It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

[JodoForce]

What you have missed: (grr I have to spell it out for you)
1) The tower could have been knocked off whole along a trajectory hidden by the cloud
2) The tower could have been crumpled back towards the back of the ship, again hidden by the cloud

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, I know wha the fuck "flak" means. And I know they can't be written off as "shield interactions".

I apologize if that sounded harsh, but I am being serious here. For most of those situations (except for one incident I can recall in TESB during the Hoth Battle, and I'll discuss that later in Mad's response) the term "flak" is open ended, which was my point.

Incidentally, this is the same argument that's been had in the email discussions you and I are apart of, and that definition thing was in fact pointed OUT to me, so don't go treating me like I am twisting facts and ignoring canon.

You know, if its there, and the novelizations says its flak, then we need to live with that. Not call it something else.

Actually the only one that says flak may have been exploding around the ship is in the Hoth battle. That might be (as Mad suggested, and I believe it something Mike and/or Curtis has mentioned I believe) atmospheric effects (I'll go into this later) but it wouldn't work that way in space (I'll try explaining that later as well.)

The ANH novel does mention bolts "exploding" near Y-wings during the battle of Yavin, but the explosions do no real damage.

And again, I'm NOT calling it something else. I've provided rationalizations (as have others) to explain what it is that fits with all known evidence, and its not my fault if its inconsistent with how you think the interpretations should go. Unless you want to accuse me of deliberate manipulation or deception, which I dont think you are.

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

So? We don't see the smaller point defense guns on ISDs or command shi ps - I guess that means they don't exist? Besides, I'm not talking about TIEs so much as Walkers (where the mention of "flak/bolts exploding around the speeders" is more specific. Unless you are going to argue that the ONLY acceptable definition for flak is an exploding bolt or projectile, and I don't think you would.)

Walkers could very well have launchers (they DO Have blaster cannons, and as I pointed out there is substantial CANON evidence - the AOTC novelization as well as the AOTC VD, suggesting that some kinds of "blasters" are projectile weapons. This is s upported by EU evidence.)

Again, I am *NOT* ignoring canon evidence, I am in fact trying to explain what you INSIST are flak bursts by suggesting a way it could happen. (Mike in fact I believe suggested that there may be "bullet/projectile" like blaster weapons before in email discussions when the ICS came out - do you remember those?) Particularily since the massless/massive nature of blaster weapons is and has been in concention for some time now as well.

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

So does the volumetric shield interaction theory Mike proposed insofar as I can tell. And it doesn't require the introduction of more unknowns (Occam's Razor does apply.)

The bolt still can't just "detonate" like a bomb without something triggering it. That's the key point - it NEEDS a mechanism, which introduces an unknown into that theory (unlike, say, Mike's volumetric shield interaction theory - that relies on the known behaviour of force fields as three-dimensional objects, and can be supported by official evidence as well.)

And losing cohesion won't solve anything. First off, how does the bolt just suddenly lose all cohesion at once, rather than at a consistent rate? This implies something is artificially "halting/accelerating" the decay rate. It would also imply something controlling WHEN it happens (close to the ship after a certain distance, etc.) - again implying either an external mechanism or some unknown mechanism intrinsic to the bolt. What your describing behaves so much like a projectile weapon it might as well be one (this would be like saying its possible to fire energy bolts that "home" in on a target.)

Second, even IF we assume the bolt "detonates", how does this solve the low energy concern? That energy has to go somewhere. If a high energy bolt (say multi TJ or multi GJ) "DetonateS" - it releases that energy, and it has to go somewhere (the atmosphere on an inhabited planet, for example.). Of course, if the bolt FIREs a low energy bolt, and it detonates, it won't neccesarily have a huge atmospheric effect - maybe buffeting at close ranges from superheated air.

Mad's theory holds promise, though. Again, that will be discussed later. But besides that, I ask again, what is the fucking problem with assuming that some so called "bolts" might be physical projectiles (which is substantiated by a number of sources I've cited before, including the canon novelization) ? It would give you your flak bursts
and get around the mechanism issues, and it DOESN'T violate canon in the slightest. And this puzzles me because you keep acting like my explanation somehow is violating canon.

Eh?

Which is going to be more effective at equal energy outputs at punching through shields and armor, an energy bolt or a bomb. That's precisely my point.

Was either side interested in taking prisoners, or just in the enemies' defeat?

The Separatists were going to massacre the Jedi before the Clone Army arrived, so I doubt they would. The Jedi might take organic prisoners or be unwilling to harm the populace, but they wouldn't hesitate in the same way against the droid armies (and IIRC the droids were individually superior to the clones)

Why use flakbursting, which is akin to a grenade attack where your troops and the enemies are intertwined, when you can use pinpoit fire?

They weren't intertwined initially. The distances were quite far IIRC in the initial stages of the battle and even still in the middle, if it DID mix up at some point. And they weren't uniformly intermixed either (Weren't the gunships sweeping droid formations that were nowhere even CLOSE to the clone army?) And the Geonosians wouldn't hesitate to do it even if it DID kill their own droids - droids can be replaced, after all.

[Connor MacLeod]

Don't know why they don't exclusively use it and flak bursting doesn't appear to be random; seems to appear rather deliberately to me. And I'm not saying flak burst bring down shields quicker. Perhaps I should have said "more gradually" rather than "controlled".

