[Tech] "Lasers" in TPM -- Rather Minor Spoilers.
Celes Knight
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ah, TPM, the movie that finally proves that SW weapons are not lasers, or at
least not what we consider lasers.
First of all, there is the reference to Anakin calling a lightsaber a "laser
sword." There is no way a lightsaber beam can be a laser. Lasers don't
turn around after 3 feet can come back. Lasers aren't solid, so they don't
bounce off each other. Lasers can't be seen the way lightsabers are.
Lasers don't give off shadows the way lightsabers do. You don't see a light
beam slowly expanding the way you see a lightsaber beam expand as it's
turned on. Anakin is relatively knowledgeable about SW tech, and should
probably know the basics of how SW weapons work, yet he still calls it a
"laser sword." I think this suggests that any SW beam can be referred to as
a laser--so "laser" no longer has the meaning it has for us--the way "gun"
might today refer to a lot of non-missile shooting weapons from a laser to a
ray gun to the weapons on battleships to handheld firearms.
Now let's take a look at the droid battle at the end. On page 267 of TPM
novilization, it says that the tank canons are lasers. Yet in the movie, we
see those "lasers" explode off the Gungan's large shields. Lasers wouldn't
do that. Also, lasers don't give the large amount of recoil we see from
those tanks. What we are seeing is more like what particle or projectile
weapons would do. Again, this suggests that laser is a generic term for any
beam type weapon.
As the Nubian transport escapes in the beginning, they lose shields and are
rocked by fire. We constantly hear explosions, and from the outside,
sometimes see the enemy "laser" beams explode for no reason. This again
suggest that they are particle weapons, not lasers. Lasers don't explode
for no reason, but with a particle weapon, (say a beam made up of
anti-matter, matter, and a small radio receiver) it makes sense to blow up
the "beam" when it is near you opponent, (in order to cause him _some_
damage). Also, lasers can't see seen in a vacuum the way those weapons
could be. All in all, there is no way those weapons could be lasers by out
definition.
On one side note, the technology required to get light, and therefor lasers,
to do all of those things that we see SW beams do is so far ahead of us and
ST that it would truly be magic. The Federation fighting a race like that
would be like a tribe of cavemen fighting NATO. There is simply no way the
could ever cause any real damage. I don't think you ST supporters _really_
want to go on calling SW weapons lasers.
--
Celes Knight
Xtreme
Celes Knight wrote in message <9277035...@newdm.deskmedia.com>...
>Some rather minor spoilers below:
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
least two instances that we've seen clearly when one of the jedis shut off
his lightsaber. One of the instances, where the beam came out from the
handle, that the top part of the handle was flat. But there was another
occasion that instead of a flat surface in which the lightsaber beam
appeared from but the was a hole. A goof up? I know that in ANH that when
Obi-Wan lowered his lightsaber a bit that you could see a rod.
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: -
: Ah, TPM, the movie that finally proves that SW weapons are not lasers, or at
: least not what we consider lasers.
:
: First of all, there is the reference to Anakin calling a lightsaber a "laser
: sword." There is no way a lightsaber beam can be a laser. Lasers don't
: turn around after 3 feet can come back. Lasers aren't solid, so they don't
: bounce off each other. Lasers can't be seen the way lightsabers are.
: Lasers don't give off shadows the way lightsabers do. You don't see a light
: beam slowly expanding the way you see a lightsaber beam expand as it's
: turned on. Anakin is relatively knowledgeable about SW tech, and should
: probably know the basics of how SW weapons work, yet he still calls it a
: "laser sword." I think this suggests that any SW beam can be referred to as
: a laser--so "laser" no longer has the meaning it has for us--the way "gun"
: might today refer to a lot of non-missile shooting weapons from a laser to a
: ray gun to the weapons on battleships to handheld firearms.
Canon words inside a movie overrules your theories.
{sniped}
: On one side note, the technology required to get light, and therefor lasers,
: to do all of those things that we see SW beams do is so far ahead of us and
: ST that it would truly be magic. The Federation fighting a race like that
: would be like a tribe of cavemen fighting NATO. There is simply no way the
: could ever cause any real damage. I don't think you ST supporters _really_
: want to go on calling SW weapons lasers.
Yes we do call them lasers. Because we don't consider Lucas as stupid.
SW technology is not superior to ST tech. You don't have transporters.
You can't duplicate the telekinetic abilities of the Jedis like
we can do (Plato StepChildren). It takes 3 days to clone a Jem Hadar.
It takes one year to make your clones. Some of you say 6 days. In both
cases we are more effecient in that area. We can time travel. You can't.
We have replicators. You don't. We can go to parallel universes.
You can't. We have universal translators transplanted from birth.
You need translator droids like C3PO. etc. Also, talking about tribes
fighting, the Empire was taken by surprise by Ewoks (tribes with
primitive tech) in ROTJ. Gunguns (tribe) resisted to battle droids in TPM.
This shows that not only your tech. is lacking. But you don't know how
to use it properly.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Some rather minor spoilers below:
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>Ah, TPM, the movie that finally proves that SW weapons are not lasers, or
at
>least not what we consider lasers.
>
>First of all, there is the reference to Anakin calling a lightsaber a
"laser
>sword." There is no way a lightsaber beam can be a laser. Lasers don't
>turn around after 3 feet can come back.
The lightsaber has a mirror on a piece of string, so that when you turn
the saber on the mirror gets pushed to the saber length and reflects the
laser back?
Lasers aren't solid, so they don't
>bounce off each other.
The bits of string are really 'lacky bands, so the 'lacky bands of the
sabers bounce off each other?
>Lasers can't be seen the way lightsabers are.
The lasers burn the 'lacky bands rgadually, generating a dust to reflect
the laser light so we can see it.
>Lasers don't give off shadows the way lightsabers do.
The new power of Force Shadow Bunny?
You don't see a light
>beam slowly expanding the way you see a lightsaber beam expand as it's
>turned on.
That's the mirror again - it takes time to settle into position. At first
it's bouncing about so wildly it looks like the beam is growing.
Anakin is relatively knowledgeable about SW tech, and should
>probably know the basics of how SW weapons work, yet he still calls it a
>"laser sword."
Anakin is very knowledgeable about SW tech and is right?
>On one side note, the technology required to get light, and therefor
lasers,
>to do all of those things that we see SW beams do is so far ahead of us
and
>ST that it would truly be magic. The Federation fighting a race like
that
>would be like a tribe of cavemen fighting NATO. There is simply no way
the
>could ever cause any real damage.
Of course, if SW is Nato there is no way they could hurt the Federation.
Klingon, Romula, Ferengi, Cardassian empires/bases yes, Fed bases no.
I don't think you ST supporters _really_
>want to go on calling SW weapons lasers.
but it's so much *fun* watching the handfull of people scream replies when
we do.
Charles Sonnenburg
PAUL JACQUES H.JR wrote:
> Celes Knight (ce...@deskmedia.com) wrote:
> : -
> : Ah, TPM, the movie that finally proves that SW weapons are not lasers, or at
> : least not what we consider lasers.
