar excursion module that's sitting on the moon from earth with a slingshot. plus their targeting system couldn't even reliably hit a stationary shielded target from orbit. they blanketed the area instead of focusing on the shield (SWR "zero hour") the bolts might, MIGHT stay cohesive for a few thousand kilometers, but millions is absurd.

There is no evidence that they decohere, and a planet is a very large target. I am not claiming that they can accurately hit ships at light-minute range. I am pointing out that the evidence is that they can hit an entirely stationary planet from a range that no source has contradicted.

[texanmarauder]

The ICS, which gives ranges that large. Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable. It wouldn't be useful against something that could dodge (i.e, not a planet), given 4000g accelerations. You would expect about 10Mm ranges. However, most space battles we see take place in low orbit over a specific objective, which makes ships come much closer.

I figured it would be something like that. the ICS isn't even canon anymore and their super inflated figures are ridiculous even to most star wars fans. for that matter, IIRC they weren't even canon for the films. I wouldn't use them as a source.

Given the nature of their weapons, that's reasonable.

the nature of their weapons? you mean the much slower than light bolts of plasma fired from manually targeted weapons requiring line of sight from naked eyeball visual range (as is the case with most ship mounted turbolasers) ? no, that's not even close to reasonable. that's like trying to hit a NASA lunar excursion module that's sitting on the moon from earth with a slingshot. plus their targeting system couldn't even reliably hit a stationary shielded target from orbit. they blanketed the area instead of focusing on the shield (SWR "zero hour") the bolts might, MIGHT stay cohesive for a few thousand kilometers, but millions is absurd.

There is no evidence that they decohere, and a planet is a very large target. I am not claiming that they can accurately hit ships at light-minute range. I am pointing out that the evidence is that they can hit an entirely stationary planet from a range that no source has contradicted.

plasma, the commonly accepted nature of turbolasers, is not self sustaining. therefore it cant travel very far without cooling and condensing into a gas. plus, the "plasma" is only coherent due to the magnetic jacket that gets wrapped around the bolt before it leaves the barrel. think that magnetic jacket is self sustaining? also nope. therefore common sense says that they have to have a very limited range before losing cohesion. so maybe 1 or 2 thousand km depending on how quickly the plasma cools and the jacket lasts? I know that the venator class weapons didn't have that range. that was shown in SWTCW episode "rising malevolence". plo'koon's ship, the triumphant, couldn't even target the malevolence from naked eye visual range, which isn't even in the 4 digit km range. the officer, after being told to fire, states that "we aren't in range yet". so either they aren't capable of targeting at that range, or the weapons have no effect at that range. either one absolutely debunks the ICS ranges. so much for not having a contradictory source. and again, weapons that are primarily aimed manually aren't gonna be able to see, much less hit, even a stationary target at those ludicrous ranges. so there is no evidence that they can hit anything at those ranges aside from a source book that was written almost 2 decades ago by a star wars debater that was more concerned with creating more ammunition in his versus debates than actually being any kind of accurate.

[Rhadamantus]

I figured it would be something like that. the ICS isn't even canon anymore and their super inflated figures are ridiculous even to most star wars fans. for that matter, IIRC they weren't even canon for the films. I wouldn't use them as a source.

the nature of their weapons? you mean the much slower than light bolts of plasma fired from manually targeted weapons requiring line of sight from naked eyeball visual range (as is the case with most ship mounted turbolasers) ? no, that's not even close to reasonable. that's like trying to hit a NASA lunar excursion module that's sitting on the moon from earth with a slingshot. plus their targeting system couldn't even reliably hit a stationary shielded target from orbit. they blanketed the area instead of focusing on the shield (SWR "zero hour") the bolts might, MIGHT stay cohesive for a few thousand kilometers, but millions is absurd.

