[Tech] A Laser Challenge for ST Supporters
Celes Knight
the SW side is pretty quick to point out a variety of reason why that
couldn't possible be true. Soon a ST supporter will reply with a variety of
relatively good replies to those points. There is, however, one point which
I've never seen a decent response to.
Explain how the main superlaser of the Death Star could possibly be a laser.
The visible part can't be explained as a targeting mechanism because they
don't target one shot after the next the way they _might_ with normal
weapons. Nor could it be a simple side effect because 1)If the side-effect
is following the laser, then the laser is making impossible turns too and
2)if the laser is not following the side-effect, why take such careful
precision to line it up and fire it at the target? No, I think we have to
assume that that green thing is the thing causing the damage.
Whatever that green thing is, it is something that can stop in mid-space,
turn a corner, then fire. This is totally unlike what light does.
The destructive effect we see is unlike that of what a laser would do. The
effect when it hits a ship is far more like a bomb than a cutting or
drilling type beam. Also, the beam seems to form a green cloud or explosion
type effect for 1 or 2 frames when it comes in contact with a ship.
--
Celes Knight
"The only way we could bring today's military *down* to [Star] Trek
standards would be to order every man on duty to undergo a prefrontal
lobotomy." -- Chuckg
Elim Garak
light sword type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the sides were there to focus the main
beam...
Celes Knight
combination? Or some kind of force field?
I could see those, but again, then it's not a real laser. And as I recall,
the guides and journals say that it is basically a souped up turbolaser, so
whatever the superlaser is, turbolasers are a smaller version of it.
> I always understood that the beams that went from the sides were there to
focus the main
> beam...
Again, not something that lasers do (if you assume that the green thing is a
laser). Or if the entire colored part was just a side effect of focusing,
why does it travel down the path of the laser, and why does the invisible
laser not hit the ship until the same time that focusing then gets there?
If you aren't one of those people (like Timothy Jones) who claim that all SW
weapons are lasers, then we really don't have any argument. I just want
those people who do claim that to give me a realistic way that the
superlaser could be a laser.
ÜberLord
channeled, collected, contained, and then released upon its intended target.
This is all done by an elaborate guideing and containment field. Your
inability to see these does not preclude their existence.
Celes Knight <ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote in message
news:92793293...@newdm.deskmedia.com...
> When ever a someone brings up the SW weapons are lasers debate, someone on
> the SW side is pretty quick to point out a variety of reason why that
> couldn't possible be true. Soon a ST supporter will reply with a variety
of
> relatively good replies to those points. There is, however, one point
which
> I've never seen a decent response to.
>
>
> Explain how the main superlaser of the Death Star could possibly be a
laser.
>
>
> The visible part can't be explained as a targeting mechanism because they
> don't target one shot after the next the way they _might_ with normal
> weapons. Nor could it be a simple side effect because 1)If the
side-effect
> is following the laser, then the laser is making impossible turns too and
Why are you saying "impossible turns" We all know that light is affected by
gravity, light will travel in a straight line only if it is unaffected by an
outside force.
> 2)if the laser is not following the side-effect, why take such careful
> precision to line it up and fire it at the target? No, I think we have to
> assume that that green thing is the thing causing the damage.
>
> Whatever that green thing is, it is something that can stop in mid-space,
> turn a corner, then fire. This is totally unlike what light does.
Totally unlike what light does when unaffected by an outside force. Keep in
mind that this isn't light "left to its own devices" this is light being
concentrated bent folded and manipulated for a purpose wuite different from
room illumination.
>
> The destructive effect we see is unlike that of what a laser would do.
The
> effect when it hits a ship is far more like a bomb than a cutting or
> drilling type beam. Also, the beam seems to form a green cloud or
explosion
> type effect for 1 or 2 frames when it comes in contact with a ship.
>
Think about this, super laser penetrates surface, vaporizes core, which
expands with such violence that the planet blows itself apart, not unlike a
popcorn kernel.
I do hope this has helped.
The ÜberLord has spoken
Celes Knight
> channeled, collected, contained, and then released upon its intended
target.
> This is all done by an elaborate guideing and containment field. Your
> inability to see these does not preclude their existence.
So, what's your source for that and the other ideas you had? I could make
up anything I wanted, including that tiny munchkins are pulling open the
doors on ST ships, but that doesn't make it so.
This seems to be an overly complicated explanation, and I don't buy it
unless a guide or journal also says it.
Timothy Jones
>
> What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> sides were there to focus the main beam...
Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
generally available today. But the theory is sound.
Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
*damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
*NOT* block KE or solid objects.
And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
TJ
Aron Kerkhof
This is shear bullshit, and tomorrow I will point out to the rest of
the newsgroup population why, when I have more spare time.
Assuming Celes, Keynes, and Mike don't completely blow a smoking hole
into it.
In the meantime, I shall be sawing things in half with my flashLIGHT
and getting my laser pen stuck in a blast door, so I cannot wiggle it
back and forth. Have a nice day.
Kynes
> > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > sides were there to focus the main beam...
>
> Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> generally available today. But the theory is sound.
I wish to renew my skepticism about this man's existence. I also wish to remind
everyone reading this post that this alleged physics professor also supported the
notion that "Joules and watts are equal and interchangable [sic]".
> Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
>
> So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
may not cancel each other out; but even if you could acheive that effect,
after that point, they'd head off in different directions! You wouldn't
be holding a lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
> Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
Unfortunately, lightsabers *do* have KE effects. In ROTJ, Luke knocks several
people over using his lightsaber. In ESB, he knocks several of the objects
that Vader throws at him out of the way with his lightsaber. In TPM, Obi-Wan
swings at a droid and, instead of being neatly cut in half and dropping to the
ground, as you'd expect with a lightsaber, the droid is knocked over at least
a meter, as if he had been struck by a baseball bat.
> And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
The name of a weapon is not a valid basis to determine its technical nature.
It may be a good starting point to begin investigation, but it does not
demonstrate anything other than what the creator chose to name it. A lightsaber
is called that for a very obvious reason -- it appears to be a sword made
of light.
See the below quote. Credit to Mike Wong.
--
-Kynes
"If all else fails, simply base your entire argument on the NAMES of the weapons."
- The Trekkie's Creed
Michael January
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
>>
>> What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
>> combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
>> type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
>> sides were there to focus the main beam...
>
> Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
>descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
>generally available today. But the theory is sound.
>
> Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
>waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
>wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
>reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
>right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
>at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
>
> So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
>because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
>in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
>simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
>two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
>interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
>However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
>allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
>this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
>
> Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
>out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
>react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
>such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
>forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
>make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
>*damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
>forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
>should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
>lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
>in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
>forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
>*NOT* block KE or solid objects.
>
> And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
>weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
>matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
>upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
>
>TJ
>
>
I don't believe it. Just when you think Timothy can't make a bigger
idiot of himself, there he goes.
Sure, two lasers of the same frequency and opposite phase intersecting
with each other will cancel each other out. BUT ONLY FOR THE SECTION
WHERE THEY OVERLAP. Once they've passed through each other, the
photons will continue UNCHANGED.
Observe waves at the beah. Two waves can pass through each other and
interfere with each other, even cancel each other out, but having
passed through, CONTINUES UNCHANGED.
What an idiot, somebody should forward these posts to his physics
professor, so that he can see just how badly Timmy misunderstands him.
-------------------------
Michael January
-------------------------
Timothy Jones (contends): The Enterprise takes mere seconds from Earth
to the outer planets at half the speed of light.
Michael January: The outer planets are hours away at
the speed of light. At impulse, it would take even longer.
Timothy Jones: I am right, you are wrong, I won't speak
to you anymore.
Graeme Dice
>
> > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > sides were there to focus the main beam...
>
> Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> generally available today. But the theory is sound.
>
> Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
>
> So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
So what happens after this destructive interference? From what I know,
the beams would simply continue on unchanged after their interference.
>
> Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
>
> And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
I believe that we should probably not take the word of an eight year old
boy
as to what the lightsabre is. Has he ever seen one before? Does he
understand
the operating principles? After all, he may be good with machines, but
that
doesn't mean he understands all the technical terminology.
Graeme Dice
College of Engineering
University of Saskatchewan
grd...@somewhere.other.than.where.it.really.is
Aron Kerkhof
reader, as we explore the dark recesses of Mr. Jones post...
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:19:01 -0700, Timothy Jones
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
>descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
>generally available today. But the theory is sound.
Notice, if you will, Timothy bringing up his Physics Professor. As if
any second hand information that Mr. Jones cannot even understand will
impress anyone without proof. He does not mention his school, nor his
professors name. Most likely this professor is an invention created
by Jones to give himself scientific credentials, when he has blown his
own to hell in this newsgroup. Consider:
This teacher once led him to believe watts and joules are
interchangeable.
This teacher lets Tim believe that getting from the earth to saturn in
a matter of seconds at HALF THE SPEED of light is childsplay, when in
fact, it is impossible.
Tim has recently went on record as claiming that the E-D could
withstand the energy of a Death Star suplerlaser blast. This blast
has been seen to destroy planets.
And those are but three examples that I have been around to witness,
in my short four weeks of activity here. Let us probe deeper...
> Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
>waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
>wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
>reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
>right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
>at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
Ah, now see how Tim convieniently forgets to mention that the photons
that form the light are not destroyed, and would then pass out of the
interference as normal. That would blow his lightsabre theory out of
the water, tho, wouldn't it? You would expect a professor that
supposedly has a PhD from an accredited college to know this, would
you not?
> So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
>because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
>in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
>simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
>two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
>interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
Tim is a firm believer in repetition for ignorance... I mean emphasis.
He basically repeats himself here, under the guise of explaining to
all of us poor, retarded, SW fans how exactly to apply his theory to
our weaponry. In this case, the blade would stop for three feet, and
then continue on past the disturbance. Not very helpful in
explaining the nature of a lightsabre, huh? Yes, I can see how
dissapointed you are, but get used to it, there is lots more to
come...
>However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
>allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
>this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
Now Tim decides to use his own thoughts and sense and apply it to Star
Wars. As we know from General Kenobi, lightsabre's are a elegant
weapon of honor, used primarily by Jedi Knights. Having a blade
length of near infinity would be a *bitch* to use indoors, as well as
being not so honorable. See, Tim forgets in the SW universe, we have
ranged weaponry that can burn holes in people, and they are called
blasters...
> Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
>out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
>react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
>such things as walls etc.
Ah, yes, do you see how Tim even realizes his argument has no merit at
this point, but he is going to emulate his heroes of the Federation,
and Technobabble BS his way through it...
>This I think is where the above talk of
>forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
>make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
Do tell. His next statement is going to do him in...
>*damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
>forcefield.
How could the laser part of a lightsabre possible cause any damage,
when it is being protected by a forcefield? Is this a force field
that just happens to deflect other forcefields? More questions to
follow...
>This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
>should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
>lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
>in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
>forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
>*NOT* block KE or solid objects.
Here, gentle reader, Tim is using old arguments that have been batted
down time and time again, and he doesn't even bother citing his
sources, instead, treating it as common knowledge. He states these
things as facts, hoping that no one challenges him.
Now, for all but the most stubborn of Trek supporters, this argument
carries zero weight. Tim cites as evidence a Professor we cannot be
sure exists, and in fact, have evidence to the contrary. He cites a
science theory without citing any evidence, so it is impossible to
verify. He then proceedes to butcher the intent of said theory,
ignoring the implications of said theory which blows his argument out
of the water. To finish off, he takes a bunch of his old crappy
narrowminded and unproven arguments from other threads of this
newsgroups, and vomits them back up. Now that we have such a lovely
banquet of BS that Tim has presented for us, what shall he do to top
this off? What is for desert? Let's find out...
> And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
>weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
>matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
>upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
Ah, yes! Mr. Jones brilliance is shown once again. In the final
anaysis, Jones is here clinging to the only reason he really has to
think SW weapons are infact lasers, because the incorporate laser into
SOME of their names. And this is only because he claims that Captain
Jean-Luc Picard claims that the E-D's navigational deflector is
impervious to any laser at any power level. That is the reason we are
being subjected to all of the nonsense we read above.
Now that Jones has been trounced by 3-5 people, with no support in
sight, what will his next move be? I anticipate that it will be
something along the lines of...
<Aron's post snipped>
You will NOT make fun of me in your posts. I do NOT have to defend
any of my points to any of you, DESPITE my pitiful past performance in
these debates. I will now delete unread all of your future messages,
so at least I can hold onto my perfect, beautiful, logical arguments,
truth be damned! You are only making yourself look stupid.
-End speculation on Jones future actions-
The beauty of this defense is, and Tim does not realize it, but we
don't give a crap what he thinks of us, or our theories. My goal is
simply to be there when Mr. Jones drags out his dog and pony show, and
remind everyone of his past performance, destroy his current
argument, and predict the future tides of crap that will be flowing
from his oral cavity, to show how predictable he is.
Thank you for your time.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
>> descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and
tech
>> generally available today. But the theory is sound.
>
remind
>everyone reading this post that this alleged physics professor also
supported the
>notion that "Joules and watts are equal and interchangable [sic]".
You can't blame the physics professor - Timmy goes in and says "Can you
have a beam of light of fixed length from a laser", the proff replies
"Well, yes but..." and Timmy gets so confused by two three letter words
together his brain goes into overdrive and he misses everything after the
but.
Kynes
> The beauty of this defense is, and Tim does not realize it, but we
> don't give a crap what he thinks of us, or our theories. My goal is
> simply to be there when Mr. Jones drags out his dog and pony show, and
> remind everyone of his past performance, destroy his current
> argument, and predict the future tides of crap that will be flowing
> from his oral cavity, to show how predictable he is.
Wholeheartedly agreed! Look upon Tim's silence in the face of your posts
as an honor. I do. He *only* does it to the people that are smarter,
better debaters than he is. Plain-and-simple-cronan absolutely ripped
Tim apart, and what does he do? He ignores him.
Remember. Silence is a concession. We earn it through our works.
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> > >
> > > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > > sides were there to focus the main beam...
> >
> > descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> > generally available today. But the theory is sound.
>
> I wish to renew my skepticism about this man's existence.
I have posted his email address when I was asked, so my enrollment in
his class could be verified. His name is Dr. Rick Muirhead, and his
existence as well as my being a student of his are matters of record.
> I also wish to remind everyone reading this post that this alleged
> physics professor also supported the notion that "Joules and watts
> are equal and interchangable [sic]".
False. He never said that. When I asked him, he told me they were
*not*. Anyone who askes him the same question will get the same answer.
> > Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> > waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> > wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> > reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> > right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> > at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
> >
> > So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> > because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> > in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> > simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> > two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> > interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> > However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> > allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> > this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
>
> If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> may not cancel each other out;
If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free to
ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
> but even if you could acheive that effect, after that point, they'd
> head off in different directions! You wouldn't be holding a
> lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There *are*
no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
that length.
> > Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> > out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> > react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> > such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> > forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> > make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> > *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> > forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> > should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> > lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> > in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> > forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> > *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
>
> Unfortunately, lightsabers *do* have KE effects. In ROTJ, Luke
> knocks several people over using his lightsaber.
That's just Lucas soft-peddeling how lethal a lightsaber is, because he
didn't want open shots of disembodiment. This is why we don't get a good
look at the results of Obi-Wan's handiwork in ANH in the cantina bar,
and this is why Lucas cast a droid army for the "carnage" Obi-Wan and
Qui-Gon reaked in TPM. But there are enough clear instances of sabers
hacking *through* solid objects (or slowing melting them, depending on
the context) to say that the Tatooine fight in RotJ is an exception.
> In ESB, he knocks several of the objects that Vader throws at him
> out of the way with his lightsaber.
False. What I saw was Luke whacking through the first one, which
remained intact because of its size, and completely missing all the
rest, getting continually pelted for his troubles.
> In TPM, Obi-Wan swings at a droid and, instead of being neatly cut
> in half and dropping to the ground, as you'd expect with a
> lightsaber, the droid is knocked over at least a meter, as if he had
> been struck by a baseball bat.
Every one I saw hit by a saber in TPM was sliced in two. Which scene
*exactly* are you thinking of?
> > And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> > weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> > matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> > upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
>
> The name of a weapon is not a valid basis to determine its technical
> nature.
Didn't say it was. But when it's *upheld* in the fashion I have
illustrated, the reference becomes more authoritative.
> It may be a good starting point to begin investigation, but it does
> not demonstrate anything other than what the creator chose to name
> it. A lightsaber is called that for a very obvious reason -- it
> appears to be a sword made of light.
Indeed...laser light. As the data indicates. I do not assess by names
alone. No blunt and unthoughtfull characature of Trek propoenet's
position can change that, or the facts which have presented themselves.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> > >
> > > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > > sides were there to focus the main beam...
> >
> > Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> > descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> > generally available today. But the theory is sound.
> >
> > waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> > wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> > reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> > right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> > at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
> >
> > So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> > because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> > in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> > simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> > two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> > interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> > However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> > allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> > this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
>
> the beams would simply continue on unchanged after their interference.
Destructive interference nullifies the wave potential to the extent that
destructive interference occures. If said interference is total, so too
will the neutralization be. It's just like what would happen if two
large ocean waves intercepted each other head on, with the one slumping
just perfectly opposite to the other peaking. Result: Flat water, no
wave. Same with light waves. There is little or nothing to "continue
on," depending on how well aligned the interacting waves are. And
certainly, once you include the next point about the sabers having a
ray-shield sheath to allow for interaction with *other* sabers and
parrying blaster bolts etc, any small residual lightwave energy from the
laser(s) would be contained; so the alignment doesn't have to be
perfect, so long as the ray-shield shealth is strong enough to cope with
the "spillage."
> > Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> > out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> > react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> > such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> > forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> > make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> > *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> > forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> > should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> > lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> > in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> > forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> > *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
> >
> > And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> > weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> > matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> > upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
>
> I believe that we should probably not take the word of an eight year
> old boy as to what the lightsabre is.
Apparantly, in SW, people develope much more quickly. It is you the SW
proponents that are always trying to say the "humans" in SW are not the
same as we humans from earth. The fact that Anikin, at *his* age, build
complex machines, pilot starfighters, and understand their scientific
principals would seem to uphold that assertion. That being the case, it
is 8we* who ought not to underestimate them in general.