> :
> : First of all, there is the reference to Anakin calling a lightsaber a "laser
> : sword." There is no way a lightsaber beam can be a laser. Lasers don't
> : turn around after 3 feet can come back. Lasers aren't solid, so they don't
> : bounce off each other. Lasers can't be seen the way lightsabers are.
> : Lasers don't give off shadows the way lightsabers do. You don't see a light
> : beam slowly expanding the way you see a lightsaber beam expand as it's
> : turned on. Anakin is relatively knowledgeable about SW tech, and should
> : probably know the basics of how SW weapons work, yet he still calls it a
> : "laser sword." I think this suggests that any SW beam can be referred to as
> : a laser--so "laser" no longer has the meaning it has for us--the way "gun"
> : might today refer to a lot of non-missile shooting weapons from a laser to a
> : ray gun to the weapons on battleships to handheld firearms.
>
> Canon words inside a movie overrules your theories.
Couldn't we therefore conclude that the "Briar Patch" from Insurrection was made
of bushes, that the "Northwest Passage" from Voyager: Scorpion is a fictitious
waterway in North America, that the "Neutral Zone" has no electric charge, that a
"Cloaked" ship wears a cape, and that the Klingon "Bird of Prey" is a giant ava?
We also see that an "Orb of Prophecy" is not an orb, that a "Photon Torpedo" is
not made of light, and that Quark is not a subatomic particle.
Whatever people may call things, that doesn't make it what it is. It is the
characteristics of things that make them what they are, not the name.
A silverfish is not a fish, a mealworm is not a worm, and a bull frog is not a
bull. The names of these creatures don't change what they are, they are a label,
nothing more. We know this because we can look at them and say "this isn't a
fish, it has no gills; it doesn't even have a backbone! It can't be a fish!"
They may call it a laser, but it doesn't act like a laser. Therefore, it can't be
a laser.
Remember the show Doctor Who? He always introduced K-9 as "my dog." That doesn't
make him Canis Familiaris, it means the Doctor likes calling him a dog. But, he's
not organic, has no mouth, legs, or internal organs, and doesn't behave like a
dog. You could call him a dog, but that doesn't make him a dog.
Look at a "laser" in Star Wars and you'll see it doesn't have the characteristics
of a laser, so it just can't be a laser.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"
Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2
Celes Knight
No there aren't. They never said anything to that effect. Or do you really
think the name has that much meaning? Going to put some sand with your
PB&J? Can Star Destroyers kill stars?
I noticed that in the part I snipped, most of the tech is things that the
Federation doesn't have. Are you so certain you'll lose that you have to go
begging support from your mortal enemies? Is the Empire so big and bad that
you think the Federation, Q, Dominion, and Borg will all team up against us?
You really are scared aren't you! Poor, frightened Paul...
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: > Canon words inside a movie overrules your theories.
:
: Couldn't we therefore conclude that the "Briar Patch"
: of bushes, that the "Northwest Passage" from Voyager: Scorpion
: is a fictitious
: waterway in North America, that the "Neutral Zone"
: has no electric charge, that a
: "Cloaked" ship wears a cape, and that the Klingon
: "Bird of Prey" is a giant ava?
: We also see that an "Orb of Prophecy"
: is not an orb, that a "Photon Torpedo" is
: not made of light, and that Quark is not a subatomic particle.
: Whatever people may call things, that doesn't make it what it is. It is the
: characteristics of things that make them what they are, not the name.
Wow! So Sci-fi is not sci-fi but real science now! So Lucas is not
intelligent enough to know what he is putting in his movies? Imperial
Star Destroyers didn't destroy stars so Lucas lied? If you want to deny
the basis of what Lucas used for words in SW then anybody can claim
anything and the rules of canonity is worthless.
[sniped]
: They may call it a laser, but it doesn't act like a laser.
: Therefore, it can't be
: a laser.
Anakin (TPM) is knowledgeable about SW technology. He called it laser sword.
Therefore it is. If you doubt that character credibility then you will doubt
the first 6 movies and all statements derive from him is wrong. Remember
he is to be Vader. If he is not credible as Anakin then he is not credible
as Vader.
Aron Kerkhof
JACQUES H.JR) wrote:
>: They may call it a laser, but it doesn't act like a laser.
>: Therefore, it can't be
>: a laser.
>
>Anakin (TPM) is knowledgeable about SW technology. He called it laser sword.
>Therefore it is. If you doubt that character credibility then you will doubt
>the first 6 movies and all statements derive from him is wrong. Remember
>he is to be Vader. If he is not credible as Anakin then he is not credible
>as Vader.
It is obvious that a light sabre cannot be made out of a laser. The
blade shares no characteristics with a laser beam. You cannot get
much simpler than that.
This is so silly as to be absurd.
Worf is very knowledgeable about weapons systems, yet he calls the
Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
to laser theory... T
>
Aron Kerkhof
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>but it's so much *fun* watching the handfull of people scream replies when
>we do.
So my theory is right, in that the so called Star Trek Cultists are
actually a subspecies of troll.
It makes perfect sense now...
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
Yes it does!
: They never said anything to that effect.
Anakin stated laser sword in TPM.
: Or do you really
: think the name has that much meaning?
Yes! Because Lucas chose it and he is not stupid.
: Going to put some sand with your
: PB&J? Can Star Destroyers kill stars?
What is PB&J?
: I noticed that in the part I snipped, most of the tech is things that the
: Federation doesn't have. Are you so certain you'll lose that you have to go
: begging support from your mortal enemies? Is the Empire so big and bad that
: you think the Federation, Q, Dominion, and Borg will all team up against us?
: You really are scared aren't you! Poor, frightened Paul...
You stated that SW tech is better than ST tech. So I proved you wrong.
You never stated *Federation tech only*.
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: On Thu, 27 May 1999 00:14:41 GMT, he79...@merlin.uqam.ca (PAUL
: JACQUES H.JR) wrote:
: >: They may call it a laser, but it doesn't act like a laser.
: >: Therefore, it can't be
: >: a laser.
: >
: >Anakin (TPM) is knowledgeable about SW
: >technology. He called it laser sword.
: >Therefore it is. If you doubt that
: >character credibility then you will doubt
: >the first 6 movies and all statements derive from him is wrong. Remember
: >he is to be Vader. If he is not credible as Anakin then he is not credible
: >as Vader.
:
: It is obvious that a light sabre cannot be made out of a laser. The
: blade shares no characteristics with a laser beam. You cannot get
: much simpler than that.
works then we will talk. Up to now those devices are fictional. So
you are stuck with the words (Canon).
: This is so silly as to be absurd.
I agree! I know that Lucas is not stupid. He would not have chosen a
name that does not represent his devices.
: Worf is very knowledgeable about weapons systems, yet he calls the
: Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
: to laser theory... T
The shields were down. Remember!
veg...@jps.net
>
> Look at a "laser" in Star Wars and you'll see it doesn't have the
characteristics
> of a laser, so it just can't be a laser.
