Range of 'lasers'

[Connor MacLeod]

You don't get it. Just "What" does "anti-gravity" mean?

For example:

"Antigrav could operate only when there was a sufficient gravity well to push against-like that of a planet-'

[Mad]

Well of course antigrav would have to push against the mass of something. If it were a method of propulsion, not needing gravity, then it wouldn't be anti-gravity, now, would it?

The only question is how anti-graviatational the particles are. Do they push equally against gravity, cancelling out the effects completely (on earth, pushes with 9.8 m/s^2, causing net acceleration to be 0)? Do they push somewhat against gravity, causing them to fall more slowly than they would otherwise (pushing less than 9.8 m/s^2)? Or do they accelerate at the same rate as gravity would suggest, but in the opposte direction (net acceleration being 9.8 m/s^2 up)?

We don't know. However, it would seem reasonable that whatever its exact properties, the given concentration of them used in typical sublight bolts (those that cannot be attached to a lightspeed beam for various reasons) is enough to make any variance due to gravity neglible on film. (The particles may even be in use with certain solid projectile weapons.. the projectile may not mass much and using these anti-gravity particles would allow the projectile itself be much simplier by not requiring a tiny repulsorlift.)

[ClaysGhost]

[opacity]

The images of absorbing bolts against bright backgrounds disturb me. I'm not sure how you can get to this if the tracer is emitted by decay.

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).

...

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

...

The wave description is relevant in this case. What you suggest would appear to be a circularly polarised laser beam. This can be done - if not directly out of the laser cavity, then by diverting part of the beam through a splitter and a phase shifter. The resultant electric field vector traces out a spiral in space.

I'm not sure that this would contain the plasma, because I think that the electric field vector of the laser will sweep around a full turn much more rapidly than the electrons and ions of the plasma can respond - the force on them due to the laser field would average to zero. The plasma would therefore continue to expand thermally and its density would drop rapidly. Of course, very intense lasers would need to be involved in any case, but I don't see that as a problem. Note though that laser/plasma physics is the subject of ongoing work and I don't keep up with the field. Although pretty funky stuff is possible with lasers and plasma, I don't think this is.

One other point; I doubt that the emission would be the correct colour. I can't see a way to get strong green light out of this if the plasma maintains a high temperature. Thermal radiation will dominate emission from recombination of ions and electrons, and you'll be left with the old problem of hot plasma not being green.

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

I don't think that neutronium would interact with EM radiation; using it to prevent plasma radiating energy would be pointless. So, an extremely dense "other material".

We wouldn't see "in" an opaque bolt.

For the picture given (on page 2) of the hand blaster bolt, the background is clearly visible through the bolt. Why wouldn't we see something sitting inside the bolt (glowing or not) if we can see through the bolt itself? I'm not sure what to make of these pictures, myself.

Unless the massless particles that decay into light ... have a charge.

I think this is highly unlikely. I hesitate to say that it's physically impossible, but I think that at the least an observer sees an infinite transverse electric field as the particle passes.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't think that neutronium would interact with EM radiation; using it to prevent plasma radiating energy would be pointless. So, an extremely dense "other material".

I see. But regardless it was only an example, and to show how ridiciulous the theory being presented was.

For the picture given (on page 2) of the hand blaster bolt, the background is clearly visible through the bolt. Why wouldn't we see something sitting inside the bolt (glowing or not) if we can see through the bolt itself? I'm not sure what to make of these pictures, myself.

There are transparent and opaque bolts, however. I provided images of both. Xavier claimed that the transparent bolts disproved the notion of a "plasma contained by a projectile" type weapon.

I think this is highly unlikely. I hesitate to say that it's physically impossible, but I think that at the least an observer sees an infinite transverse electric field as the particle passes.

I know its unlikely, and I dont recall the discussions where it might have been brought up, but I didnt think it was impossible either (at least for a massless particle not known to us.) But even if it is impossible, thats also why we suggest different kinds of weapons exist.

[Mad]

There are transparent and opaque bolts, however. I provided images of both. Xavier claimed that the transparent bolts disproved the notion of a "plasma contained by a projectile" type weapon.

The only thing the transparent bolts can prove is that those particular bolts don't contain solid projectiles. These are the problem bolts, which likely still need some kind of method of ignoring gravity... (though it may be that no observed transparent bolts plainly ignore gravity; I doubt it, however)

An easy way to test this would be to get screen caps of Zam and Chewie's bolts (both should contain solid projectiles) and see if they are opaque or transparent.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry about being away all weekend, but I was busy.

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.

