Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters

[Illuminatus Primus]

And what's your explanation, HDS? That it's a 'shield interaction', despite there being no shields confirmed on LAAT's, and it not looking a damn thing like a shield strike?

I like how he doesn't address the canon visual explicit evidence at all.

I want to learn these debate tactics mommy.

What an asshat.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

I'm not going to argue this bullshit.

Canon visuals disprove blasters are plasma for the same reason lasers are not plasma.

No gravitational affects, wrong appearance, magic containment field, and ignorance of said-fact that all energy weapons are lightspeed beams.

Quite simply, the VD is wrong because AOTC SHOWS that bolts in no way resemble plasma.

ICS2 explanation is tantamount because it provides at least some predictions that exactly match canon visuals, where as VD does not. This is exactly evidence ICS2 is closer to the movies in actual information, and doesn't present things that are outright bullshit because canon visuals show that plasma is not what bolts are.

[Connor MacLeod]

*snip*

I'm not going to argue this bullshit.

Canon visuals disprove blasters are plasma for the same reason lasers are not plasma.

No gravitational affects, wrong appearance, magic containment field, and ignorance of said-fact that all energy weapons are lightspeed beams.

Quite simply, the VD is wrong because AOTC SHOWS that bolts in no way resemble plasma.

ICS2 explanation is tantamount because it provides at least some predictions that exactly match canon visuals, where as VD does not. This is exactly evidence ICS2 is closer to the movies in actual information, and doesn't present things that are outright bullshit because canon visuals show that plasma is not what bolts are.

In other words, "I can't back up my opinion or counter your arguments so I'm just going to stick my head up my ass and ignore th em."

Concession accepted you fucking pussy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Don't give me that fucking "concession concepted" horseshit.

Blow me. We've gone over the plasma delusion so many fucking times I'm not going to play on your terms to make you happy.

Just look up plasma and TLs to see the smackdown over and over and over again by HDS and I. Hell, its earlier in this thread.

I'm not going to waste my time going over something already covered because you're too dense or stupid to understand.

Canon contradicts the VD. Period.

[Connor MacLeod]

Whine and dodge all you want, shithead. Y ou didnt provide the required quote, proving that its your own subjective, opinionated bullshit. Try employing a REAL analytical method rather than "what I pull out of my ass" next time.

[His Divine Shadow]

I like how he doesn't address the canon visual explicit evidence at all

I've been looking and shield impacts pretty much look like larger versions of the partial bursts we see, so to me, they look the same except for scale, which is logical given that only a fraction of the energy is lost.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In other words, cite your OFFICIAL PROOF that the ICS2 overrides all other official sources, or shut the fuck up.

Firstly: the VD claims plasma for blaster bolts--something that is disproved by canon visuals. The ICS2 theories make predictions which have been verified in canon--including shield/bolt interactions among others.

This shows without any doubt that the ICS2 is more directly movie-related; predictions drawn from its statements can be observed in canon, while the VD claims statements which are contradicted by canon.

Secondly: the canon visuals disprove plasma itself--all the proof that is needed is recorded in the countless plasma debunkings.

You're a fucking idiot--Cerasi's "foggy window" analogy directly applies here: the ICS2's window made direct predictions that could be observed in bolt/shield interactions. The VD's "window" claims things that have, time, and time again, been disproven by canon visuals. Thus the VD's "window" is more foggy. Your need for a direct quote is bullshit--its simple thought to apply Cerasi's statements to the question at hand. I realize its obviously too complex to ask a fuckhead like you to understand that, but I digress.

Keep sucking that official cock since you apparently don't know what plasma really is and cannot watch the movie to clearly see that's not what it is.

I only tried to incorperate some of the EU quotes because I did not feel they should all be thrown out--but plasma bolts themselves are totally useless as a theory. Canon visuals prove what we see on screen is not plasma.

[His Divine Shadow]

Connor, about the plasma weapons in particular, how do we deal with the visual contradictions? Assuming that the resulting bolt is true plasma that is?

Connor, whats your opinion on this? Should we argue that they are pure plasma weapons, as in firing a bolt of actual plasma(which does not fit with visuals) or that they use this plasma in another way to create a high energy particle bolt(of an unknown nature right now anyway)?

