StarDestroyer.Net BBS

That was fast.

And you know what? I'm not going to argue it here with you. I know where you stand. I disagree with it. However, because of the shell you've constructed for yourself that deflects anything that doesn't fit into your narrowly constrained viewpoint, anything I say won't matter. So, I'm not going to say anything until I find something that will crack that shell. As I said in the other thread -- I accept Mad's theory as valid until I can figure out something different.

As for the "whiny drama queen" remark, that's just a pointless jab. I knew you would have something to say about my statement, and you said almost exactly what I expected, so my remark was quite justified.

I was always under the impression that "Blaster" weapons were purely bolt based and had no invisible beam portion to them while "Laser cannon" or "Turbolaser" based weapons are what utilized both visible and invisible beams. That to me makes more sense and seems to follow whats shown on screen, since all handheld "blasters" and "blaster" dubbed weapons in the Star wars movies seem to only make their damage when the visible bolt stikes and the laser and turbolaser dubbed weapons have the instances of an invisible beam being present.

Also, in the AOTC Visual Dictionary which I believe is counted as canon correct? The clone troopers are said to use "plasma guns" IIRC. This would seem to point to them being purely energy bolt based.

If someone wants to correct me on this feel free, but as far as I recall all weapons in the movies specifically referred to as "Blasters" seem to always only make damage from the visible bolt.

Icehawk wrote:I was always under the impression that "Blaster" weapons were purely bolt based and had no invisible beam portion to them while "Laser cannon" or "Turbolaser" based weapons are what utilized both visible and invisible beams. That to me makes more sense and seems to follow whats shown on screen, since all handheld "blasters" and "blaster" dubbed weapons in the Star wars movies seem to only make their damage when the visible bolt stikes and the laser and turbolaser dubbed weapons have the instances of an invisible beam being present.

There is actually at least one incident of a blaster bolt doing damage before it hits (under strict SoD). This is when Luke's hand is hit on Jabba's barge. So, unfortunately, this idea doesn't hold up

Icehawk wrote:Also, in the AOTC Visual Dictionary which I believe is counted as canon correct? The clone troopers are said to use "plasma guns" IIRC. This would seem to point to them being purely energy bolt based.

It's more of a nigh-canon, like the ICS. It's canon unless directly contradicted, IOW. In any case, in this case it is contradicted because plasma weapons should exhibit lightning-like eletrical arcing (as pointed out to me by Ender in the Blaster Speed thread).

Unless I totally misunderstood what he was trying to tell me...

McC wrote:As for the "whiny drama queen" remark, that's just a pointless jab. I knew you would have something to say about my statement, and you said almost exactly what I expected, so my remark was quite justified.

No, the point was is there's no need to make that remark outside your self-endulgent need to play the victim. No body had said anything about it, and I found it annoying and bitchy, and expressed that annoyance.

The ICS is "canon" only so far in that it's supposed to be based on analysis of Canon (as opposed to made up EU stuff or something like that).

Since it's liscensed it's "official." (Or is that wrong?)

Because otherwise we might say that Mike's site is canon or Saxton's site is canon, since it's based on analysis of canon.

Anyway, saying that Saxton isn't all that is a big sin on this site, so I won't go there (and I don't believe that either, I respect the guy's work and he's been published with the logo too). But isn't it possible for two people to look at the same canon material (ie: the films) and come up with different theories?

Ie: could he be wrong about anything?

(Put that aside for a moment, I just said that because of the "it's canon you purist" jab)
----------------------------------------

On the suspension of disbelief question, that is an important question.

I know people have said before that SoD is either "yes or no" and it's an "on/off switch" but then it's also been said that we are to use parsimony too right?

I'm not saying you see one SFX glitch and then you throw all evidence out the window.

Rather isn't it simpler to say that one SFX is a better explanation than to make up a whole plethora of invisible phenomena to explain one discrepency?

Or (and again, somebody who's gone over it more meticulously than I have can answer this) is it in fact true that the majority of incidents onscreen support the "ICS theory" rather than something else?

In other words, is the ICS theory used to encompass one or two incidents that overrule a slower than light "bolt" theory (akin to blasters) or is it constructed because the majority of incidents are explained best by faster than light invisible beams with a visible tracer?

As far as SFX glitches are concerned, I am reminded of Bob Brown's page (and again, please set aside your anger at his being an ANH/ESB only purist for a second). On that page IIRC he included the "lightsabers have shadows" thing as evidence for his theories on lightsabers, additionally he included a few scenes where blasters did visible damage BEFORE the physical bolt hit (ie: the scene in ROTJ where Luke's robot hand gets damaged by one of Jabba's guards). A few frames show damage before the squib/spark effect of the blaster bolt.

Is that an SFX glitch or is this one (?) incidence proof that the theory of slower than light projectiles made out of (whatever) is inapplicable to blaster bolts as well?


We don't count Obi-Wan's "shorting out lightsaber" as proof of some new wrinkle in lightsaber theory either do we? We try to explain sounds in space as "feedback in the cockpit" yet we ignore instances where the action is clearly taking place outside and not from any ship's point of view. So..?

The point about space physics altering turbolaser behavior might be a valid one, and it's a good point. However have we ever witnessed turbolaser use during FTL (or c level) travel? Or has it all been at slower than light speeds? Or is the very vacuum of space, shield interaction, etc part of the deal?


Maybe hand/ground vehicle blasters are different from space based turbolasers, I'm just asking.

I always assumed that blasters were just a scaled down version of turbolasers. Apparently that was just an assumption (?).

PS: The "redirection in mid-flight" thing for Turbolasers almost suggests that they have some kind of 'auto aiming' system on them, but that reminds me of the whole can of worms with the Trek "auto aiming phaers" thing. But if bolts can be redirected in mid-flight (and at lightspeed or FTL no less), shouldn't ships never miss (ie: have perfect aim)? Unless a ship is moving faster than light or the gunner (or targeting computer) is somehow an idiot/malfunctioning how is a ponderous hunk of metal or rock (asteroid) supposed to dodge such a thing?

