Range of 'lasers'

[Howedar]

Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science

Nitpick: if this is the case, then we'd need to throw out literally 99.9999% of official data, because SW simply doesn't jive with science as we know it.

Saying that official data is subordinate to science is somewhat simplistic. I know what you're trying to say, and I agree, but its not quite that cut-and-dried.

[Darth Wong]

Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science

Nitpick: if this is the case, then we'd need to throw out literally 99.9999% of official data, because SW simply doesn't jive with science as we know it.

No, because many of the seemingly impossible things described by the official literature are necessitated by canon.

[Darth Wong]

Mark, I was attempting to distill this thread down to its most basic points because the posts were becoming too fucking long. You have responsed by re-inserting every point of minutae, often with not-so-subtle insinuations that you think I'm ducking them, ie- comments like "I still await a response". This kind of tactic is unreasonable and is no way to argue if you want to pretend that you're not a fucking asshole. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

I did not claim that turbolaser energy is incapable of vaporizing or even deforming a liquid wall.

Yes you did, for a period of "several seconds". Since it can vapourize solid armour in a fraction of a second, you are arguing that this ridiculous "liquid wall" of yours is orders of magnitude tougher than the best armour that SW engineers can design. What part of this escapes your grasp?

The enormous surface tension holds it together for a short time, and then it fails.

Don't be an idiot. When dealing with fluid mechanics and high-temperature gases, "a few seconds" is not a "short time". It is, in fact, a near-eternity to retain any kind of shape against expansion pressure. This is quite literally like saying you can detonate a nuke inside a puddle and the puddle might hold together for a few seconds.

Might I quote you,

[The tiny projectile theory] is the only one which makes sense, and the fact that none of the books describe it hardly weakens it against all of these other mechanisms which are also not described in the books

The fact that the bolt remains coherent when the barrel is not pointing along it's path (for a short time) and then vanishes (See the first shot of an exterior blaster cannon at the Battle of Yavin in A New Hope)

Thus disproving your theory, which cannot explain this phenomenon without the ridiculous notion that a liquid blob can retain its liquid state and fixed shape for several seconds against ultra high-energy internal gases which vapourize SW hull armour in a fraction of a second.

The fact that a turbolaser bolt hit an X-Wing engine and "splattered" in a distinctly liquid-like pattern:

Again, this is consistent with a beam being scattered, but totally inconsistent with your liquid blob theory since the liquid blob will explode the instant it is freed from your magical containment tube. A "long time" when dealing with such energies is a millisecond, not several seconds.

I noted the incidents from The Krytos Trap and Isard's Revenge as an example of what happens when turbolasers come in contact with the hull of a ship. Damage is incurred, and sometimes even the hull itself melts, or is blasted into a "condensed metal mist, like the down from a silvery bird".

I then suggested that it is possible that if you cool the transformed tibanna to temperatures such that it would not melt the hull once it came in contact, the liquid may lose it's exotic properties.

And I reiterate that you might as well call this "magic containment mojo" rather than inventing pseudoscientific terms to describe it, because it has no basis whatsoever in either official literature or any other source. There is nothing whatsoever to support your interpretation of a liquid shell.

I also noted that the heat of vaporization of the liquid tibanna may be higher than the melting point of the hull.

Since melting point is a temperature, and heat of vapourization is a specific energy, that is a ridiculously ignorant statement which does not warrant response. Do not waste my time.

So, when turbolaser blasts came tumbling in, the liquid tibanna may heat to a temperature of X degrees. At X degrees, the exotic tibanna liquid remains liquid. However, at X degrees, the hull of the star destroyer might be past it's melting point and turn into a mass of congealed metal threads.

Frankly, I see no reason to continue this bullshit, since you are unwilling or unable to grasp the fact that the bolt's shape is retained even after losing this containment tube of yours, and that behaviour is totally inconsistent with the very concept of liquidity. Therefore, your theory is wrong, and none of your evasions can change that. What you are proposing is NOT a liquid shape, since I have shown quite clearly that the properties of liquidity do not fit the situation. What you are proposing is a SOLID shell with plasma inside. Rigidity and retention of shape against force is a property of SOLIDS; this is, in fact, the very definition of a solid! I've tried to be patient, but you are quite frankly acting like an idiot now. The definition of solidity is hardly an exotic scientific concept.