I can believe that it's otherwise a good idea that blasters could encompass many types of energy weapons, possibly blaster is just a buzz-word for any energy weapon that uses Tibanna gas.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Point being--his demand for direct citation of the ICS2 being higher-official is bullshit.

The VD's claims on blasters are outright wrong according to canon visuals.

[His Divine Shadow]

The VD's claims on blasters are outright wrong according to canon visuals.

A vauge enough intepreptation could fix that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The VD's claims on blasters are outright wrong according to canon visuals.

A vauge enough intepreptation could fix that.

Precisely; but when I claim that taken directly, the ICS2 interpretation overrides the VD's is true because the massless beam is more consistent with canon than the totally erroneous plasmoid BS.

[His Divine Shadow]

Ok, I've been thinking on how to categorize SW weapons, I have come up with something along these lines:

Blasters - A colloquial term for weapons utilizing Tibanna gas as the main source of energy/ammo, they may not use a laser to exite the gas, and they may utilize the resulting energy release in a manner of differing ways.

Laser-cannons - A colloquial term for shipmounted weapons using a laser to excite the tibanna gas and they likely harness the energy in the same way a bomb-pumped x-ray laser would, plus the delay thingy mad theorises about.

Turbolasers - another colloquial term for larger laser-cannon type weapons that have been super-charged with more collimating circuits and capacitors and cooling systems.


I believe we can both satisfactory use the theory that Tibanna gas is turned into radiation from laser-excitement and harnessed for laser-cannons and TL's without any real problems(plus the time delay).

This applies for superlasers too, minus the time delay, they seem to be the same but with extended firing periods consisting of either many pulses along the beam or one long pulse.

Blasters are the only real problem here.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hence the self-contained stasis theory.

Its a mechanism to force the ICS2 beams to a STL velocity where they'd produce blaster affects so there's technically no contradiction, really.

[ClaysGhost]

The pulse must be composed of c traveling components--it cannot be massive particles at any time, including blasters--because they have flat trajectories. The only possibilities for flat bolts are part of c beam or gravity-defying massive particles.

Is there any reason why the underlying beam cannot be massive particles travelling at a speed (obviously) less than c, but still very great (a significant fraction of c)? A massless beam and a sufficiently high-speed massive beam will both exhibit little reaction to gravitational fields except over very, very long distances, and both will require some sort of decay to take place in the beam to become visible.

Aside from that, massive decay particles would only be a problem if they survived very long and/or travelled slowly. The only decay involving a massless particle that I know of is the photon -> electron + positron (conserves charge) decay, i.e. massless to massive, but since the properties of the massless particles in this theory are almost completely unknown, I suppose that there's no reason to prefer (massless -> massive -> massless) over (massless -> massless). As for Occam's razor, I think applying it in this situation might be not be so straightforward as counting the decay stages.

[Mad]

Really--for all basic purposes the differences between our theories are mostly technobabble.

But mine has several implications that yours doesn't address, such as accuracy at extremely close range. (The "magic A-wing.')

A massless beam contained in a stasis field to make its trajectory appear identical to a c-velocity particle is intrinsically no different than "massive particle beam composed of exotic particles that ignore gravity." The difference between our theories is really trivial.

But mine follows mechanisms that have been (directly or indirectly) related to energy weapons in other sources, while yours has to apply a mechanism that has never been related to energy weapons. That's a major difference.

In reality, what we see is a STL beam that travels along the trajectory of a c-velocity particle.

Correction: a very high velocity particle. An invisible .9c particle would follow the same trajectory at the accuracy level we can measure from film.

Truly, there's no real way we'd be able to tell a short particle stream that ignores gravity from a massless beam contained in a stasis field. Thus, I propose that this component of the theory be temporarily ignored, as the difference is trivial (esp. on an observation perspective) and likely not very certain.

But we're comparing invented mechanisms vs mechanisms that have been related to energy weapon operation. That's not trivial: it's the difference between applying known mechanisms and completely making stuff up.

