Range of 'lasers'

[Marc Xavier]

In the spirit of whittling down this debate to the basic points, I have endeavored to shorten my response.

Issues:

Strength of the Liquid Wall:




You have expressed incredulity about the notion that the liquid wall component of a turbolaser bolt can maintain coherency for as long as several seconds, contending that such is a "near-eternity" for such an object to retain it's shape against the intense expansion pressures that would be found within the interior plasma.

This is a variation on the point you brought up in your first reply to my theory. As you said, if "the turbolaser bolt is indeed a plasma contained in a 'liquid' shell as you postulate, then we have the obvious problem that it should blow apart almost immediately."

As I said in my reply to that point, I agree, and in fact this "was one of my main challenges when putting together the TOT. You have a bolt with a hot plasma core and a cooler liquid outside, that's not exactly a stable configuration." As I said then, I suppose it might be better if the TOT read something like "a few microseconds," or whatever corresponds to how long we see a bolt remain on screen without the barrel lined up with it before it poofs out of existence.

However, I also must note that stronger bolts (like turbolasers, which would have more and hotter plasma) will expand and lose shape faster than smaller/weaker bolts (like blasters). Hence, the expansion that I noted in the collision with the X-wing, and the apparent lack of expansion seen with blaster/ground-based weaponry.

Any reference to "several seconds" should be taken as a high end estimate, only observed in situations such as the Gungan troop shield in The Phantom Menace, or with low-powered hand weapons, as with the trash compactor scene in A New Hope, and not taken as representative of all turbolaser/blaster type weapons at all times.

The points we've discussed, such as the X-Wing turbolaser impact and the Tantive-IV scattering event, are examples of space-based weapons and incidents that lasted well under even one second (the Tantive-IV incident was .04 seconds [1 frame], and the entire X-wing turbolaser incident was .12 seconds [3 frames] of which the major "splash" which we have discussed was visible for only .04 seconds [1 frame]). Incidents where such weapons have retained cohesion longer (such as the trash compactor scene) have dealt with lower-powered weaponry, such as handheld or terrestrial blasters.


Bolt Behavior:
Vanishing Bolts:

I note the TOT (plus addendums) as explanation:

The surface tension of the liquid wall can keep the tibanna bolt intact for [a maximum of] several seconds without the need of a containment beam. Exactly how long the bolt retains cohesion depends on the temperature of the core plasma, the temperature of the edge plasma, the density and the size of the bolt; dense and hot masses of tibanna [such as those found with space-based turbolasers] will tend to lose their cohesion and come apart, sometimes explosively. Bolts with different attributes [such as cooler bolts from blasters, for example] may be more likely to simply dwindle out.

How does beam theory account for the vanishing bolts which exist (momentarily) along a vector on which the source cannon is not aligned? I take it that it does not, and a projectile theory must be invoked to explain it. If so, how does the projectile vanish?


Bolt Splash:



The TOT explains this temporary cohesion after impact through the liquid wall component (which I went over above).

This incident is not scattering, as in the Tantive-IV incident.

This issue was originally brought to His Divine Shadow. In the incident with the Tantive-IV, 5-7 well-defined straight-line arms are observed branching off of the point of turbolaser impact. These arms are angled downward in relation to the Tantive-IV. This is accepted as an example of "scattering."




In the incident with the X-Wing impact, an amorphous blob of material was observed, one with irregular and interrupted particulates, and a nucleus which is far distant from the point of observed turbolaser impact. No straight-line branches are observed forming from the point of turbolaser impact (as was observed on the Tantive-IV), and the disjointed tendrils are not angled toward the X-Wing (in fact, the "splash" is directed away from the starfighter).




You suggested, as an alternative to scattering, that this may be "superheated material being blown off the engine." I ask, then, how this superheated material is supposed to glow green?

Transparent vs. Opaque Bolts:

Bolts have been shown to be either transparent or opaque. The TOT explains this in it's section about Tibanna's energy consuming behavior. Your explanation involved invoking out-of-universe issues about film saturation, saying "generation of sufficient light will blot out whatever's behind it, particularly on film where you can saturate the medium."

I asked you if you were, therefore, saying that the red bolt seen here,


is so bright that it blots out what's behind it?

The red bolt is not as bright as the white explosion behind it, yet it is opaque. When I brought this inconsistency with your claim forward, you brought up a (irrelevant) point about how the opaqueness is not a "fixed characteristic" of the bolt. I did not say it was, and the TOT accounts for both semitransparent and opaque bolts.

Instead of acknowledging the error, you derided this as a "waste of time," claimed (incorrectly) that it is somehow a disproval of my theory, and then left the subject.



The Definition of Beam Theory:

You stated that the beam theory explains turbolasers as a "beam of unstable high-energy lightspeed particles which interact with each other and which decay over time."

These beam theory particles travel at lightspeed. So then, I take it, that the theory says they are massless?

If so, are they bosons?

As I understand it, they are not photons, correct?

What is the nature of their interaction? If they are massless, why do they not set up an interference pattern as photons do?

How do these massless particles emit light transversely?

What do they decay into? Are these decay particles also massless?


Source List:

The Turbolaser Operational Theory can be harmonized with the following sources:

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: A New Hope
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi

Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections
Note: Mike, you reject an annular confinement beam (forcefield containment tube) as eligible to be an "energy beam." Yet you accept exotic non-photonic decay beams which (as I understand it) operate outside the realm of modern physics as "lasers" in spite of the fact this does not line up with the acronym of a laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). The stimulated emission point of the Turbolaser Operational Theory, however, explains how the turbolaser can be simultaneously viewed as a laser bolt as well as a plasma bolt.

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization
A New Hope Novelization
Empire Strikes Back Novelization
Return of the Jedi Novelization

The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers
Note: Some have derided my use of this source because I had a hand in it's creation. Others have tried to dismiss it based on the fact that it has not been published in the United States. These points are irrelevant, however, as the document still remains the Official Star Wars Fact File.