>
> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
WHta charatteristics ar eyou talking about. it shares all the
charcterteeristices of laser light that we know of today.
peace,
ali
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
veg...@jps.net
> It is obvious that a light sabre cannot be made out of a laser. The
> blade shares no characteristics with a laser beam. You cannot get
> much simpler than that.
right parts. In Mobile suite gundam they use a short lived particle
called minovisky to make the beam/light saber.
If we had the ability go generate firefields that cna cover the fromnt
nozzel of a laser emmiter. we could make it strong enough that it keeps
most of the laser form escaping and bounces it back. this accounts fo
rht efact that the light saber generates no heat at all. also the fact
that you cna fence with them. the force field does nto stop kenetice
evergy henc you can cut with them. since it goes right through solid
matter and the laser burns it.
>
> Worf is very knowledgeable about weapons systems, yet he calls the
> Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
> to laser theory... T
the shields where down. besides. it was refered to as a cuttign beam
form then on.
Kynes
> Celes Knight (ce...@deskmedia.com) wrote:
> : > Canon words inside a movie overrules your theories.
> :
> : No there aren't.
>
> Yes it does!
>
> : They never said anything to that effect.
>
> Anakin stated laser sword in TPM.
And what impact does this have on *anything?* None! In fact, it proves
the exact converse of what you're trying to prove:
i) Either we are capable of manipulating light at such a fundamental level that
we might as well assume the proper title "Masters of the Universe," or...
ii) "Laser" in our galaxy has become a generic term for any sort of beam.
> : Going to put some sand with your
> : PB&J? Can Star Destroyers kill stars?
>
> What is PB&J?
Peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
> : I noticed that in the part I snipped, most of the tech is things that the
> : Federation doesn't have. Are you so certain you'll lose that you have to go
> : begging support from your mortal enemies? Is the Empire so big and bad that
> : you think the Federation, Q, Dominion, and Borg will all team up against us?
> : You really are scared aren't you! Poor, frightened Paul...
>
> You stated that SW tech is better than ST tech. So I proved you wrong.
> You never stated *Federation tech only*.
The only life forms ever seen in ST that have a remote chance of taking on the Empire
are the Q. The Dominion would be crushed, the Borg would fall, and the Federation War
would be the Federation Spat.
--
-Kynes
"Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow,
By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!"
- a rhyme taught to a few hobbits
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>but it's so much *fun* watching the handfull of people scream replies
when
>>we do.
>
>So my theory is right, in that the so called Star Trek Cultists are
>actually a subspecies of troll.
>
>It makes perfect sense now...
you mean it's taken you this long to work it out?
Charles Sonnenburg
veg...@jps.net wrote:
> >
> > Look at a "laser" in Star Wars and you'll see it doesn't have the
> characteristics
> > of a laser, so it just can't be a laser.
> >
> > "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>
> WHta charatteristics ar eyou talking about. it shares all the
> charcterteeristices of laser light that we know of today.
> peace,
> ali
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
It moves to slowly to be light, which is what a laser is. It can be
viewed from the side, which is only possible for a laser if it is
disrupted by matter. Since it doesn't do these things, then it can't be
a laser.
Charles Sonnenburg
PAUL JACQUES H.JR wrote:
> Aron Kerkhof (ar...@galactec.com) wrote:
> : On Thu, 27 May 1999 00:14:41 GMT, he79...@merlin.uqam.ca (PAUL
> : JACQUES H.JR) wrote:
> : >: They may call it a laser, but it doesn't act like a laser.
> : >: Therefore, it can't be
> : >: a laser.
> : >
> : >Anakin (TPM) is knowledgeable about SW
> : >technology. He called it laser sword.
> : >Therefore it is. If you doubt that
> : >character credibility then you will doubt
> : >the first 6 movies and all statements derive from him is wrong. Remember
> : >he is to be Vader. If he is not credible as Anakin then he is not credible
> : >as Vader.
> :
> : It is obvious that a light sabre cannot be made out of a laser. The
> : blade shares no characteristics with a laser beam. You cannot get
> : much simpler than that.
>
> Until you bring me a real live light saber with proof of how it
> works then we will talk. Up to now those devices are fictional. So
> you are stuck with the words (Canon).
>
Exactly my point. If you stick with the words, you are lead to all sorts of
absurd conclusions.
We know the Enterprise D was one of the largest ships in the Federation. We know
that about half it's length is made up by the Saucer section, but I'll be
generous and say it makes up 30% of the length. Now, I measured some saucers
today, and the average length was 5 inches. So, we can conclude that one of the
largest ships in the Federation is less than 17 inches long! The Empire's
biggest challenge would be to hit such small targets.
This is obviously silly. We know they call it a "saucer" because it is shaped
something like a saucer. But to then state it has the properties of a saucer is
ridiculous. It's just a name. The same for the laser in Star Wars. The term
must have evolved beyond the scientific meaning to describe objects similar to
lasers in appearance.
It is a common linguistic trend that words develop beyond their original
meaning. Words start with a very specific meaning and then generalize over
time. What I'm saying we must do is look at what it is: an extremely short beam
of energy, moving slower than light that can be seen in a vacuum. This does not
describe a laser, indeed it's not possible to do all of this with a beam of
light, so it must be something else.
I don't know what the heck it is, but it's not a laser. It's also not a duck, a
train, a small clan of Vandals, or a supernova, because it doesn't look or act
like any of them either.
Aron Kerkhof
JACQUES H.JR) wrote:
>: It is obvious that a light sabre cannot be made out of a laser. The
>: blade shares no characteristics with a laser beam. You cannot get
>: much simpler than that.
>
>Until you bring me a real live light saber with proof of how it
>works then we will talk. Up to now those devices are fictional. So
>you are stuck with the words (Canon).
Since I cannot do that, and you cannot do that for any of your tech, I
hereby declare this newsgroup and all of its arguments null and void.
Empire defeats feds simply because I say so, and I am God. You have
never seen God before, so you cannot disprove that I am He, since you
have never seen Me before either. I shall smite you with all of My
might and all of My mercy.
Reality check. All we can do is look at its *behavior.* A name is
NOTHING. We see that in contemporary times, in Star Treks "future",
and yes, in Star Wars. Unless you want a Star Destroyer destroying
stars.
Watch what you say back, or I will send you to Hell for being a
heretic.
>
>: This is so silly as to be absurd.
>
>I agree! I know that Lucas is not stupid. He would not have chosen a
>name that does not represent his devices.
>
>: Worf is very knowledgeable about weapons systems, yet he calls the
>: Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
>: to laser theory... T
>
Aaron Parsons
veg...@jps.net wrote:
> >
> > Look at a "laser" in Star Wars and you'll see it doesn't have the
> characteristics
> > of a laser, so it just can't be a laser.
> >
> > "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>
> WHta charatteristics ar eyou talking about. it shares all the
> charcterteeristices of laser light that we know of today.
> peace,
Bahahaha! What are you smoking?! Have you ever watched any of the
movies? TL bolts move visibly slower than light, and when they hit
stuff they don't burn holes in it like a laser would, but they cause
catastrophic explosions and plasma splash.