There is no evidence that they decohere, and a planet is a very large target. I am not claiming that they can accurately hit ships at light-minute range. I am pointing out that the evidence is that they can hit an entirely stationary planet from a range that no source has contradicted.

plasma, the commonly accepted nature of turbolasers, is not self sustaining. therefore it cant travel very far without cooling and condensing into a gas. plus, the "plasma" is only coherent due to the magnetic jacket that gets wrapped around the bolt before it leaves the barrel. think that magnetic jacket is self sustaining? also nope. therefore common sense says that they have to have a very limited range before losing cohesion. so maybe 1 or 2 thousand km depending on how quickly the plasma cools and the jacket lasts? I know that the venator class weapons didn't have that range. that was shown in SWTCW episode "rising malevolence". plo'koon's ship, the triumphant, couldn't even target the malevolence from naked eye visual range, which isn't even in the 4 digit km range. the officer, after being told to fire, states that "we aren't in range yet". so either they aren't capable of targeting at that range, or the weapons have no effect at that range. either one absolutely debunks the ICS ranges. so much for not having a contradictory source. and again, weapons that are primarily aimed manually aren't gonna be able to see, much less hit, even a stationary target at those ludicrous ranges. so there is no evidence that they can hit anything at those ranges aside from a source book that was written almost 2 decades ago by a star wars debater that was more concerned with creating more ammunition in his versus debates than actually being any kind of accurate.

A. The range at which you can fire and the range at which you can hit something can be different.
B. Turbolasers are not plasma weapons

Turbolasers

Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid. However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:

Turbolaser bolts glow visibly even in vacuum. Since lasers don't radiate energy away from their direction of travel, the bolts can't be lasers.
Turbolaser cannons have physical holes at the ends of their barrels. Since a laser should have a lens at its end, this indicates that some physical object is exiting the barrel.
Damage effects occasionally precede the impact of the visible portion of the bolt, which means that the bolts have an invisible portion. The visible portion may represent a second stage of the weapon, or it may represent a form of "tracer".
The visible portion of a turbolaser bolt travels at distinctly subluminal speed even in vacuum. Since light travels at c in vacuum, the bolts can't be lasers.
The invisible portion of the bolt outraces the visible portion by a miniscule margin if at all, so it also cannot be a laser.
Turbolaser bolts do not appear to be affected by gravity, as demonstrated when multiple shots were fired in low orbit over Tatooine (so low that Luke Skywalker was able to see the battle through his binoculars). Given the relatively low propagation velocity, we should have been able to detect gravitational effects. The same is true of ground and airspeeder blasters.
Some of the visible portion of a turbolaser bolt can be affected by gravity, as demonstrated by the green discharge falling toward the Death Star in the picture above. This indicates that the characteristics of the luminous green material vary depending on its proximity to the bolt; if it's in the bolt, then it is unaffected by gravity, but if it is too far from the bolt, then it behaves like normal gas.
Turbolaser bolts are capable of detonating with a "flak effect" at a predetermined range, as demonstrated by ISD fire in TESB (against the Falcon) and AT-AT anti-aircraft fire.
Turbolaser bolts have a distinct shape and contour, with internal variations in luminosity. Each bolt contains a bright "pulse" in its head that is similar to the pulses that were seen moving down the Death Star superlaser tributary beams, as well as the main beam.
Turbolaser propagation speed is not fixed. Heavy turbolaser blasts in ROTJ travelled much more quickly than light turbolaser shots in ANH and TESB, and the Death Star superlaser propagated at an even higher rate.
Turbolaser colour does not change with time and distance, ie- the bolt does not fade or change its colour spectrum as it moves through space.
Turbolaser bolts can have significant momentum, as demonstrated by a turbolaser impact on the Millenium Falcon's aft quarter in TESB as well as the cannon recoil observed whenever we see close-ups of the guns in operation.
There is very little variation in turbolaser colour. The colour of a TIE fighter blast is not noticeably different than the colour of the Death Star superlaser. If variation does occur, it does not occur in a continuous fashion, ie- there is no smooth spectrum. All bolts appear to be either red or green, with no points in between. This suggests that the colour of the bolt has nothing to do with its power level and may in fact be an arbitrary, deliberate choice, which would be in keeping with the "tracer" idea.