Agents of Chaos I - Hero's Trial
Destiny's Way
The Bacta War
Shadows of the Empire
The Krytos Trap
Star Wars Sourcebook

Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology
Note: This is based on Bryan Young's quote, where he claims that the EGWT says "TL technology and blaster technology are similar" and Connor MacLeod's note "it is true that a similarity is inferred between blasters and laser cannons [in the EGWT]."

Star Wars Visual Dictionary
Attack Of The Clones Visual Dictionary
Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin
The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
The Illustrated Star Wars Universe


Other Points:

You claimed that "Official literature, unlike canon, is subordinate to science" and I asked, then, for you to 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"

I apologize, but you have not provided such a quote.



You claimed that the "other official references describe plasma being part of the turbolaser's mechanism but they do not specifically state that the plasma is launched out of the barrel as the bolt."

I provided an example, the Star Wars Fact File which says just that. I asked you if you recanted on your previous position in light of this new evidence, and instead of indicating yes or no, you attacked the reference. I take it, then, that you do not recant on your previous position.



You claimed a "similar amount of time for a blaster bolt to 'reach' its destination regardless of range" (this point was originally postulated in the form of a rhetorical question) and I noted observations by SPOOFE and myself which indicated that there is a large variation in the speeds of bolts throughout the Star Wars series.

I asked you if you recanted on your previous position in light of this new evidence. Although you did not explicitly say that you recanted, you did change your position, saying now that 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."

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is going to be great to watch.

I hope you do take notice of the similarities to Connor's, Wong's, and Ender's complaints about your debating ability and demands. The incredulity over your need for technobabble is nearly verbatim what I said in the original threads with HDS.

[DPDarkPrimus]

What the hell happened to you, Marc? You used to be intelligent...

[Marc Xavier]

Some interesting notes, Connor MacLeod,

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.)

The bolt is radiating a tremendous amount of energy away? Yes, it is. Recall the Incredible Cross Sections:

"Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow."

You DO recall claiming that transparent bolts disproved the existence of a physical projectile inside the bolt, don't you?

This is what you said:
"In terms to your allegations a bout the 'bolt,' it must be noted that not all blaster bolts are transparent"

The TOT deals with both transparent and opaque bolts; your posting of the pictures seemed to demonstrate that you were not aware of this point.

Prove it.

You made the claim of the projectile. I pointed out that there is no directly observable evidence of such a projectile in transparent bolts. (You responded with saying perhaps they are too small too see. This suggestion, however, is not evidence to the point; it is an explanation made to explain the lack of evidence) Since you claimed that there is a solid projectile inside of the bolt, it is your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.

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.)

If you could show me such diagrams I would like to discuss them. It is quite possible that there is no way for me to reconcile the Turbolaser Operational Theory with a given source. However, I would like to go over the diagram here before making a final judgment.

In which case the TOT does not appear "harmonizable" in any way, as it may appear to be so with what you say about the EGW&T diagrams, I will update the source list about my theory's failure to harmonize with this point.

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.

The energy used to energize Tibanna in the TOT is based on laser light. The TOT bolt also radiates a large amount of light-based energy from the bolt (stimulated emission point). The phrase, "fires cohesive bursts of light-based energy" however, is difficult to harmonize with a plasma bolt, because although the bolt contains "light-based" energy, the bolt itself is not "light-based" energy; it is plasma particles covered by a liquid wall which contains and emits such energy.

Literally speaking, one could say that a blaster pistol does fire cohesive bursts of light-based energy; light-based energy because the tibanna recieves it's energy from an actual laser in the actuation chamber. The energy is made "cohesive" (held together) because it is contained in the plasma bolt.

The interpretation, does help to make sense of "light-based" energy being "cohesive" and still moving at sublight speeds (as seen in the movie). However, it requires one to "read in" a significant portion of material into the quote which simply does not exist in the quote. Such plasma suppositions may be supported by other sources, but not this one.

I must also note, though, for a beam theory to be in line with this quote, that it necessitates that blasters fire literal light-based energy. Beam theory, as I understand it, does not use actual photons, but some other exotic particle(s) designed to fit certain observations.


In addition, the quote notes that blasters "can be foiled by magnetic seals and deflector shields." If this were simply a laser, magnetic fields should not "defeat" these weapons in the way they are observed to in A New Hope. The fact that a blaster would be "defeated" by a magnetic seal is more in line with a TOT interpretation.

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.

The TOT runs into difficulty around the point where the source begins to speak about "particle" beams and the prismatic crystal. I do not understand, exactly, how the gas is processed (converted?) into the particle beam or what the nature of this particle beam is. Unless this crystal has holes in it or something, it does not appear to line up with the Turbolaser Operational Theory. Further thought on this point will be necessary.


The Star Wars Encyclopedia speaks of blasters as firing "beams of intense light energy". The phrase "fire beams of intense light energy" is difficult (impossible?) to harmonize with a plasma bolt, because although the bolt contains light-based energy and radiates it, the bolt itself is not a beam of light energy (but neither are the particles from beam theory).

The best candidate for a "beam" of "intense light energy" in the TOT would be the containment tube, but the containment tube is a force-beam, not a laser-beam. Beam theory, as I understand it, must disregard laser/light quotes or re-interpret the meaning of "laser" or "light."


You have brought up valid points against the Turbolaser Operational Theory, Connor MacLeod. I appreciate you citing them clearly, succinctly, and completely.

As for your other two sources, the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, Third Edition, they describe coherent packs or packets (instead of "beams" as the above quotes do). I would therefore forward that those coherent packets can be thought of as TOT plasma bolts (which would contain a lot of intense "light energy") and fired at a target as a possible harmonization of the TOT and these sources.




Source List:

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: A New Hope
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi

Episode II: Incredible Cross Sections

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones Novelization
A New Hope Novelization
Empire Strikes Back Novelization
Return of the Jedi Novelization

The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers

Agents of Chaos I - Hero's Trial
Destiny's Way
The Bacta War
Shadows of the Empire
The Krytos Trap
Star Wars Sourcebook

Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology
Note: a point brought up by Connor MacLeod may indicate an inability to harmonize the Turbolaser Operational Theory with diagrams contained within this publication.