By "random" I mean some bolts appear to "flak" and others don't. (like in the old discussion with DGG, why one bolt flaks and the other doesn't against the Falcon.)

Again, I did not say it would be more effective. What I am saying is that it may be an attempt to reduce the chance that damage will occur to the object of capture (DS plans, Han & Co.).

Spreading the damage is better than using a low powered shot once shields are dropped (or for that matter, ion cannons?) A concentrated bolt has a better chance of not only penetrating armor to take out and does localized damage (spreading the damage not only requires an increase in energy to compensate for the intensity loss, but also risks damage to multiple parts of the ship - its LESS controllable than a low-powered, concentrated shot.)

So yes, concentrated fire will penetrate shields, but if you're sending a hail of firepower at a ship you want to capture and the first of that volley penetrates, what will happen to that ship? We saw what one splinter shot did to the T4 and Falcon ("One more hit one the rear quarter and we're done for"). What if it had been followed directly by one or two more shots that had already been fired before the initial penetrator hit?

Which is why they weren't using a "hail of fire" - rather several gun repeatedly rather than firing rather than dozens at once. Coupled with varible power, the ability to tell the status of shields (ROTJ), and the "limited barrage pattern" tactic I mention below.

And yes, variable power shots are possible, but is there a minimum power level required for a TL cannon? I don't know, do you?

Superlasers can vary their power from planet shattering discharges to ship-killing ones. Thast a fairly diverse range for settings. We also know from the EU that all energy weapons (lasers and TLs) can be set for low powered bursts that do little or no damage (either targeting lasers, or for practice battles, or the "splinter shot" tactic against the Vong.) Since they can fire blasts that do little or no damage to ships yet still make a visible red bolt almost indistinguishable from a full-power shot, I imagine I do know.

BTW in "Rebel Stand" we learn that low power "splinter shots" on an XJ Wing are strong enough to turn Vong torsos to vapor, if not outright plasma, with a single bolt. (suggestive of MJ range outputs IIRC).

They were firing over the ship

Yeah, and those flashes were really obscured in front of the cockpit.

Granted. It might still be explainable under Mike's volumetirc shield theory (or extended shields - I think the two might be compatible)

I notice the bolts appear to "Vanish" some distance from the falcon, and prior to the cockpit scene, we just see flashes across the screen, not individual flak bursts.

The on-screen evidence says they weren't. Why the hell do they repeatedly shoot and around over the Falcon? Please tell me of an instance where any two shots from an ISD battery struck the Falcon.

You seem to have an idea of what the Imperials should do and somehow see shooting around a ship as direct concentrated fire. How?

Its called a "limited barrage pattern" - it was described in the Hutt Gambit and I believe in other sources. You use it to box in your opponent so you can predict his position. You don't think they might use that to try to get them into a position where they could disable the ship?

Couldn't it be intentional for the Imperials to make use of this shield interaction effect on bolts to achieve what I was saying above: cause a "flak burst" which gradually weakens the shields without causing unwanted damage to the ship and its contents that they desire to capture?

Yes, I suppose they might. But then the "flak burst" is simply a shield interaction (the iextended effect of the volumetirc sh ield is triggering the effect.) The "flak burst" theory, as I've seen most people argue it, implies that it is an intrinsic mechanism to the gun or the bolt itself that allows it to explode like a bomb, which is the problem.

[Connor MacLeod]

It is amazing that in the light of countless proof,both visual and written that we are still agruing about the existant of the Flak burst.

The main agruement against it, is the fact the antiflak crowd state that there is no known mechanism that would allow a pulse of energy to explode like a missile.

That is incorrect. Modern research in optics has uncover a host of special conditions that allow such behavior to occur. Soliton, light bullets and Kerr focusing, can create self focusing bundles of laser energy that can exhibit the whole range of behavior that we see turbo and SW lasers demostrating.

In the case of light bullets, they can be created to be unstable so after a fix period of time the packet falls apart releasing a shower of smaller bolts of energy.

The fact is that the SW laser technology is so advance and so powerful that they would have master the creation of such light bullets. It would explain the vast range of TL, the composite beam of the Superlaser, flak bolts.

if the French can do it:

ULTRA-INTENSE LIGHT FILAMENTS have successfully been sent through laboratory "fog" that approximates atmospheric conditions. This is an important step which should benefit several laser applications, such as free-space laser communication, monitoring of pollution, and range finding (see figure at http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/194.htm ). Open-air laser light shows feature bright beams seemingly traveling interminably through the sky. But in general water droplets are an avid absorber of laser light. Now a group of physicists at the Universite Claude Bernard Lyon in France have used ultra intense (10^14 watts/cm^2), ultrashort (120 femtosecond) laser pulses to create "light filaments," streaks of light only 150 microns wide but hundreds of meters long, which can propagate through an artificial cloud of water droplets without losing much energy. The filaments form up through two competing nonlinear optical effects: the "Kerr effect" in which high intensity light modifies the index of refraction in the transmission medium (in this case air and water vapor) in such a way as to cause self-focusing; and the creation of a defocusing plasma effect. The French researchers now plan to test their scheme in the open atmosphere under controlled conditions. (Courvoisier et al., Applied Physics Letters, 14 July 2003; contact Jean-Pierre Wolf, wolf@lasim.univ-lyon1.fr, 04072-43-13-01; text at www.aip.org/physnews/select

So can the Empire.

