Ahhh, feel that stench

[Graeme Dice]

That would be true if we assume that the beam jumps to fullpower at once, but I don't think we can make that assumption right off the bat.

Sure we can, it's a simpler assumption that fits the known evidence better than your assumption. If the damage doesn't start to occur till the visible portion nears the target, then the weapon is STL, no matter whether part of it travels at c.

That it would be, but they have so many bizzare behaviours already, the easiest way to reconcile them was to say they where ripples along a beam, which would explain alot of weird behavior.

Such as? I'm still waiting for you to present this "weird behaviour", and your theories and evidence to describe why your model is better than the official plasma model.

I don't much care what Saxton has to say about it. He can't contradict the films.

I wasn't aware Saxton had tried to contradict the films.[/quote]

Stating that the damage occurs at lightspeed is a direct contradiction of the films.

[Graeme Dice]

The recoil argument is contradicted by the SHPA-Ts which fire visible bolts, and the sleeve does recoil, but returns to position while the beam is still firing.

Your point being?

Flakbursting is something I never conceeded on, because its fucking stupid.

Then you are fucking stupid as it is canon thanks to TESB.

Flakbursting bolts would not have bolts that continue through the "burst" which is only worth a kg of TNT or so, unless one assumes the bolt automatically sends most of its energy in neutrinos or something, and this doesn't account for how they "know" to burst, or why they would since its wholely useless anyway. Flakbursting loses to parsimony.

No, you lose to canon evidence. Flakbursting is seen in TESB. Please try and actually watch the movies and read the official evidence before making a fool of yourself.

[Graeme Dice]

You're assuming that the recoil energies of the beam are passed into the recoiling barrel sleeve, as opposed to waste gasses.

Please show me evidence of enough waste gases escaping from a turbolaser weapon to counteract the recoil from these weapons. You do know how much momentum a photon has?

If the theory can work, there's no reason to discard it.

That first requires the theory to work. Yours doesn't, as it doesn't fit the visual evidence.

Blasters are still a problem though.

Then the theory doesn't work, as blasters are nothing but smaller turbolasers as indicated in all official materials that deal with them.

[His Divine Shadow]

And you expected me to accept it because you threw Saxton's name in there

Not really no, I just said I felt that Saxton knew what he was talking about and that he wouldn't put it in if it was not resolveable with the movies.

Yes, it is perfectly explicit evidence that the weapon is not lightspeed. NO damage occurs until the visual, STL portion of the beam is near the target.

If we assume that a fullpower LS beam ought to exit the barrel at the same moment as the turbolaser.

Thus, even if the weapon is lightspeed, in contrary to all the visual evidence, this makes no difference to the outcome of your targetting. Further, all of those FTL theories are more complicated than the STL plasma theory, which fits more of the written evidence, and much, much more of the visual evidence.

FTL?
And no, the plasma theory is the least fitting really, the best fitting theory if we'd say it was an STL bolt would be a self guided missile that for some reason glows green.
Atleast the plasma bolt within a magnetic bottle theory is clearly out, going by the movie visuals anyway, it'd require something else to work.

Then you will kindly present the thread describing the evidence

Concession accepted on the weapon shut-off issue.

I didn't really see why it needed an answer? My theory on the winking out effect is that the beam terminated, I thought that was answer enough in itself, because as I said, thats how my theory went.

As for the other, opaque means that you can't see through it. I fail to see how an object being a missile precludes it also being opaque. I guess you can see through sidewinders?

Sorry, I meant translucent, duh :p

[NecronLord]

And it's quite easy to explain the flackbursting using the ICS, the beam dissapates, and below a certain threashold, the energy is released and burns the air to plasma (have we ever seen a flackburst in space, or is it all shield interaction? this would explain the bolts winking out.)

[Graeme Dice]

Of course, the ICS being a technical canon source, should quite possibly over-rule the movies in this regard, as there are limits to what can be done on film, such as accurately depicting a lightspeed weapon.