The ICSs are Canon because LucasFilm says so.

Your petty purist whiny bullshit is getting irritating.

You obviously don't get Suspension of Disbelief and are either stupid or intentionally obtuse.

Why don't you go back to my explanation and ask specific questions or make specific critiques.

There is no evidence that the visible bolt is "supposed to be" the damaging component, and it isn't a tiny minority of evidence in a single case. Moreover, you lack the RL data set to prove otherwise.

You have no compelling reason to discard it as SFX other than your personal preferences, which are irrelevent. Invoking out-of-universe phenomenon to explain something is a worse violation of parsimony than saying that the bolt isn't the damaging part (especially when it goes through an A-Wing in one scene).

You have no leg to stand on, and the evidence to support the multi-tiered canon is all over the place, including on page one of this forum. ICS recieved the official LFL stamp of canon. The end.

Kurgan wrote:Rather isn't it simpler to say that one SFX is a better explanation than to make up a whole plethora of invisible phenomena to explain one discrepency?

Bolt redirection occurs much more often than damage before bolt impact (I've seen examples in each of the OT films; haven't been able to check the PT). And explaining bolt redirection with STL propogation requires even more complicated theories.

If you want to start poking holes, try to find an example of mid-flight bolt redirection for hand blasters, which are pretty much proven to be STL. (Note that off-axis firing is not bolt redirection... the bolt's velocity vector has to change direction in mid-flight with no apparent cause other than the barrel of the gun moving after the bolt is fired.)

PS: The "redirection in mid-flight" thing for Turbolasers almost suggests that they have some kind of 'auto aiming' system on them, but that reminds me of the whole can of worms with the Trek "auto aiming phaers" thing. But if bolts can be redirected in mid-flight (and at lightspeed or FTL no less), shouldn't ships never miss (ie: have perfect aim)? Unless a ship is moving faster than light or the gunner (or targeting computer) is somehow an idiot/malfunctioning how is a ponderous hunk of metal or rock (asteroid) supposed to dodge such a thing?

The guns only have a fraction of a second to compensate (while dealing with recoil, no less). Throwing jamming and last minute maneuvers into the mix, misses are still entirely possible.

Between Spanky and IP, I want to break something very very large. You two are consumately frustrating, do you know that? And not because you "prove everyone wrong," but because you do not listen to anything anyone says ever. You're both incredible.

Fuck SoD for a moment. Here's what you said, IP:

You have no compelling reason to discard it as SFX other than your personal preferences, which are irrelevent.

Okay, let me describe for you precisely the path of events that I see as having led to this c beam theory.

1) ILM is "sloppy" in their effects work, resulting in some objects reacting to weaponry effects before they actually should. The discrepancy is next to impossible to notice when one watches the footage in realtime, however, so nothing is done about this. Further evidence for "sloppy" effects work is, in the original release of ESB, the drive trails for one of the ISDs is actually beneath it, in free space. How do you explain that under SoD? You won't, you'll say that the Special Editions are the most canon version and supercede all others and since they fixed this in the SE, it never actually happened. The only reason this was fixed and the lasers weren't is because unless you sit and pick the footage apart frame by frame, you can't see the blaster/laser discrepancies, while you can notice the engine trail discrepancy (I caught it with my naked eye, no frame-by-frame shuttling).

2) Weapons in Star Wars are called "laser cannons." EU novelists assume, then, that this makes them photon-based weapons that travel at the speed of light, because that's what they're familiar with. They don't know any better and aren't interested in technical accuracy so much as telling character stories. The c beam theory gains its fundamental EU support.

3) The plasma weapon theory comes out to debunk Trekkie "lasers can't hurt shields!" argument and grows beyond intended proportions, so far as to become part of an official material, EGTW&T.

4) Analysis by on-line technical fan groups (read: us) does the frame-by-frame analyses and notes the damage-before-impact phenomenon, which has objects exploding slightly before (1-2 frames, right? has it ever exceeded this insignificantly small number?) the bolt is actually seen to hit, giving more plausibility to the notion that the damaging components of these weapons may not, in fact, be visible.

5) Saxton, using this as launching point, writes the SW2ICS, incorporating this idea. It has merit, but it's based on a fundamentally flawed premise of sloppy effects work that no one intended to be technically accurate.

6) IP (and others) adopts the SW2ICS as his personal bible, using it to bash anyone who thinks about questioning it over the head with the fact that it's a technical document referenced by LucasFilm and licenesed by LucasFilm, thus negating any actual reasonable considerations for the source of potential discrepancies in the original material.

No, it doesn't agree with SoD. In fact, it's not even in-universe at all. It looks at the real-world development of how this bullshit came to be. And for that, I suppose I'll be braned an infidel or some such. I don't care. This is getting far too ridiculous.

Mad wrote:Bolt redirection occurs much more often than damage before bolt impact (I've seen examples in each of the OT films; haven't been able to check the PT). And explaining bolt redirection with STL propogation requires even more complicated theories.

If you want to start poking holes, try to find an example of mid-flight bolt redirection for hand blasters, which are pretty much proven to be STL. (Note that off-axis firing is not bolt redirection... the bolt's velocity vector has to change direction in mid-flight with no apparent cause other than the barrel of the gun moving after the bolt is fired.)

Given my preceding post, the next time I have a free moment, I think I'll do just this. Any time a laser or blaster is fired, I'm going to cap it and look at it, counting the number of frames of offset the damage is before the impact, and also checking for number of instances of redirection and degree of change (if calculable). That way, at least the hard numbers will be available for people to fuck with.