Before you deride the TOT as "magical containment mojo" as you put it, I would like to see you explain, using modern scientific terms, the beam theory.

A beam of unstable high-energy lightspeed particles which interact with each other and which decay over time. No containment tube is required, nor is a magical substance which is orders of magnitude tougher than any SW armour. All we need is some kind of exotic particle whose existence is explicitly stated in the literature. Compare this to your containment tube and liquid blob with rigidity, neither of which are mentioned anywhere in the literature and the latter of which contradicts itself.

the (lightspeed) containment beams are shut off (notice that the bolt is a tiny bit thicker. Now that there's no containment tube, the turbolaser plasma expands like any other heated substance)

[/quote]
Except that this doesn't happen when bolts ricochet or are splintered, which is the entire point I was making. You claim that the loss of this "containment tube" means immediate expansion, yet you simultaneously claim that the liquid blob can hold itself together and maintain its shape "for several seconds". Which is it, or do you intend to continue using two mutually contradictory versions of the theory to explain different situations?

It is one thing to interpret a word in a non-literal way: lasers could very easily be changed to describe other kinds of energy beams

[l(ight) a(mplification by) s(timulated) e(mission of) r(adiation).]

It's very specific.

And it is also not what we observe from the films, so don't waste my time. The point is that a lightspeed beam of exotic particles is far closer to the proper definition of a laser than a liquid blob will ever be.

The turbolaser construct shines along a specific wavelength due to the stimulated emission of photons which occurs in the liquid wall. This is why turbolaser bolts are sometimes referred to as "laser pulses" or "laser bolts."

What you are talking about is mere thermal emission, which is not a laser. Anything and everything will emit photons when it's heated up; this does not make it a laser. Do you honestly not understand this?

Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science,

And this, Mike, is perhaps where we truly deviate. Please show me the Lucasfilm's canon/official policy quote that says the fictional Star Wars universe always must be constrained by our current understanding of physics?

Don't be a wise-ass. You reject official literature when it contradicts science, which is why you don't accept that lasers glow green and bounce off magnetic seals. If you allowed official literature to completely contradict science at will, then you would have no problem accepting that lasers do this in SW. Rather than formulate a consistent policy on the use of evidence, you seem to alter it depending on what point you want to make.

No, Mike. It's a piece of evidence with a clearly defined place in the Lucasfilm canon/official hierarchy. You reject it out of hand because of the implications that it has.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. Your entire "TOT" only exists because you, too, reject official literature if it is clearly contradicted by our knowledge of physics. Then you turn around and pretend that this policy is somehow unreasonable when it is used against you.

Quote from the Official Fact File

THE POWER OF LIGHT: Like most energy weapons, turbolasers fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The 'bolt effect' seen when a turbolaser is fired is actually a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed. The light emitted by such bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting it's range. Thus, turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, reducing waste glow.

The Official Fact File, the same source (the same article) which describes the turbolaser bolt as plasma, and says that blasters and turbolasers are "not all that dissimilar," also uses the ICS information, nearly quoting it word for word.

Then you should agree that a turbolaser is a lightspeed energy beam, not a containment tube carrying a liquid blob.

Despite what you claim, I am not disregarding the ICS explanation at all, in fact (in my post I made on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 11:36 pm) I broke down the ICS explanation sentence by sentence and explained how it's interpreted in TOT.

Your point is invalid.

Actually, your point is ignorant. A forcefield is not an energy beam, any more than a piece of PVC piping is an energy beam.

This depends on how long the bolt is in flight, the relative density and charge of the turbolaser plasma and the liquid wall and any effects the magnetic wall may have on the bolt (I assume you're talking about the trash compactor scene).

You honestly don't seem to understand that a liquid object cannot retain rigid shape against force BY DEFINITION, never mind for several seconds. I can't believe I am being forced to actually explain this. You also claim that the liquid is actually MORE rigid and MORE resistant to vapourization when it's HOTTER, which once again defies everything we understand about physics. That is why I say that you might as well just call it "magic containment mojo" instead of abusing terms like "surface tension".

This is an example of an official reference stating that plasma is what is launched out of the barrel as a bolt. You claimed no such reference exists. This position is incorrect.