Star Wars Visual Dictionary
Attack Of The Clones Visual Dictionary
Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin
The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
The Illustrated Star Wars Universe

[Ender]

The Official Star Wars Fact File: Turbolasers
Note: Some have derided my use of this source because I had a hand in it's creation. Others have tried to dismiss it based on the fact that it has not been published in the United States. These points are irrelevant, however, as the document still remains the Official Star Wars Fact File.

Aww, how cute, you're being passive aggressive by saying "some" instead of actually dealing with my point, and providing evidence beyond a name game.

Magazines bill themselves as "the official source for..." all the time, even in regards to things there cannot be official sources for EG Tatoos.

Now them show me a list of LFL OoC that includes the fact files, something only published in Europe whereas everything else SW has been given a World Wide release.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Marc also ignores that Star Wars Tales, A New Hope Infinities and The Empire Strikes Back Infinities are all official Star Wars publications by Dark Horse Comics, but they are totally apocryphal.

[Striderteen]

Marc's theory seems needlessly complex and difficult to reconcile with parts of Wars canon.

On the bright side, it's not born of base stupidity, and he's sufficiently rational to not throw temper tantrums when its weaknesses are pointed out. Intractably stubborn about clinging to his pet ideas, perhaps, but that's not too bad a character flaw in the grand scheme of things

[Connor MacLeod]

The bolt is radiating a tremendous amount of energy away? Yes, it is. Recall the Incredible Cross Sections:

"Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow."

You don't get it do you? Imperial armor (the example you used) operates by rapidly attempt to disperse the energy of the bolt striking it (ie in a fraction of a second) over a far larger area, reducing the attempt at penetration. It may also attempt to reradiate the energy away rapidly (a noted quality of dura-armor).

In other words, the armor is designed to radiate large quantities of energy away VERY QUICKLY (IE fractions of a second) as part of its defensive properties. This means that the bolt would be radiating away much of the heat imparted by the plasma. (In short, the liquid would not only be "cooling" the plasma, but it would also indicate that the TL or blaster bolt is radiating significant heat. Given that in the movies we can see blaster bolts pass near or strike near troopers with little to no harm , I question this claim. (We should also note that its distinctly indicated that the visible glow from blasters is a "harmless byproduct" of the reaction, as indicated in the EGW&T, page 4)

By the way, nice evasion by completely dropping the point about mass (which would be a factor in the armor/liquid comparison you attempted to make.)

You DO recall claiming that transparent bolts disproved the existence of a physical projectile inside the bolt, don't you?

This is what you said:
"In terms to your allegations a bout the 'bolt,' it must be noted that not all blaster bolts are transparent"

The TOT deals with both transparent and opaque bolts; your posting of the pictures seemed to demonstrate that you were not aware of this point.
[/quote]

More dishonest evasions, how surprising. You claimed THIS on page 2:

Is there any directly visible indication of an actual projectile inside of ground-based blaster cannons and handheld blasters?

I remember that Spanky The Dolphin pointed out this page, and noted the picture next to the caption "The Last Thing You'll Ever See" and I noticed that the bolt was translucent, even viewed from dead-on.

Here's the same picture, widescreen.

http://www.furryconflict.com/hosted/head_on_blaster.jpg



If I understand the theory correctly, there should be some sort of "glowing projectile" in the center of this bolt.

I posted those images to directly refute your allegation that a translucent bolt disproves the projectile theory.
Are you now saying you did NOT make that claim?

You made the claim of the projectile. I pointed out that there is no directly observable evidence of such a projectile in transparent bolts. (You responded with saying perhaps they are too small too see. This suggestion, however, is not evidence to the point; it is an explanation made to explain the lack of evidence) Since you claimed that there is a solid projectile inside of the bolt, it is your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.

There's no directly observable evidence for this bullshit "liquid" or "containment bottle" either, yet that doesnt stop you from harping about how your theory is the only workable answer we have. Yet I don't see you rolling out the irrefutable evidence for yours either.

And I like how you directly ignored the fact that we DO Have observable evidence of physical projectiles (Darth Wong mentioned the Trade Federation tanks firing in TPM), in addition to the aforementioned canon and official support for the projectiel theory, none of which remotely is workable with your theory withotu seriously abusing the language of the refenreces (much like you tried to do with the ICS definition.)

On top of that, this is STILL only secondary to the priamry consideration that your theory is scientifically implausible and needlessly complex compared to the other theories presented. (you do know what the fuck Occam's Razor is, don't you?) You don't get to assume from the get go that your theory is proven when you demonstrate your level of scientific ignorance and ignorance of source material.

If you could show me such diagrams I would like to discuss them. It is quite possible that there is no way for me to reconcile the Turbolaser Operational Theory with a given source. However, I would like to go over the diagram here before making a final judgment.

In which case the TOT does not appear "harmonizable" in any way, as it may appear to be so with what you say about the EGW&T diagrams, I will update the source list about my theory's failure to harmonize with this point.

Jesus fucking christ. Can't you do your own goddamn research? For all these claims of "harmonizing" with the EU, you have proven to have done remarkably little actual research into it when you formulated this bullshit theory.

http://www.alaska.net/~rockwell/starwar ... sters.html

Look at the bottom of the page. You'll see the schematic there. Its the same identical one to the EGW&T. If you don't believe me, go buy the fucking book yourself like I did.

The energy used to energize Tibanna in the TOT is based on laser light. The TOT bolt also radiates a large amount of light-based energy from the bolt (stimulated emission point). The phrase, "fires cohesive bursts of light-based energy" however, is difficult to harmonize with a plasma bolt, because although the bolt contains "light-based" energy, the bolt itself is not "light-based" energy; it is plasma particles covered by a liquid wall which contains and emits such energy.

Your "theory" only works with this and the other references if you, as usual, grotesquely twist it beyond recognition. The fact is it indicates that it is a photonic element as the primary damage mechanism, and in fact the ONLY component. It makes no mention whatsoever of a plasma being there, or even being apart of the "bolt. and there is a decided difference between what is described and a plasma bolt. Your attempts to distort the quote do not count as "fitting.
"
Besides which, how the hell do you collimate a plasma, and with a crystal for that matter??? (and how do you intend to get taht plasma past the crystal, either?)