I dare you to bring this up to Mike or Curtis so they can laugh at you. I though you were debunked of this long ago.

[Connor MacLeod]

Or the bolt loses cohesion at a certain range, and detonates. How? Fuck if I know. But it would explain this low power concern of yours, and fits with what we see onscreen.

Keep in mind that we're talking about lightspeed beams with a visible bolt side-effect... turning the beam off may cause particles generated by the side effect to explode in a flak-like manner... wouldn't do much damage, but it could cause atmospheric disturbance. The flak would be more of a side effect, with the real damage being from the beam that missed. Could be another reason for timing the bolts so they're near the target when the beam cuts off.

As a side effect or a flaw/disruption of the beam, it might work. You'd have to ask Mike or someone who might be more kn owledgable about that stuff, I guess. We do see visible bolts "vanishing" before impact, and it does occur in the EU (and the flashes "might" be a rapid decay of large quantities of light at once... I suppose it can't be consistent or uniform in its decay.)

Something to check on, I guess. But the "projectile" theory can still account for it too (or at least cover parts the beam theory can't.)

[Lord Poe]

I apologize if that sounded harsh, but I am being serious here. For most of those situations (except for one incident I can recall in TESB during the Hoth Battle, and I'll discuss that later in Mad's response) the term "flak" is open ended, which was my point.

Open ended? I see it as the bolts detonating somehow. Then I see a few others saying this, this, this, this and...THIS is "actually" happening. I just don't see the reason for this.

Incidentally, this is the same argument that's been had in the email discussions you and I are apart of, and that definition thing was in fact pointed OUT to me, so don't go treating me like I am twisting facts and ignoring canon.

No, I'm saying that it seems canon is being buried in favor of explanations that seem to want to reinterpret what we saw in the movie, and what the novelizations simply tell us what these flakbursts were..

Actually the only one that says flak may have been exploding around the ship is in the Hoth battle.

That's wrong, and you know it. Flak is mentioned in the asteroid scene as well, and I've already provided the quotes here.

And again, I'm NOT calling it something else. I've provided rationalizations (as have others) to explain what it is that fits with all known evidence, and its not my fault if its inconsistent with how you think the interpretations should go. Unless you want to accuse me of deliberate manipulation or deception, which I dont think you are.

No, its NOT how I "think" interpretations should go. I'm talking about what the novelization plainly says, vs a few convoluted theories about ship shields stretching half an AU behind the ships making these "flakbursts".

Because we don't se launchers on TIE fighters and Walkers.

So? We don't see the smaller point defense guns on ISDs or command shi ps - I guess that means they don't exist?

Oh, what the fuck is this shit, Adam? Do I honestly have to point out to you that walkers and TIES don't even begin to approach the size of an ISD, and that we can see their weapons quite plainly? Are you saying launchers on walkers or TIEs pop up out of the cockpit somewhere then hides itself immediately? Come on. Is there any evidence of this in the ICS?

Besides, I'm not talking about TIEs so much as Walkers (where the mention of "flak/bolts exploding around the speeders" is more specific. Unless you are going to argue that the ONLY acceptable definition for flak is an exploding bolt or projectile, and I don't think you would.)

Again, what about this:

pg.231: The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

This is just as specific as the Hoth example. No, I'm not arguing the "only" definition, but it seems funny to me that when I bring up the bolts doing this themselves (as the novelization suggests) I get hit with "Oh Nooo.. that couldn't possibly happen!" Why don't we spread the charity, eh?

Walkers could very well have launchers (they DO Have blaster cannons, and as I pointed out there is substantial CANON evidence - the AOTC novelization as well as the AOTC VD, suggesting that some kinds of "blasters" are projectile weapons. This is s upported by EU evidence.)

Then we run into the problem of c weapons again. Can't be if they're projectiles. See, if we keep shying away from the simplest explanation-bolts terminating in an explosive manner after a set distance, which seems to be supported in the novelization, we run into all this speculative clusterfucks. But Mad seems to have an interesting explanation that doesn't sacrifice the simplest explanation.

Again, I am *NOT* ignoring canon evidence, I am in fact trying to explain what you INSIST are flak bursts by suggesting a way it could happen.

And what I'M saying is, the novelization version has merit, and shouldn't be trod under in favor of an unnecessary verbose explanation that seems to suggest otherwise.

(

Mike in fact I believe suggested that there may be "bullet/projectile" like blaster weapons before in email discussions when the ICS came out - do you remember those?)

Yes. Do you remember the arena shields on Geonosis that "must" be there, instead of flakbursts?

Particularily since the massless/massive nature of blaster weapons is and has been in concention for some time now as well.

Ok, so why can't we INTEGRATE bolt cohesion breaking down after a set distance, instead of saying "shield interaction" for every "flak burst" we see, even though it doesn't make sense in certain instances? (TIEs vs Falcon).

So does the volumetric shield interaction theory Mike proposed insofar as I can tell. And it doesn't require the introduction of more unknowns (Occam's Razor does apply.)

