Blaster fire speed

[McC]

Yeah, that's pretty much it at a conceptual level. The past couple months, I've been thinking of how I could do an animation of the concept somehow...

Hrm...I might be able to help with this...

Not quite sure what you mean here. At short distance, the weak beam will be on the target, but it won't be powerful enough to do any damage until the final surge. I think that's what you're asking about, anyway. What you said seems to be basically how it goes.

Yeah, I seemed to phrase that as a problem, but then turned it into a question.

First off, photons don't emit light; they are light.

Why do I manage to put my foot in my mouth so easily? FWIW, I did know that...I just apparently decided that it'd be more fun to look like an idiot.

As for the superlaser... since these are exotic particles we're talking about here (in other words, particles that more than likely don't exist in our reality), so they may have unusual properties.

However, the superlaser appears to employ some kind of control over the beam similar to the Yuuzhan Vong dovan basals. This is because conservation of momentum would prevent the beam from just stopping when it collides with the other beams, so something else has to be holding the beam in place.

That was a thought I had when thinking about a particle beam -- some kind of temporary 'counter-forcefield' would fire from an emitter near the tributary beam emitter to counter-balance the tributary beam that was active. This would shut off when the actual opposing tributary beam met with the initial one, and a 'global' tributary forcefield would be emitted from the central portion of the dish to hold all the tributaries in place until the final emission, at which point it would reverse polarity to push it outward instead of holding it in place.

Are you referencing how the bolt appears to be an arrow that points toward the barrel? I agree, you'd think it'd be reversed when one thinks about half-lives and everything.

Yes, precisely.

But this is a chain reaction, and not just a decay. So perhaps it starts off with as small number of interactions, then grows to a large number of interactions until there's a certain expected maximum, then the reaction quickly stops.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that...that would explain it nicely. Except for the reaction quickly stopping...wouldn't it create more of a double-sided dart? Or rather, wouldn't the reactions occur in a sort of bell-curve manner, with a little at one end, a little at the other, and the most in the middle?

Honestly, no idea. Nobody seems to know. At this point, I don't see how it'd do much to change my theory.. might add a couple details, but shouldn't change any of its major points.

Not saying it would, just wondering why this would remotely help.

[Ender]

Style-over-substance bullshit will get you flamed and mocked, because it is an irrational excuse to dodge the point.

Answer the question or concede. Lacing something with the word "idiot" is not a blank cheque for you to ignore an opponent's query.

Oh please, I'm already getting flamed and mocked far more than my posts in this discussion warrant. Someone being misinformed or uninformed isn't any excuse to be an asshole. Yes, you're correct in that it doesn't make whatever the person says less valid, but it adds unnecessary crap to a discussion that ought to be a civilized, intellectual discussion. The only bullshit is screaming "style-over-substance fallacy" as a shield for infantile behavior, when in truth the actual named fallacy isn't in effect.

You are getting flamed because of the gross egotistical move you made here. You came in here, and god damn it, you were instantly right and we were wrong on this entire topic. You had none of the evidence. You had done no research. You didn't even bother asking for clarification until now, over a week after I laid this out for you exactly like Mad is doing and were given a link to it. But damnitall, despite having absolutly no idea what you were talking about, you were right and the C speed partical beam theory settled upon after 9 years of work and reconciling with the evidence done by about 100 people with backgrounds ranging from a doctorate in astrophysics to a Master Sniper in the British Army.

This wasn't peer review of a theory, which is perfectly right, it wasn't that you had found an error that must be corrected in the work. It was just the headstrong position that you were right and the we were wrong.

What's more, I'm not dodging a damn thing. I'm addressing the only thing that stands out in his post as being necessary to address.

Liar. Answer my question as to how your slow particle beams do not arc.

Everything else he asks about he can read in recent posts to get an answer regarding.

Where you say that we just don't see them long enough? Bullshit. We see the Geonosian starfighters and teh SPHAT fire from a sufficient distance long enough that it should be arching just like lightening would.

So answer my fucking question you weasel.

[Ender]

That was a thought I had when thinking about a particle beam -- some kind of temporary 'counter-forcefield' would fire from an emitter near the tributary beam emitter to counter-balance the tributary beam that was active. This would shut off when the actual opposing tributary beam met with the initial one, and a 'global' tributary forcefield would be emitted from the central portion of the dish to hold all the tributaries in place until the final emission, at which point it would reverse polarity to push it outward instead of holding it in place.