This official reference contradicts itself by also quoting the ICS, your ignorant claims of a forcefield being an "energy beam" notwithstanding. And for the umpteenth time, it is not even published in LFL's home country so it's not much of an official reference.

If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

Recant on what? My claim that there's no good source for your theory? You have provided MORE evidence for that by showing how your own favourite source contradicts itself on the matter. Once more, for the record: a forcefield is NOT an energy beam. The two concepts are COMPLETELY different in physics, by definition. They are no more equivalent than an energy beam is to my left foot.

Ramp-up delay, not wavelength. Why does it always take a similar amount of time for a blaster bolt to "reach" its destination regardless of range?

I responded with observations made by SPOOFE (emphasis mine):

your screen caps of the Naboo transport being shot at demonstrates another interesting phenomenon... in that scene, you can see energy blasts travelling faster than turbolaser shots seen in, say, TESB. In fact, I think it's well-known that there's a HUGE variable between the propogation speeds of blaster bolts throughout the series. What would cause this? A mechanism of the targetting computer? Why would it ever be desireable to slow down the speed of your blast?

I also noted in that thread, the following:

Another theory on massed observations of weapons fire shows a consistant delay in fired shots, they always take 2-4(sometimes 6) frames to travel to their targets

Consistent? "2-4(sometimes 6)" represents a variation of as much as 300 percent.

Thank you for providing yet more information against your own theory. An interference pattern in a blaster bolt would be difficult to precisely control. If it's generated by deliberately mismatched frequencies and phases, even the tiniest timing error could significantly change the propagation rate of the visible pulse. However, the speed of a moving object with mass (ie- your liquid blob with plasma) is controlled by the force applied to it by the launch mechanism, and that will be far easier to control. That's why you can have damage before visible impact in some cases (a phenomenon which your theory is utterly unable to even explain, since you claim that the invisible portion of the beam is a mere containment field and the energy is locked up inside the visible bolt).

If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

Why would I want to recant on a position which you just helped me reinforce?

Well, the railgun on top of the AT-TE is an example of an observed projectile weapon in SW which looks just like a blaster bolt. So it demonstrates, if nothing else, that you can't easily tell the difference

I responded with:

It "looks just like a blaster bolt." Is the projectile that is supposed to be inside of it directly observed? How do you know it is a railgun and not a blaster? What distinguishes it? I would like to see this blaster bolt, please. Do you have screenshots?

I still await a response.

Do not piss me off, asshole. Your smart-ass behaviour is seriously getting on my nerves. I did not respond to this point because it was not important, and unlike you, I was hoping to keep these posts from growing to unreadable length. However, the AOTC ICS clearly labels the weapon on top of an AT-TE as a projectile weapon, with mass-driver coils.

Since I'm too lazy to answer this long post while looking up that one as well, I will simply point out that it is either a splintering effect of some sort (meaning that it does not remain cohesive) or it is superheated material being blown off the engine.

I responded with:

Could you please explain how non-exotic superheated X-wing hull material glows green? As I've heard many times, green is not a thermal color.

I still await a response.

You are going to be awaiting a fucking boot up your ass if you keep up this kind of smart-ass attitude, asshole. If you think you can win a debate by lengthening every goddamned post until we start debating with essays, you will quickly learn that people aren't dumb enough to buy into that method.

The point remains that the bolt in that incident did not ricochet cleanly, unlike a blaster bolt, hence it represents another case of blasters and turbolasers behaving differently. I merely proposed that as one of two possible explanations because I admitted up-front that I wasn't interested in examining the minutae of that incident right now, and you seized upon that as an excuse to nitpick the possibilities I threw out. This kind of dishonest debate technique is rude, deceptive, and bound to generate a hostile response, which you will no doubt blame on my bad manners rather than your quick slide from reasoned debate to dishonest bullshit.

The generation of sufficient light will blot out whatever's behind it, particularly on film where you can saturate the medium. Try again.

I responded with:

Are you contending that the green bolt here


and the red bolt here


are so bright that they blot out what's behind it? The red bolt is not as bright as the white explosion behind it, yet it is opaque.