MORE unknowns? How is blaming the flak bursts on the bolts themselves vs shield interactions, atmospheric particles, and other second party players adding MORE unknowns???

The bolt still can't just "detonate" like a bomb without something triggering it. That's the key point - it NEEDS a mechanism, which introduces an unknown into that theory (unlike, say, Mike's volumetric shield interaction theory - that relies on the known behaviour of force fields as three-dimensional objects, and can be supported by official evidence as well.)

Shields can't explain every scene we see, nor does it override the novelization which says nothing about these interactions with shields.

And losing cohesion won't solve anything. First off, how does the bolt just suddenly lose all cohesion at once, rather than at a consistent rate? This implies something is artificially "halting/accelerating" the decay rate.

Why is something like THIS suddenly so hard to speculate on??? You're telling me that such a thing is MORE complicated than introducing shields all over the place, in every scene, and particles in the atmosphere at Hoth? How did anyone breathe on Hoth if the air is filled with so much particulate matter?

It would also imply something controlling WHEN it happens (close to the ship after a certain distance, etc.) - again implying either an external mechanism or some unknown mechanism intrinsic to the bolt. What your describing behaves so much like a projectile weapon it might as well be one (this would be like saying its possible to fire energy bolts that "home" in on a target.)

Again, read Mad's theory, which I said sounded good earlier in this thread, that TAKES THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.

Second, even IF we assume the bolt "detonates", how does this solve the low energy concern? That energy has to go somewhere. If a high energy bolt (say multi TJ or multi GJ) "DetonateS" - it releases that energy, and it has to go somewhere (the atmosphere on an inhabited planet, for example.). Of course, if the bolt FIREs a low energy bolt, and it detonates, it won't neccesarily have a huge atmospheric effect - maybe buffeting at close ranges from superheated air.

Right.....and?

Mad's theory holds promise, though. Again, that will be discussed later. But besides that, I ask again, what is the fucking problem with assuming that some so called "bolts" might be physical projectiles (which is substantiated by a number of sources I've cited before, including the canon novelization) ? It would give you your flak bursts
and get around the mechanism issues, and it DOESN'T violate canon in the slightest. And this puzzles me because you keep acting like my explanation somehow is violating canon.

If the bolts are physical projectiles, HOW can they be lightspeed weapons?

[Darth Wong]

That's wrong, and you know it. Flak is mentioned in the asteroid scene as well, and I've already provided the quotes here.

Then again, a literal interpretation of the word "flak" means that we're talking about physical shells, and a non-literal interpretation of the word "flak" could mean a lot of things.

No, its NOT how I "think" interpretations should go. I'm talking about what the novelization plainly says, vs a few convoluted theories about ship shields stretching half an AU behind the ships making these "flakbursts".

We've seen some rather oddball shield/bolt interactions in the past, particularly in the case of Tantive IV.

Then we run into the problem of c weapons again. Can't be if they're projectiles. See, if we keep shying away from the simplest explanation-bolts terminating in an explosive manner after a set distance, which seems to be supported in the novelization, we run into all this speculative clusterfucks. But Mad seems to have an interesting explanation that doesn't sacrifice the simplest explanation.

Why don't all of the bolts detonate in this fashion, then? Why do some of them continue on into the distance? The range-finding for some shots is a hundred times off the rest of the shots?

Yes. Do you remember the arena shields on Geonosis that "must" be there, instead of flakbursts?

Are you talking about the flakbursts around the gunships? They have shields, according to the novelization. Mind you, it's also possible that those fighters are using a different kind of weapon. I am not sold on the notion that there's exactly one type of weapon which is found in everything from handguns all the way up to the Deathstar.

Ok, so why can't we INTEGRATE bolt cohesion breaking down after a set distance, instead of saying "shield interaction" for every "flak burst" we see, even though it doesn't make sense in certain instances? (TIEs vs Falcon).

The notion of forced bolt cohesion requires a magic travelling containment bottle, which is a silly idea.

MORE unknowns? How is blaming the flak bursts on the bolts themselves vs shield interactions, atmospheric particles, and other second party players adding MORE unknowns???

Because you are adding a mysterious mechanism: bolt cohesion maintained by some sort of travelling containment field against an innate explosive tendency generated by mutual particle repulsion in lightspeed particles. The other one uses shield/bolt interactions (already known to exist).

Shields can't explain every scene we see, nor does it override the novelization which says nothing about these interactions with shields.

Unless "flak" refers to the tendency of bolts to splinter into cascading showers which look like explosions burst when they encounter volumetric shielding. A literal interpretation forces us to interpret them as physical shells, after all.

Why is something like THIS suddenly so hard to speculate on??? You're telling me that such a thing is MORE complicated than introducing shields all over the place, in every scene, and particles in the atmosphere at Hoth? How did anyone breathe on Hoth if the air is filled with so much particulate matter?

If you're talking about the seemingly mysterious flashes at Hoth which some have referred to, I'd have to go back and look at that scene again. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any flakbursting which was not in the vicinity of a snowspeeder, and if they could flakburst their bolts, it would have been handy to do so over the Rebel trenches (although it's possible that they were disregarding the Rebel trenches except for nuisance value, since their primary objective was the powerplant and the Rebel troops' weapons were no threat to them).