I apologize again for sorta trampling on your theory, Mad, but while I think it's very well done and unifies everything nicely, I think it's based on a false premise (namely: absolutist SoD of every single item branded with LucasFilm's logo) and as such an alternative should at least be explored, even if no one ever accepts it.

McC, I would recommend that you, above all else, fucking understand what you are talking about. All you have done is blather a self-constructed and fantastical history of the debates, Saxton's position, etc...

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:McC, I would recommend that you, above all else, fucking understand what you are talking about. All you have done is blather a self-constructed and fantastical history of the debates, Saxton's position, etc...

Your one to three line quips aren't very illuminating for an ignoramus such as me, Spanky. Why don't you expound and, you know, explore writing a paragraph or four to actually tell me how I'm wrong, instead of fulfilling the role of SD.net's Salacious Crumb.

I don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge and experiance to correct your gibberish up there, nor do I have much of the time to devote to the proper amount of research I would have to do to counter correctly. Additionally, I do not want to be responsible in providing you with yet more ammutition to deconstruct into further podium nonsense.

I don't need to assemble a speech to tell you that you're wrong.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge and experiance to correct your gibberish up there, nor do I have much of the time to devote to the proper amount of research I would have to do to counter correctly.

Then shut the fuck up. If you are just going to sit there and go "me too" all the time, what good does that do you or anyone else? Or is your post count that important to you?

Spanky wrote:I don't need to assemble a speech to tell you that you're wrong.

You do if you expect me to ever believe it. Just sitting in the corner and quipping gives you about as much credibility in my book as the door. Actually, the door gets more -- it sits in the corner and does something useful.

McC wrote:Fuck SoD for a moment.

Fuck you for a moment. Suspension of Disbelief is the best way to analyze science fiction, period. And, SoD requires that we use it in every case; we can't just pick and choose, because that would be pointless.

Okay, let me describe for you precisely the path of events that I see as having led to this c beam theory.

1) ILM is "sloppy" in their effects work, resulting in some objects reacting to weaponry effects before they actually should. The discrepancy is next to impossible to notice when one watches the footage in realtime, however, so nothing is done about this. Further evidence for "sloppy" effects work is, in the original release of ESB, the drive trails for one of the ISDs is actually beneath it, in free space. How do you explain that under SoD? You won't, you'll say that the Special Editions are the most canon version and supercede all others and since they fixed this in the SE, it never actually happened. The only reason this was fixed and the lasers weren't is because unless you sit and pick the footage apart frame by frame, you can't see the blaster/laser discrepancies, while you can notice the engine trail discrepancy (I caught it with my naked eye, no frame-by-frame shuttling).

Whether ILM intended for there to be an invisible component or not is irrelevant. And, like it or not, there is a canon hierarchy, and the Special Editions do outweigh anything else, and the invisible component is part of the canon, UNLESS YOU CAN THINK OF AN ACTUAL REASON WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE OTHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, which is exactly what IP was telling you in the first place.

2) Weapons in Star Wars are called "laser cannons." EU novelists assume, then, that this makes them photon-based weapons that travel at the speed of light, because that's what they're familiar with. They don't know any better and aren't interested in technical accuracy so much as telling character stories. The c beam theory gains its fundamental EU support.

Fair enough, but remember that the c-beam theory has canon support, so EU support isn't strictly "fundamental".

3) The plasma weapon theory comes out to debunk Trekkie "lasers can't hurt shields!" argument and grows beyond intended proportions, so far as to become part of an official material, EGTW&T.

Fucking bullshit. Only idiots listened to the Trekkie laser argument anyways; it is hardly the source of plasma-related blaster theories. And I guarantee you that Bill Smith wasn't fucking thinking of ASVS and SpaceBattles when he was writing the EGWT.

4) Analysis by on-line technical fan groups (read: us) does the frame-by-frame analyses and notes the damage-before-impact phenomenon, which has objects exploding slightly before (1-2 frames, right? has it ever exceeded this insignificantly small number?) the bolt is actually seen to hit, giving more plausibility to the notion that the damaging components of these weapons may not, in fact, be visible.

Uh, yeah. You're right. You just gave evidence for the invisible component fact (not "theory," because it's supported by canon, including being SPELLED OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH in the ICS2, and, like it or not, the canon hierarchy actually counts).

5) Saxton, using this as launching point, writes the SW2ICS, incorporating this idea. It has merit, but it's based on a fundamentally flawed premise of sloppy effects work that no one intended to be technically accurate.

Suck my cock. First of all, I think it's insulting to ILM to say that they didn't intend their work to be "technically accurate"; they put a lot of hard work into those movies. Second of all, LIKE IT OR MOTHERFUCKING NOT, ICS2 IS PART OF THE CANON. Now, unless you can think of any higher canon that disagrees with it, or any REAL REASON that we shouldn't take Dr. Saxton's word for it, shut your god damned mouth.

6) IP (and others) adopts the SW2ICS as his personal bible, using it to bash anyone who thinks about questioning it over the head with the fact that it's a technical document referenced by LucasFilm and licenesed by LucasFilm, thus negating any actual reasonable considerations for the source of potential discrepancies in the original material.

You can't just say "oh, it was a movie, therefore any analysis of it is bullshit." Well, I guess you can, but I don't know why you're here if you intend to do that.

No, it doesn't agree with SoD. In fact, it's not even in-universe at all. It looks at the real-world development of how this bullshit came to be. And for that, I suppose I'll be braned an infidel or some such. I don't care. This is getting far too ridiculous.

No, it doesn't agree with SoD. And, if you disregard Suspension of Disbelief, you're left with disbelief, which kind of negates the whole fucking purpose of analyzing Star Wars. If you want to do that, be my motherfucking guest, but don't come over here and complain about how much of a retard you are, because we don't want to hear it.