Since we have seen cases where the same kinds of bolts are NOT opaque, we have also seen that opacity is not a fixed characteristic of such weapons, hence your point is a waste of time. We could debate on the reasons for differing opacity of different bolts all day, but they still do not support one theory over another. If anything, since you tie the opacity to your liquid theory, the fact that it varies from bolt to bolt disproves YOUR point, not mine.

I still await a response. If you recant on this position, please indicate so.

I am getting seriously pissed off with your smart-ass way of conducting yourself in this thread, asshole. The gloves come off next round if you don't knock this shit off.

But it could conceivably interact oddly with a volumetric shielding effect.

I responded with:

Could you expound on this a little, please?

I still await a response.

[/quote]
And you will wait a long fucking time since this has been mentioned elsewhere on this board and I have officially run out of patience for your nitpickery. Next time, compose a short, sweet response dealing with the major points and stop acting like an asshole.

[Ender]

Quote from the Official Fact File

THE POWER OF LIGHT: Like most energy weapons, turbolasers fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The 'bolt effect' seen when a turbolaser is fired is actually a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed. The light emitted by such bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting it's range. Thus, turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, reducing waste glow.

The Official Fact File, the same source (the same article) which describes the turbolaser bolt as plasma, and says that blasters and turbolasers are "not all that dissimilar," also uses the ICS information, nearly quoting it word for word.

Way to go Mark, using that Factfile you were the reference for as a source. Essentially, you said "Becasue I say so" there.

Interesting, this also blows little bobby's claim that the ICS are not used as references out of the water.

[Howedar]

No, because many of the seemingly impossible things described by the official literature are necessitated by canon.

Fair enough, much EU stuff is necessitated by the movies. However, there certainly are elements of the EU that are taken as correct, even if they both contradict science and have nothing to do with canon.


*Edited to fix quoting*

[Illuminatus Primus]

Way to go Mark, using that Factfile you were the reference for as a source. Essentially, you said "Becasue I say so" there.

I don't know if that is in itself illogical. If so, Saxton would be barred from referencing either Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections, or Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones.

[Marc Xavier]

Way to go Mark, using that Factfile you were the reference for as a source. Essentially, you said "Becasue I say so" there.

That's one of the perks of having what you say declared official.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Too bad your theory just takes the self-generated containment and renames it a liquid wall.

[Marc Xavier]

Too bad your theory just takes the self-generated containment and renames it a liquid wall.

I assume you're talking about projectiles again.

So, "self generated containment" from what source again?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The original "plasma bolt" theories had the ludacrious idea of being self-contained by some sort of moving magnetic bottle, presumably generated by the bolt itself somehow.

Your theory just takes the self-generated bottle and declares it a liquid in defiance of the scientific meaning of that.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

This is bullshit.

I think my brain might have melted from being exposed to such pure, undilluted stupidity...

[Marc Xavier]

The original "plasma bolt" theories had the ludacrious idea of being self-contained by some sort of moving magnetic bottle, presumably generated by the bolt itself somehow.

So in other words, you have no source which specifically says "self generated containment" it's just a well-accepted supposition.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The original "plasma bolt" theories had the ludacrious idea of being self-contained by some sort of moving magnetic bottle, presumably generated by the bolt itself somehow.

So in other words, you have no source which specifically says "self generated containment" it's just a well-accepted supposition.

Look Marc, I said "original theories." It was quite evident to everyone that plasma on its own would simply blow out incohesively after leaving the barrel, and not remain in a bolt.

So the first theories claimed a magnetic bottle to contain it, but without any projectile to generate it, it had to be an intrinsic quality of the bolt itself, which is quite retarded.

Your theory just takes the self-containment and makes it a "liquid wall."

[FTeik]

To come back to the combination of an energy-beam with a plasma-bolt:

Would it be possible for the energy-beam to be released as a spiral/coil to form a chanel for the plasma-bolt?

[Illuminatus Primus]

As Wong has noted over and over again, a cylindrical force field (in essence what you're suggesting) is not an energy beam.

[FTeik]

I´m not talking about a cylindrical force-field, i´m talking about an energy-beam that "screws" itself around a central axis, thus keeping the plasma together until the target is reached.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Energy beams "screwing" around plasma? Do you have a mechanism or reason for all of this? Occam's spinning right now.