This combination of attributes seems to be rather self-contradictory. The bolts cannot possibly be lasers for various reasons. but they also cannot be conventional particle beams, because they aren't affected by gravity. The characteristics of the visible and invisible portions of the bolts must be very similar in both regards, since the invisible portion rarely outraces the visible portion and there is no apparent divergence between the visible and invisible portions when the weapons are fired in a gravity well. And finally, they can't be plasmoids trapped in self-generated "moving magnetic containment bottles" as some have suggested, because not only is there no known mechanism to create such a phenomenon, but damage effects can sometimes precede the visible portion of the bolt by a dozen metres or more, while a containment bottle would prevent interaction until the moment the visible bolt impacts on the target. As heretical as it may seem, we seem to be left with only a handful of explanations:

The bolts are composed of massless particles which move at subluminal speed, even though no such particle has ever been observed or even theorized to exist. Some of these particles would presumably radiate light in the visible spectrum while others would radiate light well out of the visible spectrum. The visible gas is most likely a simple "tracer", and it is generated through an entirely separate mechanism in the cannon, so a damaged or poorly maintained cannon might fail to properly synchronize the visible and invisible portions of the bolt, hence causing the rare "preceding damage" effect. However, this wouldn't explain the fact that excess visible gas is affected by gravity when it leaks from the gun barrels (see the picture at the top of this page).
There is a peculiar characteristic of the bolt which counteracts gravity in its immediate area. This would presumably be some sort of moving field effect, albeit one of unknown mechanism. It is hard to even imagine what could possibly cause this, so it seems rather unlikely.
There is a physical projectile in the centre of each bolt which incorporates gravity cancellation technology, and which damages the target through some sort of invisible field effect (ZPF?) which extends ahead of the projectile itself. It would presumably be "charged" by the cannon as part of the firing process, hence the high power requirements, it would leak luminous waste gas in flight (either by chance or by design), and its waste gases would lose their luminosity as they fall away from the projectile, hence the drop-off in luminosity as you move away from the core of the bolt. An occasional projectile might be "out of spec" or over-charged by the cannon, resulting in an unusually large damage field and the rare "preceding damage" effect. Of course, the most obvious criticism of this theory is that we have never observed even the slightest hint of such a projectile, and it introduces extra mechanisms, extra entities, and extra questions, so Occam's Razor looks rather unfavourably upon the idea.
The bolts are composed of light-speed particles which move in a very tight helix, so their forward propagation rate is distinctly subluminal.

The first theory seems like the best one (one could even rationalize the apparent sublight velocity if necessary, by suggesting that light-speed massless particles are moving in a helical coil around the turbolaser's axis of movement due to some exotic effect, thus maintaining c while appearing to move slower than light; a tight coil would shorten the range before the helical effect fails and you get a "flak burst", while a straight beam would move at c and never flak-burst). There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to rule out any of these theories (although the third one is rather tenuous). However, at this point, it is clearly easier to say what turbolasers are not, as opposed to saying what they are. They are not lasers. They are not particle beams. They are not plasmoids.

[Rhadamantus]

I figured it would be something like that. the ICS isn't even canon anymore and their super inflated figures are ridiculous even to most star wars fans. for that matter, IIRC they weren't even canon for the films. I wouldn't use them as a source.

the nature of their weapons? you mean the much slower than light bolts of plasma fired from manually targeted weapons requiring line of sight from naked eyeball visual range (as is the case with most ship mounted turbolasers) ? no, that's not even close to reasonable. that's like trying to hit a NASA lunar excursion module that's sitting on the moon from earth with a slingshot. plus their targeting system couldn't even reliably hit a stationary shielded target from orbit. they blanketed the area instead of focusing on the shield (SWR "zero hour") the bolts might, MIGHT stay cohesive for a few thousand kilometers, but millions is absurd.