And after examining your response, I find that you have utterly failed to respond to my objections about the inability of a liquid object to retain its shape for several seconds against immense interior pressures. Instead, you mumble something about how blasters are weaker than starship turbolasers (even though the "splintering" action against the Tantive IV was a starship turbolaser) and then repeat your assertion that it should be able to hold its shape. You completely ignored my point about how liquids do not exhibit the property of rigidity for any time period by definition.

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.

Even one second is a ridiculously long time for a liquid blob to maintain rigidity, since liquids do not have any rigidity at all. I made this point already, and you completely ignored it. Tell me, are you honestly so ignorant of even the most elementary principles of physics that you believe a liquid object will maintain rigidity for even one second against normal atmospheric pressure, never mind the immense pressures exerted by a kiloton, megaton, or gigaton-yield plasmoid?

The pressures created by an ordinary piece of dynamite will blow apart a solid container in milliseconds (as pointed out previously), yet you actually have the gall to claim that a one-second time for liquid rigidity (the most absurd and scientifically ignorant oxymoron I've heard in a long time) is perfectly reasonable even in the presence of kiloton or megaton-yield internal energies? Question: what are you smoking, and what is its street value?

Bolt Behavior:
Vanishing Bolts:

I note the TOT (plus addendums) as explanation:

In other words, rather than explain the problems, you simply quote your theory again. Small problem: your theory blathers that the liquid wall can do this; it does not even attempt to explain how this is possible. A massless energy beam does not suffer from this asinine requirement for retaining structural integrity against enormous internal pressures since there are no internal pressures to resist. Yet you attack that theory and defend yours, for reasons which are obvious to everyone but you: you have simply invested too much of your ego into this pet "liquid blob in a tube" theory of yours, and you can't let go.

My advice to you is to get over it, and get over yourself while you're at it. I toyed with the plasma idea many years ago, but I didn't cling to it when new evidence came out (such as the ICS2) which contradicted it. Try to relax; your dick won't shrivel up and fall off if your silly little "TOT" goes belly-up.

By the way, don't invent stupid acronyms like "TOT" for your homemade theory. The least you could have done was invent a name for the theory which was descriptive, but I guess "liquid blob in a tube" sounds kind of stupid, so you opted for the meaningless "turbolaser operational theory" instead, eh?

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?

Actually, beam theory is not necessarily stymied by it, unlike your "liquid blob in a tube" idea. After all, if the lightspeed particles can decay into radiating particles (as stipulated by the ICS2), these decay particles might very well have mass, albeit infinitesimal mass created by conversion of the lightspeed particle energy into mass. They could move at sublight speeds, thus trailing significantly behind the beam and persisting even after the gun is moved. The infamous "Star by Star" incident (which your theory does not even attempt to explain) where a beam is fired from outside a star system at such great range that its visible trailer arrives long after the damage is done would be a good example of how this might manifest itself.

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).

Again, you demonstrate your stupidity. If it splashes, why isn't any of it scattering in other directions? Instead of looking like a liquid splash, it looks exactly like what you would expect from light going through a prism spreader: it spreads out and changes direction. I defy you to perform an experiment where you splash liquid against something and it goes through it while slightly spreading and not scattering any particles in any other direction.

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?

I suggested as one of two possibilites (the other being the one I'm going with) because I had not examined the scene. I have already pointed this out, yet you obviously harp on this casual alternative and pretend it's my primary theory it because you are looking for an insignificant drop of victory amid your vast ocean of public humiliation.

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."

That is not an out-of-universe issue, you idiot. Even a real piece of film about a real event can be saturated. It is an issue relating to the medium of storage, and your pathetic attempt to decry it as an out-of-universe red herring reveals either desperation or stupidity. If you saw a real-life picture of a real-life event and noticed colour saturation, would you decide that any discussion of said saturation is impermissible?

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.

No it doesn't, since a high-energy plasma inside the bolt should glow white-hot. Instead, even the most insanely powerful turbolaser (the Death Star superlaser) has the same characteristic colour. Therefore, the glow is obviously not caused by plasma radiation, but is a low-energy side-effect of some sort.

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.

What error? Different beams can have different intensities (they may even have different mechanisms, since you chose to compare handguns with starship weapons), and their interaction with film medium is hardly an "out-of-universe" explanation.

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?

These particles are obviously not a particle we have yet encountered. However, it is mathematically possible for lightspeed particles to decay into particles which carry mass and move at sublight speed. These decay particles would emit light in random directions. This is much more than I can say for your theory, which requires both exotic liquid objects which have orders of magnitude more rigidity and toughness than the finest armour SW technology can produce, and containment beams which can narrowly confine the immense expansion pressure of megaton or gigaton-yield plasmoids at ranges of thousands of kilometres.