Mad's theory holds promise, though. Again, that will be discussed later. But besides that, I ask again, what is the fucking problem with assuming that some so called "bolts" might be physical projectiles (which is substantiated by a number of sources I've cited before, including the canon novelization)? It would give you your flak bursts and get around the mechanism issues, and it DOESN'T violate canon in the slightest. And this puzzles me because you keep acting like my explanation somehow is violating canon.

If the bolts are physical projectiles, HOW can they be lightspeed weapons?

Read more carefully. The fact that some weapons might fire physical projectiles doesn't mean that they all do.

[SPOOFE]

What you have missed: (grr I have to spell it out for you)

I didn't see either of these options in your post. I couldn't have possibly missed them if they weren't there, could I?

"Spell it out for you" indeed.

1) The tower could have been knocked off whole along a trajectory hidden by the cloud

Then we would have seen that, much like the rear part of the tower which IS visible.

2) The tower could have been crumpled back towards the back of the ship, again hidden by the cloud

Go watch the clip again. The asteroid strikes on the front surface of the port side of the tower's face. If the armoring were weak enough to allow the "crumpling" that you describe, the entire tower would have been twisted around counter-clockwise... which would have made it MORE visible.

[JodoForce]

I didn't see either of these options in your post. I couldn't have possibly missed them if they weren't there, could I?

"Spell it out for you" indeed.

If that's indeed the outline of the tower I'm seeing here, it must have been knocked off the ship like I suggested or crumpled back like Dark Hellion suggested.

Grrr...

Then we would have seen that, much like the rear part of the tower which IS visible.

The rear part is visible because the cloud is not as dense there, perhaps?

[SPOOFE]

Grrr...

Ah, I see. You were referring to the REAR of the tower and speculating that it must've been the front.

The rear part is visible because the cloud is not as dense there, perhaps?

But if the tower were "knocked back" (or "crumpled back", whichever you prefer), it would have been - surprise! - "back" where the cloud was "not as dense".

You see what you're doing, don't you? You're going with TWO assumptions to explain the scene where one - albeit one very unclear - assumption suffices, that is, you assume that the bridge tower is destroyed and THEN the destruction itself is obscured by something, rather than simply assuming that the bridge is obscured.

Sorry, Jodo, but that bridge tower had to go somewhere. The only direction the debris could have possibly moved without being seen would have been directly away from the camera, and the angle at which the asteroid was travelling simply would not have allowed that sort of reaction.

[JodoForce]

I thought from the angle of arrival of the asteroid it was quite plausible that the bridge tower could have been knocked away from the camera and toward the back of the ISD, perhaps in the right way for it to be obscured--after all that's the same direction that the asteroid was travelling in.

[Lord Poe]

Then again, a literal interpretation of the word "flak" means that we're talking about physical shells, and a non-literal interpretation of the word "flak" could mean a lot of things.

Well, I'm fairly certain that the TIEs aren't firing "intense or adverse criticism" at the Falcon, so the first definition could still apply without physical shells if we assume that the novelization is describing the flak burst phenomenon as it would if it came from a physical shell. This goes back to the whole "laser" wordgame.

We've seen some rather oddball shield/bolt interactions in the past, particularly in the case of Tantive IV.

Yes, the two instances I think you're referring to ARE shield reactions: the bolt splinterings we see close up when the T4 receives its final hit, and when the Falcon is knocked for a loop, right? At the begining of ANH, we see some "flakbursts" that may or may not be from shield interaction, and could be explosive solids since we are talking about something the size of an ISD.

But we can't keep saying "shield interaction" during those scenes in TESB with the TIEs, it just doesn't gel. When the Falcon is thrown off kilter by the direct impavt of the ISD's TL bolt, it didn't hit a shiplength or so away from the Falcon, but right on top of it. Take a look at the TIEs harrying the Falcon earlier. Those flakbursts are far behind the Falcon, which left the frame about 3 to 4 secons before at top speed.

Why don't all of the bolts detonate in this fashion, then? Why do some of them continue on into the distance? The range-finding for some shots is a hundred times off the rest of the shots?

Why don't all the bolts splinter every time they hit a ship, like we see on the T4 and the Falcon in TESB? The bolts that fly off in the distance? In the T4 vs Devastator for instance, it could have been laying a path of flakbursts in front of the T4 that passes our perspective, which would explain alleged "misses" by the Devastator. For the Falcon escape from the Death Star, they were in close proximity to one another, and the bolts wouldn't lose cohesion so close to that fighting if we asume SOME flakburstring occurs when the bolt "decays" after a set distance. These settings may not be any more precise in some instances other than short, medium, long range. Those bolts could have terminated beyond our perspective.

Are you talking about the flakbursts around the gunships? They have shields, according to the novelization. Mind you, it's also possible that those fighters are using a different kind of weapon. I am not sold on the notion that there's exactly one type of weapon which is found in everything from handguns all the way up to the Deathstar.

Ok, these may have been explosive solids, but that's not what I was referring to in relation to the e-mail stuff Connor was talking about. I was referring to an effort to get rid of flakbursts all together by any explanation necessary, and one of those explanations was that there "must" have been an "arena shield" around the combatants on Geonosis.