There is no evidence that they decohere, and a planet is a very large target. I am not claiming that they can accurately hit ships at light-minute range. I am pointing out that the evidence is that they can hit an entirely stationary planet from a range that no source has contradicted.

plasma, the commonly accepted nature of turbolasers, is not self sustaining. therefore it cant travel very far without cooling and condensing into a gas. plus, the "plasma" is only coherent due to the magnetic jacket that gets wrapped around the bolt before it leaves the barrel. think that magnetic jacket is self sustaining? also nope. therefore common sense says that they have to have a very limited range before losing cohesion. so maybe 1 or 2 thousand km depending on how quickly the plasma cools and the jacket lasts? I know that the venator class weapons didn't have that range. that was shown in SWTCW episode "rising malevolence". plo'koon's ship, the triumphant, couldn't even target the malevolence from naked eye visual range, which isn't even in the 4 digit km range. the officer, after being told to fire, states that "we aren't in range yet". so either they aren't capable of targeting at that range, or the weapons have no effect at that range. either one absolutely debunks the ICS ranges. so much for not having a contradictory source. and again, weapons that are primarily aimed manually aren't gonna be able to see, much less hit, even a stationary target at those ludicrous ranges. so there is no evidence that they can hit anything at those ranges aside from a source book that was written almost 2 decades ago by a star wars debater that was more concerned with creating more ammunition in his versus debates than actually being any kind of accurate.

A. The range at which you can fire and the range at which you can hit something can be different.
B. Turbolasers are not plasma weapons

Turbolasers

Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid. However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:

Turbolaser bolts glow visibly even in vacuum. Since lasers don't radiate energy away from their direction of travel, the bolts can't be lasers.
Turbolaser cannons have physical holes at the ends of their barrels. Since a laser should have a lens at its end, this indicates that some physical object is exiting the barrel.
Damage effects occasionally precede the impact of the visible portion of the bolt, which means that the bolts have an invisible portion. The visible portion may represent a second stage of the weapon, or it may represent a form of "tracer".
The visible portion of a turbolaser bolt travels at distinctly subluminal speed even in vacuum. Since light travels at c in vacuum, the bolts can't be lasers.
The invisible portion of the bolt outraces the visible portion by a miniscule margin if at all, so it also cannot be a laser.
Turbolaser bolts do not appear to be affected by gravity, as demonstrated when multiple shots were fired in low orbit over Tatooine (so low that Luke Skywalker was able to see the battle through his binoculars). Given the relatively low propagation velocity, we should have been able to detect gravitational effects. The same is true of ground and airspeeder blasters.
Some of the visible portion of a turbolaser bolt can be affected by gravity, as demonstrated by the green discharge falling toward the Death Star in the picture above. This indicates that the characteristics of the luminous green material vary depending on its proximity to the bolt; if it's in the bolt, then it is unaffected by gravity, but if it is too far from the bolt, then it behaves like normal gas.
Turbolaser bolts are capable of detonating with a "flak effect" at a predetermined range, as demonstrated by ISD fire in TESB (against the Falcon) and AT-AT anti-aircraft fire.
Turbolaser bolts have a distinct shape and contour, with internal variations in luminosity. Each bolt contains a bright "pulse" in its head that is similar to the pulses that were seen moving down the Death Star superlaser tributary beams, as well as the main beam.
Turbolaser propagation speed is not fixed. Heavy turbolaser blasts in ROTJ travelled much more quickly than light turbolaser shots in ANH and TESB, and the Death Star superlaser propagated at an even higher rate.
Turbolaser colour does not change with time and distance, ie- the bolt does not fade or change its colour spectrum as it moves through space.
Turbolaser bolts can have significant momentum, as demonstrated by a turbolaser impact on the Millenium Falcon's aft quarter in TESB as well as the cannon recoil observed whenever we see close-ups of the guns in operation.
There is very little variation in turbolaser colour. The colour of a TIE fighter blast is not noticeably different than the colour of the Death Star superlaser. If variation does occur, it does not occur in a continuous fashion, ie- there is no smooth spectrum. All bolts appear to be either red or green, with no points in between. This suggests that the colour of the bolt has nothing to do with its power level and may in fact be an arbitrary, deliberate choice, which would be in keeping with the "tracer" idea.