Or its just a simple magnetic field instead of this forcefield. We already know their aiming and firing are altered by those.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that...that would explain it nicely. Except for the reaction quickly stopping...wouldn't it create more of a double-sided dart? Or rather, wouldn't the reactions occur in a sort of bell-curve manner, with a little at one end, a little at the other, and the most in the middle?

Read Brian Young's commentaries on this site. That is what they look like.

Not saying it would, just wondering why this would remotely help.

I think of it like a footbal. You spiral it, and it wobbles less. In this case it means it remains more intense because it doesn't wobble and spread out as much.

[McC]

You are getting flamed because of the gross egotistical move you made here. You came in here, and god damn it, you were instantly right and we were wrong on this entire topic. You had none of the evidence. You had done no research. You didn't even bother asking for clarification until now, over a week after I laid this out for you exactly like Mad is doing and were given a link to it. But damnitall, despite having absolutly no idea what you were talking about, you were right and the C speed partical beam theory settled upon after 9 years of work and reconciling with the evidence done by about 100 people with backgrounds ranging from a doctorate in astrophysics to a Master Sniper in the British Army.

I'll tell you exactly what I had done up to that point. I had read through Mike's article on turbolasers. I had read through Brian Young's TL commentaries. I had read through much of the SWTC (I still find new pieces of that site every time I visit). I have watched the movies countless times, and read some of the books.

Your accusation that I had "not done the research" doesn't take into account the fact that what is possibly the most important piece as it relates to this discussion (Mad's theory) wasn't accessible to me. I didn't know of an archive board, and once I did know, I didn't have access to it until just recently. Once I was actually shown direct links (which I apparently could access), I suspect you'll see that my opinions started changing. Once I could do the full-research, I did. You're blaming me for doing research that I didn't even know was available to be done. I get flamed because I didn't know that additional information was out there? That's bullshit. If, instead, someone said, "Dude, read this before you make a fool out of yourself," I certainly would have. Would I still have agreed with it outright? Of course not. Nobody likes to entertain the idea that they're wrong -- you're not innocent of this yourself.

So I was flamed because a) I didn't know of this additional discussion, b) couldn't access it to find out about it, c) no one bothered to first step in and say, "Here's what you're missing, go enjoy," (until much later) and d) I wanted to try and contribute something to a topic I was interested in.

Thanks. Thanks a bunch.

This wasn't peer review of a theory, which is perfectly right, it wasn't that you had found an error that must be corrected in the work. It was just the headstrong position that you were right and the we were wrong.

In order to find an error or execute a peer review, I kinda have to see the full write-up on the theory, instead of have people throwing quotes and "it's canon!" at me. When I came in, I felt like all I was confronted with was the same damn thing, so you better believe it's going to show up in my responses as well. If I hadn't received such an unnecessarily belligerent welcome (yeah, I came in and said, "Well, I think this is basically wrong" but had you replied with, "Read this first, then come back when you know more" rather than what amounts to "STFU") things would've played out a lot more cleanly.

Where you say that we just don't see them long enough? Bullshit. We see the Geonosian starfighters and teh SPHAT fire from a sufficient distance long enough that it should be arching just like lightening would.

The SPHA/T is the big kicker here -- they should definitely evidence arcing. You're 100% right about that, and they don't. AOTC has a more clear cut set of shots that should indicate arcing that don't. Just about everything in the OT, though, is ambiguous enough to allow for arcing. Even though you don't like it ("they were aiming lower because it was below them!"), the AT-AT could have aimed in such a way to account for arc. But, you're right about AOTC. There are definitely certain scenes where arcing should show up that it doesn't.

Satisfied?

So answer my fucking question you weasel.

See? You would've gotten the same thing out of me without this unnecessary crap. Why do you feel so damned compelled to add it?

Or its just a simple magnetic field instead of this forcefield. We already know their aiming and firing are altered by those.

Okay, I guess that works. I didn't think you could affect luxons with a magnetic field, though, hence my use of a forcefield.

Read Brian Young's commentaries on this site. That is what they look like.

I believe the relevant quote is this one:

a TL bolt appears to take a specific geometric shape. The front of the bolt has the appearance of a cone. It quickly grows larger in diameter, until it reaches its maximum. The diameter of the bolt then gradually decreases along the length of the bolt, until it reaches a point close to the end of the bolt. At this point, the bolt has its minimum diameter. Then, the diameter of the bolt quickly increases again.

That's not what I'm describing. This is what I'm talking about:

I think of it like a footbal. You spiral it, and it wobbles less. In this case it means it remains more intense because it doesn't wobble and spread out as much.