The notion of forced bolt cohesion requires a magic travelling containment bottle, which is a silly idea.

Sillier than traveling FTL, or lightsabers??

Because you are adding a mysterious mechanism: bolt cohesion maintained by some sort of travelling containment field against an innate explosive tendency generated by mutual particle repulsion in lightspeed particles. The other one uses shield/bolt interactions (already known to exist).

But this doesn't explain every instance we see of flakbursting, especially by TIES quite a few ship lengths away from an enemy, nordoes it explain why the Falcon would have its shields set like a fishbowl one minute, then hull hugging the next. That "some sort of travelling containment field" shouldn't be dismised simply because its hard to reconcile.

Unless "flak" refers to the tendency of bolts to splinter into cascading showers which look like explosions burst when they encounter volumetric shielding. A literal interpretation forces us to interpret them as physical shells, after all.

Unless we don't go with a literal interpretation, and recognize that the description refers to what the effect resembles. Lasers again, anyone?

If you're talking about the seemingly mysterious flashes at Hoth which some have referred to, I'd have to go back and look at that scene again. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any flakbursting which was not in the vicinity of a snowspeeder, and if they could flakburst their bolts, it would have been handy to do so over the Rebel trenches (although it's possible that they were disregarding the Rebel trenches except for nuisance value, since their primary objective was the powerplant and the Rebel troops' weapons were no threat to them).

As far as I now, snowspeeders don't have shields, however.

Mad's theory holds promise, though. Again, that will be discussed later. But besides that, I ask again, what is the fucking problem with assuming that some so called "bolts" might be physical projectiles (which is substantiated by a number of sources I've cited before, including the canon novelization)? It would give you your flak bursts and get around the mechanism issues, and it DOESN'T violate canon in the slightest. And this puzzles me because you keep acting like my explanation somehow is violating canon.

If the bolts are physical projectiles, HOW can they be lightspeed weapons?

Read more carefully. The fact that some weapons might fire physical projectiles doesn't mean that they all do.[/quote]

I did read carefully. Again, this catch-all explanation Connor is referring to still doesn't explain TIEs suddenly shooting explosive solids.

[Howedar]

Well, I'm fairly certain that the TIEs aren't firing "intense or adverse criticism" at the Falcon

LOL!

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

this thing won't stop saying it has new posts, I'm hoping posting in it will fix that.

[JodoForce]

Oh I don't know... it's a bit more complicated than that--the asteroid was travelling mostly away from the camera, so despite hitting the bridge tower from the side, its torque about its centre of gravity is a lot lower than this would suggest. Also the bridge tower is attached to the rest of the ship, and we don't know if the structure would cancel out displacement and rotation in equal amounts.

[SPOOFE]

I thought from the angle of arrival of the asteroid it was quite plausible that the bridge tower could have been knocked away from the camera and toward the back of the ISD, perhaps in the right way for it to be obscured--after all that's the same direction that the asteroid was travelling in.

Then watch the scene again. In order for what you described to happen, the asteroid would have had to hit the bridge tower head-on, and pretty much in the center of the tower's mass. Instead, the asteroid hit at an angle against the port side of the tower.

For an experiment: Take a soda bottle or a can or something, and rest it on the ground. Then hit it with a rubber band, from a slight angle, and aim for it to impact on the side. The soda bottle or can or whatever will spin around (well, it'll also be knocked around a bit, but that's because it's a lot lighter, relative to the amount of force, than the bridge tower was) rather than be pushed straight back.

[Mad]

As a side effect or a flaw/disruption of the beam, it might work.

Well, if by "disruption of the beam" you mean "beam turning off," then that's what I'm talking about.

You'd have to ask Mike or someone who might be more kn owledgable about that stuff, I guess.

Mike's posted in this thread, so he can comment as he wishes. I probably should bring up my theories with Saxton sometime soon.

We do see visible bolts "vanishing" before impact, and it does occur in the EU (and the flashes "might" be a rapid decay of large quantities of light at once... I suppose it can't be consistent or uniform in its decay.)

Probably a variety of factors. Turbolasers seem to have a bit of randomness to them.

We know that the bolts are "ionized markers" (SotE) and are pretty much harmless in comparison to the invisible lightspeed beam which (by my theory and Mike's "non-square waveform" idea) only ramps up to full damaging power shortly after the beam has begun firing.

For the bolts to be "ionized" means that massive particles must exist in them, probably generated as part of the same decay that creates the photons that lets us see the bolts (massless particles decaying into both photons and massive charged particles).

So it'd depend on whether or not these new particles are contained in the bolt somehow by the beam. Something to do with the "spinning," perhaps? (Which may cause the particles to travel in a helix while the beam is active.) Either that, or they're almost immediately ejected, but there long enough for the bolt to be considered "ionized."

Having the bolt continue on after beam termination is troublesome regardless. Then again, blaster bolts are often truly sublight (not just giving the appearance of being sublight, like turbolasers)... perhaps the composition of the particle decay is the same as blaster bolts (c-velocity turbolasers and blaster bolts use related principles, after all, and this is the only way I can think of to tie both weapon types together with their known differences)... but then we don't know what the composition of a blaster bolt is or why it holds together.