Source List:

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

No, it can't. One of those sources shows (TESB) damage before visible impact, which blows your theory out of the water (a point made before, and ignored repeatedly on your part). Another one of those sources clearly states that turbolasers are energy beams, and a liquid blob in a tube is NOT an energy beam, no matter how many times you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream that it is.

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.

No, it can't. That has been explained before, and you are obviously too stupid to understand it. An energy beam composed of exotic particles is perfectly reasonable; an energy beam which carries no energy and instead confines a moving liquid blob, on the other hand, is NOT reasonable. Also, your idiotic definition of "laser" is based on your presumption that any radiative emission is a laser. As stated previously, the Sun is a laser by that definition. Your penchant for blithely ignoring devastating flaws in your theory is simply astounding.

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.

Even if we disregard the fact that the Fact Files carry no weight, have never been singled out for canon status (unlike the ICS series), and are official only by virtue of having the logo on them, they also contradict themselves, quoting the ICS2 explanation almost word for word. Yet again, this point has been brought up before, and ignored by you.

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.

No, instead I provided a direct rebuttal which you apparently did not read. Your entire theory exists for the sole reason that you do NOT allow Star Wars to arbitrarily redefine physics, otherwise you would be able to happily accept sublight photons which interact and glow transversely. You, like many a troll before you, refuse to tie yourself down to a hierarchy or set of rules, preferring to apply one form of evidence over another and then vice versa when and where it suits you.

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.

No, because the Fact Files have no coherent position on this issue. They also quote the ICS description nearly word for word, thus contradicting themselves. Even if we regard the Fact Files as official despite their obviously low status, they have not made any coherent statement to this effect. A document which contradicts itself cannot be said to make a coherent statement; does this simple fact escape your feeble mind?

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.

Also explained in my previous post, in which I noted that an interference pattern would be very difficult to precisely control, while the muzzle velocity of a massive liquid blob being launched through a tube would be very easy to control (and in fact, extra energy would be required in order to make it go faster). Therefore, an inconsistent bolt propagation speed is MORE consistent with beam theory than liquid-blob theory.

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."

How is that a change of position? The time delay to target is still much more consistent than the bolt velocity, which can change by orders of magnitude. Perhaps I should have spelled that out for you in small words, so that you would understand?

As predicted, you used all of the tactics you were expected to use. When faced with devastating weaknesses in your theory (inability to explain damage before impact, inability to explain your oxymoronic "liquid rigidity" concept, necessity for turbolaser containment substances which are orders of magnitude stronger than the best SW armour, inability to explain beam scattering), you simply ignore them and mumble that you don't understand how beam theory works, so your theory presumably wins by default. Then you quote your own claims ad nauseum in order to explain how they work (hint: you can't explain how something works by simply saying that it does), grievously misrepresent your opponent's arguments, and quote a long list of sources which you claim to support your theory even though they do not.

Do we know precisely how turbolaser energy beams work? No, but we do know that a liquid blob in a tube does NOT work, and there is not one official source which supports you. The Fact Files which you cling to as your ONLY evidence actually have NO COHERENT POSITION, since they happily quote opposing viewpoints with no effort at continuity checking, and without them, you have nothing. Nothing but your ego, that is.

I have tried to be patient with you, but you appear to have rewarded my patience with misrepresentations and other forms of deceit. You have obviously invested so much of your ego into this moronic liquid-blob theory of yours that you will fight tooth and nail rather than give it up. It's painfully obvious that you take criticism of this theory very personally, Xavier. You need a girlfriend more than any other man I know.

[Darth Wong]

There are transparent and opaque bolts, however. I provided images of both. Xavier claimed that the transparent bolts disproved the notion of a "plasma contained by a projectile" type weapon.

The only thing the transparent bolts can prove is that those particular bolts don't contain solid projectiles. These are the problem bolts, which likely still need some kind of method of ignoring gravity... (though it may be that no observed transparent bolts plainly ignore gravity; I doubt it, however)

An easy way to test this would be to get screen caps of Zam and Chewie's bolts (both should contain solid projectiles) and see if they are opaque or transparent.

It is always possible that the projectile is a very thin dart, and simply doesn't show up at the resolution of the picture. Alternatively, the image might show the tail-end of the bolt, after the projectile has passed (assuming the visible glow is bigger than the projectile). The movement of the bolt between frames at 24 fps is such that it could conceivably be invisibly small in one frame and beyond the camera in the next.