Okay, I understand the analogy, but I'm not sure if it'd work for a particle beam (a luxon beam can still be called a particle beam, right?)...spinning it in this way would create sort of a helical beam, wouldn't it? Would that maintain an overall straight-line vector, or would the spiral gradually grow in magnitude once the containment was gone? Or am I just on crack?

[McC]

Here's a question that's not addressed by Mad's theory: where does the recoil come from? We see recoil in many instances (DS trench, turboquadlasers on the droid control ships in TPM, AT-AT chin guns in ESB), but not in others (starfighter lasers, namely). Any thoughts as to why a massless luxon beam would induce recoil?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Personally, the bolts shape shit is a nitpick. Many of your criticisms against Mad's theory is it doesn't adequately explain every minutae to satisfy your distaste for it.

Mad's theory doesn't really say anything about bolt shape. And you'd be hard to impossible to account for the bolt-redirection and behavior without it.

Furthermore, the c-propogating damaging luxons decay into massive particles, which may explain the tear-drop shape.

[McC]

Personally, the bolts shape shit is a nitpick. Many of your criticisms against Mad's theory is it doesn't adequately explain every minutae to satisfy your distaste for it.

Wrong on every possile front. 1) I have spoken directly to Mad via ICQ. I like the fundamental principle behind his theory, but neither he nor I think it adequately explains everything. 2) The bolt shape is the only visible portion of the beam we have to use for any extrapolation of its effect. It's shape is actually extremely important, especially because of what it is in Mad's theory.

Mad's theory doesn't really say anything about bolt shape. And you'd be hard to impossible to account for the bolt-redirection and behavior without it.

You're right -- his theory doesn't talk about bolt shape. It's a gap. A gap that I'm now attempting to fill in. I'm not saying his theory is wrong, I'm saying it's incomplete. Hence, attempting to fill in the gap. Let go of the notions that I am A) your enemy and B) opposing the theory in general. They cloud your responses to what I'm actually saying and result in you responding to a distorted version of what I'm saying. As such, it's extremely frustrating for me to read. It's like an extremely bizarre strawman fallacy.

Furthermore, the c-propogating damaging luxons decay into massive particles, which may explain the tear-drop shape.

I am aware of this -- I did read Mad's theory. Luxon -> ion -> photon emission for the visible bolt. However, it would not create a teardrop shape.

Mad's theory suggests that the bolt is actually a slightly STL reverse-vectory chain reaction. That is to say, it propogates back towards the point of emission while the luxon beam travels away from the point of emission. The chain reaction, travelling just slighty STL, however, is 'carried forward' by the beam, and thus appears to propogate forward at STL. This explains why the bolts are STL. However, the chain reaction would manifest in such a way as to depict a visual bell-curve. That is, the majority of the chain reaction (i.e. luxon -> ion decay) would be occuring in the 'middle' of the reaction region, gradually decreasing towards either end. This would create a sort of elongated diamond-shaped bolt (as in the picture above) rather than the depicted teadrop bolt. However, the teardrop bolt is what we get, meaning something else must be affecting the way this chain reaction occurs.

I'm not saying this disproves Mad's theory. I'm saying (and said to him, and unless I grossly misunderstood our conversation, he agrees) that it's incomplete, hence the need to fill in the gaps.

[Ender]

Any thoughts as to why a massless luxon beam would induce recoil?

I'd say it has something to do with high school level physics, where you learn that luxons have momentum, as expressed by p=u/c, where P is momentum, u is energy, an C is c. You know, exactly like I said when this was asked on page 1

Just a thought.

[McC]

I'd say it has something to do with high school level physics, where you learn that luxons have momentum, as expressed by p=u/c, where P is momentum, u is energy, an C is c.

Just a thought.

Gah Why do I forget things like this? Conservation of momentum.

Although, I don't know what high school you went to, but my physics teachers barely understood magnetism, let alone the properties of light.

[Ender]

Your accusation that I had "not done the research" doesn't take into account the fact that what is possibly the most important piece as it relates to this discussion (Mad's theory) wasn't accessible to me. I didn't know of an archive board, and once I did know, I didn't have access to it until just recently. Once I was actually shown direct links (which I apparently could access), I suspect you'll see that my opinions started changing. Once I could do the full-research, I did. You're blaming me for doing research that I didn't even know was available to be done. I get flamed because I didn't know that additional information was out there? That's bullshit.

No, it's your lying through your teeth playing the victem here that is bullshit.

First page I explained Mad's theory in depth to you.
First god damned page.

You are a worthless fucking liar.