> Has he ever seen one before?
Apparantly so, or at least heard of them. That's how he was able to
recognize one when he saw it.
> Does he understand the operating principles? After all, he may be
> good with machines, but that doesn't mean he understands all the
> technical terminology.
The prima-facie case for his *general* technical acumin has been made.
The default should therefore be, that when he makes a statement
regarding something of a technical, and those around him do not correct
him -- which you will note they did NOT -- that he should be assumed to
be speaking accurately. To presume otherwise *just* when it supports a
conclusion one side wants to draw is openly ad hoc.
TJ
Jonathan Boyd
Kerkhof) wrote:
> Thank you for your time.
A pleasure as always. Watch for Admiral Jones' appearance in the next
instalment of my fanfic. I suspect you will appreciate the poetic justice of
his situation.
Jonathan
Aron Kerkhof
>Aron Kerkhof <ar...@galactec.com> wrote in message news:37553b1a....@news.iquest.net...
>
>> The beauty of this defense is, and Tim does not realize it, but we
>> don't give a crap what he thinks of us, or our theories. My goal is
>> simply to be there when Mr. Jones drags out his dog and pony show, and
>> remind everyone of his past performance, destroy his current
>> argument, and predict the future tides of crap that will be flowing
>> from his oral cavity, to show how predictable he is.
>
>Wholeheartedly agreed! Look upon Tim's silence in the face of your posts
>as an honor. I do. He *only* does it to the people that are smarter,
>better debaters than he is. Plain-and-simple-cronan absolutely ripped
>Tim apart, and what does he do? He ignores him.
You know, I am so new here, I would really like to see any posts where
Tim gets ripped, just for amusement. I have kept an archive of some
of the gems that he has come up with since I've been here, I wonder,
do you do the same? If so, perhaps you could email me some, or give
me the subject line so I can search in dejanews?
>Remember. Silence is a concession. We earn it through our works.
Yeah, its great. Everyone but Tim gets to see what a twerp he is.
Has he really (as he claimed) given out his prof's email address? If
so, I would really like to have that so I can verify a few things...
Aron Kerkhof
<jona...@st-vs-sw.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37553b1a....@news.iquest.net> , ar...@galactec.com (Aron
>Kerkhof) wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your time.
>
>A pleasure as always. Watch for Admiral Jones' appearance in the next
>instalment of my fanfic. I suspect you will appreciate the poetic justice of
>his situation.
Muahaha. I can hardly wait. :-D
>
>Jonathan
Graeme Dice
I'm afraid you don't quite understand the phenomena of wave
interference. As any first
year physics student should be able to tell you, complete destructive
interference only occurs
with two beams that are parallel, not set slightly apart as yours are.
When set at a small distance
apart, the lasers will actually create a interference pattern similar to
the one in Young's Double Slit
experiment. (If you haven't heard of this then I doubt you have any
training in optics and are therefore
not the least bit qualified to discuss this topic)
Also, even if the beams would cancel out completely only at the tip,
(which they wouldn't, as the nature of destructive interference requires
that the beams be parallel), as soon as beams are no longer converging
they will reappear. The two photons are in no way affected by their
meeting with each other. The only thing that has occurred is that we no
longer are able to observe them from outside the system.
For more information on this topic, I suggest you consult any first year
physics textbook.
He could have even seen one in a cheap holo-vid, some sort of
space-opera that he managed to catch a glimpse of. A movie that had
little technical accuracy but claimed much. Something like Jedi Trek
perhaps :)
>
> > Does he understand the operating principles? After all, he may be
> > good with machines, but that doesn't mean he understands all the
> > technical terminology.
>
> The prima-facie case for his *general* technical acumin has been made.
> The default should therefore be, that when he makes a statement
> regarding something of a technical, and those around him do not correct
> him -- which you will note they did NOT -- that he should be assumed to
> be speaking accurately. To presume otherwise *just* when it supports a
> conclusion one side wants to draw is openly ad hoc.
How often do you correct eight year old boys when they make minor
mistakes such as this one? Anakin obviously views Qui-Gon(sp?) as a
hero figure, and QG would be foolish to make Anakin view him as anything
else.
Graeme Dice
College of Engineering
College of Arts and Science(Computer Science)
University of Saskatchewan
grd...@somewhere.out.in.the.wild.blue.yonder
Graeme Dice
>
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Kynes wrote:
> >
> > > Timothy Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > > > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > > > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > > > sides were there to focus the main beam...
> > >
> > > Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> > > descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> > > generally available today. But the theory is sound.
> >
> > I wish to renew my skepticism about this man's existence.
>
> I have posted his email address when I was asked, so my enrollment in
> his class could be verified. His name is Dr. Rick Muirhead, and his
> existence as well as my being a student of his are matters of record.
Simply being a student of a person with a doctorate does not make anyone
right more often. A person has to actually demonstrate that they
understand the basic principles themselves which you have failed to do.
>
> > I also wish to remind everyone reading this post that this alleged
> > physics professor also supported the notion that "Joules and watts
> > are equal and interchangable [sic]".
>
> False. He never said that. When I asked him, he told me they were
> *not*. Anyone who askes him the same question will get the same answer.
And I would hope that they do if he has a doctorate, otherwise we would
have to report him for incompetence. :)
>
> > > Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> > > waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> > > wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> > > reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> > > right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> > > at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
> > >
> > > So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> > > because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> > > in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> > > simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> > > two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> > > interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> > > However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> > > allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> > > this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
> >
> > If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> > may not cancel each other out;
>
> If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free to
> ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
>
Don't have to ask mine, he made a very good point that they will only
completely interfere if they are parallel, and will create an
interference pattern if they are not.
Try this webpage for this info:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/waves/u10l3c.html
Look down about halfway down the page you will see a little picture that
says after interference, and shows the two original waves unchanged in
any way, exactly as they should be.
> > but even if you could acheive that effect, after that point, they'd
> > head off in different directions! You wouldn't be holding a
> > lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
>
> You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There *are*
> no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
> like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
> where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
> all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
> wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
> configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
> the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
> There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
> interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
> that length.
Ever tried this with a long slinky? Take one end and attach it to
something, hold the other end and wave it up and down so that you
create a standing wave pattern on the slinky. You have now created a
system that has both areas of complete constructive and complete
destructive interference. The wave must still continue after the
destructive interference, how else do you get more than one node and
antinode?
For an animation of this behaviour I will direct you to:
http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/ffnti/Problem_917.htm
Or this one:
http://physics.usask.ca/~hirose/ep225/stw.htm
>
> > > Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> > > out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> > > react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> > > such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> > > forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> > > make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> > > *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> > > forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> > > should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> > > lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> > > in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> > > forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> > > *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
> >
> > Unfortunately, lightsabers *do* have KE effects. In ROTJ, Luke
> > knocks several people over using his lightsaber.
>
> That's just Lucas soft-peddeling how lethal a lightsaber is, because he
> didn't want open shots of disembodiment. This is why we don't get a good
> look at the results of Obi-Wan's handiwork in ANH in the cantina bar,
> and this is why Lucas cast a droid army for the "carnage" Obi-Wan and
> Qui-Gon reaked in TPM. But there are enough clear instances of sabers
> hacking *through* solid objects (or slowing melting them, depending on
> the context) to say that the Tatooine fight in RotJ is an exception.
I have no argument with how lethal a lightsaber is, just in that it
would be incredibly difficult to create a force field that is solid when
hitting one object, and unnoticeable when hitting another.
>
> > In ESB, he knocks several of the objects that Vader throws at him
> > out of the way with his lightsaber.
>
> False. What I saw was Luke whacking through the first one, which
> remained intact because of its size, and completely missing all the
> rest, getting continually pelted for his troubles.
>
> > In TPM, Obi-Wan swings at a droid and, instead of being neatly cut
> > in half and dropping to the ground, as you'd expect with a
> > lightsaber, the droid is knocked over at least a meter, as if he had
> > been struck by a baseball bat.
>
> Every one I saw hit by a saber in TPM was sliced in two. Which scene
> *exactly* are you thinking of?
As I have only seen this movie once, and was there simply to enjoy it, I
do not feel that I have enough information to comment on this point.
>
> > > And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> > > weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> > > matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> > > upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
> >
> > The name of a weapon is not a valid basis to determine its technical
> > nature.
>
> Didn't say it was. But when it's *upheld* in the fashion I have
> illustrated, the reference becomes more authoritative.
The only problem with your description is that it is based on bad
science as I have shown previously, and as any person with basic physics
knowledge should know also.
>
> > It may be a good starting point to begin investigation, but it does
> > not demonstrate anything other than what the creator chose to name
> > it. A lightsaber is called that for a very obvious reason -- it
> > appears to be a sword made of light.
>
> Indeed...laser light. As the data indicates. I do not assess by names
> alone. No blunt and unthoughtfull characature of Trek propoenet's
> position can change that, or the facts which have presented themselves.
The only problem that I see with the lightsaber being a laser is that it
shows no properties of laser light. The beam ends at about one metre
from the base of the weapon, the beam gives off light, and casts a
shadow.
The beam also has effects similar to that of a solid weapon as Qui-Gon
must visibly force the blade to cut through the hardened material of the
blast door. All of these characteristics point to a weapon that is not
based on a laser. Even if it is a laser enclosed in a forcefield,
Occam's Razor forces us to choose the simplest solution. Which in this
case would be some other form of weapon.