Literally speaking, one could say that a blaster pistol does fire cohesive bursts of light-based energy; light-based energy because the tibanna recieves it's energy from an actual laser in the actuation chamber. The energy is made "cohesive" (held together) because it is contained in the plasma bolt.

No one cannot, unless one considers "gross maligning of evidence" to be "reconciliation of evidence".

The interpretation, does help to make sense of "light-based" energy being "cohesive" and still moving at sublight speeds (as seen in the movie). However, it requires one to "read in" a significant portion of material into the quote which simply does not exist in the quote. Such plasma suppositions may be supported by other sources, but not this one.

Just how much tiwsting of evidence will you engage in to make your shitty theory look workable? You ignore science, you twist the sources that contradict it, and you attribute unworkable elements to "exotic unknown" principles and mechanics.

I must also note, though, for a beam theory to be in line with this quote, that it necessitates that blasters fire literal light-based energy. Beam theory, as I understand it, does not use actual photons, but some other exotic particle(s) designed to fit certain observations.

ROFLMAO. So according to you, the "massless" definition does not work with SW.com definition (or other defintions) because it must fit in a literal sense. Yet according to you, it fits with YOUR theory even though you must twist around the facts to accomodate your stupid "liquid and plasma in a tube" nonsense? You not only ignore science and the facts themselves, you apparently ignore any sort of consistent analytical methodology.

(By the way, even if we make the ludicrous leap you say and actually treat the ICS Definition as unworkable, that simply means it is a different KIND of blaster weapon. You recall that Mike argued for multiple kinds of weapons right? Not your "everything must be a single type" bullshit. So either way, you still lose.)

In addition, the quote notes that blasters "can be foiled by magnetic seals and deflector shields." If this were simply a laser, magnetic fields should not "defeat" these weapons in the way they are observed to in A New Hope. The fact that a blaster would be "defeated" by a magnetic seal is more in line with a TOT interpretation.

Unless the massless particles that decay into light (you do recall that they exact type of particle the ICS suggests is never specified, right?) have a charge. I do recall something of that being possible in past arguments, although I'd ahve to ask Mike about it. And again I repeat, if worse comes to worse, this is simply a "diffe rent kind of blaster" than what the ICS or VD describe, which STILL trumps your bullshit theory.

The TOT runs into difficulty around the point where the source begins to speak about "particle" beams and the prismatic crystal. I do not understand, exactly, how the gas is processed (converted?) into the particle beam or what the nature of this particle beam is. Unless this crystal has holes in it or something, it does not appear to line up with the Turbolaser Operational Theory. Further thought on this point will be necessary.

I laugh when you actually think this is the ONLY problem with your theory. Apparently you've had your head up your ass for the entire debate you had with Darth Wong, and your abuses of science and logic have gone completely out of your head.

The Star Wars Encyclopedia speaks of blasters as firing "beams of intense light energy". The phrase "fire beams of intense light energy" is difficult (impossible?) to harmonize with a plasma bolt, because although the bolt contains light-based energy and radiates it, the bolt itself is not a beam of light energy (but neither are the particles from beam theory).

It is much easier to reconcile with either the ICS theory OR the "multiple weapons employed" theory - far more easily than with your own crap theory.

The best candidate for a "beam" of "intense light energy" in the TOT would be the containment tube, but the containment tube is a force-beam, not a laser-beam. Beam theory, as I understand it, must disregard laser/light quotes or re-interpret the meaning of "laser" or "light."

Back to abusing the notion of an energy beam, huh? Did you forget that Mike smashed you for trying to do this with the ICS quote?

You have brought up valid points against the Turbolaser Operational Theory, Connor MacLeod. I appreciate you citing them clearly, succinctly, and completely.

And you expect what for your politeness exactly? You've been arrogant to Mike and myself. You have persisted in ignoring the utterly valid problems with your reasoning, either by using inapplicable examples or throwing it up to an "exotic unknown" ( Didn't darkstar do that?), and done everythin short of outright lying (although even there I can't be certain) to validate your so called theory. The fact is that you have demonstrated that you are so desperate to 'prove' (a term I use very loosely in your case) your theory is correct by any means neccessary, rather than change to fit known facts and problems.

As for your other two sources, the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, Third Edition, they describe coherent packs or packets (instead of "beams" as the above quotes do). I would therefore forward that those coherent packets can be thought of as TOT plasma bolts (which would contain a lot of intense "light energy") and fired at a target as a possible harmonization of the TOT and these sources.

A plasma bolt is NOT a packet of light based energy. By your logic we can call a .45 ACP bullet a "laser beam" (Another point Mike has repeatedly brought up that you ignored.)

And even if we DID accept your ludicrous assumption, your theory STILL fails on acocunt of it being far more complex than the other theories presented.

[Connor MacLeod]

This is, as Mike noted, pointless. Marc Xavier has demonstrated he will go basically to any length to keep his pet theory rather than change it to fit known facts and problems. Mike brought up every single logical and scientific problem with the theory, which were either promptly ignored or attributed to some "exotic" (and unknown) mechanism.

He then went on to rant about "harmonization." When presented with sources he obiviously had no knowledge of or had made no effort to familitarize himself with, he engaged in gross abuses in language and severe twisting of definitions in order to shoehorn the inconsistent definitions into his theory (rather than assuming his theory was in fact, incorrect and unworkable.) This started with his abuse of the AOTC ICS definitions, and continued onwards as other sources presented themselves. He has utterly rejected all other theories on no other basis than the fact they are not his own.

Its rather obvious by now just how the TOT theory is unworkable, and any further pursuance of this debate is simply a waste of my time (since its obvious you will simply resort to endless repetition and nitpicking rather than make any response of substance.) While not quite an outright troll like Darkstar, he obviously is not interested in any sort of open, consistent, or logical debate, except when he is allowed to have his own way.

As a final note, however, we should also add a few "factS" Xavier has neglected:

1.) Nowhere has it been indicated that there is in fact a liquid element to Tibanna. It is a gas by explicit defintiion (one of several kinds of blaster GAS.) Gaseous matter is distinctly different from a liquid, and the two cannot be "mixed" in the way he argues. If Tibanna in fact had a liquid component, it would not be called a gas This is in fact a complete fabricaion on his part.