If, instead, someone said, "Dude, read this before you make a fool out of yourself," I certainly would have. Would I still have agreed with it outright? Of course not. Nobody likes to entertain the idea that they're wrong -- you're not innocent of this yourself.

So I was flamed because a) I didn't know of this additional discussion, b) couldn't access it to find out about it, c) no one bothered to first step in and say, "Here's what you're missing, go enjoy," (until much later) and d) I wanted to try and contribute something to a topic I was interested in.

Thanks. Thanks a bunch.

Again, I explained this on the first fucking page. You claims otherwise mark you as either
1) a complete and utter lying sack of shit
2) a crack addled byt hyperintellegent squirrel who has gained access to the laboratory computer

which is it?

In order to find an error or execute a peer review, I kinda have to see the full write-up on the theory, instead of have people throwing quotes and "it's canon!" at me. When I came in, I felt like all I was confronted with was the same damn thing, so you better believe it's going to show up in my responses as well. If I hadn't received such an unnecessarily belligerent welcome (yeah, I came in and said, "Well, I think this is basically wrong" but had you replied with, "Read this first, then come back when you know more" rather than what amounts to "STFU") things would've played out a lot more cleanly.

Ok, out of curiosity, are you the same McC as from the first page where I did that?

The SPHA/T is the big kicker here -- they should definitely evidence arcing. You're 100% right about that, and they don't. AOTC has a more clear cut set of shots that should indicate arcing that don't. Just about everything in the OT, though, is ambiguous enough to allow for arcing. Even though you don't like it ("they were aiming lower because it was below them!"), the AT-AT could have aimed in such a way to account for arc. But, you're right about AOTC. There are definitely certain scenes where arcing should show up that it doesn't.

Satisfied?

No, becasue you didn't answer my question, you talked about the arching due to gravity. I asked about the particle beams in atmosphere.

And they would have aimed UP to compensate for gravity if the AT-AT bolt was affected, not down.

See? You would've gotten the same thing out of me without this unnecessary crap. Why do you feel so damned compelled to add it?

Because you DON'T answer the question, and you lie about things that anyone can see by clicking back to page one.


Since you tried to dodge it, I will repeat it again in explicit detail (though I REALLY can't see how you can claim to misunderstand after I made the comparison to lightening).

A slow moving, energetic particla beam, wheter made of ions like a bolt of lightening, or an unknown exotic material like TLs, will interact with the atmosphere, and arc and jump around looking like a bolt of lightening or like the power converters we saw in AOTC.

We should see this in the movies with your slow moving beam theory. We don't. Why?

Okay, I guess that works. I didn't think you could affect luxons with a magnetic field, though, hence my use of a forcefield.

They are luxons, but they still have a charge and thus are affected.

I believe the relevant quote is this one:

a TL bolt appears to take a specific geometric shape. The front of the bolt has the appearance of a cone. It quickly grows larger in diameter, until it reaches its maximum. The diameter of the bolt then gradually decreases along the length of the bolt, until it reaches a point close to the end of the bolt. At this point, the bolt has its minimum diameter. Then, the diameter of the bolt quickly increases again.

That's not what I'm describing. This is what I'm talking about:

You used a more rounded bolt for that one I believe, Brian's description matches with close ups of the beam one we see in ESB, and accounts for what you term a gap in the theory.

Okay, I understand the analogy, but I'm not sure if it'd work for a particle beam (a luxon beam can still be called a particle beam, right?)

In this case, yes.

...spinning it in this way would create sort of a helical beam, wouldn't it? Would that maintain an overall straight-line vector, or would the spiral gradually grow in magnitude once the containment was gone? Or am I just on crack?

The latter. The spiral is as near as I can tell akin to the spin subatomic particles have on a quantum level. Somehow this delays the decay.

[Ender]

I'd say it has something to do with high school level physics, where you learn that luxons have momentum, as expressed by p=u/c, where P is momentum, u is energy, an C is c.

Just a thought.

Gah Why do I forget things like this? Conservation of momentum.

Although, I don't know what high school you went to, but my physics teachers barely understood magnetism, let alone the properties of light.

Well, I also stated this exact same formula in response to the same question on the first page.

[McC]

No, it's your lying through your teeth playing the victem here that is bullshit.

First page I explained Mad's theory in depth to you.
First god damned page.

I wouldn't call that in-depth:

They aren't lasers. They are an exotic, unknown material. It is a particle beam and thus can be affected by EM fields, and by applying the high energy to it, it becomes both damaging and starts to decay from the particles into visable light that leaves at all angles. "spinning" the beam makes it decay less, thus retain more energy. As it loses the energy as it flies, it depletes in strength until it is gone. One of the advantages of white armor for the stormies is tat white shoudl cause it to decay more as it is more reflective, thus increasing survivability.