Graeme Dice
College of Engineering
College of Arts and Science(Computer Science)
University of Saskatchewan
grd...@if.you.want.my.address.just.ask.me.for.it.please
Oh, and:
What has four legs and an arm?
A happy pitbull.
Michael January
To the NEWSGROUP,
I have located a Doctor Rick Muirhead at the following email address
muir...@phys.washington.edu
In the interests of maintaining group sanity, I have emailed him the
following message. Should I receive a reply, I will post the reply to
the group.
[Copy of message sent to Timmy's prof.]
Doctor Muirhead,
Sorry to be an imposition on your time. I wish to request some
information of you, regarding lasers and destructive interference. The
information is in regards the following discussion with one Timothy
Jones, who claims to be a student of yours.
He claims that information you provided him with supports a theory
that lasers can be terminated in mid-air, so to speak, due to
destructive interference provided by another laser. While the reason
for my request might be frivolous, I was always under the impression
that while two wave effects intersecting each other may destructively
interfere with one another, once past the point of intersection, both
waves will continue unchanged.
[abbreviated contention of Timothy Jones - your student - quoted
below]
Timothy Jones:
You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
*are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out.
It's just like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a
wiggle where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be
no wave at all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you
could send a wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but
opposite configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the
same piint the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out
on contact. There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams
destructively interfere totally at a descrete length, they will
terminate at that length.
If you can get them to interfere destructively, they terminate. Feel
free to ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
[end of Timothy Jones contention]
I find this highly unlikely, since waves I have observed in physics
experiments were able to pass right through each other, causing
interference patterns definitely, but certainly not 'terminating' in
the fashion Timothy claims.
Certainly, one can create a 'standing wave' between two reflectors
which are spaced apart at a distance equivalent to a multiple of the
wavelength, but this is not at all what Timothy is contending from his
text (quoted above.)
Is there some unknown factor here which I do not understand? Is this
in fact what you told Timothy?
Sorry again for imposing on your time with such frivolity. My
apologies if I have wasted your time.
Michael January
xr...@iafrica.com
Kynes
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Kynes wrote:
> >
> > > Timothy Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > > > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > > > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > > > sides were there to focus the main beam...
> > >
> > > Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> > > descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> > > generally available today. But the theory is sound.
> >
> > I wish to renew my skepticism about this man's existence.
>
> I have posted his email address when I was asked, so my enrollment in
> his class could be verified. His name is Dr. Rick Muirhead, and his
> existence as well as my being a student of his are matters of record.
Muirhead?
How... ironic. :)
> > I also wish to remind everyone reading this post that this alleged
> > physics professor also supported the notion that "Joules and watts
> > are equal and interchangable [sic]".
>
> False. He never said that. When I asked him, he told me they were
> *not*. Anyone who askes him the same question will get the same answer.
Ah, this is not what you said before:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=468539595
"According to information provided via my physics proffessor [...] the
energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts and Joules
are interchangable. [sic]}"
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=468630976
"> You're joking, right? Even without years of schooling, just lurking
> in this group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't
> interchangable. One joule for one second is one watt. Great.
Which means they're the same."
> > > Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> > > waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> > > wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> > > reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> > > right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> > > at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
> > >
> > > So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> > > because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> > > in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> > > simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> > > two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> > > interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> > > However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> > > allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> > > this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
> >
> > If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> > may not cancel each other out;
>
> If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free to
> ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
That's a rather big if, but I will let this point rest for now.
> > but even if you could acheive that effect, after that point, they'd
> > head off in different directions! You wouldn't be holding a
> > lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
>
> You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There *are*
> no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
> like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
> where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
> all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
> wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
> configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
> the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
> There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
> interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
> that length.
No, it is not like that at all. :)
The wave will be cancelled out *only* in the region that another wave is
actively working to cancel it. It is not like the examples you provided
above. Sound is not intuitive. Anyone can see this for themselves by buying
a pair of active-noise cancellation headphones, and then having a person
stand behind them. That person will *still* hear sounds, as cancellation
is a *local* effect.
> > > Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> > > out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> > > react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> > > such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> > > forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> > > make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> > > *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> > > forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> > > should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> > > lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> > > in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> > > forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> > > *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
> >
> > Unfortunately, lightsabers *do* have KE effects. In ROTJ, Luke
> > knocks several people over using his lightsaber.
>
> That's just Lucas soft-peddeling how lethal a lightsaber is, because he
> didn't want open shots of disembodiment.
This is not an allowed tactic. I will not accept unproven cinematicism as
an argument.
> > In TPM, Obi-Wan swings at a droid and, instead of being neatly cut
> > in half and dropping to the ground, as you'd expect with a
> > lightsaber, the droid is knocked over at least a meter, as if he had
> > been struck by a baseball bat.
>
> Every one I saw hit by a saber in TPM was sliced in two. Which scene
> *exactly* are you thinking of?
They are sliced in two, but they are also *propelled* in the direction of
the saber. I am specifically thinking of the Jedi's second visit to Theed,
when they are reclaiming the palace along with Padme Amidala; a very
clear example of this occurs just before they enter the hangar doors.
Watch Obi-Wan, and you will see a clear demonstration of what I am talking
about.
> > > And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> > > weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> > > matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> > > upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
> >
> > The name of a weapon is not a valid basis to determine its technical
> > nature.
>
> Didn't say it was. But when it's *upheld* in the fashion I have
> illustrated, the reference becomes more authoritative.
It is not upheld. A forcefield around a laser would render the laser useless.
> > It may be a good starting point to begin investigation, but it does
> > not demonstrate anything other than what the creator chose to name
> > it. A lightsaber is called that for a very obvious reason -- it
> > appears to be a sword made of light.
>
> Indeed...laser light. As the data indicates. I do not assess by names
> alone. No blunt and unthoughtfull characature of Trek propoenet's
> position can change that, or the facts which have presented themselves.
You say this, but I have seen you argue more than once that turbolasers are
lasers for reasons that are based purely in nomenclature. Elim once pushed
a similar argument... that hyperspace and subspace were the same, because
they "sounded the same" to him.
You are not allowed (if you want me to acknowledge your points) to dismiss
visual evidence as "cinematicism" whenever it suits you. I do not play by
those rules.
Michael January
Graeme, do you know what is worse, is that it is people like Timothy
Jones, of demonstrably low intelligence, who are attracted to series
like Star Trek. Sadly, it does not say much for other Star Trek fans.
I really feel sorry for them that they have to be placed in the same
category as somebody like Timothy.
-------------------------
Michael January
-------------------------
Timothy Jones Hall of Fame:
1) Saturn is seconds away from Earth orbit
at half-light speed. (Sometimes he changes tack
and says it was Jupiter).
2) Watts and Joules are interchangeable.
3) Lasers (and any wave effect) can be permanently
cancelled by destructive interference with a non-parallel
intersecting wave. Just go to the beach and see the waves
cancelling each other out.
Charles Sonnenburg
Graeme Dice wrote:
> Timothy Jones wrote:
> > You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There *are*
> > no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
> > like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
> > where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
> > all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
> > wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
> > configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
> > the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
> > There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
> > interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
> > that length.
>
> Ever tried this with a long slinky? Take one end and attach it to
> something, hold the other end and wave it up and down so that you
> create a standing wave pattern on the slinky. You have now created a
> system that has both areas of complete constructive and complete
> destructive interference. The wave must still continue after the
> destructive interference, how else do you get more than one node and
> antinode?
>
> For an animation of this behaviour I will direct you to:
> http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/ffnti/Problem_917.htm
>
> Or this one:
> http://physics.usask.ca/~hirose/ep225/stw.htm
<ting> Right on point.
Just to add, as a final proof: what would happen to the photons in the light if
they just stopped? _They_ have to go somewhere, they can't just cease to exist.
They would have to continue until they are absorbed into something, so the beam
wouldn't terminate.
I don't know what a lightsaber is, but I know it's not a laser.
CS
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme, do you know what is worse, is that it is people like Timothy
> Jones, of demonstrably low intelligence, who are attracted to series
> like Star Trek. Sadly, it does not say much for other Star Trek fans.
> I really feel sorry for them that they have to be placed in the same
> category as somebody like Timothy.
I would consider myself a star trek fan as well, it's just that I think
that Star Wars would win in a fight.
>
> -------------------------
> Michael January
> -------------------------
>
> Timothy Jones Hall of Fame:
>
> 1) Saturn is seconds away from Earth orbit
> at half-light speed. (Sometimes he changes tack
> and says it was Jupiter).
>
> 2) Watts and Joules are interchangeable.
>
> 3) Lasers (and any wave effect) can be permanently
> cancelled by destructive interference with a non-parallel
> intersecting wave. Just go to the beach and see the waves
> cancelling each other out.
I think your new sig is even better than the old one. :)
Graeme Dice
College of Engineering
College of Arts and Science (Computer Science)
University of Saskatchewan
grd...@somewhere.over.the.rainbow
Celes Knight
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/waves/u10l3c.html
Another person who can actually provide some semblance of proof with what
they post, as opposed to Tim's "I posted that
proof/argument/e-mail-address-of-professor a long time ago." Ah, this just
keeps getting worse and worse for Tim.