This combination of attributes seems to be rather self-contradictory. The bolts cannot possibly be lasers for various reasons. but they also cannot be conventional particle beams, because they aren't affected by gravity. The characteristics of the visible and invisible portions of the bolts must be very similar in both regards, since the invisible portion rarely outraces the visible portion and there is no apparent divergence between the visible and invisible portions when the weapons are fired in a gravity well. And finally, they can't be plasmoids trapped in self-generated "moving magnetic containment bottles" as some have suggested, because not only is there no known mechanism to create such a phenomenon, but damage effects can sometimes precede the visible portion of the bolt by a dozen metres or more, while a containment bottle would prevent interaction until the moment the visible bolt impacts on the target. As heretical as it may seem, we seem to be left with only a handful of explanations:

The bolts are composed of massless particles which move at subluminal speed, even though no such particle has ever been observed or even theorized to exist. Some of these particles would presumably radiate light in the visible spectrum while others would radiate light well out of the visible spectrum. The visible gas is most likely a simple "tracer", and it is generated through an entirely separate mechanism in the cannon, so a damaged or poorly maintained cannon might fail to properly synchronize the visible and invisible portions of the bolt, hence causing the rare "preceding damage" effect. However, this wouldn't explain the fact that excess visible gas is affected by gravity when it leaks from the gun barrels (see the picture at the top of this page).
There is a peculiar characteristic of the bolt which counteracts gravity in its immediate area. This would presumably be some sort of moving field effect, albeit one of unknown mechanism. It is hard to even imagine what could possibly cause this, so it seems rather unlikely.
There is a physical projectile in the centre of each bolt which incorporates gravity cancellation technology, and which damages the target through some sort of invisible field effect (ZPF?) which extends ahead of the projectile itself. It would presumably be "charged" by the cannon as part of the firing process, hence the high power requirements, it would leak luminous waste gas in flight (either by chance or by design), and its waste gases would lose their luminosity as they fall away from the projectile, hence the drop-off in luminosity as you move away from the core of the bolt. An occasional projectile might be "out of spec" or over-charged by the cannon, resulting in an unusually large damage field and the rare "preceding damage" effect. Of course, the most obvious criticism of this theory is that we have never observed even the slightest hint of such a projectile, and it introduces extra mechanisms, extra entities, and extra questions, so Occam's Razor looks rather unfavourably upon the idea.
The bolts are composed of light-speed particles which move in a very tight helix, so their forward propagation rate is distinctly subluminal.

The first theory seems like the best one (one could even rationalize the apparent sublight velocity if necessary, by suggesting that light-speed massless particles are moving in a helical coil around the turbolaser's axis of movement due to some exotic effect, thus maintaining c while appearing to move slower than light; a tight coil would shorten the range before the helical effect fails and you get a "flak burst", while a straight beam would move at c and never flak-burst). There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to rule out any of these theories (although the third one is rather tenuous). However, at this point, it is clearly easier to say what turbolasers are not, as opposed to saying what they are. They are not lasers. They are not particle beams. They are not plasmoids.

Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Pretty much all of your objections have been settled there, and all you are doing is raising old versus arguments that aren't debated because they were settled.

[seanrobertson]

Texan,

I agree with some of what you're saying, but Curtis never had any interest in versus debates, and he certainly didn't derive figures for ICS books just to see Wars "win" against other franchises.