Well, this stuff gets complicated and unverifiable rather quickly. But it was potentially useful for this discussion, so I figured I'd add it. Such a simple idea gets complicated and confused when trying to detail it and still remain consistent with as many facts as possible. (Almost ruins the original idea.)

Anyway, the particles would seem to sometimes expand away from each other (they'd be both particles and anti-particles, too) when the beam terminates. Other times, somehow, they'd maintain cohesion and more slowly disperse after the beam terminates. Other times, the bolt doesn't have enough particles to create much of an explosion, and the dispersing can't be seen.

If someone can think of a simplier or more consistent way to tie this stuff together, go for it... Even if this implimentation isn't workable, I think the original idea still holds promise.

Something to check on, I guess. But the "projectile" theory can still account for it too (or at least cover parts the beam theory can't.)

It's likely some instances are from the "explosive solids" mentioned in the ANH novelization. I doubt the Death Star is the only vessel equipped with the weaponry. Especially considering that the "explosive solids" would appear to be more useful against fighters than anything else, but the Death Star wasn't designed with much antifighter work in mind. In other words, there's no reason for it to have a new, one-of-a-kind weapon that would never be used anywhere else.

But other instances, like the TIEs at Bespin, are most likely from laser weaponry. I doubt TIEs have much room to carry ammunition for flak shells to ineffectively attack the Falcon with. (And still sound exactly the same as laser weaponry.) So instances like these are still some kind of flak from energy weapons. The only question is how.

Bolt-shield interactions work in some cases. Explosive solids in others. My theory or some variant of it, hopefully, for the remaining instances.

[Phil Skayhan]

Up for general consumption in reference to the "flak" issue

Flak me? Flak you!

I'll try to have the rest of the relevant scenes up by tonight.

[Phil Skayhan]

I notice the bolts appear to "Vanish" some distance from the falcon, and prior to the cockpit scene, we just see flashes across the screen, not individual flak bursts.

It could be simply that the bolts pass beyond where we can see them and then "burst". This occured in the Tantive IV scene as well.

The on-screen evidence says they weren't. Why the hell do they repeatedly shoot over and around the Falcon? Please tell me of an instance where any two shots from an ISD battery struck the Falcon.

You seem to have an idea of what the Imperials should do and somehow see shooting around a ship as direct concentrated fire. How?

Its called a "limited barrage pattern" - it was described in the Hutt Gambit and I believe in other sources. You use it to box in your opponent so you can predict his position. You don't think they might use that to try to get them into a position where they could disable the ship?

We're closer in agreement on this than you might think:
Google link
Note: the times given are incorrect because CAV discs are 24fps; not 30 as I originally posted.

Couldn't it be intentional for the Imperials to make use of this shield interaction effect on bolts to achieve what I was saying above: cause a "flak burst" which gradually weakens the shields without causing unwanted damage to the ship and its contents that they desire to capture?

Yes, I suppose they might. But then the "flak burst" is simply a shield interaction (the iextended effect of the volumetirc sh ield is triggering the effect.) The "flak burst" theory, as I've seen most people argue it, implies that it is an intrinsic mechanism to the gun or the bolt itself that allows it to explode like a bomb, which is the problem.

Like I said, I don't know which it is. I never gave this much thought. Right now I'm going to try and put all the relevant evidence on one site.

[Phyre]

The shield interaction theory doesn't fly. Snowspeeder's are unshielded, anyone forget that?

[omegaLancer]

Connor the soliton theory was never debunk , the fact was that Ker and self focusing mechanism as it stand has to have a medium ( like Air ) in order to work.

Not that there are not a mechanism to do this in a vacuum, for there is. It requires firing a bolt of plasma ahead of the Laser ( actually using the laser to accelerate the Plasma to near light speed) and have the lasers interact with the Plasma to create a self focusing effect. The laser bolt will pass thru the Plasma cloud be refocus and eventually will come out of focus again on it own, but the effect as greatly increase the range of the laser beam.

see here and here (Dress your fucking links!)


A second method is being research, is based on the fact that photons do interact with each other weakly. At high energy it may be possible to have the laser interact with itself dupicating in a vacuum what is can be done in a medium. At the energy that SW weapons operate such interact would be very likely.

See
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st21

Conner, I would love mike to look over the links and see what he thinks Also for those that have not seen it this is how a light bullet ( a soliton like solution for electron magnetic radiation) can be made to decay and explode
check out the link to the light bullet home page on Halo decay

http://www.sfu.ca/~renns/images/halo2.html

The fact that noise can be introduce into the oscillation of the ligth bullet that will cause to explode or break apart into a shower of smaller bullets. This could be set at a specific or random interval.

The fact is that we know from various EU reference that Turbo laser have a short range mode. This only make sense if there is a mechanism to control the distant the TL travel.

There is no reason to add physical projectile to the entire agruement when there is already a method that matchs we see in the movies and what is written in the EU novels. Turbo laser and laser can explode the SW universe laser and energy beam technology are far ahead of anything we have today.

[JodoForce]

Damn... my reply to SPOOFE comes out above his post

[His Divine Shadow]

The shield interaction theory doesn't fly. Snowspeeder's are unshielded, anyone forget that?

Continue reading, we're alot closer to a functional theory.