Mad's write-out was more than a screen-length long. What you said does sum it up pretty accurately, though. However, I wasn't prepared to relinquish the idea that it was an exotic STL particle bolt at this juncture. From what research I had done at this point, this flew in the face of it all, so it didn't make any sense. If you scroll back, you'll see that I've since bought the SW2ICS, OT novelizations, and AOTC novelizations. I've also since then read Mad's theory and the thread regarding Marc's theory. A lot more stuff has been read since then, and I've changed my mind. Does changing my mind make me a liar?

I did actually go back to the beginning of the thread before you replied, though, and looked through it. It wasn't until I questioned Saxton's c analysis and did the fallacious lens analysis that I started getting flamed. Before then, you were willing to discuss things with me in a civil manner, so I do retract the "STFU" statement and apologize for it. However, I still don't see why the flaming was necessary. "Nope, you're wrong, here's why" and then supply links to the previous threads would've been sufficient.

Again, I explained this on the first fucking page. You claims otherwise mark you as either
1) a complete and utter lying sack of shit
2) a crack addled byt hyperintellegent squirrel who has gained access to the laboratory computer

which is it?

Well, the second, obviously. EDIT:Incidentally, I should revise my statement -- once I actually got into trying to do any serious calculations (end of page 4, throughout page 6) is when the flaming started.

Ok, out of curiosity, are you the same McC as from the first page where I did that?

Yep, unless you want to get philosophical and discuss whether or not any of us are the "same" person we were two weeks ago.

No, becasue you didn't answer my question, you talked about the arching due to gravity. I asked about the particle beams in atmosphere.

And they would have aimed UP to compensate for gravity if the AT-AT bolt was affected, not down.

They'd have aimed slightly down if the natural gravity drift wouldn't have pulled the bolts low enough. They'd only aim up if the natural drift would've taken the bolts into the ground.

Because you DON'T answer the question...<snip accusations of lying, addressed above>...since you tried to dodge it, I will repeat it again in explicit detail (though I REALLY can't see how you can claim to misunderstand after I made the comparison to lightening)...<snip further explanation>...We should see this in the movies with your slow moving beam theory. We don't. Why?

That kind of arcing! I swear, dude, I really thought you were still talking about an parabolic arc due to gravity. I'm sorry, I really am. I did totally misunderstand and did not intend to dodge.

In answer to your question: whoops, I forgot. I actually remember reading this explicitly in an article on particle beam weaponry just recently, but I totally forgot about it when I brought it up here. You are absolutely correct in that a STL particle beam would manifest this sort of effect as well.

They are luxons, but they still have a charge and thus are affected.

I guess my understanding of luxons is still very tenuous (did I say this before? I feel like I have...). I was equating them to a photon variant that resides at the core of sub-protonic particles...is this inaccurate?

You used a more rounded bolt for that one I believe, Brian's description matches with close ups of the beam one we see in ESB, and accounts for what you term a gap in the theory.

*nod* The depiction is somewhat inaccurate -- my top image should have a more triangular profile in the front, but the distribution of the reaction is roughly accurate for the purposes of the discussion. The idea I'm suggesting is that if it's a chain reaction as Mad describes, it should distribute in a two-sided triangular manner, as in the second image, and not in the cone-with-a-tail bolt that we actually see, so something's at work here to make it have a different distribution.

The latter. The spiral is as near as I can tell akin to the spin subatomic particles have on a quantum level. Somehow this delays the decay.

Oh, ok, so it's not a macroscopic spiral but rather a particle-level spin. That makes more sense.

[McC]

Well, I also stated this exact same formula in response to the same question on the first page.

I know! That just makes it worse.

[Mad]

Hrm...I might be able to help with this...

Cool. A visual representation would be a lot more helpful than plain text, as you know.

What formats can you create an animation in?

That was a thought I had when thinking about a particle beam -- some kind of temporary 'counter-forcefield' would fire from an emitter near the tributary beam emitter to counter-balance the tributary beam that was active. This would shut off when the actual opposing tributary beam met with the initial one, and a 'global' tributary forcefield would be emitted from the central portion of the dish to hold all the tributaries in place until the final emission, at which point it would reverse polarity to push it outward instead of holding it in place.