I agree with Charles' "I don't know what a lightsaber is, but I know it's
not a laser."
Oh, BTW, in case we haven't met before, Graeme, let me say "Hi."
--
Celes Knight
Celes Knight
> of the gems that he has come up with since I've been here, I wonder,
> do you do the same? If so, perhaps you could email me some, or give
> me the subject line so I can search in dejanews?
Indeed, we should all post our gems--for the humor value.
Celes Knight
>Someone should ask him how light gets from planet to planet.
Didn't you know that there's air in space? Yes, there is. And it's quite
dusty too. That's what allows us to see the SW and ST "laser" beams. In
fact, the dust is _so_ thick that it slows the SW and ST "laser" beams down
to only a few kps. Really. All those physics and astronomy books that say
otherwise, well they're just wrong. :-)
(I'm scared, this sounds way too much like the arguing style of some other
person, who's name I won't mention.)
Charles Sonnenburg
Graeme Dice wrote:
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > I can't wait to see what he says, truthfully. :D Timothy doesn't
> > seem to realize that what is usually explained as a "wave" is
> > really just the oscillation of electric and magnetic fields... hence
> > the term "electromagnetic wave." Tim seems to think it's an actual
> > TRAVELLING WAVE IN SPACE. Haha. :D Someone should ask him how light
> > gets from planet to planet.
>
> It uses the lumineferous ether I tell you! The ether is everywhere and
> cannot be measured because it distorts the measuring instuments!
Yup, and planets orbit the sun because angels push them around the crystal
spheres. ;-)
>
>
> A sample of some of the arguments used in this debate.
>
> Graeme Dice
> Proponent of the ether theory!:) (Please don't take this seriously)
> Proponent of the phlogiston theory! (This either)
> College of Engineering
> College of Arts and Science(computer science)
> grdice@i'll.never.tell.you
Kynes
seem to realize that what is usually explained as a "wave" is
really just the oscillation of electric and magnetic fields... hence
the term "electromagnetic wave." Tim seems to think it's an actual
TRAVELLING WAVE IN SPACE. Haha. :D Someone should ask him how light
gets from planet to planet.
-Kynes
"If all else fails, simply base your entire argument on the NAMES of the weapons."
- The Trekkie's Creed
Michael January <xr...@iafrica.com> wrote in message news:3756860f...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
>
> To the NEWSGROUP,
>
> I have located a Doctor Rick Muirhead at the following email address
> muir...@phys.washington.edu
>
> In the interests of maintaining group sanity, I have emailed him the
> following message. Should I receive a reply, I will post the reply to
> the group.
>
> [Copy of message sent to Timmy's prof.]
>
>
> Doctor Muirhead,
>
>
> Sorry to be an imposition on your time. I wish to request some
> information of you, regarding lasers and destructive interference. The
> information is in regards the following discussion with one Timothy
> Jones, who claims to be a student of yours.
>
> He claims that information you provided him with supports a theory
> that lasers can be terminated in mid-air, so to speak, due to
> destructive interference provided by another laser. While the reason
> for my request might be frivolous, I was always under the impression
> that while two wave effects intersecting each other may destructively
> interfere with one another, once past the point of intersection, both
> waves will continue unchanged.
>
>
> [abbreviated contention of Timothy Jones - your student - quoted
> below]
>
> Timothy Jones:
> You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
> *are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out.
> It's just like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a
> wiggle where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be
> no wave at all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you
> could send a wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but
> opposite configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the
> same piint the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out
> on contact. There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams
> destructively interfere totally at a descrete length, they will
> terminate at that length.
>
> If you can get them to interfere destructively, they terminate. Feel
> free to ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
>
veg...@jps.net
> Explain how the main superlaser of the Death Star could possibly be a
laser.
good point.
ok let me think.
>
> The visible part can't be explained as a targeting mechanism because
they
> don't target one shot after the next the way they _might_ with normal
> weapons. Nor could it be a simple side effect because 1)If the
side-effect
> is following the laser, then the laser is making impossible turns too
and
> 2)if the laser is not following the side-effect, why take such careful
> precision to line it up and fire it at the target? No, I think we
have to
> assume that that green thing is the thing causing the damage.
>
Imagine a laser beam . A huge mother of a laser beam. you focus 4
particle beams into it. the stronger beam woudl carry what ever the
particles in the beam carried right? it's like 4 rivers converging on a
bigger one. thsi explaines why we see no beam before the convergance.
maybe 4 regular turbo laseres are bixed with one huge laser.
> The destructive effect we see is unlike that of what a laser would do.
The
> effect when it hits a ship is far more like a bomb than a cutting or
> drilling type beam. Also, the beam seems to form a green cloud or
explosion
> type effect for 1 or 2 frames when it comes in contact with a ship.
>
maybe becaus it looks cooler? anyways. i have no idea.
peace,
ali
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Graeme Dice
>
> I can't wait to see what he says, truthfully. :D Timothy doesn't
> seem to realize that what is usually explained as a "wave" is
> really just the oscillation of electric and magnetic fields... hence
> the term "electromagnetic wave." Tim seems to think it's an actual
> TRAVELLING WAVE IN SPACE. Haha. :D Someone should ask him how light
> gets from planet to planet.
It uses the lumineferous ether I tell you! The ether is everywhere and
cannot be measured because it distorts the measuring instuments!
A sample of some of the arguments used in this debate.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> > > no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
> > > like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
> > > where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
> > > all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
> > > wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
> > > configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
> > > the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
> > > There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
> > > interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
> > > that length.
> >
> > Ever tried this with a long slinky? Take one end and attach it to
> > something, hold the other end and wave it up and down so that you
> > create a standing wave pattern on the slinky. You have now created a
> > system that has both areas of complete constructive and complete
> > destructive interference. The wave must still continue after the
> > destructive interference, how else do you get more than one node and
> > antinode?
> >
> > For an animation of this behaviour I will direct you to:
> > http://ant.eupvg.upc.es/~tarom/ffnti/Problem_917.htm
> >
> > Or this one:
> > http://physics.usask.ca/~hirose/ep225/stw.htm
>
I really wanted to use my textbook, but couldn't find a direct quote
that refuted his position as it dosen't bother with the simple things,
just the mathematics.
>
> Just to add, as a final proof: what would happen to the photons in the light if
> they just stopped? _They_ have to go somewhere, they can't just cease to exist.
> They would have to continue until they are absorbed into something, so the beam
> wouldn't terminate.
>
Don't they just dissappear when the hypermatic collimating
thingamadoohickey charges its isolinear nadion rectifier and foozles the
whazzit? :)
Graeme Dice
Supporter of the Phlogiston and Ether theories. :) And vehement opposer
of the easily disproven theory that the Earth is round.
College of Engineering
Graeme Dice
>
> > Try this webpage for this info:
> > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/waves/u10l3c.html
>
> they post, as opposed to Tim's "I posted that
> proof/argument/e-mail-address-of-professor a long time ago." Ah, this just
> keeps getting worse and worse for Tim.
>
> I agree with Charles' "I don't know what a lightsaber is, but I know it's
> not a laser."
>
> Oh, BTW, in case we haven't met before, Graeme, let me say "Hi."
kind of information as well, I just used altavista and did a search for
+complete +destructive +interference, and another one for +standing
+wave. Just picked the best sites in the top ten and set them down
here.
Graeme Dice
Fervent supporter of the Ether and Phlogiston theories, as well as any
theories that obviously don't have any bearing on reality! Vehemently
opposed to all those who make the (easily disproven by the several facts
I have stated previously and now snipped) claim that the earth is round.
grdice@i'm.out.here.somewhere
Timothy Jones
>
> To the NEWSGROUP,
>
> I have located a Doctor Rick Muirhead at the following email address
> muir...@phys.washington.edu
That would be the address I myself posted about two weeks ago. There was
no need for you to dig for it.
I *also* said that while anyone should feel free to verify my
enrollment, they should *NOT* feel free to pester him about these
debates.
And he *never* said, and I *never* claimed he said, that
post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
The rest here is fluff.
TJ
> [abbreviated contention of Timothy Jones - your student - quoted
> below]
Abbreviated being the key term here.
> Timothy Jones:
>
> You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
> *are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out.
> It's just like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a
> wiggle where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be
> no wave at all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you
> could send a wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but
> opposite configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the
> same piint the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out
> on contact. There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams
> destructively interfere totally at a descrete length, they will
> terminate at that length.
Note, I did not say for *all* space after that, but simply *at* that
length. To mis-represent me is not to refute me.
> Sorry again for imposing on your time with such frivolity. My
> apologies if I have wasted your time.
You have indeed. And mine. And everyone else's here. I would not be
suprised if RM doesn't bother replying to you. I know I wouldnt in his
place, with his schedule. My own duty to respond then, is simply to
correct the (deliberate?) mis-representation of my position. Once again
then, my position is that the beams would interfer to create a "point"
to the beam which we see, and would then be contained by the [fictional]
"ray-shield" which is what would also explain how it can react as
"solid" to certain things.