[His Divine Shadow]

So you're saying it can be just a random thing?

Sure. That's what's seen onscreen.

Nitpick though, that was what I was suggesting here though
Ofcourse I assigned attributes like shields, atmospheric interaction and whatnot to the causes, the terminating of the beam causing that effect is also very interesting, ofcourse it's not a certainty, other times we see the bolts wink out instead of explode.

[AdmiralKanos]

Well, I'm fairly certain that the TIEs aren't firing "intense or adverse criticism" at the Falcon, so the first definition could still apply without physical shells if we assume that the novelization is describing the flak burst phenomenon as it would if it came from a physical shell. This goes back to the whole "laser" wordgame.

I'm just pointing out that highlighting the word "flak" doesn't really prove anything one way or another.

Yes, the two instances I think you're referring to ARE shield reactions: the bolt splinterings we see close up when the T4 receives its final hit, and when the Falcon is knocked for a loop, right? At the begining of ANH, we see some "flakbursts" that may or may not be from shield interaction, and could be explosive solids since we are talking about something the size of an ISD.

The question is how large the volumetric shield effect is. Most forcefields in real life do not actually have a boundary; they usually extend into infinity, dropping off in strength with the square of distance. Depending on the interaction of forcefield geometry, vector effects, and incoming bolts, the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship. The bolt that hit the Tantive IV, for example, would have harmlessly passed by it if its shields had a clearly defined outer boundary, since there would be no reason to make this boundary larger than the ship itself.

But we can't keep saying "shield interaction" during those scenes in TESB with the TIEs, it just doesn't gel. When the Falcon is thrown off kilter by the direct impavt of the ISD's TL bolt, it didn't hit a shiplength or so away from the Falcon, but right on top of it. Take a look at the TIEs harrying the Falcon earlier. Those flakbursts are far behind the Falcon, which left the frame about 3 to 4 secons before at top speed.

True. However, the vector interaction between the forcefield and the incoming bolt might have something to do with this.

Why don't all the bolts splinter every time they hit a ship, like we see on the T4 and the Falcon in TESB? The bolts that fly off in the distance? In the T4 vs Devastator for instance, it could have been laying a path of flakbursts in front of the T4 that passes our perspective, which would explain alleged "misses" by the Devastator.

Vector interactions could explain why the bolts don't ALWAYS splinter, and it's rather pointless to lay down flakbursts so far in front of the T4 that we can't see them go off.

For the Falcon escape from the Death Star, they were in close proximity to one another, and the bolts wouldn't lose cohesion so close to that fighting if we asume SOME flakburstring occurs when the bolt "decays" after a set distance. These settings may not be any more precise in some instances other than short, medium, long range. Those bolts could have terminated beyond our perspective.

True, but then one would have to ask why the rangefinding is so inaccurate on these particular shots.

Ok, these may have been explosive solids, but that's not what I was referring to in relation to the e-mail stuff Connor was talking about. I was referring to an effort to get rid of flakbursts all together by any explanation necessary, and one of those explanations was that there "must" have been an "arena shield" around the combatants on Geonosis.

Irrelevant since gunships are known to have shields. Many combat vessels might actually have ray shielding of some sort, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. How do we know snowspeeders have no shielding, for example?

The notion of forced bolt cohesion requires a magic travelling containment bottle, which is a silly idea.

Sillier than traveling FTL, or lightsabers??

Are you trying to argue that because SW has some technologies which are probably impossible (such as FTL) we should just throw sense and reason to the winds and declare that every phenomenon must exist?!?

Travelling FTL is absolutely required in order to suspend disbelief. The same is true of lightsabres, but in that case, the phenomenon is connected to a physical device, rather than free-floating in space with no physical projection mechanism. You may scoff, but it is indeed far more ludicrous to have a free-floating containment field than one which is produced by a physical device.

But this doesn't explain every instance we see of flakbursting, especially by TIES quite a few ship lengths away from an enemy, nordoes it explain why the Falcon would have its shields set like a fishbowl one minute, then hull hugging the next. That "some sort of travelling containment field" shouldn't be dismised simply because its hard to reconcile.

Curtis mentioned vector interactions a long time ago in our E-mail discussions. I fail to see how his explanation has been disproven or even vaguely addressed in any way.

Unless "flak" refers to the tendency of bolts to splinter into cascading showers which look like explosions burst when they encounter volumetric shielding. A literal interpretation forces us to interpret them as physical shells, after all.

Unless we don't go with a literal interpretation, and recognize that the description refers to what the effect resembles. Lasers again, anyone?

You're missing the whole point, which is that you are using the word "flak" to prove something, and you shouldn't be doing that. Lasers again, anyone?

As far as I now, snowspeeders don't have shields, however.

It's certainly possible, and since we know that gunships (an older form of airspeeder) had them, it seems reasonable to suggest that snowspeeders had them.

I did read carefully. Again, this catch-all explanation Connor is referring to still doesn't explain TIEs suddenly shooting explosive solids.

It doesn't need to, since the interactions are still close enough to the Falcon to be potentially explained by oddball volumetric vector interactions. No one said any of this was perfect, but it's easier to explain flakbursts than to explain "decaying contaiment field" bolts flying off into space and never bursting.