The stasis field is just a mechanism I made up to make the ICS2 theory help apply to everything--when it is stripped down, our theory is as follows, so much that I gather:

Blaster type weapons, based on scale and yield and make, fire invisible directed-energy blasts at various speeds from 500 m/s or so to c. The visible pulse is only part of the directed-energy. This energy blast decays producing light and various particles. These particles include antiprotons and positrons as well as protons and electrons. Collectively these form a nebulous and diffuse hydrogen/antihydrogen plasma that forms an ionized trail following the glowing pulse. The directed-energy blast often decays at various distances in a volumetric shield dependent on an as-of-yet misunderstood set of variables.

Pretty much. Except that it doesn't address certain features in other sources, as a unified theory would.

Canon visuals disprove blasters are plasma for the same reason lasers are not plasma.

Not pure plasma, certainly. There has to be some exotic effects going on. Remember, you're claiming we're not dealing with pure massless particles (you're claiming a stasis field is involved). What's the difference between that and claiming there's something keeping the plasma together?

We already have weird effects descrbied in the VD. The bolt is considered "coherent," and it releases plasma as it becomes "incoherent." There's no such thing as "coherent plasma," to my knowledge. Also, Tibanna gas is used and likely has exotic particles relating to it in order for it to be anti-gravitational. We don't know what kinds of reactions could come from a reaction with the unknown Tibanna particles, but it could fuse with normal matter somehow to allow a massive "coherent" beam. Decay would cause it to become normal plasma and release. Or it could be something more complicated. In any event, there's no justification to throw out the VD and VD2 descriptions, because they don't appear to describe straight plasma, either.

No gravitational affects, wrong appearance, magic containment field, and ignorance of said-fact that all energy weapons are lightspeed beams.

We have two basic damage mechanisms used in SW: projectile (kinetic) and thermal (energy). A weapon that sends out massive particles can still do damage via thermal transfer instead of momentum transfer (low momentum but high energy), and so would likely be considered an energy weapon. There's no reason to get so narrow-minded in defining terms like "energy weapon." We're dealing with a universe that uses the catch-all phrase "laser" for weapons that consist of particles other than photons. (Though the beam may undergo a reaction that causes it to release high-energy photons on impact -- we don't know the full nature of the particles.)

Quite simply, the VD is wrong because AOTC SHOWS that bolts in no way resemble plasma.

The VD doesn't describe normal plasma, either. What's your point?

ICS2 explanation is tantamount because it provides at least some predictions that exactly match canon visuals, where as VD does not. This is exactly evidence ICS2 is closer to the movies in actual information, and doesn't present things that are outright bullshit because canon visuals show that plasma is not what bolts are.

Both ICS2 and VD/VD2 are very general descriptions that in no way can be considered in-depth. They may not appear to be compatable on the surface, but my theory attemtps to link them together. You're acting like they are mutually exclusive when that doesn't have to be the case.

[Illuminatus Primus]

But mine has several implications that yours doesn't address, such as accuracy at extremely close range. (The "magic A-wing.')

Actually no. I simply believe that the beam is sometimes STL and sometimes c. I simply invented a mechanism to deal with it. Since your theory is basically what I believe--I just believe it also extends to blasters via some sort of slowing of the beam. Blasters have very few differences from lasers and TLs other than speed of bolt.

But mine follows mechanisms that have been (directly or indirectly) related to energy weapons in other sources, while yours has to apply a mechanism that has never been related to energy weapons. That's a major difference.

I'm with HDS. So much time has been spent showing why what plasma is does not fit with observations.

Correction: a very high velocity particle. An invisible .9c particle would follow the same trajectory at the accuracy level we can measure from film.

I hear nitpicking.

But we're comparing invented mechanisms vs mechanisms that have been related to energy weapon operation. That's not trivial: it's the difference between applying known mechanisms and completely making stuff up.