By the way, I would like to recommend that you and certain other persons
study the tenor of this above exchange. *This*, ladies and gentelmen, is
what I mean by debating civilly. We would get much further if all our
posts lokked like this one in their tone and attitude. Mike, Wane Poe,
Aron K, and the rest should *seriously* take this as their modle. Write
*only* the way you would to an instructor. Good day.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Kynes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Timothy Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 29 May 1999, Elim Garak wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What if it is actually something like a tractor beam and laser
> > > > > combination? Or some kind of force field? Or even a light sword
> > > > > type weapon? I always understood that the beams that went from the
> > > > > sides were there to focus the main beam...
> > > >
> > > > Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> > > > descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and tech
> > > > generally available today. But the theory is sound.
> > >
> > > I wish to renew my skepticism about this man's existence.
> >
> > I have posted his email address when I was asked, so my enrollment in
> > his class could be verified. His name is Dr. Rick Muirhead, and his
> > existence as well as my being a student of his are matters of record.
>
> Muirhead?
>
> How... ironic. :)
I doubt you'll get more attention from him then from me by posting such
insults. Is this really your best argument? Name slurs? I'm Tim or
Timothy, so naturally you have to call my "timmy." My physics instructor
is called Rick Muirhead, and what's your very first impulse? See if you
can slander *his* name too. I venture to say, such is not the noblist
debate tactic imaginable. Can the SWers really do no better? Is this
truely the limit of their maturity and reasoning potential? Are they so
desperate? Because if so, and I do *not* mean this insultingly, I truly
pity them.
> > > I also wish to remind everyone reading this post that this alleged
> > > physics professor also supported the notion that "Joules and watts
> > > are equal and interchangable [sic]".
> >
> > False. He never said that. When I asked him, he told me they were
> > *not*. Anyone who askes him the same question will get the same answer.
>
> Ah, this is not what you said before:
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=468539595
>
> "According to information provided via my physics proffessor [...] the
> energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts and Joules
> are interchangable. [sic]}"
He never said they were. *I* said they were, in the sene *only* that
they have an equivelancy, which they do. Namely, Watts =
Joules-per-second. In that sense, the *only* one I was ever thinking of
or refering to, they *are* interchangable. {No doubt these very post
lines will get trotted out some months from now, either from obsessed
SWers' archives, or dug up from Deja-Whatever...and mis-represented, as
always, *NOT* to address the actual jist of my arguments, but to
distract from them...}
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=468630976
>
> > You're joking, right? Even without years of schooling, just lurking
> > in this group would tell someone that watts and joules aren't
> > interchangable. One joule for one second is one watt. Great.
>
> Which means they're the same.
In a sense...the same sense in which matter and energy are
interchangeable, namely through the relationship denoted by E=MC^2.
The level the SWers are arguing on is to respond with:
"You're joking, right? Even with limited schooling, just
lurking here, I can tell that matter behaves differently
from energy. Matter is *MASS*. Energy is, well, energy!"
And so on. Yes, I know very well they're *literally* different. But I
*also* know they are two different manifestations of the same thing. And
certainly the point I was *originally* trying to make in bringing it /
them up -- waaaaay back when, though few would now recall it, which it
most likely the point of the SWers protracted segway -- is not impeaded
by this sophistical banter coming from them. It is no answer at all to
my position or related arguments. Like so much else they produce here,
it is merely an excuse not to give an answer. Or indeed, to even
acknowledge the question.
> > > > Just as sound waves can interfere with each other, so can light
> > > > waves. Such interference can be either constructive, which will cause
> > > > wave amplification. Or it can be destructive, which will cause
> > > > reduction. If two opposite waves are aligned against one another just
> > > > right, they will cancel each other out equally poerfectly. When looking
> > > > at waves, such null spots are called nodes.
> > > >
> > > > So the SW supporters who have said you cannot have a lasersword
> > > > because light cannot be made to act that way w/o a miniature blackhole
> > > > in the handlegrip or holding an invisible mirror are the blade tip are
> > > > simply wrong. You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align
> > > > two equal and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will
> > > > interfere destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet.
> > > > However, as my physics proff noted, it would make better sense to simply
> > > > allow the beam to continue onward and burn a hole through somebody! {But
> > > > this would require SW to make too much sense. :) }
> > >
> > > If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> > > may not cancel each other out;
> >
> > If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free to
> > ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
>
> That's a rather big if, but I will let this point rest for now.
You don't understand the point, so how can you let it rest. You *htink*
I am claiming the cancellation refers to the *entire* potential length,
when I mean *only* the point at which it occures. Letting
misinterpretations rest is an unwise idea.
> > > but even if you could acheive that effect, after that point, they'd
> > > head off in different directions! You wouldn't be holding a
> > > lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
> >
> > You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There *are*
> > no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out. It's just
> > like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a wiggle
> > where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be no wave at
> > all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you could send a
> > wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but opposite
> > configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the same piint
> > the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out on contact.
> > There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams destructively
> > interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will terminate at
> > that length.
>
> No, it is not like that at all. :)
>
> The wave will be cancelled out *only* in the region that another wave is
> actively working to cancel it.
As I said, *that* is whatbI mean by "terminate at *that* length." Not at
*all* lengths from that point on, but at that exact point. I know
perfectly well the blade will continue on *normally*. But it would not
in the case of a lightsaber, because for a lightsaber to work at all (in
the sense of its being "solid" to other energy fields), it would need to
be sheathed in something like a SW-style "ray-shield," or being
"magnetically sealed" as Luke would call it. Thus, the intensity of the
beam is explained, as well as why it has a point or "tip" at its end,
and why the beam doesn't just continue onward. {As an aside, the SWE
gives its own attempt to explain how saber blades are formed. But it is
vague, refering to it merely as an "beam of pure energy," which leaves
me still wondering *what* *kind* of energy. It leaves much to be
desired, esp re the "circumvention" effect from a positive-negative
polarity relatinship between two different points. The problem *ther*,
of course, is just why does the beam extend as far as it does before
doubling back?! Oughtn't it to simply cut straight across the external
disk to the outside negative polarity point? How can it be strong enough
to draw the beam back upon itself, but *not* strong enough to do so
immediately, but only after it had moved three feet away? And why
there's no heat radiating from the blade is another matter the SWE
totally fails to address. It only says there's none from the *inside* to
the handlegrip, because it's so well shielded against. Swell, but
there's also this long blade to account for! Anyway, as I think I've
shown, my theory, given SW ray shielding tech, which is canon, makes
more sense, and leaves fewer loose ends.}
> It is not like the examples you provided above. Sound is not
> intuitive. Anyone can see this for themselves by buying a pair of
> active-noise cancellation headphones, and then having a person stand
> behind them. That person will *still* hear sounds, as cancellation
> is a *local* effect.
I've said nothing to deny any of this. This does not engage my *true*
position.
> > > > Of course, there *are* still issues re lightsabers to be worked
> > > > out. Chiefly, there is the issue of how they can be light beams that
> > > > react as "solid" against other lightsabers and weapons fire as well as
> > > > such things as walls etc. This I think is where the above talk of
> > > > forcefield employment would come into play. The field is there so as to
> > > > make a lightsaber a usefull weapon, so it can parry things. But the
> > > > *damage* a lightsaber can do comes from the laser energy, not the
> > > > forcefield. This also explains why it can be put inside a door when it
> > > > should otherwise just bounce off, like it bounces off another
> > > > lightsaber. In other words, the explanation is consistent with the motif
> > > > in SW, that their forcefields block energy -- such as that from another
> > > > forcefield, like that of a blaster / TL bolt or another saber -- but do
> > > > *NOT* block KE or solid objects.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, lightsabers *do* have KE effects. In ROTJ, Luke
> > > knocks several people over using his lightsaber.
> >
> > That's just Lucas soft-peddeling how lethal a lightsaber is, because he
> > didn't want open shots of disembodiment.
>
> This is not an allowed tactic. I will not accept unproven cinematicism as
> an argument.
If it's a stretch, you'd have a point. But do you seriously believe
that's *not* what's going on?
> > > In TPM, Obi-Wan swings at a droid and, instead of being neatly cut
> > > in half and dropping to the ground, as you'd expect with a
> > > lightsaber, the droid is knocked over at least a meter, as if he had
> > > been struck by a baseball bat.
> >
> > Every one I saw hit by a saber in TPM was sliced in two. Which scene
> > *exactly* are you thinking of?
>
> They are sliced in two, but they are also *propelled* in the direction of
> the saber.
Perhaps it's merely the trauma of the former that results in the latter.
Also, considering the diagonal angles we typically see with saber
strikes, some motion in that direction is arguably to be expected, just
due to gravity; as when you chop down a tree, for example, it will
naturally fall in the direction one cuts it to, not because of the
"force" of the cut per se.
> I am specifically thinking of the Jedi's second visit to Theed, when
> they are reclaiming the palace along with Padme Amidala; a very
> clear example of this occurs just before they enter the hangar
> doors. Watch Obi-Wan, and you will see a clear demonstration of what
> I am talking about.