Aaron
Chong Sin Lim's News
>characteristics
>> of a laser, so it just can't be a laser.
>>
>> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>
>WHta charatteristics ar eyou talking about. it shares all the
>charcterteeristices of laser light that we know of today.
>peace,
I figure this argument 'bout lasers is so mute and borin' that we should
stop. Previous posts and posts before have kept on mentionin' the fact that
the lasers of SW don't act like the lasers we know of in our world. I.E.
long invisible beam. And all the other tech-stuff 'bout how a laser is
supposed to be like.
Celes Knight
No it doesn't.
> : They never said anything to that effect.
> Anakin stated laser sword in TPM.
Since I brought that up in my post, and you never answered it, I can only
assume that you agreeded with it. So you agree that Anakin's calling it a
laser sword means that laser is a general term in the SW galaxy.
> Yes! Because Lucas chose it and he is not stupid.
He's not so stupid to assume that common words will have their exact same
meaning in 20,000 years.
> : Going to put some sand with your
> : PB&J? Can Star Destroyers kill stars?
>
> What is PB&J?
A sandwich. Notice the sand.
> You stated that SW tech is better than ST tech.
No I didn't. I stated that if I believed what you believe, (that SW is so
advanced that they can make light behave in ways that is impossible for
light to behave) then SW would be far more advanced than anything in ST.
You really should read more carefully, Paul. But anyway, you are right, SW
tech is far more advanced than anything in ST, and especially in that puny
Federation.
>So I proved you wrong. You never stated *Federation tech only*.
No you didn't. You never responded to my statement, you were off trying to
answer some other statement that you pulled out of thin air. Anyway, I did
notice that the statement you were trying to answer (about tech) you mostly
answered with metaphysical Q-like things, not tech.
Timothy Jones
> : Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
> : to laser theory... T
>
> The shields were down. Remember!
Don't you just love how SWer's memories get selective on that point,
Paul? ;> They just wait a few days, then say it again. Then we have
to correct them again. Rinse and repeat...
TJ
Aron Kerkhof
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Isn't the navigational deflector independent of the combat shield
system? I think the TM says it is.
Aron Kerkhof
<time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 May 1999, PAUL JACQUES H.JR wrote:
>>
>> > Aron Kerkhof (ar...@galactec.com) wrote:
>> >
>> : Worf is very knowledgeable about weapons systems, yet he calls the
>> : Borg cutting beam a laser. There goes your deflecter being impervious
>> : to laser theory... T
>>
>> The shields were down. Remember!
>
>Don't you just love how SWer's memories get selective on that point,
>Paul? ;> They just wait a few days, then say it again. Then we have
>to correct them again. Rinse and repeat...
I just checked, and according to the Star Trek : TNG Technical Manual,
the navigational deflector is a completely different system than the
tactical deflector system that the E-D sports. The navigational
deflector is generated by the dish on the front of the E, while the
fine grid that covers the skin of the E is what generates the tactical
shield.
They operate on different principles and utilize different criteria
when determining what particles / energies to block and what to allow
through.
Also, the Navigational deflector is "always on", and operated
independantly of the Tactical shields being in a "raised" state or
not.
Another interesting side note is the fact that at normal impulse
speeds, the deflector output is 27 MW, with a 52MW surge capacity.
Warp 8 requires them to boost this power by 80%, bringing their output
to 48.6 MW, with a surge capacity of 675,000 MW.
At warp 9.2+ all three deflector generators are turned on to handle
the extra requirements of energy, bringing its output up to 145.8 MW,
and its surge reserve is not listed, and since it does not scale with
its increase in baseline output, cannot be extrapolated. (I guess
multiply the warp 8 figure times 3 generators, would be a rough guess
of all three generators operating at peak power.)
All of this information is gleaned from page 87-88, and pages 138-139
of the TNG Tech Manual.
Now. I submit that the borg attack that lowered the E-D's shields did
not destroy the deflector shields. We know that the navigational
deflectors were operational during the borg laser beam cutting attack.
How?
1) The above information.
2) The Enterprise fled the scene immediatly afterwords at high warp.
3) At such speeds, the Enterprise would be torn apart by
micrometeoroid particles, and stray hydrogen atoms to name just a few
the TM states are extremely hazardous to an unshielded hull.
So, to restate, the borg used its cutting beam (Worf: "some kind of
laser!") on the Enterprise with its navigational shields operational.
The borg was successful in penetrating this shield. This invalidates
the Trekkie claim that the E-D's shield is impervious to any laser at
any power level. It clearly proves that Picard was talking about that
particular technologically inferior race's lasers in the oft mentioned
quote, and not suggesting the possibility that the E-D's navigational
shields are categorically immune to laser energy.
Celes Knight
>
> Don't you just love how SWer's memories get selective on that point,
> Paul? ;> They just wait a few days, then say it again. Then we have
> to correct them again. Rinse and repeat...
Don't you just love the way Tim's memory gets selective on the fact that in
other episodes, they were worried about "dangerous laser activity" or
ordered "maximum shields" when encountering lasers?
But don't stand around reading my post, go up one and read Aron's. I was
going to point out that the nav deflecter is on a diffrent system from the
main shields (which were down), but I could never have said it as elequently
has he did.
veg...@jps.net
> >
> > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
It can be
> viewed from the side, which is only possible for a laser if it is
> disrupted by matter. Since it doesn't do these things, then it can't
be a laser.
False again. the light you see is not the tl beam. It is a side
reaction.
peace,
ali
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
veg...@jps.net
>
> I figure this argument 'bout lasers is so mute and borin' that we
should
> stop.
Why?
Previous posts and posts before have kept on mentionin' the fact
that
> the lasers of SW don't act like the lasers we know of in our world.
I.E.
> long invisible beam. And all the other tech-stuff 'bout how a laser is
> supposed to be like.
Proove your point. A tl behaves like a laser. tell me why it does not.
veg...@jps.net
> Bahahaha! What are you smoking?! Have you ever watched any of the
> movies? TL bolts move visibly slower than light,
of light?
and when they hit
> stuff they don't burn holes in it like a laser would, but they cause
> catastrophic explosions and plasma splash.
the plasma splash as you are so fond of using. is the side reaction
catching up with the beam. they seen to explode only against the man
made ships. it is possible that the explosions are form the same result
as the blue light we see when the enterprise's shields are struck
Graeme Dice
>
> > >
> > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> > > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> >
> > It moves to slowly to be light, which is what a laser is.
> False. Lasers can move at any speed. thsi has been proven in real life.
Wrong, lasers must move at a speed of c in a vacuum. In any other
medium, they move at a speed which is determined by the index of
refraction of the material. If you would like a quote from a physics
text on this I'd be happy to give it to you.
>
> It can be
> > viewed from the side, which is only possible for a laser if it is
> > disrupted by matter. Since it doesn't do these things, then it can't
> be a laser.
> False again. the light you see is not the tl beam. It is a side
> reaction.
> peace,
> ali
Why bother with a side reaction if a laser does the damage?