Besides which , the AOTC ICS clearly describes Tibanna gas and blaster gasses in general as being "coolants" - which is utterly consistent with the EU claims of Tibanna gas being a hyperdrive coolant, and with the applications of the gas (a superior coolant would allow the gun to handle greater energy outputs without overheating, which would also help extend the range. It should be noted that this is especially consistent with the claims about the E-wing in the EGV&V and Dark empire - where certain E-wings suffered reductions in effectiveness because their synthetic gas broke down and was ineffective. To compensate for this, the Rebel techs had greatly increased the power feed at the risk of overloading the guns.)
So I guess we now conclude that a blaster bolt or turboalser bolt has its own inherent cooling component now as well, huh? Isnt that going to hamper the effectiveness of the weapon (since you rather want your so called plasma to be "hot")

2.) The "fragments" of the bolt from Luke's fighter in ANH that Xavier attributes to being a "splash" do in fact closely resemble "splinters" of a bolt (if the shields are skintight, the fragments may have "skipped" over the surface of the shield - we have directly observed from TPM that lower-powered bolts will in fact reflect from shields (Anakin's fighter in TPM.) At least one instance of this seems to occur to an X-wing at the Battle of Yavin in ANH as well.

We should note that there is in fact canon evidence for the collimation/splintering of bolts in this fashion - the death star, by official and canon fact a compound blaster/turbolaser itself, is in fact composed of eight tributary beams, which thesmelves are composed of many individual and vastly smaller beams (we see the internal generation of such beams in aNH and ROTJ, - a detail Curtis Saxton has noted on his site.) The "splintering" effect we see is in fact the reverse of this - rather than merging dozens or hundreds of smaller bolts into one much larger bolt, we have one larger bolt being scattered into many smaller ones.

Further, were they a liquid, they should expand (since liquids have no definite shape)upon impacting, especially if the liquid has been absorbing energy from the "plasma". Yet this is clearly what we do not see. (it should also be noted that any "impact" of a bolt with any noticible degree of liquid like Marc claims in ANH would be observable on any target hit. Yet we do not see any sort of liquid on targets hit by hand blasters.)

[Marc Xavier]

Marc also ignores that Star Wars Tales, A New Hope Infinities and The Empire Strikes Back Infinities are all official Star Wars publications by Dark Horse Comics, but they are totally apocryphal.

How did I ignore this? To my knowledge, this is the first time "Star Wars Tales" has been mentioned in this thread. Additionally, I've not used any sources from the Infinities, as I understand they exist entirely out of any normal Star Wars continuity.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The point is, you play the "Official" name-game, when other official publictions are not, in fact, awknowledged as part of the official Star Wars story. Answer Ender's request.

[Marc Xavier]

Given that in the movies we can see blaster bolts pass near or strike near troopers with little to no harm , I question this claim. (We should also note that its distinctly indicated that the visible glow from blasters is a "harmless byproduct" of the reaction, as indicated in the EGW&T, page 4)

Blaster bolts would me much much cooler than turbolaser bolts, it's quite possible that the light radiated by them is a harmless byproduct. In the case of more powerful space-based turbolasers, this would likely not be the case.

By the way, nice evasion by completely dropping the point about mass (which would be a factor in the armor/liquid comparison you attempted to make.)

I assume you're talking about your point about "neutronium." That was a point of speculation on your part. One which may or may not hold water, but since you made the point you are welcome to expound on it.

I wrote:

You made the claim of the projectile. I pointed out that there is no directly observable evidence of such a projectile in transparent bolts. (You responded with saying perhaps they are too small too see. This suggestion, however, is not evidence to the point; it is an explanation made to explain the lack of evidence) Since you claimed that there is a solid projectile inside of the bolt, it is your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.

To which you responded:

There's no directly observable evidence for this bullshit "liquid" or "containment bottle" either, yet that doesnt stop you from harping about how your theory is the only workable answer we have. Yet I don't see you rolling out the irrefutable evidence for yours either.

No, I am not rolling out the irrefutable evidence. All that I point to is what I've pointed to before (repeatedly), the point that I made in response to Mike Wong's post, under the subheading "Bolt Splash."

I asked you to show directly observable evidence of the projectile, you have not. When I suggested that, therefore, there may not be a projectile, you demanded that I prove it. No, sir. The burden of proof was, and still remains, on you on this point.

I posted those images to directly refute your allegation that a translucent bolt disproves the projectile theory.
Are you now saying you did NOT make that claim?

You posted a pair of pictures from The Phantom Menace, featuring a blaster duel. In the battle, you showed both a transparent and an opaque bolt. Below it, you said "The projectile could be present in the opaque bolt, or it may be too small to readily see in the transparent one (or simply not easily seen - tracer rounds are visible, yet we don't see the bullet in the glow - but its there.)"

"but it's there"? -- where's the directly observable evidence?

Transparentness or opaqueness are not fixed characteristics of blasters or turbolasers. However, as I said before, the TOT deals with both. Projectile theory demands either a completely different weapon (a whole new theory) or an interior projectile so tiny that it cannot be observed.

And I like how you directly ignored the fact that we DO Have observable evidence of physical projectiles (Darth Wong mentioned the Trade Federation tanks firing in TPM),

I take it you mean this:

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

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

Your accusation is unfounded. After stating this point toward projectile theory, I went to go on and explain how this quote also matches the TOT.

in addition to the aforementioned canon and official support for the projectiel theory, none of which remotely is workable with your theory withotu seriously abusing the language of the refenreces (much like you tried to do with the ICS definition.)

You accuse me of "abusing the language" while projectile theory goes against the sources which say "lasers" and "light." Projectile theory's cousin, the beam theory, would necessitate "lasers" and "light" that are not lasers and light, but something else . . . which is?

On top of that, this is STILL only secondary to the priamry consideration that your theory is scientifically implausible and needlessly complex compared to the other theories presented. (you do know what the fuck Occam's Razor is, don't you?) You don't get to assume from the get go that your theory is proven when you demonstrate your level of scientific ignorance and ignorance of source material.