Apart from my above points, even if you're right that sabers have *some*
KE, this would not be incompatible with my theory re sabers. Perhaps
*any* shield, whether ray-shielding or particle shielding, will have
just a touch of the counterpart's nature to it. It's insignificant, and
so, for most practical intents and purposes, can be ignored. But because
they're both forms of energy fields, their commonalities will give each
just a speck of the other kind's nature. Like the Yin-Yang symbol, black
has a sopt of white, and visa-versa. This would explain, if you're
right, why Qui-Gon's saber can be put into a door as my theory
prescribes it can, but why Qui-Gon had to push and drive it in, as he
seemd to be doing, with all that twisting and turning of it we saw. I
mean, he was using *effort* to try and cut that first circle. And when
he punched it straight into the back-up blastdoor, he did so with
*force*, and was sitting there, twinsting his clenched hand to try and
drive it in further, or perhaps just to keep it in.
So you see, again your observations are compatible with my own.
> > > > And of course, it neatly upholds the repeated references to the
> > > > weapon as a *LIGHT*saber, as opposed to a particle-beam saber or
> > > > matter/anti-matter saber or plasma saber or anything else...just as it
> > > > upholds the newest reference to it *specifically* as a "LASERsword."
> > >
> > > The name of a weapon is not a valid basis to determine its technical
> > > nature.
> >
> > Didn't say it was. But when it's *upheld* in the fashion I have
> > illustrated, the reference becomes more authoritative.
>
> It is not upheld. A forcefield around a laser would render the laser
> useless.
Not at all. It just has to be the right *kind* of forcefield. Remember,
in SW, there are two kinds. Ray shields and particle shields. I suggest
that it is a *ray* shield that surrounds the lasersword energy. The heat
and intensity of that laser energy is what cuts through things. The ray
shield sheath is what contains and helps to intensify it, while also
causing it to parry other ray-like energy sources, such as blaster bolts
and other saber blades. But because it's *not* a particle shield, it
will not black solid matter, which is why it doesn't just bounce off of
walls, doors, limbs, etc, but cuts through them, or slowly melts them if
their material composition is very sturdy, as with that blast door.
Is this clearer?
> > > It may be a good starting point to begin investigation, but it does
> > > not demonstrate anything other than what the creator chose to name
> > > it. A lightsaber is called that for a very obvious reason -- it
> > > appears to be a sword made of light.
> >
> > Indeed...laser light. As the data indicates. I do not assess by names
> > alone. No blunt and unthoughtfull characature of Trek propoenet's
> > position can change that, or the facts which have presented themselves.
>
> You say this, but I have seen you argue more than once that
> turbolasers are lasers for reasons that are based purely in
> nomenclature.
I have said many times that visuals backed by dialogue are more
conclusive than visuals alone. My main arguments are based on the
former. Many agianst Trek are based on the latter. that is why it is the
SWers that are crude, and mine *not* coming from mere nomenclature.
> Elim once pushed a similar argument... that hyperspace and subspace
> were the same, because they "sounded the same" to him.
I base my position on more than sounds.
> You are not allowed (if you want me to acknowledge your points) to
> dismiss visual evidence as "cinematicism" whenever it suits you. I
> do not play by those rules.
"When it suits [me]" is *not* the criterion. When it's obvious common
sense is.
TJ
"When all else fails, just insult them until they stop reading the
insults, then declare them to have 'admitted total defeat.'"
-- The SWersie's Creed
Wayne Poe
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Timothy Jones wrote:
> posts lokked like this one in their tone and attitude. Mike, Wane Poe,
> Aron K, and the rest should *seriously* take this as their modle. Write
> *only* the way you would to an instructor. Good day.
ROTFLMMFAO!! "Write *only* the way you would to an instructor." ??? When I
respond to you, I write the way I only would to a hypocritical idiot who
refuses to look at evidence proving every one of his points wrong, and
someone who can't spell "looked", "Wayne", and "model".
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek Database
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html *Comparative analyses
lo...@h4h.com *Pictures and .wavs
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Aron Kerkhof
>no need for you to dig for it.
>
>I *also* said that while anyone should feel free to verify my
>enrollment, they should *NOT* feel free to pester him about these
>debates.
>
>And he *never* said, and I *never* claimed he said, that
>post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
>is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
>the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
>is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
I sense much fear in you...
>By the way, I would like to recommend that you and certain other persons
>study the tenor of this above exchange. *This*, ladies and gentelmen, is
>what I mean by debating civilly. We would get much further if all our
>posts lokked like this one in their tone and attitude. Mike, Wane Poe,
>Aron K, and the rest should *seriously* take this as their modle. Write
>*only* the way you would to an instructor. Good day.
HAHAHA! Respect in = Respect out. You are not a supposed PhD in
anything except hypocricy, so why should we bother? You have proven
time and time again that you do not respond to anything Jones, so go
<blank> yourself.
I do know one thing... if your instructor *doesn't* write back, then
you can go straight to hell if you try using him in an argument again.
Michael January
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>And he *never* said, and I *never* claimed he said, that
>post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
>is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
>the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
>is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
[snipped]
>
>Note, I did not say for *all* space after that, but simply *at* that
>length. To mis-represent me is not to refute me.
>
Yeah right, Timothy
Which part of the following did I misunderstand?
Timothy:
"Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and
tech generally available today. But the theory is sound."
Then you went on to say:
"You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align two equal
and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will interfere
destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet."
No mention of ray-shields, no mention of what happens to the
not-parallel beams once they've passed through each other. Also, for
your information, even in the area where the two beams destructively
interfere, the wave still exists, and is as much of a laser with as
much energy, even if the amplitude of the beam has been nullified.
***********************************************************************************************
This is from an earlier post, dated 02 June, and is a reply from
Timothy Jones to a post by Kynes
***********************************************************************************************
From: Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.startrek.vs.starwars
Subject: Re: [Tech] A Laser Challenge for ST Supporters
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:10:45 -0700
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 131
Message-ID:
<Pine.A41.4.10.990602...@dante21.u.washington.edu>
::[ridiculous speculations snipped by Michael January]
Kynes said
> If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> may not cancel each other out;
If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free
to ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
> but even if you could acheive that effect, after that point, they'd
> head off in different directions! You wouldn't be holding a
> lightsaber, you'd be holding a large, dangerous "X."
You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
*are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out.
It's just like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a
wiggle where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be
no wave at all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you
could send a wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but
opposite configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the
same piint the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out
on contact. There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams
destructively interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will
terminate at that length.
********************************************************************************
end of repost of this message by Michael January
********************************************************************************
Notice the following phrases in Timothy's post:
"You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
*are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out."
and
"There will be no wave anymore"
and
"So if two laser beams destructively interfere totally at a descrete
length, the "blade" will terminate at that length."
No mention of "ray-shields" in conjunction with the destructive
interference, in fact, if the entire 'laser' is contained in a "ray
shield", why bother with destructive inetrference at all?
Timothy, next time you decide to try and change your wording, wait
till the damn post expires. I didn't even have to fetch this of
Dejanews.
My signature follows, and stands.
Celes Knight
> >post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
> >is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
> >the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
> >is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
>
These two have to be the funniest things I've read recently. How Tim can
double-think into believing that that wasn't what he meant when he was
discussing how the beams of _lightsabers_ stop is beyond me. Then offset by
Yoda's simple, elegance. Ah, I love it.
Celes Knight
> length. To mis-represent me is not to refute me.
Tim, you were writing a post about lightsabers. Everyone in they're right
mind would have though that you meant that as a way to terminate the beams
at the desired point. When proven wrong before the group and your own prof,
you bring up some Clinton-esq argument about the technicalities of English.
Clinton is a skilled lawyer who's trained in the nuances of the English
language, and who thinks carefully before saying anything. You aren't, and
you don't. You're never going to win a technicalities of grammar argument.
If it didn't deal with lightsabers, then WTF was it in the post? Was it
just some side info for us poor, foolish, uneducated warsies? Please!
> By the way, I would like to recommend that you and certain other persons
> study the tenor of this above exchange. *This*, ladies and gentelmen, is
> what I mean by debating civilly. We would get much further if all our
> posts lokked like this one in their tone and attitude. Mike, Wane Poe,
> Aron K, and the rest should *seriously* take this as their modle. Write
> *only* the way you would to an instructor.
Weren't you the one who repeatedly posted an old post by Mad Rabbit, even
though several people pointed out that Mad Rabbit himself claimed that you
were misrepresenting his personal theories as the general consensus of
LucasArts and the SW community? Never mind that it never dealt with what
you were trying to prove in the first place. Now _we're_ the ones who
should be nicer?
--
Celes Knight
Graeme Dice
>
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Michael January wrote:
> >
> > To the NEWSGROUP,
> >
> > I have located a Doctor Rick Muirhead at the following email address
> > muir...@phys.washington.edu
>
> no need for you to dig for it.
>
> I *also* said that while anyone should feel free to verify my
> enrollment, they should *NOT* feel free to pester him about these
> debates.
>
> post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
> is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
> the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
> is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
Woohoo! Quote time!
Timothy wrote:
You seem not to understand what destructive interference is. There
*are* no waves to propogate further, once they've been canceled out.
It's just like wiggeling a string. If you could *immediately* create a
wiggle where all the slumps are now peaks and visa-versa, there'd be
no wave at all. An even more telling analogy is to ocean waves. If you
could send a wave out to intercept another wave of equal intensity but
opposite configuration -- i.e., such that it will be slumping at the
same piint the other one is peaking -- they will cancel each other out
on contact. There will be no wave anymore. So if two laser beams
destructively interfere totally at a descrete length, the "blade" will
terminate at that length.