It is a useless explanation.

[FTeik]

Reasons:

To solve the problem with the plasma mentioned as ammunition in the official literature as well as the recoil of turbolasers.

Mechanism:

Since light is not only a wave but also a particle (IF i remember my physics from long ago correct) it should be possible to give the laser a spin, to cause it to move in a way, that a spiral is formed, which serves as chanel for the plasme (it can only move forward, but not to the sides or back).

I don´t know the details how this could be done, but i also don´t know exactely how the SW-civilisation gets its hyperdense hypermatter to fuel its warships.

What i want to know is, IF a laser- or energy-beam can be made to form a spiral, would this idea work?

So please spare me the "it is a useless explenation"-crap, but tell me, why it wouldn´t work (under the assumption, that a the energy-beam can be forced to behave this way).

[His Divine Shadow]

What i want to know is, IF a laser- or energy-beam can be made to form a spiral, would this idea work?

I know of no process that would make it possible, but even if we assume this is possible it would not negate the seemingly gravity ignoring properties of the bolt, the only reason light is hardly affected by gravity is that it goes so damn fast.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Massless particles do have momentum.

It is equal to the particle's energy over the speed of light.

[Ender]

Way to go Mark, using that Factfile you were the reference for as a source. Essentially, you said "Becasue I say so" there.

That's one of the perks of having what you say declared official.

Provide evidence that Factfiles are official, as I have never seen them listed on any LFL canonicity chart, and the fact that they are given an extremely limited production.

[Connor MacLeod]

Way to go Mark, using that Factfile you were the reference for as a source. Essentially, you said "Becasue I say so" there.

That's one of the perks of having what you say declared official.

Provide evidence that Factfiles are official, as I have never seen them listed on any LFL canonicity chart, and the fact that they are given an extremely limited production.

I dont see it matters. The Fact File quotes appear to basically reiterate what DWR already speculated in the VD's, so it doesnt really substantiate HIS particular theory any more than it does the rest. All he has is his a bunch of unknown problematical mechanisms, questionable interpretation of canon and selectively interpreted "official" quotes because according to him "its the only way to reconcile it".

[Connor MacLeod]

On top of that, if we follow his particular logic regarding this "liquid" component to its conclusion (particularily with his so called comparison to sW armor) this liquid has:

a.) A neutronium element to it or an extremely dense nature.

and

b.) energy dispersing/superconductive properties

Basically, this makes a TL a physical projectile (gee, where did THAT theory come from), except it involves a needlessly complicated mechanism. On top of that, the TL supposedly (since the "liquid" appears to conduct heat through/across itself") the TL bolt is radiating a tremendous amount of energy away (which may in fact be inefficient for its purposes, since it would "leech" energy away from the plasma and radiate it away, like armor does against incoming weapons fire.)

(t his is if we ignore the questionable assumptions he makes in comparing starship armor to this "liquid" component to begin with.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Finally, the AOTC quote. If this is what the book says, then indeed it can be interpreted as evidence for projectile theory.

Now, here is how it works with the TOT:

Simply put, the plasma construct is a projectile.

Now, At the same time, it makes it possible to make sense of other novelization quotes, such as the following from the Empire Strikes Back Novelization:

"The ship was rocked again by the concussion of another laser explosion."

Mike Wong rightly notes that a laser bolt can't explode. But the TOT stimulated emission (laser) plasma bolt can.

So now the TOT is known to line up with the Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization as well as the A New Hope Novelization, Empire Strikes Back Novelization and the Return of the Jedi Novelization in which the narrators refer to the weapons as lasers.

Actually it doesn't, unless you are being as abusive of language as Mike has noted before. Besides, even if it IS a projectile, your theory still fails because it is needlessly complex compared to assuming that there is a physical projectile or device inside the bolt generating and maintaining the containment field. This is somewhat analogous to the "sheathe" that bowcaster bolts and concussion missiles/energy shells/proton torpedoes generate for themselves.

This also ignores the somewhat questionable interpretation of evidence you use to "justify" this theory (in addition to the unkonwn mechanisms of the containment beam and the liquid component.) Hell, the phyiscal projectile can justify a "flak burst" (assuming it exists) far more simply than your ludicrous theory does.