Graeme Dice
College of Engineering
College of Arts and Science(Computer Science)
University of Saskatchewan
grd...@somewhere.over.the.rainbow
Chong Sin Lim's News
> Previous posts and posts before have kept on mentionin' the fact
>that
>> the lasers of SW don't act like the lasers we know of in our world.
>I.E.
>> long invisible beam. And all the other tech-stuff 'bout how a laser is
>> supposed to be like.
>Proove your point. A tl behaves like a laser. tell me why it does not.
>peace,
>ali
Well, when we think about lasers, should we think 'bout it as the lasers of
our world or of the SW world? I think that is the main question. If we are
going to believe that the SW lasers are supposed to be like ours, then
there's the question of why there's no beam when we fire our lasers and all
the other tech stuff. And if the SW laser is not like ours, then should they
be called lasers? Imagine if you had a universal translator, the universal
translator's closest translation to the SW weapon might be laser but that
doesn't mean it is....
Peace, love, prosperity.. and all the rest..;P
veg...@jps.net
lasers of
> our world or of the SW world? I think that is the main question. If we
are
> going to believe that the SW lasers are supposed to be like ours, then
> there's the question of why there's no beam when we fire our lasers
and all
> the other tech stuff. And if the SW laser is not like ours, then
should they
> be called lasers? Imagine if you had a universal translator, the
universal
> translator's closest translation to the SW weapon might be laser but
that
> doesn't mean it is....
laser passes though. not the beam. it behaves very much lie a laser.
peace,
ali
> Peace, love, prosperity.. and all the rest..;P
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
veg...@jps.net
Graeme Dice <som...@someone.com> wrote:
> veg...@jps.net wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> > > > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> > >
> > > It moves to slowly to be light, which is what a laser is.
> > False. Lasers can move at any speed. thsi has been proven in real
life.
>
> Wrong, lasers must move at a speed of c in a vacuum. In any other
> medium, they move at a speed which is determined by the index of
> refraction of the material. If you would like a quote from a physics
> text on this I'd be happy to give it to you.
>
http://ajanta.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~jupiter/pub/sciinfo/slowlight.html
> >
> > It can be
> > > viewed from the side, which is only possible for a laser if it is
> > > disrupted by matter. Since it doesn't do these things, then it
can't
> > be a laser.
> > False again. the light you see is not the tl beam. It is a side
> > reaction.
> > peace,
> > ali
>
> Why bother with a side reaction if a laser does the damage?
Ask the empire. th laser is passed though soem gas. which I assuem is
what we see piggy backing on the laser. this gas coudl also be what is
slowing the light down.
peace,
ali
Charles Sonnenburg
veg...@jps.net wrote:
When GD said "in a vacuum", that is the important thing. Yes, you can
slow down light in a certain medium, but in a vacuum, the speed of light
will ALWAYS be c (186,282.396 miles per second).
Graeme Dice
I prefer metric, 3.0X10^8 metres per second. Or 2.99792458 X 10^8 m/s.
I'm a metric man and I'm ok!
(Anyone want to finish this?)
Graeme Dice
grd...@somewhere.over.the.rainbow
veg...@jps.net
>
> When GD said "in a vacuum", that is the important thing. Yes, you
can
> slow down light in a certain medium, but in a vacuum, the speed of
light
> will ALWAYS be c (186,282.396 miles per second).
ok. you need to look at hwo a tl is generated. the tl is passed through
a medium. a gas. this gas could slow down the light.
peace.
Rob Pilkington
> > When GD said "in a vacuum", that is the important thing. Yes, you
> can
> > slow down light in a certain medium, but in a vacuum, the speed of
> light
> > will ALWAYS be c (186,282.396 miles per second).
>
> ok. you need to look at hwo a tl is generated. the tl is passed
through
> a medium. a gas. this gas could slow down the light.
Ok. You need to look at how sunlight is generated. The light is passed
through a medium. A gas. This gas could, and does, slow down the light,
taking the light billions of years to get to the surface of the sun.
Once it exits the sun, it goes at lightspeed, and doesn't remain slow.
If you're saying the gas moves ahead of the light, you have to remember
that the laser is actually ahead of the gas, because it moves faster.
(Plus the gas would expand out of the way rather quickly, ESPECIALLY in
a vacuum.)
The shot of Luke's hand getting hit by a blaster shows that invisible
part is slower than light, as the shot was fired several frames ago.
The shots of the Star Destroyer firing at rocks is kind of weird. Some
rocks take damage when the visible part hits them. Another rock starts
to take damage the same frame the light of the turbolaser appears.
(Indicating that that COULD have been a real laser that started the
damage.) Perhaps having a real laser come out of the turbolaser cannon
is optional?
Also note that lasers are more of drills than the explosive weapons
that turbolasers seem to be. (Turbolasers explode, lasers don't. For
lasers to do what turbolasers do (destroying rather than drilling), we
need something a LOT more powerful than our current turbolaser calcs
say.)
Like it or not, turbolasers, blasters and SW laser cannons produce a
lot MORE effects that lasers cannot do than effects that lasers CAN do.
so...@execpc.com
>
>>
>> When GD said "in a vacuum", that is the important thing. Yes, you
>can
>> slow down light in a certain medium, but in a vacuum, the speed of
>light
>> will ALWAYS be c (186,282.396 miles per second).
>
>ok. you need to look at hwo a tl is generated. the tl is passed through
>a medium. a gas. this gas could slow down the light.
>peace.
>ali
>
But it will return to light speed the minute it leaves the gas.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
CS
"The following tale is true, and by 'true', I mean 'false'.
It's all lies, but, they are entertaining lies. And in the
end, isn't that the real truth? The answer, is no."
-Leonard Nimoy
veg...@jps.net
>
> Ok. You need to look at how sunlight is generated. The light is passed
> through a medium. A gas. This gas could, and does, slow down the
light,
> taking the light billions of years to get to the surface of the sun.
>
> Once it exits the sun, it goes at lightspeed, and doesn't remain slow.
why is that?
>
> If you're saying the gas moves ahead of the light, you have to
remember
> that the laser is actually ahead of the gas, because it moves faster.
> (Plus the gas would expand out of the way rather quickly, ESPECIALLY
in
> a vacuum.)
not the gas is piggy backing on the laser. aka . a particle beam.
> The shots of the Star Destroyer firing at rocks is kind of weird. Some
> rocks take damage when the visible part hits them. Another rock starts
> to take damage the same frame the light of the turbolaser appears.
> (Indicating that that COULD have been a real laser that started the
> damage.) Perhaps having a real laser come out of the turbolaser cannon
> is optional?
it says it int he manula that it is a laser.
> Also note that lasers are more of drills than the explosive weapons
> that turbolasers seem to be. (Turbolasers explode, lasers don't. For
> lasers to do what turbolasers do (destroying rather than drilling), we
> need something a LOT more powerful than our current turbolaser calcs
> say.)
It could be the nature of the shields. and the tl calcs are a joke. the
isd's woudl be destroyed with one blast of a l if it was that powerfull.
Is'd have been shown to be prone to energies sevral magnitutes lower
then that figure.