Please read Tim's very own words and see that he enjoys lying about what
he has said in the past.
Graeme Dice
########## You hit the Timothy Jones with the blessed +7 Occam's Razor
--more--
#%.......# The Timothy Jones writhes in agony --more--
#.......T# The Timothy Jones gasps "I'm right!" --more--
#......A@\ An Ad Hominum appears out of nowhere --more--
#..>.....# The Ad Hominum hits! You are confused! --more--
#........# The Ad Hominum hits! The Ad Hominum hits! --more--
########## You Die...--more--
Do you want your possessions identified? [ynq] (y) y
Weapons
a - a blessed rustproof +7 Occam's Razor (weapon in hand)
Armor
b - a blessed +6 Logic Dragon Scale Mail (being worn)
--more--
Final Attributes:
You were logical.
You were right.
You are dead.
(Bonus point for anyone who can tell me where this is from) :)
Timothy Jones
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:23:08 -0700, Timothy Jones
> >
> >no need for you to dig for it.
> >
> >I *also* said that while anyone should feel free to verify my
> >enrollment, they should *NOT* feel free to pester him about these
> >debates.
> >
> >And he *never* said, and I *never* claimed he said, that
> >post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
> >is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
> >the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
> >is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
>
Cute. But then, I suppose there are worse things to be full of, which I
fortunately, for one, am not...
> >By the way, I would like to recommend that you and certain other persons
> >study the tenor of this above exchange. *This*, ladies and gentlemen,
> >is what I mean by debating civilly. We would get much further if all
> >our posts lokked like this one in their tone and attitude. Mike, Wane
> >Poe, Aron K, and the rest should *seriously* take this as their
> >modle. Write *only* the way you would to an instructor. Good day.
[immaturity snipped]
I guess it's harder for some of them...
I'm looking forward to openly utilizing any and all information I gleen
from my instructor of use here, and answering to noone for the practice.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:23:08 -0700, Timothy Jones
> ><time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >And he *never* said, and I *never* claimed he said, that
> >post-interfering beams will not continue. The implication to that effect
> >is the result of a (deliberate?) misquotation of my discription of how
> >the post-event beam energy would be contained by the "ray-field" which
> >is also how it can interact with things the way it does.
>
>
> >Note, I did not say for *all* space after that, but simply *at* that
> >length. To mis-represent me is not to refute me.
>
Glad we're in agreement.
> Which part of the following did I misunderstand?
All of it apparantly.
> Timothy:
> "Well I asked my physics proff today about having a laser with a
> descrete length. He said it can be done, but not with penlights and
> tech generally available today. But the theory is sound."
>
> Then you went on to say:
>
> "You *can* have a lasersword. All you have to do is align two equal
> and not-parallel beams in such a way that their waves will interfere
> destructively at the desired beam length, say three feet."
>
> No mention of ray-shields, no mention of what happens to the
*Yet*. You may recall, though I see you saw fit *not* to reprint my
further passage that shows this, that that came immediately afterwards.
You remember, all that material I posted, beginning with "Now, there
*are* other issues to be worked out..."
[snippedirrelevancy]
> > Kynes said
> > If the beams are non-parallel, then at the point they cross, they may or
> > may not cancel each other out;
>
> If you can get them to interfere destructively, they will. Feel free
> to ask your own physics proff...if you have one.
At *that* point. I thought Kynes was denying the phenomena of
destructive interference. Period. Anything else about all this is a
strawman segway, and I for one, having already addressed the issue a few
times by now, have better thngs to talk about.
[mis-quote sig and mis-represented passages snipped]
Redundant strawmen are still strawmen.
TJ
Aron Kerkhof
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I'm looking forward to openly utilizing any and all information I gleen
>from my instructor of use here, and answering to noone for the practice.
And WE (read: the newsgroup) are looking forward to completely
ignoring evidence that comes third hand from an alledged PhD. Stand
on your own legs, please.
Celes Knight
> > energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts and
> > Joules are interchangable. [sic]}"
>
> He never said they were. *I* said they were, in the sene *only* that
> they have an equivelancy, which they do.
Tim: "The detonations herein discussed are more or less instantaneous."
It's obvious that you think that the detonations lasted less than a second.
So watts are joules are _not_ interchangable in at scene.
> Namely, Watts =
> Joules-per-second. In that sense, the *only* one I was ever thinking of
> or refering to, they *are* interchangable.
Yet you then claim that the time-frame we're talking about is not a second,
it is rather "more or less instantaneous." So they are _not_
interchangeable in the explosion were were discussing.
> {No doubt these very post
> lines will get trotted out some months from now, either from obsessed
> SWers' archives, or dug up from Deja-Whatever...and mis-represented, as
You really hate the fact that your own words prove you wrong when you
flip-flop on an issue, don't you? You could simply say, "Opps I made a
mistake," and leave it at that. No one would care, no one would ever drag
it out again. Yet you continue to pretend that you were right--that in the
past 4 years, you've never learned one iota of information to change your
mind on even one insignificant subject.
Hmm, not learning anything... Well, I suppose that _would_ explain why you
make pre-high school physics errors.
> always, *NOT* to address the actual jist of my arguments, but to
> distract from them...}
You've _repeatedly_ demanded that we read _exactly_ what you wrote, to the
point where you've argued over the grammatical meaning of one word when it
was obvious that if the sentence was interpreted that way, it would have
nothing to do with the "jist" of your argument. Want me to go to Dejanews
and find examples?
> In a sense...the same sense in which matter and energy are
> interchangeable, namely through the relationship denoted by E=MC^2.
You're joking, right? (I just had to throw that in because of what Timothy
says next). I don't mean joking about the physics fact, I mean about the
fact that _this_ is now what you claim that you _originally_ meant. This
is, what, the fourth reinterpretation, by you, of what you meant?
> The level the SWers are arguing on is to respond with:
> "You're joking, right? Even with limited schooling, just
> lurking here, I can tell that matter behaves differently
> from energy. Matter is *MASS*. Energy is, well, energy!"
Notice how Tim knows he can't find any instances of a SW regular being this
idiotic, i.e. making foolish scientific mistakes then not admitting they
were wrong. So instead, he attributes it to our side in general, because he
can't find any specific examples of us doing it.
> And so on. Yes, I know very well they're *literally* different.
While watts and joules are related, the circumstances of what you were
referring too make it clear that you misunderstood how they were related.
In the discussion, you aren't trying to relate them like you relate "mass"
with "energy" by using a formula. Rather, you're trying to switch them at
will the way one may switch relatively non-scientific terms like "stone"
with "rock" or "pebble." (While there are places where the distinction
between "stone" and "rock" might be important, this group isn't one.
However, this group is a place where the distinction between "joule" and
"watt" is very important.)
Time for some quotes:
Xtreme: "How many watts in a megaton nuke blast?"
Tim: "[T]he energy release from 1 MT would be 4,200,000 Gigajoules. {Watts
and Joules are interchangable.}"
Tim again: "He knows as I do, though apparantly you do not, that the energy
release is obviously occuring in less than a second. Within that framawork,
watts and joules are equivelant for the purposes of these debates." (The
"He" here is refering to Tim's alledged physics prof)
These three make it quite clear that you thought that since the explosion
took less than 1 second, watts and joules were the same.
<<Tim's unconscious use of the Fruedian defense mechanisms "projection" and
"regression" snipped>>
> > The wave will be cancelled out *only* in the region that another wave is
> > actively working to cancel it.
>
> As I said, *that* is whatbI mean by "terminate at *that* length." Not at
> *all* lengths from that point on, but at that exact point.
It's perfectly clear that you thought it would just stop there. You were
using that arguement to dicuss a lightsaber, where the blade terminates.
Why would you put those details in if they had _no_ bearing on the issue at
hand?
> perfectly well the blade will continue on *normally*. But it would not
> in the case of a lightsaber, because for a lightsaber to work at all (in
> the sense of its being "solid" to other energy fields), it would need to
> be sheathed in something like a SW-style "ray-shield,"
Was this part of the original post or is this something you came up with
weeks later just so you won't have to admit you're wrong? Even if it was
part of the original post, where does the cancellation thing come in at?
Why would you bring up cancellation at one arbitrary point of the blade if
what you _actually believe_ is that the blade is terminated by the ray
shield.
(For the benefit of any newbies, I'm relatively sure this whole ray-shielded
blade idea of Tim's is all his own confusion, not born out empirically or by
official sources.)
> Perhaps
> *any* shield, whether ray-shielding or particle shielding, will have
> just a touch of the counterpart's nature to it. It's insignificant, and
> so, for most practical intents and purposes, can be ignored. But because
> they're both forms of energy fields, their commonalities will give each
> just a speck of the other kind's nature. Like the Yin-Yang symbol, black
> has a sopt of white, and visa-versa. This would explain, if you're
> right, why Qui-Gon's saber can be put into a door as my theory
> prescribes it can, but why Qui-Gon had to push and drive it in, as he
> seemd to be doing, with all that twisting and turning of it we saw. I
> mean, he was using *effort* to try and cut that first circle.
So, now each has an "insignificant" amount of properties as the other, but
those properties are causing Qui-Gon to struggle to cut a door?
--
Celes Knight