Robert Treder wrote:Fuck you for a moment. Suspension of Disbelief is the best way to analyze science fiction, period. And, SoD requires that we use it in every case; we can't just pick and choose, because that would be pointless.

Even when SoD is based on brainbugs?

Whether ILM intended for there to be an invisible component or not is irrelevant. And, like it or not, there is a canon hierarchy, and the Special Editions do outweigh anything else, and the invisible component is part of the canon, UNLESS YOU CAN THINK OF AN ACTUAL REASON WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE OTHER THAN YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, which is exactly what IP was telling you in the first place.

IP does this to me all the time too. I make a statement of my personal preference with intent to seek out material to back it up, but because I made the statement before getting the material to back it up, I'm instantly wrong. I plainly admit that I do not yet have any evidence to concretely support my grievances with the c beam theory. Alright? Is that clear enough for you? What I'm saying, and what has been the underlying subtext of my statements all along, is that when non-canon (read: non-movie) sources are using the technical aspects as a backdrop to what is primarily a character or political story, the accuracy of those sources can and should be called into question. We don't read a biography expecing it to contain precise and elaborate explanations of the background technology of the individual, unless they were specifically an inventor or some such. Why should we expect character pieces to be any more technically accurate?

Fair enough, but remember that the c-beam theory has canon support, so EU support isn't strictly "fundamental".

I do not deny that Dr. Saxton is extremely intelligent and has made incomparable contributions to this slice of fandom. He was tapped for ICS for just this reason, I'm sure -- he's smart, he's qualified, and he's a Star Wars fan. I have a lot of respect for him, personally, and frequently visit SWTC to see what he has to say or to reference one of his articles. But the guy who gave the c beam "canon" support is the same guy that recommended not attempting to analyze the functionality of these weapons and instead only their effects! The entire ICS-based argument is based on a generalized description of the functionality of these weapons. I am not disputing their effects or the magnitude of them, but a generalized and rather vague statement of operational principles does not constitute strong evidence in my book.

Fucking bullshit. Only idiots listened to the Trekkie laser argument anyways; it is hardly the source of plasma-related blaster theories. And I guarantee you that Bill Smith wasn't fucking thinking of ASVS and SpaceBattles when he was writing the EGWT.

Conceded.

Uh, yeah. You're right. You just gave evidence for the invisible component fact (not "theory," because it's supported by canon, including being SPELLED OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH in the ICS2, and, like it or not, the canon hierarchy actually counts).

I pointed out where the invisible component notion developed. I think it's ludicrous to use that as support, and meant to suggest that this ridiculously small frame gap is what gives "canon" support to the invisible component theory, which I think is a rather laughable notion. I do not rule out an invisible component, personally, however.

Suck my cock. First of all, I think it's insulting to ILM to say that they didn't intend their work to be "technically accurate"; they put a lot of hard work into those movies.

ILMers are artist, above all. If you've ever watched the DVD BTS stuff, you can actually see them purposely depart from real physics in order to make something more visually interesting. And that's now. Exactly how many corners do you think they had to cut then? I'm not bashing ILM at all -- what they have achieved goes way beyond impressive. I'm just saying that their focus is making a movie that impresses audiences, not a technically accurate depiction of spatial physics.

Second of all, LIKE IT OR MOTHERFUCKING NOT, ICS2 IS PART OF THE CANON. Now, unless you can think of any higher canon that disagrees with it, or any REAL REASON that we shouldn't take Dr. Saxton's word for it, shut your god damned mouth.

See above.

You can't just say "oh, it was a movie, therefore any analysis of it is bullshit." Well, I guess you can, but I don't know why you're here if you intend to do that.

I never did intend to do that, but the inflexibility of certain individuals is driving me insane, so I'm being gradually pushed further and further away from a middle-ground point of view and ever-closer to canon purism.

No, it doesn't agree with SoD. And, if you disregard Suspension of Disbelief, you're left with disbelief, which kind of negates the whole fucking purpose of analyzing Star Wars. If you want to do that, be my motherfucking guest, but don't come over here and complain about how much of a retard you are, because we don't want to hear it.

I'm not disregarding suspension of disbelief. My point was not to say that SoD is wrong, damnit. My point was to say that one or two frames is not sufficient justification for something, unless they're clearly, purposefully different (like the single frame where Leia is totally illuminated by a stun blast and the arcs disappear -- this was obviously very intentional, so that one frame matters).

I'm still trying to work out how this would make sense under SoD. My current pursuit is trying to figure out of the framerate of the playback material could have anything to do with this kind of effect. I'm specifically thinking of the scene with the ISD blowing up an asteroid. IIRC, the asteroid glows in one frame, with the bolt "not yet there," and then in the subsequent frame, the bolt is halfway into the asteroid. I'm trying to figure out if this could be a fact of the framerate being too low or something.

The entire point of my post was not to debunk SoD, but to show how everything evolved to the official ("canon") explanation it has arrived at presently, and how this real-world evolution calls into question the validity of the real-world published conclusion. I know that this doesn't mean jack shit in terms of actually proposing a functional theory for this stuff. I'm just sick of it being regarded as holy and infallible, when it is in fact based on compounding mistakes.

If you have no evidence, why do you think Spanky, Ender, myself, and Treder don't take you very seriously and no longer wish to listen to your fucking whining?

No one gives two shits what you think before you have evidence to back it up, which is indistinguishable from having no evidence for your assertions. One just has a wink and a promise for someday. Yeah, and I'm sure DarkStar looks for evidence to support his delusions someday too.

Suspension of Disbelief is the only way to empirically analyze the technical aspects of fiction, period. Anything else is subjective picking-and-choosing where it suits your purposes. The "compounded problems" are irrelevent from an analysis point of view and are a consistent part of the canon. Sorry.