The stasis field is just a mechanism I made up to make the ICS2 theory help apply to everything--when it is stripped down, our theory is as follows, so much that I gather:

Blaster type weapons, based on scale and yield and make, fire invisible directed-energy blasts at various speeds from 500 m/s or so to c. The visible pulse is only part of the directed-energy. This energy blast decays producing light and various particles. These particles include antiprotons and positrons as well as protons and electrons. Collectively these form a nebulous and diffuse hydrogen/antihydrogen plasma that forms an ionized trail following the glowing pulse. The directed-energy blast often decays at various distances in a volumetric shield dependent on an as-of-yet misunderstood set of variables.

Pretty much. Except that it doesn't address certain features in other sources, as a unified theory would.

Not pure plasma, certainly. There has to be some exotic effects going on. Remember, you're claiming we're not dealing with pure massless particles (you're claiming a stasis field is involved). What's the difference between that and claiming there's something keeping the plasma together?

Exactly. Plasma requires plasma that in no way fullfills the definition or appearance of plasma and involves more BS mechanisms.

We already have weird effects descrbied in the VD. The bolt is considered "coherent," and it releases plasma as it becomes "incoherent." There's no such thing as "coherent plasma," to my knowledge. Also, Tibanna gas is used and likely has exotic particles relating to it in order for it to be anti-gravitational. We don't know what kinds of reactions could come from a reaction with the unknown Tibanna particles, but it could fuse with normal matter somehow to allow a massive "coherent" beam. Decay would cause it to become normal plasma and release. Or it could be something more complicated. In any event, there's no justification to throw out the VD and VD2 descriptions, because they don't appear to describe straight plasma, either.

Semantic babble. Its plasma that acts and looks like the bolt-on-beam weapons--and you claim that some weapons fire both which is totally illogical

We have two basic damage mechanisms used in SW: projectile (kinetic) and thermal (energy). A weapon that sends out massive particles can still do damage via thermal transfer instead of momentum transfer (low momentum but high energy), and so would likely be considered an energy weapon. There's no reason to get so narrow-minded in defining terms like "energy weapon." We're dealing with a universe that uses the catch-all phrase "laser" for weapons that consist of particles other than photons. (Though the beam may undergo a reaction that causes it to release high-energy photons on impact -- we don't know the full nature of the particles.)

You know what the ICS meant. Saxton specifically cited blaster observations as evidence in correspondences. We know his intent, and blasters have properties identical to lasers and TLs except for propogation speed. They even have the same pulses lasers and the superlaser has--the same pulses that relate continuous beam weapons and the ICS2 explanation.

My explanation explains the existance of plasma in the bolts.

The VD doesn't describe normal plasma, either. What's your point?

Ok fine--they're magic gravity-defying plasma bolts that don't look like plasma and have a magic containment device and (according to you) are somehow fired from a different weapon type at a cost of energy efficiency and a sudden need for propellent ("bolt mode" as you call it) that happen, just happen to look identical to the pulse-on-beam weapons, down to the off-axis fire and bolt pulses.

Plasma that doesn't look like plasma, green plasma, translucent plasma, magic gravity-defying plasma, and self-contained plasma is A LOT more unexplained mechanisms than my explanation, which is universal (because y'know, damage before bolt and pulses on bolt, just like TLs) which is clearly the SW intent and even accounts for plasma on a level.

Saxton's completely right--plasma is used as an explanation by people who do not know what plasma really is.

Both ICS2 and VD/VD2 are very general descriptions that in no way can be considered in-depth. They may not appear to be compatable on the surface, but my theory attemtps to link them together. You're acting like they are mutually exclusive when that doesn't have to be the case.

This plasma stuff is simply bullshit.

Your theory returns to internally inconsistent plasma crap, and involves at least three magic mechanisms and explanation for why its appearance and observations are identical to the larger scale weapons.

Your theory is far less consistent than mine, which jives with the actual intent and gives a nod to every reference AND has only ONE mechanism involved.

[Mad]

Actually no. I simply believe that the beam is sometimes STL and sometimes c. I simply invented a mechanism to deal with it. Since your theory is basically what I believe--I just believe it also extends to blasters via some sort of slowing of the beam. Blasters have very few differences from lasers and TLs other than speed of bolt.

It's still inventing mechanisms while ignoring others vs using known mechanisms.

I'm with HDS. So much time has been spent showing why what plasma is does not fit with observations.