[Connor MacLeod]

small nitpick. The "turbolaser shot from outside the system" was a laser attack by a New Republic capital ship in the novel "Rebel Stand", not Star by Star

[Darth Wong]

Well of course antigrav would have to push against the mass of something. If it were a method of propulsion, not needing gravity, then it wouldn't be anti-gravity, now, would it?

If tibanna gas particles were anti-gravitational, they would not coalesce into planetary masses in the first place, hence they would not be mined from said planets. Instead, they are mined not only from gas planets, but from deep inside their atmospheres (deeper than the Bespin facility). Therefore, they are obviously less buoyant than oxygen. Doesn't sound like an antigravitational particle to me.

[Darth Wong]

small nitpick. The "turbolaser shot from outside the system" was a laser attack by a New Republic capital ship in the novel "Rebel Stand", not Star by Star

*smack*

[Connor MacLeod]

Well of course antigrav would have to push against the mass of something. If it were a method of propulsion, not needing gravity, then it wouldn't be anti-gravity, now, would it?

If tibanna gas particles were anti-gravitational, they would not coalesce into planetary masses in the first place, hence they would not be mined from said planets. Instead, they are mined not only from gas planets, but from deep inside their atmospheres (deeper than the Bespin facility). Therefore, they are obviously less buoyant than oxygen. Doesn't sound like an antigravitational particle to me.

On top of that, would not the particles have a "fixed" value and therefore exhibit erratic "arcs" in different gravity enviroments (we see bolts fired on coruscant, on low-gravity worlds like Endor, and on high gravity gas giants like Bespin, yet they exhibit no noticible variations)

[Darth Wong]

The images of absorbing bolts against bright backgrounds disturb me. I'm not sure how you can get to this if the tracer is emitted by decay.

Well, we do have both canon and official confirmation that the tracer is, in fact, a tracer rather than the energetic portion of the bolt itself, so it falls upon us to explain the appearance of opacity against a bright background rather than disregarding the whole "tracer" idea lock, stock and barrel and declaring that a turbolaser is a liquid blob in a tube.

As stated previously, it might be conceivably interpreted as some artifact of the film developing process (without having to resort to the out-of-universe explanation that they were careless with their special effects). It could alternatively be argued that the decay particles can absorb or scatter light if they are present in sufficient density (which would imply very rapid decay and energy loss, which in turn implies short range for these particular shots).

[Connor MacLeod]

Hmm.. If its a tracer, could that not explain why so many different weapons (physical projectiles vs beam weapons) appear to look like physical bolts? They all use the same tracer mechanism.

[Durandal]

I'd have to question the use of a tracer that travels at only a few hundred meters per second to trace a beam traveling at c. It's good for saying, "Yup, we hit that 15 minutes ago," but not much else.

The most probable explanation is that the beam is fired well after the tracer in order to synchronize them, as there is no requisite for the tracer effect and actual beam to initiate simultaneously. Of course, there are bound to be a few situations where the tracer may lag behind by a small amount. Nothing is perfect, after all.

[Darth Wong]

I'd have to question the use of a tracer that travels at only a few hundred meters per second to trace a beam traveling at c. It's good for saying, "Yup, we hit that 15 minutes ago," but not much else.

The most probable explanation is that the beam is fired well after the tracer in order to synchronize them, as there is no requisite for the tracer effect and actual beam to initiate simultaneously. Of course, there are bound to be a few situations where the tracer may lag behind by a small amount. Nothing is perfect, after all.

Suppose the weapon takes a half-second to build up a full charge, so that the initial beam is just a piss-weak targeting beam? That would explain the usefulness of the tracer.

[Durandal]

I'd have to question the use of a tracer that travels at only a few hundred meters per second to trace a beam traveling at c. It's good for saying, "Yup, we hit that 15 minutes ago," but not much else.

The most probable explanation is that the beam is fired well after the tracer in order to synchronize them, as there is no requisite for the tracer effect and actual beam to initiate simultaneously. Of course, there are bound to be a few situations where the tracer may lag behind by a small amount. Nothing is perfect, after all.

Suppose the weapon takes a half-second to build up a full charge, so that the initial beam is just a piss-weak targeting beam? That would explain the usefulness of the tracer.

That could be, but the problem with my explanation is that, according to Curtis, the tracer effect results from the decay of the beam. Something that isn't there yet can't decay.

[Darth Wong]

Suppose the weapon takes a half-second to build up a full charge, so that the initial beam is just a piss-weak targeting beam? That would explain the usefulness of the tracer.

That could be, but the problem with my explanation is that, according to Curtis, the tracer effect results from the decay of the beam. Something that isn't there yet can't decay.