Let's rewind a bit. You originally came on here with the pretense to disprove the work over probably at least five years by everyone from a nuclear technician aboard a CVN to an engineer to a fucking theoretical astrophysicist, and you whined when we were irritated that you hardly did your homeowrk and clung to your shit as it was ripped apart. Now you're simply reduced to attacking the logic by which we achieve our conclusions as a means to discredit them. Now you may claim that isn't what you're doing, but since you yourself are doing scientific analysis, how are those comments at all relevent accept as a subtle way to poison the well on the c-beam theory. And yeah, it is holy and infalliable because not only is it supported by canon, it is enshrined in the canon, and is infalliable until your evidence materializes itself.

So no, you have no fucking room to pretend you're a victim, because you've behaved like an asshole.

EDIT:

McC wrote:You do if you expect me to ever believe it. Just sitting in the corner and quipping gives you about as much credibility in my book as the door. Actually, the door gets more -- it sits in the corner and does something useful.

You're a trip pal. What's this from page 1:

McC wrote:"Here we go again..."



[*snip*]

*sighs expectantly, awaiting the predictable reaction*

McC wrote:IP does this to me all the time too. I make a statement of my personal preference with intent to seek out material to back it up, but because I made the statement before getting the material to back it up, I'm instantly wrong. I plainly admit that I do not yet have any evidence to concretely support my grievances with the c beam theory. Alright? Is that clear enough for you?

So basically, you're trying to create explanations from conclusions (and worse, hunches). That's not the preferred method.

What I'm saying, and what has been the underlying subtext of my statements all along, is that when non-canon (read: non-movie)...

Bzzzt. Please review canon policy.

...sources are using the technical aspects as a backdrop to what is primarily a character or political story, the accuracy of those sources can and should be called into question. We don't read a biography expecing it to contain precise and elaborate explanations of the background technology of the individual, unless they were specifically an inventor or some such. Why should we expect character pieces to be any more technically accurate?

We're talking about the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections here, not Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

But the guy who gave the c beam "canon" support is the same guy that recommended not attempting to analyze the functionality of these weapons and instead only their effects!

First of all, he was describing the function by analyzing the observed effect of an invisible component. He was following his doctrine: he observed that damage is done before bolt impact, and he acted on that observation.
Second of all, Saxton the LFL-sanctioned author is different from Saxton the fansite author. When writing for Lucas, Saxton is empowered to take creative license, so even if he was just making this shit up, it would still be canon.

The entire ICS-based argument is based on a generalized description of the functionality of these weapons. I am not disputing their effects or the magnitude of them, but a generalized and rather vague statement of operational principles does not constitute strong evidence in my book.

While it may have been vague and generalized, what it says goes until something canon or official (read: other than your instincts) contradicts it.

I pointed out where the invisible component notion developed. I think it's ludicrous to use that as support, and meant to suggest that this ridiculously small frame gap is what gives "canon" support to the invisible component theory, which I think is a rather laughable notion. I do not rule out an invisible component, personally, however.

The frame gap exists. How exactly is that a problem? What better solution do you have to turbolaser mechanics that requires no invisible component?

ILMers are artist, above all. If you've ever watched the DVD BTS stuff, you can actually see them purposely depart from real physics in order to make something more visually interesting. And that's now. Exactly how many corners do you think they had to cut then? I'm not bashing ILM at all -- what they have achieved goes way beyond impressive. I'm just saying that their focus is making a movie that impresses audiences, not a technically accurate depiction of spatial physics.

OK, but this doesn't change the fact that we analyze what they put on screen, mistake or no, without disbelief.

I never did intend to do that, but the inflexibility of certain individuals is driving me insane, so I'm being gradually pushed further and further away from a middle-ground point of view and ever-closer to canon purism.

Great. Since you are now a canon purist, you must be thrilled that the invisible component appears in the canon (both filmed canon and the canon literature), throughout the OT and the PT.

I'm not disregarding suspension of disbelief. My point was not to say that SoD is wrong, damnit. My point was to say that one or two frames is not sufficient justification for something, unless they're clearly, purposefully different (like the single frame where Leia is totally illuminated by a stun blast and the arcs disappear -- this was obviously very intentional, so that one frame matters).

So then your point was to say that SoD is wrong. SoD demands that we accept that the movies show damage done before visible impact unless there is a superceding canon or scientific reason to do otherwise.

I'm still trying to work out how this would make sense under SoD. My current pursuit is trying to figure out of the framerate of the playback material could have anything to do with this kind of effect. I'm specifically thinking of the scene with the ISD blowing up an asteroid. IIRC, the asteroid glows in one frame, with the bolt "not yet there," and then in the subsequent frame, the bolt is halfway into the asteroid. I'm trying to figure out if this could be a fact of the framerate being too low or something.

OK, what are you doing to figure this out?

Just give up Treder.

Asshole here derailed a question about Suspension of Disbelief and how it applies to possible errors from Kurgan into a pontification on his pet peeve on how something terrible to him evolved and how evil me, Spanky, Ender, etc. are to him because his theory simply was wrong, both by canon policy and analytical methodology.

Yeah, I guess so. It's just that people who dismiss SoD piss me off, because the way I see it, the only way you'd go without SoD is if you didn't really understand it. They're like the fundies of sci-fi fans.

And he only "understood" it when it was the epistemological basis for why he was able to come up with his incorrect Saxton-challenging theory which was torn-down.

He's just like that FurryConflict guy. Can't let go of his personal pet theory, so the rest of us are "unreasonable" and "dogmatic" even though he doesn't at all understand the philosophy of science and how the methods work.

"Absolutist SoD."

You know, I really like his little line in the sand that somehow it has to be above a certain threshold of frames before it really is in the film.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:If you have no evidence, why do you think Spanky, Ender, myself, and Treder don't take you very seriously and no longer wish to listen to your fucking whining?

Conceded.