>
> Like it or not, turbolasers, blasters and SW laser cannons produce a
> lot MORE effects that lasers cannot do than effects that lasers CAN
do.
liek what?
peace,
ali
veg...@jps.net
so...@execpc.com
>
>>
>> Ok. You need to look at how sunlight is generated. The light is passed
>> through a medium. A gas. This gas could, and does, slow down the
>light,
>> taking the light billions of years to get to the surface of the sun.
>>
>> Once it exits the sun, it goes at lightspeed, and doesn't remain slow.
>
>why is that?
>
The speed of light depends on what material it is in at the moment.
Once it leaves that material and enters another material, it's speed
will change to whatever it is for that material. Since space is (for
all intents and purposes) empty, there is no material to slow it down,
so it will travel at light speed.
For more information, go here:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~su4as/glossary/glossary.html
Chuck Sonnenburg
I am hot.
Fire is hot.
Therefore, I am on fire.
Michael January
>> Once it exits the sun, it goes at lightspeed, and doesn't remain slow.
>
>why is that?
The light bounces around inside the sun, is reflecxted, refracted etc,
along with all the other energies of the sun. Only the light / energy
that reaches the surface of the star is radiated.
>
>>
>> If you're saying the gas moves ahead of the light, you have to
>remember
>> that the laser is actually ahead of the gas, because it moves faster.
>> (Plus the gas would expand out of the way rather quickly, ESPECIALLY
>in
>> a vacuum.)
>not the gas is piggy backing on the laser. aka . a particle beam.
Huh, if the laser is ahead of the particles, it travels at light
speed. If the particles are ahead, they will reflect or stop the
laser, and no more laser. Ergo, the nature of the weapon is not
similar to the way lasers would operate.
>
>> The shots of the Star Destroyer firing at rocks is kind of weird. Some
>> rocks take damage when the visible part hits them. Another rock starts
>> to take damage the same frame the light of the turbolaser appears.
>> (Indicating that that COULD have been a real laser that started the
>> damage.) Perhaps having a real laser come out of the turbolaser cannon
>> is optional?
>it says it int he manula that it is a laser.
No, it says the reaction is *initiated* by a small laser.
>
>> Also note that lasers are more of drills than the explosive weapons
>> that turbolasers seem to be. (Turbolasers explode, lasers don't. For
>> lasers to do what turbolasers do (destroying rather than drilling), we
>> need something a LOT more powerful than our current turbolaser calcs
>> say.)
>It could be the nature of the shields. and the tl calcs are a joke. the
>isd's woudl be destroyed with one blast of a l if it was that powerfull.
>Is'd have been shown to be prone to energies sevral magnitutes lower
>then that figure.
Proof?
>
>>
>> Like it or not, turbolasers, blasters and SW laser cannons produce a
>> lot MORE effects that lasers cannot do than effects that lasers CAN
>do.
>liek what?
detonations, flak bursts, slower-than-light, variable power, stun
settings,
-------------------------
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.
veg...@jps.net
> The light bounces around inside the sun, is reflecxted, refracted etc,
> along with all the other energies of the sun. Only the light / energy
> that reaches the surface of the star is radiated.
ok
>
> >
> >>
> >> If you're saying the gas moves ahead of the light, you have to
> >remember
> >> that the laser is actually ahead of the gas, because it moves
faster.
> >> (Plus the gas would expand out of the way rather quickly,
ESPECIALLY
> >in
> >> a vacuum.)
> >not the gas is piggy backing on the laser. aka . a particle beam.
>
> Huh, if the laser is ahead of the particles, it travels at light
> speed. If the particles are ahead, they will reflect or stop the
> laser, and no more laser. Ergo, the nature of the weapon is not
> similar to the way lasers would operate.
>
I tis a laser. the gas is nto a componant of the wepon. does nto
dammage.
> >
> >> The shots of the Star Destroyer firing at rocks is kind of weird.
Some
> >> rocks take damage when the visible part hits them. Another rock
starts
> >> to take damage the same frame the light of the turbolaser appears.
> >> (Indicating that that COULD have been a real laser that started the
> >> damage.) Perhaps having a real laser come out of the turbolaser
cannon
> >> is optional?
> >it says it int he manula that it is a laser.
> No, it says the reaction is *initiated* by a small laser.
>
so how do you knwo that the beam resulting is nto a laser? laseres are
generated by gas via an electrical charge. ntohign wrogn with using
another laser to do what teh electricity did.
> >
> >> Also note that lasers are more of drills than the explosive weapons
> >> that turbolasers seem to be. (Turbolasers explode, lasers don't.
For
> >> lasers to do what turbolasers do (destroying rather than drilling),
we
> >> need something a LOT more powerful than our current turbolaser
calcs
> >> say.)
> >It could be the nature of the shields. and the tl calcs are a joke.
the
> >isd's woudl be destroyed with one blast of a l if it was that
powerfull.
> >Is'd have been shown to be prone to energies sevral magnitutes lower
> >then that figure.
> Proof?
>
People claim the isd's shields can easily withstand 1E25 jouls. If a
ship can withstand that much energy. it can litteraly sit on the surface
of a sun for 500 years and not feel a thing. This is not true. sw ships
have problems even remotly approching a sun. First thing to go woudl be
thier sensors then thier hull. which would be fried.
>>
> >> Like it or not, turbolasers, blasters and SW laser cannons produce
a
> >> lot MORE effects that lasers cannot do than effects that lasers CAN
> >do.
> >liek what?
>
> detonations
I belive this is the shield's reacting to the gas.
, flak bursts,
?
slower-than-light
that is the gas.
, variable power
Oh so a lser cannot be set of variable power? *lol*
, stun
> settings,
so?
Rob Pilkington
> > >not the gas is piggy backing on the laser. aka . a particle beam.
> >
> > Huh, if the laser is ahead of the particles, it travels at light
> > speed. If the particles are ahead, they will reflect or stop the
> > laser, and no more laser. Ergo, the nature of the weapon is not
> > similar to the way lasers would operate.
> >
> I tis a laser. the gas is nto a componant of the wepon. does nto
> dammage.
Usually the objects take damage the instant the light blob (be it green
or red) hits the object.
Other times the object takes damage a couple frames before the blob
hits. (Luke's mechanical hand on Tatooine)
And once, the object takes damage the same frame the turbolaser is
fired. (Star Destroyer firing at rocks.)
Now, I'm assuming that blasters and turbolasers operate on the same
basic principles. (Like a handgun compared to a heavy machinegun on a
helicopter, for example.)
So, of the laser is being slowed down by the gas, the laser will ALWAYS
go faster than the gas, and still exit the gas. It doesn't move with
the gas, but moves through it. So how come the objects take damage when
the blast hits it, instead of the laser?
How come only ONCE in the four movies is there any evidence for a laser
being used?
Why is the invisible portion of the beam only slightly ahead of the
beam? If it was a laser, it would make its way through the beam, then
exit and go lightspeed before the bolt got very far.
> > No, it says the reaction is *initiated* by a small laser.