1. Projectile theory. Matches with a quote in the AOTC Novelization. However, the quote does not necessitate it's existence, as "projectile" can be applied to the TOT just as easily. The projectile is not directly observed in the movies, and although it does have some merit in explaining certain events in the movies, these events can be explained by other theories. Lastly, projectile theory goes entirely against any quote or source which names blaster weapons as laser beams or light beams. This necessitates the,

2. Beam theory. Largely based off of the Episode II novelization, but still quite vague overall. Although a beam, the theory does not use photons (or any other particles known to modern physics) in it's major operation. As I understand it, trying to explain the beam theory in terms of modern science yields nonsense and requires the invention of particles never heard of anywhere else in physics.

As for Occam's Razor, the principle is as follows:
Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

The duality of beam theory and projectile theory creates difficulty with official sources which claim blasters and turbolasers are the same. Instead of forming 1 theory that attempts to cover both blaster and turbolaser weaponry, the beam/projectile theory duality introduces it's own form of extra complexity by needing two separate theories instead of one. Then, to shore up this point, it is argued that the sparkly bolt weapons of Star Wars should not be "limited" to one mode of operation, and it is suggested that "blasters" and "turbolasers" are simple colloquialisms for weapons that look the same, sound the same, but have completely divergent internal mechanisms.

Moreover, these theories ignore sources which speak of plasma as the primary turbolaser component and they must redefine "laser" or "light" to be something that it, frankly, is not.

Given issues such as these, trying to apply Occam's Razor assumes that "all other things" are equal. They are not.

Can't you do your own goddamn research?

You brought up the point, not I.

Upon reviewing the schematic, I have a suggestion of how to harmonize the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology information (as well as the StarWars.com quotes) with the TOT.

Those focusing crystals may be what focus the annular confinement beam (forcefield tube). The Starwars.com quote reads:

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.

The excited tibanna gas is funneled through the actuating blaster module, where it is processed into (fed into; moved into) an intense particle beam (the annular confinement beam). The prismatic crystal focuses the containment beam and passes through a refinement chamber which galvens (I'm guessing this is a variation on "galvanize," which can mean to "stimulate or shock with an electric current," to "arouse to awareness or action," or to "coat (iron or steel) with rust-resistant zinc" ; I interpret it as the act of coating, or surrounding/containing [which can be argued]) the beam into the final (plasma) bolt.

This would line up with the Essential Guide quote which reads "The energy bolts destructive power is incredible, and the barrel's galven coils focus the beam, providing a range that is double or triple that of conventional laser cannons."

The energy used to energize Tibanna in the TOT is based on laser light. The TOT bolt also radiates a large amount of light-based energy from the bolt (stimulated emission point). The phrase, "fires cohesive bursts of light-based energy" however, is difficult to harmonize with a plasma bolt, because although the bolt contains "light-based" energy, the bolt itself is not "light-based" energy; it is plasma particles covered by a liquid wall which contains and emits such energy.

Your "theory" only works with this and the other references if you, as usual, grotesquely twist it beyond recognition.

You, sir, seem to miss the entire point I mentioned about there being difficulty with this quote (which I plainly pointed out). And additionally, you continue to accuse me of "twisting" the language, while beam theory (that redefines "laser" or "light" into something that it is not) does it's own creative interpretations of words.

I pointed out the difficulty of my own theory, respect the admission instead of being accusatory.

The fact is it indicates that it is a photonic element as the primary damage mechanism, and in fact the ONLY component. It makes no mention whatsoever of a plasma being there, or even being apart of the "bolt.

"The interpretation, does help to make sense of "light-based" energy being "cohesive" and still moving at sublight speeds (as seen in the movie). However, it requires one to "read in" a significant portion of material into the quote which simply does not exist in the quote. Such plasma suppositions may be supported by other sources, but not this one."

I see no point in repeating what I said as if I had not said it to begin with.

and there is a decided difference between what is described and a plasma bolt. Your attempts to distort the quote do not count as "fitting."
Besides which, how the hell do you collimate a plasma, and with a crystal for that matter??? (and how do you intend to get taht plasma past the crystal, either?)

Again, "The TOT runs into difficulty around the point where the source begins to speak about "particle" beams and the prismatic crystal. I do not understand, exactly, how the gas is processed (converted?) into the particle beam or what the nature of this particle beam is. Unless this crystal has holes in it or something, it does not appear to line up with the Turbolaser Operational Theory. Further thought on this point will be necessary."

You are simply ignoring what it is that I say. I've made an attempt to formulate a possible explanation in this post, but in my previous post, I stated the above. Please read what I write.

Literally speaking, one could say that a blaster pistol does fire cohesive bursts of light-based energy; light-based energy because the tibanna recieves it's energy from an actual laser in the actuation chamber. The energy is made "cohesive" (held together) because it is contained in the plasma bolt.

No one cannot, unless one considers "gross maligning of evidence" to be "reconciliation of evidence".

You do not accept the interpretation. That is your right. As it is my right to reject the fudging of "laser" and "light" to mean something that it is not.

The interpretation, does help to make sense of "light-based" energy being "cohesive" and still moving at sublight speeds (as seen in the movie). However, it requires one to "read in" a significant portion of material into the quote which simply does not exist in the quote. Such plasma suppositions may be supported by other sources, but not this one.

Just how much tiwsting of evidence will you engage in to make your shitty theory look workable? You ignore science, you twist the sources that contradict it, and you attribute unworkable elements to "exotic unknown" principles and mechanics.

Read up on beam theory; what small amount of information there is, and explain to me how turbolasers work in modern scientific terms.

I must also note, though, for a beam theory to be in line with this quote, that it necessitates that blasters fire literal light-based energy. Beam theory, as I understand it, does not use actual photons, but some other exotic particle(s) designed to fit certain observations.

ROFLMAO. So according to you, the "massless" definition does not work with SW.com definition (or other defintions) because it must fit in a literal sense.

As laser is a laser. Light is light. Beam theory changes the meaning of these words and you treat it as a non-literal, but acceptable, alteration of meaning. Yet every suggestion I make about TOT you deride as "twisting." This is simply you expressing your own personal preference for one theory over another.