No one gives two shits what you think before you have evidence to back it up, which is indistinguishable from having no evidence for your assertions. One just has a wink and a promise for someday. Yeah, and I'm sure DarkStar looks for evidence to support his delusions someday too.

I'm sorry alright? I kinda have a job that takes up most of my time. When I'm not doing that, I'm either spending time with my girlfriend or working on a project of mine. There's very little time in there to allocate to capturing dozens (hundreds) of shots from the SW movies to debate here. In the next two or three weeks, my time should free up a bit.

Suspension of Disbelief is the only way to empirically analyze the technical aspects of fiction, period. Anything else is subjective picking-and-choosing where it suits your purposes. The "compounded problems" are irrelevent from an analysis point of view and are a consistent part of the canon. Sorry.

I know that. I just want you to admit that they are there in a real-world explanation.

Let's rewind a bit. You originally came on here with the pretense to disprove the work over probably at least five years by everyone from a nuclear technician aboard a CVN to an engineer to a fucking theoretical astrophysicist, and you whined when we were irritated that you hardly did your homeowrk and clung to your shit as it was ripped apart.

Actually, my first post here was a question about relativity and had nothing to do with TLs. I "whined" when you got "irritated" that I didn't do homework that I didn't have access rights to search for at the time, yes. It's a completely bullshit reason to accuse me of not doing my homework when I can't access what you're telling me to look through. And you must've stopped paying attention, because as soon as I did get access to this background stuff, the entire tune of my argument changed.

Now you're simply reduced to attacking the logic by which we achieve our conclusions as a means to discredit them. Now you may claim that isn't what you're doing, but since you yourself are doing scientific analysis, how are those comments at all relevent accept as a subtle way to poison the well on the c-beam theory.

I'm not "reduced" to it, I'm bitter about the fact that no one even seems willing to explore an alternative idea, even if it has already been done. Maybe something new would come up! C-beam works, unifies lots of sources, great! Fantastic! Wonderful! Now that we've got one, let's see if any others fit the bill. What's so damn wrong with that?

And yeah, it is holy and infalliable because not only is it supported by canon, it is enshrined in the canon, and is infalliable until your evidence materializes itself.

Conceded.

So no, you have no fucking room to pretend you're a victim, because you've behaved like an asshole.

You keep on bringing up this "pretending you're a victim" line, and I never know where the hell it comes from.

You're a trip pal. What's this from page 1:

You kinda snipped the meat of the paragraph, where I did say something useful. The quips were there, sure, but they weren't the only thing there. That was my point.

Robert wrote:So basically, you're trying to create explanations from conclusions (and worse, hunches). That's not the preferred method.

No, I'm trying to create hypotheses from conclusions and hunches. Hypotheses get tested. But they come from some observation. That's all.

Bzzzt. Please review canon policy.

Canon policy is pretty clear in saying that the movies are the only absolute canon, with everything else falling into varying levels of canon after that, so long as they don't contradict the movies. For LFL, I'd say rather than canon/semi-canon/official it's more like canon/nigh-canon/semi-canon. Everything's canon, unless contradicted by a higher source. Right? But, by the same token, only the movies are absolutely infallible canon.

We're talking about the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections here, not Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

Right, my statement was regarding non-technical documents (novelizations that talk about "beams of light" or some such).

First of all, he was describing the function by analyzing the observed effect of an invisible component. He was following his doctrine: he observed that damage is done before bolt impact, and he acted on that observation.

Yes, and by that token, I entirely agree with the course of action he took.

Second of all, Saxton the LFL-sanctioned author is different from Saxton the fansite author. When writing for Lucas, Saxton is empowered to take creative license, so even if he was just making this shit up, it would still be canon.

And that doesn't bother you in the slightest? If someone is sanctioned by LFL and just makes shit up, and it becomes 'canon'?

While it may have been vague and generalized, what it says goes until something canon or official (read: other than your instincts) contradicts it.

I never said my instincts proved anything. Or even called anything into doubt for anyone other than me.

The frame gap exists. How exactly is that a problem? What better solution do you have to turbolaser mechanics that requires no invisible component?

I don't necessarily dispute the invisible component. In fact, I can't, since I have yet to find any article about how a framerate glitch could make something like this appear on playback. So, for now, when I manage to get around to doing all these frame captures, I will be searching for an invisible component explanation.

OK, but this doesn't change the fact that we analyze what they put on screen, mistake or no, without disbelief.

Conceded. I know we have to accept what we see. My point was simply to make sure everyone knows why we're seeing what we see. I sincererely doubt that ILM intended to have an invsible component. Author's intent is meaningless compared to SoD, though, as Mike's essay clearly points out. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of the author's intent anyway, even though it doesn't have any bearing on the final conclusion.

Great. Since you are now a canon purist, you must be thrilled that the invisible component appears in the canon (both filmed canon and the canon literature), throughout the OT and the PT.

Becoming one, not quite there yet. But see my above statement.

So then your point was to say that SoD is wrong. SoD demands that we accept that the movies show damage done before visible impact unless there is a superceding canon or scientific reason to do otherwise.

Eh, yes and no. SoD results in a potentially flawed answer when one accounts for author's intent, but since author's intent doesn't matter, SoD can't be wrong.

OK, what are you doing to figure this out?

Stated this before. Sequence captures of every instance of blaster/laser fire in every movie (I, II, IV, V, VI). Posting of these sequences on-lin in MOV format for all to see. Frame analysis (Photoshop, most likely) of angles of adjustment for bolt redirection. Number of frames of discrepancy for damage-before-impact and number of times it happens. If it's a massive minority, then under normal scientific practice, we should regard it as data abberation rather than absolute truth. IP says this all the time. Happy to do more while I'm at it, if you have any suggestions.