> >
> so how do you knwo that the beam resulting is nto a laser? laseres are
> generated by gas via an electrical charge. ntohign wrogn with using
> another laser to do what teh electricity did.
Well, turbolasers don't act like lasers, so your theory is kinda wrong.
:) Apparantly (I don't have any sources on it), it only says that it is
initiated by a laser, not that it IS a laser. (But if a laser initiates
the reaction, why waste the laser? Fire it out, too! This seems to be
done in that SD vaping rocks scene.)
> People claim the isd's shields can easily withstand 1E25 jouls. If a
> ship can withstand that much energy. it can litteraly sit on the
surface
> of a sun for 500 years and not feel a thing. This is not true. sw
ships
> have problems even remotly approching a sun. First thing to go woudl
be
> thier sensors then thier hull. which would be fried.
Funny, Tatooine has two suns in reasonable proximity to the planet. I
consider that "remotely close" and that Star Destroyer orbiting
Tatooine seemed ok to me....
> > >> Like it or not, turbolasers, blasters and SW laser cannons
produce
> a
> > >> lot MORE effects that lasers cannot do than effects that lasers
CAN
> > >do.
> > >liek what?
> >
> > detonations
> I belive this is the shield's reacting to the gas.
Detonations in space?
> , flak bursts,
> ?
Those are detonations in space for no reason. Lasers are light. When
was the last time YOU saw light explode?
> slower-than-light
> that is the gas.
But gas disapitates quickly in space. Plasma (which you say turbolasers
aren't) would hold together longer, I beleive. (I have absolutely NO
proof of plasma doing this, however.) Once the gas disapites, the laser
goes full speed and the coloration would disappear.
> , stun
> > settings,
> so?
Well... Lasers don't stun people and cover them with a blue hue for one
frame.
Ummm, ok. If they are lasers, then explain the following canon events:
Explosions in space for no reason.
Not disapitating in space.
Stun settings that knock out people. Remember that Leia turned
completely blue for one frame, and that the bolt was more of several
blue rings than a real bolt.
Visible in space.
Vaporizing as opposed to drilling holes into rocks.
Sometimes cause damage before visibly hitting, sometimes when hitting.
I would be *VERY* interrested in hearing all of these explained. By the
way, they all have to fit together. ie you can't say one thing to
answer one thing, then contradict it later answering another problem.
Michael January
>>
>People claim the isd's shields can easily withstand 1E25 jouls. If a
>ship can withstand that much energy. it can litteraly sit on the surface
>of a sun for 500 years and not feel a thing. This is not true. sw ships
> have problems even remotly approching a sun. First thing to go woudl be
>thier sensors then thier hull. which would be fried.
Depends on the nature of the shields, and what it was meant to protect
against. In 'Heirs to the Empire', ISD's weren't able to approach
Nkllon (unknown spectra type), yet other vessels existed which could,
and which were large enough to shield the ISD's from the energy.
Possibly their shields were designed to handle the type of radiation
being broadcast by that sun, doesn't mean they can handle weapons of
similar power, otherwise everyone would have been tacking weapons on
them and using them as warships, since they obviously are better
defended than ISD's.
PS, don't take this badly, but get a spell-checker. :-)
Sorborus
<3760140d...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>>People claim the isd's shields can easily withstand 1E25 jouls. If a
>>ship can withstand that much energy. it can litteraly sit on the surface
>>of a sun for 500 years and not feel a thing. This is not true. sw ships
>> have problems even remotly approching a sun. First thing to go woudl be
>>thier sensors then thier hull. which would be fried.
>
>Depends on the nature of the shields, and what it was meant to protect
>against. In 'Heirs to the Empire', ISD's weren't able to approach
>Nkllon (unknown spectra type), yet other vessels existed which could,
>and which were large enough to shield the ISD's from the energy.
The 'other vessels' you mention are Shield Ships. Basically, they are big
umrellas. the umbrella portion is an incredibly thick armour honeycoombed
with powerfull cooling systems that have to be replaced after every trip
in-system.
veg...@jps.net
> > I tis a laser. the gas is nto a componant of the wepon. does nto
> > dammage.
>
> Usually the objects take damage the instant the light blob (be it
green
> or red) hits the object.
>
> Other times the object takes damage a couple frames before the blob
> hits. (Luke's mechanical hand on Tatooine)
>
> And once, the object takes damage the same frame the turbolaser is
> fired. (Star Destroyer firing at rocks.)
>
> Now, I'm assuming that blasters and turbolasers operate on the same
> basic principles. (Like a handgun compared to a heavy machinegun on a
> helicopter, for example.)
>
> So, of the laser is being slowed down by the gas, the laser will
ALWAYS
> go faster than the gas, and still exit the gas. It doesn't move with
> the gas, but moves through it. So how come the objects take damage
when
> the blast hits it, instead of the laser?
>
I dont; know. the tech manuals say it is a side reaction. you have no
prrof against this.
> How come only ONCE in the four movies is there any evidence for a
laser
> being used?
once?*lol*
>
> Why is the invisible portion of the beam only slightly ahead of the
> beam? If it was a laser, it would make its way through the beam, then
> exit and go lightspeed before the bolt got very far.
diffrent laws of physics? how do you knwo that the c being constant is a
law there?
>
> > > No, it says the reaction is *initiated* by a small laser.
> > >
> > so how do you knwo that the beam resulting is nto a laser? laseres
are
> > generated by gas via an electrical charge. ntohign wrogn with using
> > another laser to do what teh electricity did.
>
> Well, turbolasers don't act like lasers, so your theory is kinda
wrong.
> :) Apparantly (I don't have any sources on it), it only says that it
is
> initiated by a laser, not that it IS a laser. (But if a laser
initiates
> the reaction, why waste the laser? Fire it out, too! This seems to be
> done in that SD vaping rocks scene.)
>
and all the rest of the scenes. and apprently the laser does allthe
dammage too.
> > People claim the isd's shields can easily withstand 1E25 jouls. If a
> > ship can withstand that much energy. it can litteraly sit on the
> surface
> > of a sun for 500 years and not feel a thing. This is not true. sw
> ships
> > have problems even remotly approching a sun. First thing to go
woudl
> be
> > thier sensors then thier hull. which would be fried.
>
> Funny, Tatooine has two suns in reasonable proximity to the planet. I
> consider that "remotely close" and that Star Destroyer orbiting
> Tatooine seemed ok to me....
it was not that close. read heir to the empire.
>
> > >
> > > detonations
> > I belive this is the shield's reacting to the gas.
>
> Detonations in space?
>
yep.
> > , flak bursts,
> > ?
>
> Those are detonations in space for no reason. Lasers are light. When
> was the last time YOU saw light explode?
liek I said. I belive it is a reaction with thier shields.
>
> > slower-than-light
> > that is the gas.
>
> But gas disapitates quickly in space. Plasma (which you say
turbolasers
> aren't) would hold together longer, I beleive. (I have absolutely NO
> proof of plasma doing this, however.) Once the gas disapites, the
laser
> goes full speed and the coloration would disappear.
Plasma is gas like. it is ionized gas.