Well, certainly something is doing it. Can't really say for sure what as there isn't enough evidence.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that...that would explain it nicely. Except for the reaction quickly stopping...wouldn't it create more of a double-sided dart? Or rather, wouldn't the reactions occur in a sort of bell-curve manner, with a little at one end, a little at the other, and the most in the middle?

It should work pretty well with what we see. The interactions slowly increase as the chain reaction propogates, but once the peak is reached, the reactions quickly die off as there aren't enough particles left to continue the it. (There could be a relatively low interaction rate for the chain reaction that might be able to cause this without draining the beam completely.)

1) I have spoken directly to Mad via ICQ. I like the fundamental principle behind his theory, but neither he nor I think it adequately explains everything.

So far, it explains what it needs to and mainly only has problems with blasters. (Then again, other theories have even more problems.) And a separate blaster theory can still co-exist with my theory just fine, so it's not really a problem.

The things it doesn't explain about turbolasers are typically minor things that aren't covered too well in text. Basically, most answers for those things likely won't have much more support for them than simply saying "a wizard did it."

You're right -- his theory doesn't talk about bolt shape. It's a gap. A gap that I'm now attempting to fill in.

It may be a gap... but if it is, then how can it be filled in with evidence? Sure, we can guess all day, but it can't really be seriously incorporated without evidence for it.

You'll note that a lot of the answers I've given to small points about the theory start with something along the lines of "it may be that..." That's because there's not enough evidence to say for sure, though the idea is a possibility.

It's important to understand that I'm trying to stick with what I can back up as much as possible with the theory.

[McC]

Weird...I thought I replied to this last night, but apparently my post got eaten...

Cool. A visual representation would be a lot more helpful than plain text, as you know.

What formats can you create an animation in?

Um...any?

Well, certainly something is doing it. Can't really say for sure what as there isn't enough evidence.

...

So far, it explains what it needs to and mainly only has problems with blasters. (Then again, other theories have even more problems.) And a separate blaster theory can still co-exist with my theory just fine, so it's not really a problem.

The things it doesn't explain about turbolasers are typically minor things that aren't covered too well in text. Basically, most answers for those things likely won't have much more support for them than simply saying "a wizard did it."

*nod* We're beyond the realm of certainty and into the realm of 'what fits?' now.

It should work pretty well with what we see. The interactions slowly increase as the chain reaction propogates, but once the peak is reached, the reactions quickly die off as there aren't enough particles left to continue the it. (There could be a relatively low interaction rate for the chain reaction that might be able to cause this without draining the beam completely.)

This doesn't really make sense, though. Consider, for example, popcorn. You put it in the microwave. You hear an increasing number of pops until it reaches a peak, then you hear a steadily decreasing number until you hear none at all. Basically the same idea -- the kernels are the luxons and the popped kernels are the charge particles. Their reaction distribution follows a bell-curve. This is, as far as I'm aware, fundamentally true for any reaction of any kind. As such, there's no reason to assume it would 'suddenly' stop. That's why I'm saying that there has to be an additional factor going on here that we haven't discussed yet.

It may be a gap... but if it is, then how can it be filled in with evidence? Sure, we can guess all day, but it can't really be seriously incorporated without evidence for it.

You'll note that a lot of the answers I've given to small points about the theory start with something along the lines of "it may be that..." That's because there's not enough evidence to say for sure, though the idea is a possibility.

It's important to understand that I'm trying to stick with what I can back up as much as possible with the theory.

Right. And I agree with that approach. But when it becomes ambiguous, such as what we're talking about now, there's nothing wrong with general speculation to fill in what we don't know 'for certain,' is there?

[Ender]

I guess my understanding of luxons is still very tenuous (did I say this before? I feel like I have...). I was equating them to a photon variant that resides at the core of sub-protonic particles...is this inaccurate?

AFAIK, most luxons do not have a charge. However there are multiple references to the fact that TLs and lasers do in fact have a charge, EG the ionization eg=ffect on lukes snowspeeder, Nom Anor's cloak in SbS

*nod* The depiction is somewhat inaccurate -- my top image should have a more triangular profile in the front, but the distribution of the reaction is roughly accurate for the purposes of the discussion. The idea I'm suggesting is that if it's a chain reaction as Mad describes, it should distribute in a two-sided triangular manner, as in the second image, and not in the cone-with-a-tail bolt that we actually see, so something's at work here to make it have a different distribution.

Yes, but it does not have to be an even and equal distribution. It is coming from a pulse remember, therefor the density of the decay will be based partly on the density of the material at the initialization point. And chain reaction doesn't fit as much as decay does, if it were the latter then the particals would be energetic as well as they would still be producing energy, instead they are inert. It's akin to the decay of an isotope really.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Nitpick: Ender, the luxons in the beam to not necessarily have a charge, as the tracer's massed particle trail is composed of ions as per Shadows of the Empire.