IP wrote:Asshole here derailed a question about Suspension of Disbelief and how it applies to possible errors from Kurgan into a pontification on his pet peeve on how something terrible to him evolved and how evil me, Spanky, Ender, etc. are to him because his theory simply was wrong, both by canon policy and analytical methodology.

Oh hush. Ender explained his point to me, and I bear no ill-will towards him. Spanky's busy over there impersonating a monkey-lizard, and you act like this towards everyone, not just me. It has nothing to do with me and my "theory," which I never have put forward, even though everyone says I have. The closest I've come to a "theory" is that there are distinct bolts traveling at STL. Haven't said what they are, haven't said why they act that way, or anything. I have not put forth a theory, so I'm really curious to know how you proved it wrong.

And my ire over this isn't remotely related to being "proven wrong," either. It's over the practice I've seen you exhibit time and again of attempting to shut people down rather than fostering exchange of idea and discussion. How the fuck is anyone supposed to learn anything or figure anything out if they just get a book thrown at them every time and are told they're wrong? I fundamentally disagree with your approach to disproving people, IP, and that's why these arguments keep cropping up.

Robert wrote:It's just that people who dismiss SoD piss me off, because the way I see it, the only way you'd go without SoD is if you didn't really understand it. They're like the fundies of sci-fi fans.

See above. I'm not dismissing SoD, I'm just trying to make sure that we all understand that while we must work within SoD, the SoD we're working under is based on error and does not coincide with the intent of the author. That's okay and it is necessary.

IP wrote:And he only "understood" it when it was the epistemological basis for why he was able to come up with his incorrect Saxton-challenging theory which was torn-down.

See above. Never had a theory to tear-down.

He's just like that FurryConflict guy. Can't let go of his personal pet theory, so the rest of us are "unreasonable" and "dogmatic" even though he doesn't at all understand the philosophy of science and how the methods work.

I don't find Mike or Mad unreasonable, IP. When Mike says something, he backs it up well and truly. Mad takes the time to explain what he's talking about. I've said time and again that I admire Mad's theory, even though I disagree with it. I find you unreasonable and dogmatic.

You know, I really like his little line in the sand that somehow it has to be above a certain threshold of frames before it really is in the film.

Conceded. This was out of line on my part.

McC wrote:

Second of all, Saxton the LFL-sanctioned author is different from Saxton the fansite author. When writing for Lucas, Saxton is empowered to take creative license, so even if he was just making this shit up, it would still be canon.

And that doesn't bother you in the slightest? If someone is sanctioned by LFL and just makes shit up, and it becomes 'canon'?

Uh, no, it doesn't bother me. That's the way a fictional universe is created. Does it bother you when an author writes a story?

Robert wrote:It's just that people who dismiss SoD piss me off, because the way I see it, the only way you'd go without SoD is if you didn't really understand it. They're like the fundies of sci-fi fans.

See above. I'm not dismissing SoD, I'm just trying to make sure that we all understand that while we must work within SoD, the SoD we're working under is based on error and does not coincide with the intent of the author. That's okay and it is necessary.[/quote]

But you just admitted that author's intent ISN'T necessary under SoD!

Robert Treder wrote:Uh, no, it doesn't bother me. That's the way a fictional universe is created. Does it bother you when an author writes a story?

I see your point, and it is certainly valid. However, I think it's fair to make a distinction between describing the adventures of characters and describing the functioning of technical devices.

Robert wrote:But you just admitted that author's intent ISN'T necessary under SoD!

I think you might be misunderstanding what I said.

I wrote:See above. I'm not dismissing SoD, I'm just trying to make sure that we all understand that while we must work within SoD, the SoD we're working under is based on error and does not coincide with the intent of the author. That's okay and it is necessary.

What I'm saying is that it's okay and even necessary that SoD does not coincide with author's intent. I just want everyone to acknowledge that by clinging to SoD very tightly, we are getting away from author's intent, and I think this in particular is an instance like that.

McC wrote:I'm sorry alright? I kinda have a job that takes up most of my time. When I'm not doing that, I'm either spending time with my girlfriend or working on a project of mine. There's very little time in there to allocate to capturing dozens (hundreds) of shots from the SW movies to debate here. In the next two or three weeks, my time should free up a bit.

Whatever. The idea generally is to shut the fuck up is you have no good reason to make wild claims, especially when they're contradictory to those who've put in the time and effort and made the actual theory.

Note: Why do people often go to this "well I have a real life!" excuse? I find it superbly annoying, for two reasons. One, it implies me, or whomever else is the opponent of said individual does not possess a real life (hint: I do), and two, it excuses the profound absence of their own reason to suggest others are wrong. And interestingly, you did have time to draw out a 11-page thread and run your own screen captures. And guys like Dr. Curtis Saxton seem to be busy, well, being an astrophysicist, Mike being a husband and engineer, and Ender a sailor aboard a CVN. So really, what is the point with this kind of remark? Does it really say anything?

McC wrote:I know that. I just want you to admit that they are there in a real-world explanation.

That's great. By extrinisic analysis they're almost certainly SFX errors. And the ISD is a kitbashed model smaller than my body, &c.

Suprise! We're talking about analysis of what things are from the perspective of the fictional universe in-question itself: thus, the ISD is a 1,600 warship capable of slagging a plant in an hour and thousands-of-gees accleration, and turbolaser beams propogate at c.

McC wrote:Actually, my first post here was a question about relativity and had nothing to do with TLs.

Ah, I talk about when he originally came on, and his reply is that "oh, but my first three posts!" Right. We both know what I meant, and we were discussing the history of your bitching on this subject.

McC wrote:I "whined" when you got "irritated" that I didn't do homework that I didn't have access rights to search for at the time, yes. It's a completely bullshit reason to accuse me of not doing my homework when I can't access what you're telling me to look through. And you must've stopped paying attention, because as soon as I did get access to this background stuff, the entire tune of my argument changed.