I could go into much more detail about this; suffice to say, the people (person?) who try to connect him to some grand "Warsie" conspiracy are notorious blowhards and, IMO, obviously suffer from paranoia. They/he caught bits and pieces about Curtis's actual interaction with other technically-minded Star Wars fans and conflated, distorted and cried foul over things about which no reasonable person would. (Ooooo, Curtis was caught calling Trekkies "Trekkists.". Nevermind WHY he used that term -- in reality, he used it as a gentleman, not wishing to call the Trek fans among fellow correspondents, err, I mean, conspiratists, by the long-established derogatory "Trekkie" -- but again, in some VERY small circles, anybody associated with Mike Wong is a duplicitous, underhanded opportunist, and ANYTHING he says is, by default, somehow angled toward skewing the stupid goddamned versus debate .)

I don't mean to unload on you, Texan. I actually kinda like you But the fact is, and shall remain, that Curtis is a good, honest, gentle man, and while he freely credited my friend Brian Young and others, including Wong, in his research for the ICS books, he had no aims at one-upsmanship. If Curtis is to be faulted for anything, it is sometimes envisioning the SW galaxy as it *should be*, particularly in referencing the old EU, rather than the way it IS per more contemporary sources and media. He has long since disengaged from his site and associated analyses because, well, life takes precedent. And life can be hard.

All else I can say is that I was privy to the entirety of those conversations, and the conspiracy nuts were not. Their version is an incomplete hackjob, and unless someone is willing to slander me and call me a liar, I hope that part of this thread will stop.

[texanmarauder]

Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Pretty much all of your objections have been settled there, and all you are doing is raising old versus arguments that aren't debated because they were settled.

wow. repetitive much? that site uses 99% non canon info with a hefty dose of speculation and hasn't been updated since 2004(?). plus several articles have been called into question. such as why he took the flak "burst" effect from the blasters/turbolasers hitting the falcons shield and tried to pass that off as asteroids being destroyed AFTER they left the asteroid field? no thank you. wong is not the go to source for anything these days. pretty much the whole reason for sd.net even being created was to piss off trekkies from the looks of his site. and plasma is probably the best/closest thing to an answer even though what he describes using his non canon sources is actually pretty much a gas laser IRL. then again, lucas and company probably weren't thinking of the specific nuts and bolts of their lasers when the movies were made and trying to find the RL equivalent is a waste of time. in any case, my original points still stand. and FYI, there is no vs argument here. and from the article that you just urged me repeatedly to read nothing has really been settled on that score. that's why I said "commonly accepted".

[Galvatron]

I agree with some of what you're saying, but Curtis never had any interest in versus debates, and he certainly didn't derive figures for ICS books just to see Wars "win" against other franchises.

FWIW, I can confirm this.

[texanmarauder]

Texan,

I agree with some of what you're saying, but Curtis never had any interest in versus debates, and he certainly didn't derive figures for ICS books just to see Wars "win" against other franchises.

that may be, I don't know much about the guy except that he was known in the debate forums for a good while, along with the technical commentaries. I, like many others, just couldn't reconcile his figures with what we see on screen. and before anybody brings up the vs debates, (because i know somebody will since i mentioned trekkies) I have debated on both sides of the vs war. this has nothing to do with the debates. both sides had their extreme idiots. lets leave it at that shall we? my point is that the ICS books aren't the best source of accurate info on weapons range. a book can say anything. and I see what you are saying.

[Rhadamantus]

Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Read the site. Pretty much all of your objections have been settled there, and all you are doing is raising old versus arguments that aren't debated because they were settled.

wow. repetitive much? that site uses 99% non canon info with a hefty dose of speculation and hasn't been updated since 2004(?). plus several articles have been called into question. such as why he took the flak "burst" effect from the blasters/turbolasers hitting the falcons shield and tried to pass that off as asteroids being destroyed AFTER they left the asteroid field? no thank you. wong is not the go to source for anything these days. pretty much the whole reason for sd.net even being created was to piss off trekkies from the looks of his site. and plasma is probably the best/closest thing to an answer even though what he describes using his non canon sources is actually pretty much a gas laser IRL. then again, lucas and company probably weren't thinking of the specific nuts and bolts of their lasers when the movies were made and trying to find the RL equivalent is a waste of time. in any case, my original points still stand. and FYI, there is no vs argument here. and from the article that you just urged me repeatedly to read nothing has really been settled on that score. that's why I said "commonly accepted".