Bullshit. NOTHING EVER OVERRIDES THE MOVIES.

Now I know why I usually stay in ASVS instead of wasting my time here. If you want to waste your time with make believe then go ahead, I'll leave you to your fantasies.

[His Divine Shadow]

Then you will kindly present the thread describing the evidence

Sorry, I forgot that! links are coming.

[NecronLord]

Bullshit. NOTHING EVER OVERRIDES THE MOVIES.

Good, I take it that you, like Darkstar believe that an ewok axe can cut Stormtrooper armour?

[Graeme Dice]

I don't wank to the ICS, now if you'd please, let's try and keep some civility this time around, I'd prefer it.

You don't deserve civility HDS.

I am not really sure, my idea is likely wrong anyway, you know the SPHA-T, they fire beam weapons, yet there is an initial recoil but it returns to it's position while firing, as you said, TL behaviour is bizzare.

How is this bizarre? The initial recoil is strong enough to overcome the return mechanism, but the recoil later in firing is not so the barrel returns to its original position. We never see it return without the weapon being fired at the time, so you have no evidence of how fast it would normally return to its position when not under an external force.

Time delay theory, the beam doesn't start out at full power, but reaches fullpower after a few frames.
And you don't have to insult Mad, I don't even think you've seen his theories.

This theory produces the same results as a STL theory, and is more complicated, while ignoring more of the written evidence and most of the visual evidence. Thus it is wrong.

I have nothing to do with the theories that failed, the current theory is a simple time-delay theory.

Please present the evidence that supports this theory or concede.

Then why are you so vehement about it here? I don't see why you feel you need to end every sentence with an insult, I never wanted this.

Maybe you should read the thread title and initial post then. You started the insulting.

[Graeme Dice]

Not really no, I just said I felt that Saxton knew what he was talking about and that he wouldn't put it in if it was not resolveable with the movies.

Exactly, you appealed to authority. No amount of waffling will change that.

If we assume that a fullpower LS beam ought to exit the barrel at the same moment as the turbolaser.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? Then we'll go with the less complicated assumption.

And no, the plasma theory is the least fitting really, the best fitting theory if we'd say it was an STL bolt would be a self guided missile that for some reason glows green.
Atleast the plasma bolt within a magnetic bottle theory is clearly out, going by the movie visuals anyway, it'd require something else to work.

You say this, but you provide no evidence why the magnetic bottle will not work. The plasma theory will always fit the best, because it exactly fits all but one of the official sources. It's the only one that can fully explain recoil (you've not shown evidence of waste gases being released in large enough quantities to counteract the recoil of weapons of this scale). It's the only one that can explain the visual evidence as well.

Concession accepted on the weapon shut-off issue.

I didn't really see why it needed an answer? My theory on the winking out effect is that the beam terminated, I thought that was answer enough in itself, because as I said, thats how my theory went.

You assumed that the weapon was not shut off at the turret until the bolt itself dissipated. That's an assumption that you have not been able to back up.

[Graeme Dice]

And it's quite easy to explain the flackbursting using the ICS, the beam dissapates, and below a certain threashold, the energy is released and burns the air to plasma (have we ever seen a flackburst in space, or is it all shield interaction? this would explain the bolts winking out.)

I really, really wonder sometimes how many people have actually watched these movies. Of course we see flak bursts in space. They happen throughout the asteroid chase scene in TESB.

[Graeme Dice]

Bullshit. NOTHING EVER OVERRIDES THE MOVIES.

Good, I take it that you, like Darkstar believe that an ewok axe can cut Stormtrooper armour?

Please do not poison the well by comparing me to Darkstar.

If an Ewok axe can be observed to cut through stormtrooper armour in ROTJ, then an ewok axe can cut through stormtrooper. To say anything else is no better than starting the typical trekkie circlejerk.

[NecronLord]

snip

Answer the question, do you believe that stormtroopers falling over can break their own armour?