That's why I suggested that there's a weak beam at the start, and then the much more powerful pulse comes afterwards.

[Connor MacLeod]

there's more than sub stantial merit for Mike's notion of a weak "targeting" beam - Cracke's Rebel Field Guide, the B-wing (in fact has a laser cannon that in fact fires this "targeting laser" to improve its accuracy - and can provide nearly perfect targeting accuracy for its weapons.), the novel "Wraith Squadron", etc.)

The thing is, if they use a low powered targeting laser of this kind (say a low powered "TL particle" beam for any weapon") we might very well see this effect regardless, even if the weapon is a particle beam, a physical proejctile, or even a laser pulse.

[Durandal]

Suppose the weapon takes a half-second to build up a full charge, so that the initial beam is just a piss-weak targeting beam? That would explain the usefulness of the tracer.

That could be, but the problem with my explanation is that, according to Curtis, the tracer effect results from the decay of the beam. Something that isn't there yet can't decay.

That's why I suggested that there's a weak beam at the start, and then the much more powerful pulse comes afterwards.

The follow-up beam would be many orders of magnitude more powerful. The problem is that we'd expect to see turbolaser bolts shift color as they traveled, due to the increase in decaying particles, the increase in particles with more energy and consequently, the their decay into higher-frequency photons. So, the initial targeting beam may decay into photons in the green spectrum, but the gigaton beam following doubtlessly would decay into much higher-energy photons ... meaning photons outside the visible spectrum. Looks like I just solved my posed problem through typing.

Off to bed I go.

[ClaysGhost]

I see. But regardless it was only an example, and to show how ridiciulous the theory being presented was.

I think it achieved that...

There are transparent and opaque bolts, however. I provided images of both. Xavier claimed that the transparent bolts disproved the notion of a "plasma contained by a projectile" type weapon.

Ah, I see.

I know its unlikely, and I dont recall the discussions where it might have been brought up, but I didnt think it was impossible either (at least for a massless particle not known to us.) But even if it is impossible, thats also why we suggest different kinds of weapons exist.

I don't think any known massless particle (or the proposed graviton) has a charge. I suspect that there's a simple reason why massless particles wouldn't have charge, but I don't know it (assuming the very strange electric field is permitted). Charged tachyons would suffer from Cerenkhov radiation, but a massless particle isn't a tachyon.

[Mad]

It is always possible that the projectile is a very thin dart, and simply doesn't show up at the resolution of the picture.

I have trouble believing the solid would be that small, but I suppose it's possible.

Alternatively, the image might show the tail-end of the bolt, after the projectile has passed (assuming the visible glow is bigger than the projectile). The movement of the bolt between frames at 24 fps is such that it could conceivably be invisibly small in one frame and beyond the camera in the next.

What about sideviews of transparent bolts?

If tibanna gas particles were anti-gravitational, they would not coalesce into planetary masses in the first place, hence they would not be mined from said planets. Instead, they are mined not only from gas planets, but from deep inside their atmospheres (deeper than the Bespin facility). Therefore, they are obviously less buoyant than oxygen. Doesn't sound like an antigravitational particle to me.

I had thought about that, and air pressure would only compound the problem. I had images of gas leaking out all over a planet going in my head... However, if Tibanna in its natural form isn't pure, and instead combined with other atoms such that their mass is greater, then the impure Tibanna gas will still fall in a gravity well. Once refined into its pure form, it would then truly show its antigravitational properties.

On top of that, would not the particles have a "fixed" value and therefore exhibit erratic "arcs" in different gravity enviroments (we see bolts fired on coruscant, on low-gravity worlds like Endor, and on high gravity gas giants like Bespin, yet they exhibit no noticible variations)

Well, in time-delay theory, the speed of the bolt is intentionally set depending on the range of the target. I see no reason why the particle ratios in blaster bolts couldn't be set intentionally so as to get a straight path out of the bolt.

there's more than sub stantial merit for Mike's notion of a weak "targeting" beam - Cracke's Rebel Field Guide, the B-wing (in fact has a laser cannon that in fact fires this "targeting laser" to improve its accuracy - and can provide nearly perfect targeting accuracy for its weapons.), the novel "Wraith Squadron", etc.)

And, of course, HDS' animated GIF showing a turbolaser bolt changing course to hit an asteroid in canon.

The thing is, if they use a low powered targeting laser of this kind (say a low powered "TL particle" beam for any weapon") we might very well see this effect regardless, even if the weapon is a particle beam, a physical proejctile, or even a laser pulse.

That wouldn't account for the arcing bolt in ESB, however, though it could possibly apply to other (non-turbolaser) weapon types.