I'm not arguing for plasma being the damage mechanism, or the visible portion. Instead, a kind of "converted" plasma. It's not really plasma anymore, but something else -- an unstable exotic particle that can be converted into massless particles for use in turbolasers, or break down back into plasma. It's considered "plasma" in the context of blasters just like turbolasers are considered "lasers" despite not being made up of photons.

I hear nitpicking.

Perhaps, but it's basically talking about massless vs massive. You've completely discount the possibility of high-speed massive particles in everything you've discussed. You've always talked about either low-speed antigravity bolts or bolts riding a massless beam as the only possible options.

Besides, according to canon, blasters are projectiles:

Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters.

Exactly. Plasma requires plasma that in no way fullfills the definition or appearance of plasma and involves more BS mechanisms.

Still, it should be accounted for somehow, even via loose definitions if need be.

Semantic babble. Its plasma that acts and looks like the bolt-on-beam weapons--and you claim that some weapons fire both which is totally illogical

Considering that I propose that turbolasers are a kind of "higher state" (well, converted from massive to massless) of the blaster particles, and that turbolaser particles decay back into the blaster particles, I don't see anything incredibly wrong with it. It does explain why they look the same.

You know what the ICS meant.

And your butchering of "lightspeed" to mean "not lightspeed to the observer, but only to itself" is any better?

Saxton specifically cited blaster observations as evidence in correspondences. We know his intent, and blasters have properties identical to lasers and TLs except for propogation speed. They even have the same pulses lasers and the superlaser has--the same pulses that relate continuous beam weapons and the ICS2 explanation.

I still don't see how he can get "lightspeed" from "somewhat faster than the bolt." There's still a delay that he hasn't explained. There's also the canon "projectile" reference to blasters.

Ok fine--they're magic gravity-defying plasma bolts that don't look like plasma and have a magic containment device and (according to you) are somehow fired from a different weapon type at a cost of energy efficiency and a sudden need for propellent ("bolt mode" as you call it) that happen, just happen to look identical to the pulse-on-beam weapons, down to the off-axis fire and bolt pulses.

Turbolaser beams decay into "blaster particles," which then emit light and plasma as they, in turn, decay. "Blaster particles" from blasters also emit light and particles as they decay. Why wouldn't they look the same?

Plasma that doesn't look like plasma, green plasma, translucent plasma, magic gravity-defying plasma, and self-contained plasma is A LOT more unexplained mechanisms than my explanation, which is universal (because y'know, damage before bolt and pulses on bolt, just like TLs) which is clearly the SW intent and even accounts for plasma on a level.

Saxton's completely right--plasma is used as an explanation by people who do not know what plasma really is.

The light doesn't come from the plasma. In fact, the actual plasma (as opposed to the weird high-energy particles that decay into plasma and light) is too diffuse to see. I thought I made that clear earlier.

"Plasma" may also be a collequal term just like "lightspeed" (hyperspace) and "laser" (whatever turbolasers are). (That's kind of what I'm going for with the "blaster particles" being the so-called 'coherent plasma' that isn't really a plasma.)

[Illuminatus Primus]

Exactly my point earlier--these differences are mostly semantical.

We have gravity defying beams traveling between c and around .5 km per sec. Most of the beam is invisible with various other properties including a visible tracer.

Twisting things into "decayed quanta/plasma" or whatnot is splitting hairs.

I still believe my mechanism is simpler. And it would still carry momenta.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm not arguing for plasma being the damage mechanism, or the visible portion. Instead, a kind of "converted" plasma. It's not really plasma anymore, but something else -- an unstable exotic particle that can be converted into massless particles for use in turbolasers, or break down back into plasma. It's considered "plasma" in the context of blasters just like turbolasers are considered "lasers" despite not being made up of photons.

This is the same semantical excuses--its plasma or not. At least my theory says its simply what the ICS2 demands and leaves it at that--providing a mechanism for other things.

I can't see how you're going to spontaneously go from massive to massless in the same weapon etc.