Now we could assume that an ewok hit this off camera. Or we could assume that Stormtrooper armour is so very weak that he did this falling over.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sure we can, it's a simpler assumption that fits the known evidence better than your assumption. If the damage doesn't start to occur till the visible portion nears the target, then the weapon is STL, no matter whether part of it travels at c.

But it's still only an assumption, one that doesn't fit, hence we move on, an assumption can't contradict evidence anyway.

Such as? I'm still waiting for you to present this "weird behaviour", and your theories and evidence to describe why your model is better than the official plasma model

Hmm, the plasma model is not official.
The weird behaviour, why, according to this theory, ok, damage occurs not at once because the beam warms or charges for a few frames before jumping to full power, I don't think this needs to be a neccesarily universal law though(just to provide flexibility), the moving of the bolts and winking out are explained by the beam theory, they are sustained by the beam, if the beam terminates, they terminate, that is my theory.

Stating that the damage occurs at lightspeed is a direct contradiction of the films.

He didn't really state that you know.
You could still make an STL explanation, that would allow the LS wording used, such as lightspeed beam with a power variation.

You don't deserve civility HDS

And why not?

How is this bizarre? The initial recoil is strong enough to overcome the return mechanism, but the recoil later in firing is not so the barrel returns to its original position. We never see it return without the weapon being fired at the time, so you have no evidence of how fast it would normally return to its position when not under an external force.

Well a similar behaviour could be used in TL's

Quote:
Time delay theory, the beam doesn't start out at full power, but reaches fullpower after a few frames.
And you don't have to insult Mad, I don't even think you've seen his theories.

This theory produces the same results as a STL theory, and is more complicated, while ignoring more of the written evidence and most of the visual evidence. Thus it is wrong.

Actually, to rationalize all the bizzare behaviours of an STL bolt one would have to create a quite complicated theory.
The written evidence AFAIK has not spoken about turbolasers as being STL, sure blasters but not TL's.

Please present the evidence that supports this theory or concede

The evidence is the ICs, and the Destiny's Way quotes and circumstansial evidence are the weird FX flubs that are explained with the theory.

Maybe you should read the thread title and initial post then. You started the insulting

I don't see what that has got to do with you.

[Graeme Dice]

snip

Answer the question, do you believe that stormtroopers falling over can break their own armour?

Would you please show where you had previously stated that question? I answered the question that you had posed, and you are just pretending that I did not.

Now we could assume that an ewok hit this off camera. Or we could assume that Stormtrooper armour is so very weak that he did this falling over.

The damage occurred and is visible in the movie, so there is thus no way to argue that it did not actually happen. If you do, then you are no better than the Rampant Trekkies who argue continually about the lenses used to make special effects.

In the words of the ASVS R&R:
"Although most of us know that Star Trek and Star Wars are not real, for the purpose of these discussions we treat them as if they were REAL and NOT movies made by people in the real world. We are seeing the real events as they really happened, and if you think we're nuts then you are obviously a trained medical professional. Therefore, real world problems are to be left out of these discussions. For example:
Budget restraints
Copyright infringements
FX demons
Strange camera lenses
Plot devices
Script wizards

We're all pretty sick of this debate and bringing it up will get you a faceful of feces, in the BDDB, or even on trial. Consider yourself warned."

I am not interested in any debates with people who plan to use "special effects" as a cop-out in their debates.

[NecronLord]

Hahahahahah

Yes, that's right. GL went out to a galaxy far far away and made a documentary folks.

[His Divine Shadow]

Exactly, you appealed to authority. No amount of waffling will change that.

Well if I had used is an actual argument instead of conveing a personal opinion, then yes, but I was not trying to say "saxton said so, so it's right, hah!" it was "saxton said so in the ICS, and I feel that I can trust him."

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? Then we'll go with the less complicated assumption.

But the assumption creates a contradiction, so it's ignored, since we're trying to keep internal continuity here, we go to another assumption.
And it's an assumption, I don't have to disprove it, you'd have to prove it, thats how it works.

You say this, but you provide no evidence why the magnetic bottle will not work.