Since when is the search function based on post-count? That'd be news to me.

McC wrote:I'm not "reduced" to it, I'm bitter about the fact that no one even seems willing to explore an alternative idea, even if it has already been done.

Nothing wrong with this. But generally, this is not considered "bitching and moaning about how there's no disproof for the current theory" before you've gotten the slightest scraps of an alternative theory together.

Do the work, put up the proof, then come on talking about alternatives.

McC wrote:Now that we've got one, let's see if any others fit the bill. What's so damn wrong with that?

In case you haven't noticed, it is generally frowned upon to run around looking for any and all loop-holes or oppurtunities to contradict canon.

McC wrote:You keep on bringing up this "pretending you're a victim" line, and I never know where the hell it comes from.

Every whiny comment about how I've given you such an unreasonable time. As I've shown time, and time again, you have precisely no pedestal to stand on, and didn't even the first time you posted on the subject. So shut up.

McC wrote:You kinda snipped the meat of the paragraph, where I did say something useful. The quips were there, sure, but they weren't the only thing there. That was my point.

Translation: Alright, so I did preface my post with backhanded little bitchy quips which were totally off-topic and entirely intended to refer to other long-completed thread with specific individuals.

So basically, yeah, I was right. You were an asshole for doing that.

McC wrote:No, I'm trying to create hypotheses from conclusions and hunches. Hypotheses get tested. But they come from some observation. That's all.

No, you look at evidence and say, hey that ain't right, and then put up the evidence and preferably some analysis to go with it.

You skipped parts two and three because honestly, this got started with you wanting to throw out some bitchy quips because you've never had a basis for this stuff since the beginning and apparently we should've been more accomodating for something we'd covered many times before.

McC wrote:For LFL, I'd say rather than canon/semi-canon/official it's more like canon/nigh-canon/semi-canon. Everything's canon, unless contradicted by a higher source. Right? But, by the same token, only the movies are absolutely infallible canon.

What's your point? You don't have anything better with absolute canon than "eh, it doesn't look right to me; it should be more frames."

Sorry bub, but that just is not good enough.

McC wrote:And that doesn't bother you in the slightest? If someone is sanctioned by LFL and just makes shit up, and it becomes 'canon'?

Strawman. His word is enshrined as second-tier canon, but he was hired specifically because his word would probably be reasonable and consistent with absolute canon; thus fleshing it out, the whole idea of these sources. And it did both.

McC wrote:I never said my instincts proved anything. Or even called anything into doubt for anyone other than me.

Backpeddling. Nah, you just used it as a pretext for a style-over-substance whine fest about me, and dredging up off-topic flamebait on page 1.

McC wrote:So, for now, when I manage to get around to doing all these frame captures, I will be searching for an invisible component explanation.

Good, now take a hint from this thread and shut the fuck up until you have done that, kay?

McC wrote:My point was simply to make sure everyone knows why we're seeing what we see. I sincererely doubt that ILM intended to have an invsible component. Author's intent is meaningless compared to SoD, though, as Mike's essay clearly points out.

Then what was the point?

McC wrote:Eh, yes and no. SoD results in a potentially flawed answer when one accounts for author's intent, but since author's intent doesn't matter, SoD can't be wrong.

Self-contradictory.

McC wrote:Stated this before. Sequence captures of every instance of blaster/laser fire in every movie (I, II, IV, V, VI). Posting of these sequences on-lin in MOV format for all to see. Frame analysis (Photoshop, most likely) of angles of adjustment for bolt redirection. Number of frames of discrepancy for damage-before-impact and number of times it happens. If it's a massive minority, then under normal scientific practice, we should regard it as data abberation rather than absolute truth. IP says this all the time. Happy to do more while I'm at it, if you have any suggestions.

Good; though you do realize even without any damage-before-impact or bolt-redirection, Mad's theory still holds. It simply means the bolt phenomenon was calibrated correctly and arrived co-incident with the damaging pulse, and that the weapon was correctly aimed from the inital firing.

McC wrote:The closest I've come to a "theory" is that there are distinct bolts traveling at STL.

But you couldn't prove that.

McC wrote:It's over the practice I've seen you exhibit time and again of attempting to shut people down rather than fostering exchange of idea and discussion.

Maybe because much of the time, there really isn't room for debate. Suspension of Disbelief and the wealth of information are quite

Bullshit. Hardly every discussion I get into here causes me shutting people down. However, take this thread for instance: imperial navy naming question.

I explained at least three times before I finally got sick of it. Quite frankly its not hard to understand why it is preferable, dealing with SW, to use English protocol over making stuff up (hint: "His Emperor's" is never correct address; ever). Yeah I got sick of it, but no, I'm not sorry. I support my arguments and supply quotes thereof.

McC wrote:How the fuck is anyone supposed to learn anything or figure anything out if they just get a book thrown at them every time and are told they're wrong?

Because the length of my posts is usually dedicated to explaining the why as to their being wrong; and I usually do it many times before becoming annoyed and just being blunt.

McC wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your approach to disproving people, IP, and that's why these arguments keep cropping up.

That's nice. Its also not a very good excuse to start bullshit like this thread hijack and its nature.

McC wrote:See above. Never had a theory to tear-down.

You're nitpicking the statements without sitting down and asking what I mean. This would be why I get irritated.

The "theory" is not the point at hand. The point at hand is that you must accept Suspension of Disbelief in order to do the propogation-of-beam calculations you performed originally, which was the crux of your point. It was hardly acceptable to ever question SoD after that point, without appearing a hypocrite.

McC wrote:I find you unreasonable and dogmatic.

I find you whiny and annoying, with a penchant for starting shit and making off-topic flamebait quips and then playing the abused scholar. Well fuck you. I don't randomly bring up your lazy researching tendencies and general stupidity in ship threads, now do I?