[Ubiqtorate]

In general address:

Without going into specifics regarding the details of the present dispute, one should note that it is not technically correct to contend that one may apply M. Cerasi’s “foggy window” to determine relative status between the Incredible Cross Sections series and the Visual Dictionary series.

M. Cerasi’s specific remarks regarding proximity of sources to the absolute canon is, “The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play.” Both the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Visual Dictionary and the Star Wars: Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections are encyclopaedic resources relating directly to the films; to wit, both sources are first-generation secondary resources. One cannot overrule the other by virtue of proximity, as they are of equal propinquity.

Rather, when attempting to resolve a contradiction between the two, they must be compared in terms of their individual merits. If one can be demonstrated to more accurately reflect the filmic evidence, then that one is more accurate a representation of the objective Star Wars reality on that point. To argue that a source is more authoritative than another because of greater accuracy on individual points, however, would be an occurrence of the fallacy of composition.

Moreover, it bears emphasis that this does not confer higher evidential status upon the said source. The actual policy is that the closer a sources is to the films, the more accurate it is; the policy as stated by M. Cerasi makes no allowance for accuracy conferring higher status. The determinant of relative superiority as evidence is proximity to the films.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Precisely--independent of Mad's "interpretations." Plasma holds more water.

I said it before--if possible we should try and incorperate official evidence but if it is openly unsupported in canon without massive redefinitions of the word and assumed mechanisms like you've passed off--than the other one is superior.

I started with ICS2 because that theory has proven itself (due to observation) to be intrinsically superior.

[Connor MacLeod]

Firstly: the VD claims plasma for blaster bolts--something that is disproved by canon visuals. The ICS2 theories make predictions which have been verified in canon--including shield/bolt interactions among others.

Funny, Nitram says that the canon visuals DISPROVE massless beams. Of course, I suppose he's wrong because he's not following the ICS2 like the Great and All-Knowing Illuminatus Primus is! :Roll:

Repeat after me, asshole: "My subjective opinion does NOT constitute proof of a higher status" . Ubiqtorate covered this rather amply, which you appear to not have picked up on.

Or, In other words (if you're too stupid to figure it out yourself, which I am certain you are), the ICS2 does not predict anything in the movies - it describes things - observed effects, and that the "official" theory, observation, element, whatever it is, gains a greater measure of "authority" from the canon itself. Its a very specific sort of process.

What you do is assume that because certain elements are true, the whole book *must* be more accurate than others, and that it automatically is elevated to a higher status. This is NOT substantiated by canon policy, as Ubiqtorate pointed out. The ELEMENTs of a source can be reinforced by canon to give them greater precedence, but the status of the book itself remains unchanged.

And, as I've already mentioned, there is always a measure of interpretation to things. You seem to rather blithely assume your interpretation is the correct one without substantiating it. Yet what is to make you more right than Nitram, hmm?

This shows without any doubt that the ICS2 is more directly movie-related; predictions drawn from its statements can be observed in canon, while the VD claims statements which are contradicted by canon.

Wrong, as pointed out above, and by others (such as Ubiqtorate, again above.) Not only that, its a "leap in logic" from "specific elements or facts being reinforced by canon to have a greater standing" to "the majority or entirety of the book having greater standing than other books." A leap from specific to general, in other words.

Yet you're too stupid to grasp this, for some reason.

Secondly: the canon visuals disprove plasma itself--all the proof that is needed is recorded in the countless plasma debunkings.

So in addition to red herrings, leaps in logic, Ignoring data, deception and misrepresentation of facts, we're tossing in repretition?

Your "claims" are no more proven than the ones Nitram made stating that canon "disproved" massless beams. Try again, shitwad.

You're a fucking idiot--Cerasi's "foggy window" analogy directly applies here: the ICS2's window made direct predictions that could be observed in bolt/shield interactions. The VD's "window" claims things that have, time, and time again, been disproven by canon visuals. Thus the VD's "window" is more foggy. Your need for a direct quote is bullshit--its simple thought to apply Cerasi's statements to the question at hand. I realize its obviously too complex to ask a fuckhead like you to understand that, but I digress.

Twist stuff around all you want - you seem to be quite good at it (not to mention ignoring what you don't like.) FAct is your logic is total bullshit. Your refusal to accept it as such does not change this.