There is no such thing as a selfsustaining mangetic bottle.

The plasma theory will always fit the best, because it exactly fits all but one of the official sources. It's the only one that can fully explain recoil (you've not shown evidence of waste gases being released in large enough quantities to counteract the recoil of weapons of this scale). It's the only one that can explain the visual evidence as well.

Well the problems being that it's gravity ignoring, it's green(plasma won't appear green at any temperature) and sometimes damage occurs before impact, it alters heading, it dissapears way too quickly to just be plasma dissipating.
Also a magnetic bottle is not opaque so the plasma contained would glow white hot as a star in order to contain the energy figures spoken about in the ICS, same for the DS beams too.

You assumed that the weapon was not shut off at the turret until the bolt itself dissipated. That's an assumption that you have not been able to back up.

Well I assumed this since when the bolts dissapear it's just around the time that they turn and fire another shot, circumstansial evidence.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well if we treat this as a documentary of what happened in SW, then what is to say that Lucas just made the pulses visible and slower because it looked better?

[Graeme Dice]

But it's still only an assumption, one that doesn't fit, hence we move on, an assumption can't contradict evidence anyway.

I'm sorry HDS, but you're assumption is the one that doesn't fit, not mine. Mine is simpler behaviour than yours, so with identical evidence mine wins.

Hmm, the plasma model is not official.

Of course it is. You are just displaying your ignorance of the material by saying that. It appears in both Cracken's Rebel Field Guide and the EGWT.

The weird behaviour, why, according to this theory, ok, damage occurs not at once because the beam warms or charges for a few frames before jumping to full power, I don't think this needs to be a neccesarily universal law though(just to provide flexibility), the moving of the bolts and winking out are explained by the beam theory, they are sustained by the beam, if the beam terminates, they terminate, that is my theory.

Which is of course, more complicated than the plasma bolt theory that provides identical behaviour.

He didn't really state that you know.
You could still make an STL explanation, that would allow the LS wording used, such as lightspeed beam with a power variation.

Thank you for admitting that the actual weapon is not lightspeed for all intents and purposes. I expect you to make an apology to the people whose intelligence you called insulted earlier in this thread.

You don't deserve civility HDS

And why not?

Because I remember your days on ASVS when all you did was regurgigate threads and theories someone else posted on SB.

How is this bizarre? The initial recoil is strong enough to overcome the return mechanism, but the recoil later in firing is not so the barrel returns to its original position. We never see it return without the weapon being fired at the time, so you have no evidence of how fast it would normally return to its position when not under an external force.

Well a similar behaviour could be used in TL's.

Then please explain how this supports your theory and not mine.

Quote:
Time delay theory, the beam doesn't start out at full power, but reaches fullpower after a few frames.
And you don't have to insult Mad, I don't even think you've seen his theories.

No, I haven't seen his theories, but if they allow for a lightspeed weapon and he supports them, then he really deserves to be mocked.

Actually, to rationalize all the bizzare behaviours of an STL bolt one would have to create a quite complicated theory.
The written evidence AFAIK has not spoken about turbolasers as being STL, sure blasters but not TL's.

Since blasters are nothing more than smaller turbolasers, I thank you for your concession. As for these so called "bizarre" behavious, please outline why a plasma bolt cannot exhibit all of them.

The evidence is the ICs, and the Destiny's Way quotes and circumstansial evidence are the weird FX flubs that are explained with the theory.

I asked you to present the evidence, and you are still waffling on the issue.

Why don't you provide the "Destiny's Way quotes and circumstansial evidence" instead of simply stating that it exists and that I should already know about it.

[Graeme Dice]

Hahahahahah

Yes, that's right. GL went out to a galaxy far far away and made a documentary folks.

Thank you for confirming that you have no interest in actual debate.

[Lord Poe]

Answer the question, do you believe that stormtroopers falling over can break their own armour?



Now we could assume that an ewok hit this off camera. Or we could assume that Stormtrooper armour is so very weak that he did this falling over.