Yet according to you, it fits with YOUR theory even though you must twist around the facts to accomodate your stupid "liquid and plasma in a tube" nonsense? You not only ignore science and the facts themselves, you apparently ignore any sort of consistent analytical methodology.

Read up on beam theory; what small amount of information there is, and explain to me how turbolasers work in modern scientific terms.

(By the way, even if we make the ludicrous leap you say and actually treat the ICS Definition as unworkable,

I never treated the ICS definition as "unworkable." I explained how it could be interpreted in TOT.

that simply means it is a different KIND of blaster weapon. You recall that Mike argued for multiple kinds of weapons right? Not your "everything must be a single type" bullshit. So either way, you still lose.)

If our positions were reversed, sir, I believe my response to this point would be "Occam's Razor."

Simply because you characterize the use of two separate theories to explain one weapon as something positive does not change the fact that it requires an "extra level of complexity" and a large one at that.

In addition, the quote notes that blasters "can be foiled by magnetic seals and deflector shields." If this were simply a laser, magnetic fields should not "defeat" these weapons in the way they are observed to in A New Hope. The fact that a blaster would be "defeated" by a magnetic seal is more in line with a TOT interpretation.

Unless the massless particles that decay into light (you do recall that they exact type of particle the ICS suggests is never specified, right?) have a charge.

By all means, please explain the nature of these particles and how they work in modern particle physics.

I do recall something of that being possible in past arguments, although I'd ahve to ask Mike about it.

So your acceptance (and vehement defense) of the beam theory over TOT is not based on knowledge of how the mechanism works and rational acceptance of it based on it's technical points. Yet you demonstrate utter contempt for the TOT theory, saying that it is "unscientific," when you have little or no scientific knowledge of one of the theories you're forwarding?

I've grown tired of this nitpicking tournament. Here is my final reply to your "main point."

And even if we DID accept your ludicrous assumption, your theory STILL fails on acocunt of it being far more complex than the other theories presented.

As for Occam's Razor, the principle is as follows:
Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

The duality of beam theory and projectile theory creates difficulty with official sources which claim blasters and turbolasers are the same. Instead of forming 1 theory that attempts to cover both blaster and turbolaser weaponry, the beam/projectile theory duality introduces it's own form of extra complexity by needing two separate theories instead of one (in defiance of official material). Then, to shore up this point, it is argued that the sparkly bolt weapons of Star Wars should not be "limited" to one mode of operation, and it is suggested that "blasters" and "turbolasers" are simple colloquialisms for weapons that look the same, sound the same, but have completely divergent internal mechanisms.

Simply because you characterize the use of two separate theories to explain one weapon as something positive does not change the fact that it requires an "extra level of complexity" and a large one at that.

[Marc Xavier]

I formally withdraw, some of my reasons for doing so are stated below.

1. In the entirety of this thread, it should become obvious (to those who can stand to sit and read through it all) that very little of the beam and particle theories have been put forth. I have asked for information about these theories, so that the thread could move into a comparative analysis of the two opposing paradigms. This has not occurred.

2. Very little of the "two theory paradigm" has been explained, and this is simply because doing so would reveal the "anti-scientific" issues, empty explanations, and woeful mass of ad hoc particles (which "do what they do because I said so") that must be invoked in order to describe the paradigm. This, in addition to the wanton disregard of official material that doesn’t jive with it.

3. Blatant contempt of the theory. As Connor MacLeod demonstrated in a recent post, he is a victim of ignorance of the inner workings of beam theory as well. Yet he has tossed increasing amounts of abhorrence at the TOT in favor of a postulation that he himself does not fully understand. And yet, I am accused of things such as "twisting the language" or requiring mechanisms outside of modern science, when the opposing beam theory is guilty of the same.

4. Occam's Razor is woefully abused in a haphazard attempt to ignore my single theory, while two theories against it are praised as they don't "limit" the sparkly-bolt-weapons-which-look-the-same in Star Wars to the same mechanism, despite what official literature may say.

5. As a result of not having a clearly stated opposing position I have allowed the TOT to be subjected to nearly 100 posts worth of nitpicking, while my own questions, criticism, and notations about the beam theory (or lack thereof) are ignored. This is a classical example of guerilla debating tactics.

I will no longer tolerate this behavior. Good day.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

In other words: "I can't stand the heat, so I'm stepping out of the kitchen."

[Illuminatus Primus]

I formally withdraw, some of my reasons for doing so are stated below.

1. In the entirety of this thread, it should become obvious (to those who can stand to sit and read through it all) that very little of the beam and particle theories have been put forth. I have asked for information about these theories, so that the thread could move into a comparative analysis of the two opposing paradigms. This has not occurred.

Just as before, you want a long-winded bullshit theory stuffed full of technobabble and scientific gems like your "liquid." I suppose you want to know exactly what hypermatter is and how is works, since it too is indicated by ICS, in addition to the massless TL particles.

Even better, you presume that everyone agrees with you. You haven't even allowed Wong to respond to your last post.

2. Very little of the "two theory paradigm" has been explained, and this is simply because doing so would reveal the "anti-scientific" issues, empty explanations, and woeful mass of ad hoc particles (which "do what they do because I said so") that must be invoked in order to describe the paradigm. This, in addition to the wanton disregard of official material that doesn’t jive with it.

We say that Star Wars ships can arbitrarily manipulate gravity and the Death Star can contort space-time in its vicinity such that manuverability of snub-fighters is drastically decreased, both without significant warping of the local mass or in defiance of the amount of mass/energy required for such manipulation. Yet canon says they do, so they do. They can arbitrarily manipulate gravity. Yet in the same vein, you say that Star Wars is above science.

Care to choose which position, Mr. Pedantic Etiquette and Debating?

3. Blatant contempt of the theory. As Connor MacLeod demonstrated in a recent post, he is a victim of ignorance of the inner workings of beam theory as well. Yet he has tossed increasing amounts of abhorrence at the TOT in favor of a postulation that he himself does not fully understand. And yet, I am accused of things such as "twisting the language" or requiring mechanisms outside of modern science, when the opposing beam theory is guilty of the same.