[Mad]

Um...any?

Okay. So what format could get the most information for the smallest filesize? I was thinking an interactive Flash presentation could show off different aspects of the theory pretty well, along with descriptive text.

Barring that, a video clip should work pretty well.

(I'm supposed to learn some Java in one of my classes this semester... maybe it'll get me enough info to write an applet that can show it off... the C++ that I know wouldn't be any good since I'd have to get people to run an executable and it'd be limited to the OSes I compile it for... and I don't have enough GUI programming experience anyway.)

*nod* We're beyond the realm of certainty and into the realm of 'what fits?' now.

But that's beyond my goal. There's a lot of potential "what fits?" answers to the apparent gaps in the theory. Any of those answers would fit. So picking one is dangerous, because then I'd get nitpicked no matter which one I picked because there will be people who like the other answers better.

Choosing certain fillers could also allow for certain extrapolations that some could be inclined to reference, even though the filler that allows that isn't proven.

Such things may be allowable at the hypothesis level, but my suggestions seem to be generally accepted as a theory, meaning it should follow stricter guidelines.

This doesn't really make sense, though. Consider, for example, popcorn. You put it in the microwave. You hear an increasing number of pops until it reaches a peak, then you hear a steadily decreasing number until you hear none at all. Basically the same idea -- the kernels are the luxons and the popped kernels are the charge particles. Their reaction distribution follows a bell-curve. This is, as far as I'm aware, fundamentally true for any reaction of any kind. As such, there's no reason to assume it would 'suddenly' stop. That's why I'm saying that there has to be an additional factor going on here that we haven't discussed yet.

Popping popcorn isn't a chain reaction process, though, in that popping one kernel doesn't cause another kernel to pop. A better example would be setting a sheet of paper on fire. The paper heats up and sets on fire. That fire, in turn, heats up the area of the sheet around it, causeing it to be set on fire. Eventually, the entire sheet is on fire, the peak. But then the paper finishes burning and the fire just goes out. So under the right conditions, a chain reaction should be able to end relatively abruptly.

Right. And I agree with that approach. But when it becomes ambiguous, such as what we're talking about now, there's nothing wrong with general speculation to fill in what we don't know 'for certain,' is there?

It depends on how the speculation is to be applied. It can't really be put into a proper theory, because a theory is a hypothesis that has held true after being tested. If it's speculation, then it hasn't been tested enough. Further, extrapolating from the speculation is dangerous. (Take a look at those who try to extrapolate that the Death Star doesn't need to be powerful based off of the speculation that it used some kind of trick to destroy Alderaan for instance... of course, there's plenty of other fallacies in that, as well.)

If you're not doing those things with the speculation, then there isn't much of a problem.

[McC]

Okay. So what format could get the most information for the smallest filesize? I was thinking an interactive Flash presentation could show off different aspects of the theory pretty well, along with descriptive text.

Barring that, a video clip should work pretty well.

I can do Flash, but I'm not as well-versed in it as I'd like. I also don't have Flash, the program, installed on my machine here -- I'd have to do it while working in the lab. That's not to say that it's impossible, just much less convenient. Generally speaking, I work with video clips, which is what I figured you were asking. A Sorenson QuickTime video clip is usually pretty small, depending on what you're doing. DivX AVI is another option, but it's not as cross-compatible as Sorenson QuickTime.

But that's beyond my goal. There's a lot of potential "what fits?" answers to the apparent gaps in the theory. Any of those answers would fit. So picking one is dangerous, because then I'd get nitpicked no matter which one I picked because there will be people who like the other answers better.

Choosing certain fillers could also allow for certain extrapolations that some could be inclined to reference, even though the filler that allows that isn't proven.

Such things may be allowable at the hypothesis level, but my suggestions seem to be generally accepted as a theory, meaning it should follow stricter guidelines.

Eh, I suppose. I still think it'd be far more interesting to try and fill in the gaps anyway and get a cohesive picture, even if it is a speculative one.

Popping popcorn isn't a chain reaction process, though, in that popping one kernel doesn't cause another kernel to pop. A better example would be setting a sheet of paper on fire. The paper heats up and sets on fire. That fire, in turn, heats up the area of the sheet around it, causeing it to be set on fire. Eventually, the entire sheet is on fire, the peak. But then the paper finishes burning and the fire just goes out. So under the right conditions, a chain reaction should be able to end relatively abruptly.