Which works fine with the TOT.

Not nearly as well as the physical projectile containing the plasma does, and without abusing language to the degree you do.

This works fine with the TOT as far as I see. But, as for what you're saying, how so?

Just how difficult is it for you to understand is the notion of a "physical projectile containing a plasma?", even if we accept that this somehow DOES work with your theory (which I question, since you appeaer not to be familiar with the examples I cited, so I fail to see why you claim it works with TOT.)

You do me a disservice, sir, as your posting of those pictures seems to indicate that you have not read the Turbolaser Operational Theory. The TOT deals with both transparent and opaque bolts.

Mike's right, you are an asshole. You DO recall claiming that transparent bolts disproved the existence of a physical projectile inside the bolt, don't you? We wouldn't see "in" an opaque bolt.

or just not be there.

Prove it. While you're at it. Prove the existence of the "containment beam" without severely abusing scienece or language as well as the existence of the liquid component (and that it can withstand liquid.)

(and please, no citation of your silly page. You provide no references whatsoever to the page, nor any sort of scientific justification for either. And even if you did with the latter, I'd no more trust your understanding of science than I would a chipmunk, given your apparent understanding/abuse of it here.)

or just not be there.

No doubt you can prove it

or it might just not be there.

In that case, your technobabble containment beam and liquid component might not be there either.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor MacLeod, if you want to provide excerpts, definitions, quotes, and screenshots from the official or canon source material to discuss, I have no objection of discussing them with you.

I see that "discussion" in your vocabulary means "ignoring science with technobabble and selectively interpreting facts to suit my purposes."

But rattling off acronyms, not reading the theory and saying what amounts to basically "na uh!" is not how I choose to conduct a debate.

As if you were one to speak of proper debating method. I'm just praying you piss Mike off once more.

Bring evidence to the table. Cite it clearly, succinctly, and completely. If you have an observation or a question, bring it forward and I will discuss with you. But do not quarrel with me for the simple sake of being antagonistic.

I like how you speak as if youre being comprehensive about these sources.

Well, starting with the EGW&T: according to their diagrams, blasters have internal prismatic crystals and lack acceleration coils. How exactly is THIS consistent with your theory? (we should note as well that by this same token, the AOTC VD lacks any sort of internal crystals or such.)

And while we're on official:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... index.html

The standard ranged weapon of both military personnel and civilians in the galaxy, the blaster pistol fires cohesive bursts of light-based energy called bolts. Blasters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, delivering a wide range of damage capability. Many blaster pistols have stun settings that incapacitate a target, rather than inflicting physical damage. While blasters do deliver a searing concussive blast, they can be foiled by magnetic seals and deflector shields.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... er/eu.html

The basic blaster technology of intensifying a beam of light into a deadly bolt is scalable, and largely the same despite the differences in weapon types and sizes. The interior mechanisms of a tiny hold-out blaster, a blaster pistol, a large blaster rifle, and a turbolaser cannon are based on the same theories and principles. A squeeze of a trigger emits volatile blaster gas into a conversion chamber, where it is excited by energy from the weapon's power source. The agitated gas is then funneled through the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into an intense particle beam. A prismatic crystal focuses the beam, and passes it through a refinement chamber which "galvens" the beam into its final bolt.

Star wars encyclopedia, page 29: "Blasters fire beams of intense light energy that - depending on the intensity setting - can do everything from stun to vaporize."

Page 176: "Laser cannon: a weapon that shoots visible bolts of coherent light in a rapid-fire fashion,"

EGV&V page XV (early part of book): "laser and blaster cannons: These are the most common weapons; blaster cannons are less powerful laser cannons and are used on vehicles. LAser cannons fire coherent packs of intense light energy which cause physical damage."

A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, Third Edition: pg 60: "Blaster: Common weapons that fire coherent packets of intense light energy called bolts."
Page 330: "Laser cannon: A more powerful version of a blaster, it is usually mounted on a ship or vehicle and fires visible bolts of coherent light."

Please tell me how these are consistent with your theory, since they make absolutely no mention of a plasma component whatsoever. (in fact, they are inconsistent with the VD definition, and the FAct file definition.) And please try not to do so without introducing technobabble pseudoscience and abusing language to do so.