You don't get it, do you? Multiple theories split the TLs into families by EU description and properties, and tries to explain each in better terms with Occam's Razor than yours.

Don't know why I'm arguing with you though, you don't even know what a "melting point," "heat of vaporization," and "liquid" mean.

4. Occam's Razor is woefully abused in a haphazard attempt to ignore my single theory, while two theories against it are praised as they don't "limit" the sparkly-bolt-weapons-which-look-the-same in Star Wars to the same mechanism, despite what official literature may say.

Yeah, despite the fact that the bolts have wildly seperate properties. Some, in ANH, are totally translucent and monochromatic. Some have a glowing "core" and visible pulses along the bolt. Others are shorter, have no pulses, but a bright, opaque core.

Not to mention that if you think 200 gigatons of energy can be enclosed in a plasma that is constantly having heat and light syphoned off by it's "liquid" shell, it is quite unworkable.

5. As a result of not having a clearly stated opposing position I have allowed the TOT to be subjected to nearly 100 posts worth of nitpicking, while my own questions, criticism, and notations about the beam theory (or lack thereof) are ignored. This is a classical example of guerilla debating tactics.

I will no longer tolerate this behavior. Good day.

How about you drop the bullshit, and let Wong respond to your post?

[Ender]

And he runs away. Gosh, how totally unlike all the other beasiality wannabe furries I've had to deal with [/sacrasm].

I'd still like evidence that Fact Files have any place whatsoever.

I'd also like to see this dealt with

[quote-"SW:ANH Novel, page 8"]
The figure shifted its big rifle around in armored hands-too late. A beam of intense light struck the head, sending piecves of armor, bone, and flesh flying in all directions[/quote]

Nothing about plasma, nothig about liquid walls that violate basic HTFF, nothing about the laser being a contanment for said liquid.

Just that blasters are laser weapons. Canon.

[Mad]

I have asked for information about these theories, so that the thread could move into a comparative analysis of the two opposing paradigms. This has not occurred.

It should be noted that Marc PMed me asking for information on my beam theory. I linked him to my theory here, which should give enough details. I also told him he could let me know if he had any questions or comments on it, so that he could get a better understanding of it.

He could have easily used my beam theory to contrast with his, showing why he believes his theory should be superior to mine. He hasn't done this; in fact, he hasn't even commented on my theory, in public or private. So, needless to say, I'm puzzled as to why he would make the statement I quoted.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mad, just a point, as soon as the massive "ionized marker" stops glowing in one place, it wouldn't matter if the particles had anti-gravity properties.

They would fall out of the beam's path parabolically, but they wouldn't be visible.

[Mad]

Mad, just a point, as soon as the massive "ionized marker" stops glowing in one place, it wouldn't matter if the particles had anti-gravity properties.

They would fall out of the beam's path parabolically, but they wouldn't be visible.

True enough.

However, it may be that in some cases, a turbolaser bolt continues on after the beam has moved to another location. Then again, the only example I can think of is on the first Death Star, and gravity may be neglegible there. Or that weapon might be a different kind, since the novel mentions both beams and "electrical bolts" in use.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wher is the soruce for this "anti-gravity" properties? And if they are anti-grav, what exactly does this mean? The whole "anti-gravity" issue came up in the Kazeite debate about whether it means "repelling against gravity" or "nullifying" gravity.

[Master of Ossus]

Having read Marc's theory, I have realized it is bullshit. It basically adds terms and ignores problems when new evidence is presented, in gross violation of Occam's Razor, and Marc himself has completely ignored numerous physical problems with his theory, dismissing them completely or adding in an additional term to solve the problem but creating still more!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Naturally he fled before Mike could offer the coup'de'grace.

[Mad]

Wher is the soruce for this "anti-gravity" properties? And if they are anti-grav, what exactly does this mean? The whole "anti-gravity" issue came up in the Kazeite debate about whether it means "repelling against gravity" or "nullifying" gravity.

Cloud City is home to industrious citizens and advanced technology. Facilities throughout the city process for export the rare anti-gravitational Tibanna gas from the exotic atmoshpere of Bespin.

And turbolasers use Tibanna gas. Exactly what part, if any, the anti-gravitational effects of the Tibanna gas plays turbolasers is unknown. Actually, I don't think it's been figured out to what extent the Tibanna is actually used, other than a few vague references here and there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, but one of the main points of the massless ICS theory is to avoid magic gravity-defying sublight particles which follow the path of massless rays.

The "projectile-confining high-energy particles" is also constructed to avoid the concept, with the projectile having a level-flight program and a small repulsorlift, presumably.

It seems quite pointless to resort to such a nonsensical and overly radical explanation when the two main theories exist in part to avoid such an idea.

[Mad]

Yes, but one of the main points of the massless ICS theory is to avoid magic gravity-defying sublight particles which follow the path of massless rays.

Of course, when magic gravity-defying sublight particles officially exist (Tibanna gas), that's not exactly a huge problem. Nothing is being made up out of thin air. Granted, that the main damaging portion of the blast is a lightspeed beam (and therefore massless) is not only official, but canon.

Still, something must explain why some bolts appear to travel on for several frames after the weapon has tracked away from the previous trajectory.

I don't feel the need to defend my explanation as aggressively as I have in the past given the number of valid alternatives that have come up since I introduced it. Namely, the direct mentions of different kinds of weapons being used by canon sources. Even so, I think we should be open to the possibility if circumstances require it. (I don't think it's invalid, even if it isn't the best possibility.)

The "projectile-confining high-energy particles" is also constructed to avoid the concept, with the projectile having a level-flight program and a small repulsorlift, presumably.

I think this theory was introduced without the knowledge of Tibanna's anti-gravity properties, however. But this theory has sufficient support in canon as well. (Zam's rifle and Chewie's bowcaster.)

It seems quite pointless to resort to such a nonsensical and overly radical explanation when the two main theories exist in part to avoid such an idea.

If the idea of anti-gravitational particles didn't have official support, then you'd be completely right. However, anti-gravity particles do exist, and they are stated to be used in turbolaser and blaster weaponry. Because of this, I think the idea is quite valid.