Keep sucking that official cock since you apparently don't know what plasma really is and cannot watch the movie to clearly see that's not what it is.

As opposed to deep throating that "Make up what I want and pass it off as fact" cock as you are?

Fortunately, I'm rather secure in my debating/analytical status (due to the opinions of people who I RESPECT and CONSIDER important, unlike yours).

I only tried to incorperate some of the EU quotes because I did not feel they should all be thrown out--but plasma bolts themselves are totally useless as a theory. Canon visuals prove what we see on screen is not plasma.

You tried to twist words, misrepresent ideas, ignore what you couldn't refute, and all but actually debate honestly. As I said before, concession accepted, asshole.

[Connor MacLeod]

Hence the self-contained stasis theory.

Its a mechanism to force the ICS2 beams to a STL velocity where they'd produce blaster affects so there's technically no contradiction, really.

Incidentally, its also a completely bullshit theory.

Things moving at lightspeed do not experience time. Stasis fields cannot affect it, no matter how you generate it. The time dilation is zero.

Additionally, general relativity indicates distortions of spacetime are related entirely to the presence of energy-momentum/rest-mass. Without them (either real or complex), no wave or object can affect spacetime. (This means no time retardation either.)

In short, your theory is meaningless technobabble that would nto work as you claimed. Big fucking surprise there.

[Connor MacLeod]

Just to throw more fuel onto the fire (And to kick the shithead when he's down)

Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters. The Jedi on the whole had abandoned the old fighting style, considering it almost irrelevant against the enemies of the present galaxy"
AOTC novel page 342

I can't wait to see what sort of invented dodge he makes up to pretend he can ignore THIS tidbit. More than likely he'll either use the trusty "canon allows me to categorically ignore anything you try to debate me with because I said so" dodge, or he might actually attempt to employ some imagination (and thought) and make up something that allows him to elevate the AOTC ICS AABOVE the canon movie novelizations

Or maybe he'll just close his eyes and hope the mean men go away.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, whats your opinion on this? Should we argue that they are pure plasma weapons, as in firing a bolt of actual plasma(which does not fit with visuals) or that they use this plasma in another way to create a high energy particle bolt(of an unknown nature right now anyway)?

Why can't there be both a massless and non-massless kind? IP Seems to think that the definition "energy weapon" somehow cannot include anything BUT a massless beam weapon. What about say, Ion cannons? Particle beam weapons?

As I already said, I fail to see what makes a massless and a non-massless beam weapon so mutually exclusive with one another, except certain individuals narrowminded idiocy.

It can work either way. We could assume that canon supports either a massless or non-massless interpretation. The existence of one in canon does not prevent the existence of the other. Or, its quite possible that neither are correct - admittedly, neither theory perfectly fits ALL the evidence (Despite the claims of certain individuals on both sides to the contrary) - we could sitll assume both theories (say, the VD and ICS interpretations) fit, and that canon supports an entirely DIFFERENT kind of weapon.

Or, both could be true. Maybe we see examples of both in the movies. One might argue why a massless and non-massless beam looks so similiar. My answer? What about ion cannons?

I can believe that it's otherwise a good idea that blasters could encompass many types of energy weapons, possibly blaster is just a buzz-word for any energy weapon that uses Tibanna gas.

Its not the first time that definitions have been stretched to encompass multiple notions before ("lasers" anyone?)

If we deal in absolute terms, the ICS2 supports the idea that all capital and fighter (and quite probably many vehicle) weapons (basically lasers and turbolasers, but excluding ion cannons) are massless beam weapons. This makes perfect sense, as they work perfectly in such situations (what with the long ranges, and such)

The VD and the canon novelizaation suggest a non-massless kind of beam. They can work as well. This makes it somewhat easier to deal with the common problem of the "propogation" rate of such weapons.

But we can also take this a step farther. Does this mean that there aren't non-massless c apital ship weapons? Of course not - we have ion cannons. So what about personal or ground weapon? Can there be such that use a massless beam? Of course.

I dont believe I've been the first to suggest this either.