Right, I was thinking more of a decay process...I think But even in the sheet of paper analogy, the paper will burn progressively, expanding outward from the initial burn-point in a roughly ring-like fashion (allowing for differences resulting from paper density variation and such). The burn mark on the paper as its burning also follows the bell-curve shape (as does the flame). The paper finishes burning slowly again, representing the end of the bell curve.

It depends on how the speculation is to be applied. It can't really be put into a proper theory, because a theory is a hypothesis that has held true after being tested. If it's speculation, then it hasn't been tested enough. Further, extrapolating from the speculation is dangerous. (Take a look at those who try to extrapolate that the Death Star doesn't need to be powerful based off of the speculation that it used some kind of trick to destroy Alderaan for instance... of course, there's plenty of other fallacies in that, as well.)

If you're not doing those things with the speculation, then there isn't much of a problem.

I'm more thinking of saying: this is what we're pretty sure about, and this is some of the stuff we think might be happening, in order to fill in the gaps. That sort of format.

[SWPIGWANG]

I have a question about the assertion that Massed Beams must "Arc" when fired over a distance.

Since almost all our examples lies in an atmosphere, wouldn't buoyancy play a role? As long as the density of the beam is similar to the air around it, it wouldn't arc right?

[McC]

I have a question about the assertion that Massed Beams must "Arc" when fired over a distance.

Since almost all our examples lies in an atmosphere, wouldn't buoyancy play a role? As long as the density of the beam is similar to the air around it, it wouldn't arc right?

Well, there are two arc assertions to be concerned with. The first is the parabolic trajectory arc that's due to gravity, and the one you're talking about. Now, I'm not as up on this stuff (obviously) as others here, but I suspect you might be right in this instance.

However, the other 'arc' is the erratic lightning-like arcing that would result from a charge particle beam interacting with the atmosphere that Ender was talking about (and I continually mistook for gravitational arc). The bolts don't exhibit this, meaning that it can't be a massed plasma bolt.

However, that makes me wonder -- would the ionized trail that results from the luxon beam not also have this lightning-arc property?

[Mad]

I can do Flash, but I'm not as well-versed in it as I'd like. I also don't have Flash, the program, installed on my machine here -- I'd have to do it while working in the lab. That's not to say that it's impossible, just much less convenient. Generally speaking, I work with video clips, which is what I figured you were asking. A Sorenson QuickTime video clip is usually pretty small, depending on what you're doing. DivX AVI is another option, but it's not as cross-compatible as Sorenson QuickTime.

Ah, video clips work, too.

Right, I was thinking more of a decay process...I think But even in the sheet of paper analogy, the paper will burn progressively, expanding outward from the initial burn-point in a roughly ring-like fashion (allowing for differences resulting from paper density variation and such). The burn mark on the paper as its burning also follows the bell-curve shape (as does the flame). The paper finishes burning slowly again, representing the end of the bell curve.

That'd depend on the paper. What about flash paper? Just like the turbolaser bolt, it starts out small, the area burning then quickly increases until there's nothing left and the fire is gone.

I'm more thinking of saying: this is what we're pretty sure about, and this is some of the stuff we think might be happening, in order to fill in the gaps. That sort of format.

Where would the theory plus the filler speculation be located?

[McC]

Ah, video clips work, too.

Cool. Let's talk on AIM or ICQ later to hammer out details

That'd depend on the paper. What about flash paper? Just like the turbolaser bolt, it starts out small, the area burning then quickly increases until there's nothing left and the fire is gone.

Hmm...good point. But doesn't the burn rate slow down as the amount of paper left decreases? I'm not really familiar with flash paper, honestly, so I don't actually have a clue what I'm talking about.

Where would the theory plus the filler speculation be located?

*shrug* Don't really know that. Maybe Mike would host it as an addendum and/or re-write of his turbolaser page attached to IWY. Or perhaps a sub-set of the Turbolaser Commentaries. Alternately, I could host the write-up on my server. Something like turbolaser.mcc3d.com or some such.

[Ender]

Nitpick: Ender, the luxons in the beam to not necessarily have a charge, as the tracer's massed particle trail is composed of ions as per Shadows of the Empire.

But altering the decay material would have no effect on the beam itself therefore it would have to be manipulating the beam ions.

[Ender]

However, that makes me wonder -- would the ionized trail that results from the luxon beam not also have this lightning-arc property?

Because the ramping up enegy from the invisiable portion would have ionized the atmosphere before the decay bit comes in. Same method that DARPA is looking at.