This is DarkStar's bullshit theory, that has nothing to do with the actual facts. That is NOT "damage", that is NOT a "break". That's a SEAM, where the armor snaps together. Unless, like Darkstar, you believe that stormtroopers are born into their armor and never take it off.

Watch the beginning of ANH, and look at the calves of some of the stormtroopers as they board the T4. The SEAMS, flex open as they run. Which is a GOOD thing, unless you want troopers hampered by the armor even more than they already are.

[NecronLord]

Thank you for confirming that you have no interest in actual debate.

Not with you bubba. Unless you could prehaps enlighten me on why the empire changed it's rank system in RotJ so that all senior officers had the same insignia? Because, obviously that's what they do, becuase Lucasfilm are ommnipotent, and that's a perfect representation of a fictional universe.

And of course, when lightsabers dissapear, they leave a plastic rod behind which characters pass to a mysterious hand and exchange for an unlit saber (ESB)

[NecronLord]

This is DarkStar's bullshit theory, that has nothing to do with the actual facts. That is NOT "damage", that is NOT a "break". That's a SEAM, where the armor snaps together. Unless, like Darkstar, you believe that stormtroopers are born into their armor and never take it off.

Watch the beginning of ANH, and look at the calves of some of the stormtroopers as they board the T4. The SEAMS, flex open as they run. Which is a GOOD thing, unless you want troopers hampered by the armor even more than they already are.

Odd place for a seam. Odd seam that curves. It's an FX fault, plain and simple. Why the fuck would they have a seam on a shoulder pad?

[Graeme Dice]

Well if I had used is an actual argument instead of conveing a personal opinion, then yes, but I was not trying to say "saxton said so, so it's right, hah!" it was "saxton said so in the ICS, and I feel that I can trust him."

And you implied that I should do so also, which is an appeal to authority.

But the assumption creates a contradiction, so it's ignored, since we're trying to keep internal continuity here, we go to another assumption.
And it's an assumption, I don't have to disprove it, you'd have to prove it, thats how it works.

Please don't simply state that a contradiction is occurred. You have provided no evidence that one actually occurs. You have also not proven your assumption that the weapon takes time to power up.

There is no such thing as a selfsustaining mangetic bottle.

There is also no such thing as hyperdrive, the force, or lightspeed weaponry that travels slower than c. You seem to think that the last one actually exists for some reason.

Well the problems being that it's gravity ignoring,

Really? You have evidence that a noticeable parabolic effect would occur in the time span the weapon have been observed to travel over?

it's green(plasma won't appear green at any temperature)

It's also red.

and sometimes damage occurs before impact,

This is one of the oldest trekkie arguments about the plasma theory, so I'm surprised that you are actually using it. Radiation from the plasma being as hot as it is.

it alters heading,

You have not provided any evidence for this.

it dissapears way too quickly to just be plasma dissipating.
Also a magnetic bottle is not opaque so the plasma contained would glow white hot as a star in order to contain the energy figures spoken about in the ICS, same for the DS beams too.

All of which are far, far smaller problems than the one you have. Namely that your supposed lightspeed weapon has never been observed to have its energy travel at c. Until you can demonstrate a clear case of the energy travelling at c, the plasma will always be superior.

Well I assumed this since when the bolts dissapear it's just around the time that they turn and fire another shot, circumstansial evidence.

Exactly. Your entire argument is built around circumstantial evidence in a desperate attempt to ignore the fact that the bolts have _never_ been observed to travel at c.

[Lord Poe]

I really, really wonder sometimes how many people have actually watched these movies. Of course we see flak bursts in space. They happen throughout the asteroid chase scene in TESB.

And....they are mentioned in the canon TESB novelization.

The ICS is an excellent reference. But there's a couple issues I have trouble with. This is one of them. But this isn't new. It took Brian Young quite a while to convince me that the shots from the ISD around the Falcon (after they leave the slug) were asteroid hits, and not more flak bursts.