That passage used no non canon information. Try again.

[texanmarauder]

That passage used no non canon information. Try again.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article? plus, this is coming from a person who will take visual observation over canon numbers (for example, the given canon size of the death star vs "observed visuals" and scaling). he even states that in the article that you parroted.(which is funny, since he likes to use ICS numbers for everything yet those numbers are not reflected in visuals) a lot of that article is one big chunk of rhetoric consisting of different ways of saying "we don't know exactly what turbolasers really are". a couple of key points in it that point to plasma more than anything: one, they are subluminal bolts. a laser would travel at lightspeed. plasma doesn't. two. if it uses ionized gas, such as tibanna gas after having a high energy laser run through it, that's plasma by definition. third, a magnetic shield or magnetic seal can reflect high energy plasma. it cant do that with a particle beam or laser. fourth, according to wongs opinion, turbolasers can be set to detonate at a predetermined distance. how? by regulating how much power that magnetic jacket is given. personally, I think that predetermined distance detonation is a load of crap. I think that's shield interaction. either way, wongs little article there doesn't prove much of anything except that he personally doesn't know exactly what turbolasers are.

[Rhadamantus]

That passage used no non canon information. Try again.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article? plus, this is coming from a person who will take visual observation over canon numbers (for example, the given canon size of the death star vs "observed visuals" and scaling). he even states that in the article that you parroted.(which is funny, since he likes to use ICS numbers for everything yet those numbers are not reflected in visuals) a lot of that article is one big chunk of rhetoric consisting of different ways of saying "we don't know exactly what turbolasers really are". a couple of key points in it that point to plasma more than anything: one, they are subluminal bolts. a laser would travel at lightspeed. plasma doesn't. two. if it uses ionized gas, such as tibanna gas after having a high energy laser run through it, that's plasma by definition. third, a magnetic shield or magnetic seal can reflect high energy plasma. it cant do that with a particle beam or laser. fourth, according to wongs opinion, turbolasers can be set to detonate at a predetermined distance. how? by regulating how much power that magnetic jacket is given. personally, I think that predetermined distance detonation is a load of crap. I think that's shield interaction. either way, wongs little article there doesn't prove much of anything except that he personally doesn't know exactly what turbolasers are.

Can we bring back dumber than parrots? Because it really applies here. Let's use some direct quotes.
"Turbolasers fire intense blasts of energy at their targets. There is some debate as to whether turbolasers are lasers or some sort of particle-beam weapon such as a plasma cannon (either function would be consistent with the word "turbolaser"). The SWVD states that blasters and turbolasers "use high-energy gas as ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating components as a coherent energy bolt". Obviously, this strongly suggests that the plasma-weapon interpretation of turbolaser operating principles is valid."
This is when Wong refrences the SWVD.

And here " However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:" is where he looks at the canon films.
In other words, his entire analysis was looking at the fucking films. I have no idea how you managed to misinterpret that, but you did. If you have any criticisms of his actual arguments besides lying, please state them.

And finally, they can't be plasmoids trapped in self-generated "moving magnetic containment bottles" as some have suggested, because not only is there no known mechanism to create such a phenomenon, but damage effects can sometimes precede the visible portion of the bolt by a dozen metres or more, while a containment bottle would prevent interaction until the moment the visible bolt impacts on the target.

[Batman]

I don't think we've quite reached Archinist levels of stupidity-yet. texanmaurauder doesn't seem to be stupid as much as willfully and selectively ignorant.

plasma, the commonly accepted nature of turbolasers,

Commonly accepted by people who want them to be plasma weapons. The commonly accepted nature by people who actually restrain themselves to looking at the available evidence is 'Fuck if I know, let's look at what they do.'