>
> > , stun
> > > settings,
> > so?
>
> Well... Lasers don't stun people and cover them with a blue hue for
one
> frame.
how do yu knwo it;s nto another weapon built into it for stun? it looks
more like a shock wave.
>
> Ummm, ok. If they are lasers, then explain the following canon events:
>
> Explosions in space for no reason.
Reaction with shields.
>
> Not disapitating in space.
laser holds the gas in check.
>
> Stun settings that knock out people. Remember that Leia turned
> completely blue for one frame, and that the bolt was more of several
> blue rings than a real bolt.
it is a shock wave.
>
> Visible in space.
side reaction.
>
> Vaporizing as opposed to drilling holes into rocks.
the beam was same size as the asteroid. where woudl you see the hole?
>
> Sometimes cause damage before visibly hitting, sometimes when hitting.
the visibible part is not the bolt.
> I would be *VERY* interrested in hearing all of these explained. By
the
> way, they all have to fit together. ie you can't say one thing to
> answer one thing, then contradict it later answering another problem.
>
peace,
ali
veg...@jps.net
>
> Depends on the nature of the shields, and what it was meant to protect
> against. In 'Heirs to the Empire', ISD's weren't able to approach
> Nkllon (unknown spectra type), yet other vessels existed which could,
> and which were large enough to shield the ISD's from the energy.
>
yes they where. and barely. the whole ship was a heat sink. that is why
they coudl approche them. The star was an average star.
> Possibly their shields were designed to handle the type of radiation
> being broadcast by that sun, doesn't mean they can handle weapons of
> similar power, otherwise everyone would have been tacking weapons on
> them and using them as warships, since they obviously are better
> defended than ISD's.
they are. the star was not an unusual star. the planet was just too
close to it for comfort. the isd could not handle that much energy.
which would have destroyed them. you cannot dispute this.
Strowbridge
>
> >
> > Depends on the nature of the shields, and what it was meant to protect
> > against. In 'Heirs to the Empire', ISD's weren't able to approach
> > Nkllon (unknown spectra type), yet other vessels existed which could,
> > and which were large enough to shield the ISD's from the energy.
> >
>
> yes they where. and barely. the whole ship was a heat sink. that is why
> they coudl approche them. The star was an average star.
No it wasn't. It was described as being more active than a regular star.
> > Possibly their shields were designed to handle the type of radiation
> > being broadcast by that sun, doesn't mean they can handle weapons of
> > similar power, otherwise everyone would have been tacking weapons on
> > them and using them as warships, since they obviously are better
> > defended than ISD's.
>
> they are. the star was not an unusual star. the planet was just too
> close to it for comfort. the isd could not handle that much energy.
> which would have destroyed them. you cannot dispute this.
Yes we can, cause it's wrong.
1.) The star was described as 'super hot'
2.) The planet was very close, but this was not the entire reason for
concern.
3.) The damage done only took a few days to repair.
C.S.Strowbridge
veg...@jps.net
> > yes they where. and barely. the whole ship was a heat sink. that is
why
> > they coudl approche them. The star was an average star.
>
> No it wasn't. It was described as being more active than a regular
star.
I have the book. I have read it over 10 times. it does not say this.
>
> > > Possibly their shields were designed to handle the type of
radiation
> > > being broadcast by that sun, doesn't mean they can handle weapons
of
> > > similar power, otherwise everyone would have been tacking weapons
on
> > > them and using them as warships, since they obviously are better
> > > defended than ISD's.
> >
> > they are. the star was not an unusual star. the planet was just too
> > close to it for comfort. the isd could not handle that much energy.
> > which would have destroyed them. you cannot dispute this.
>
> Yes we can, cause it's wrong.
>
> 1.) The star was described as 'super hot'
It says it is a super hot planet not star. read it for your self.
> 2.) The planet was very close, but this was not the entire reason for
> concern.
yes it was. Why the hell do you think they had the shield ships? because
they did not want a tan?
> 3.) The damage done only took a few days to repair.
they where in the sunlight for a few seconds. think about it.
so...@execpc.com
not going to. This discussion is just getting really stupid. Basic
science and logic are being ignored, and I'm tired of it. We've
provided one example after another of why these weapons can't be
lasers, and all the evidence is being ignored. I really sympathize
with Jonathan on the whole "Q" thing right now, because I feel just as
frustrated over this.
One last time:
1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law of
the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
pure and simple.
2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I don't
care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition, has
all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument comes
from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
"turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common sense.
Heck, we have Lord Shaithas's photon torpedo discussion which
demonstartes the idiocy of this whole line of thinking. To make
lasers do what they do requires the ability of Q.
A laser cannot do any of those things. The ONLY logical conclusion is
that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws of
creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
Chuck Sonnenburg
Logical Flaws: http://www.execpc.com/~sonn/logic.html
Live long and profit
veg...@jps.net
so...@execpc.com wrote:
> You know what, I had a whole bunch of things I wanted to say, but I'm
> not going to. This discussion is just getting really stupid. Basic
> science and logic are being ignored, and I'm tired of it. We've
> provided one example after another of why these weapons can't be
> lasers, and all the evidence is being ignored. I really sympathize
> with Jonathan on the whole "Q" thing right now, because I feel just as
> frustrated over this.
tired of this because you cannot proove it. then admit defeat and leave
this thread.
> One last time:
> 1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
> understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
> travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law of
> the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
> pure and simple.
how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind the
actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making this
remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
behavior?
> 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I don't
> care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect with
thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it. hence
very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields. in
TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not. the
shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for it
self. This could acount for the explosion.
> 3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition, has
> all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
> from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is invisible.
the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can you
say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
invisible?
>
> Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument comes
> from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
> "turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common sense.
reread your post. you have thrown it out the window. #1 you are are
ignoring official facts int the tech manuals. #2 you judge the speed and
nature of a weapon based on a side reaction that travels behind it.
There is plently of evidence to show that turbo lasers are not plasma
weapons like you claim and are probably lasers. for one. read page 389
of "heir to the empire". this is the paper back. alos read the rest of
the book. you will see several ties when "laser fire" is refered to, in
refrence ot basic weaponry.
> Heck, we have Lord Shaithas's photon torpedo discussion which
> demonstartes the idiocy of this whole line of thinking.
I have read many scientific papers. they refer to an anti matter
particle as a photon of anti matter.
To make
> lasers do what they do requires the ability of Q.
>
> A laser cannot do any of those things. The ONLY logical conclusion is
> that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
> quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws of
> creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that you
are very happy.
veg...@jps.net
> No it wasn't. It was described as being more active than a regular
star.
I responded once to thsi before. but know I have some proof.
> Yes we can, cause it's wrong.
all the page numbers refer to the paper back edition of "heir to the
empire". I do not own the hard back for this book so i cannot make any
refrences to it. you will have to look for it your self. I am sorry for
this.
>
> 1.) The star was described as 'super hot'
page 143. second to last paragraph. i quote:
"Nkllon's a super hot planet--way too close to it's sun for any normal
ship to get to without getting part of it's hull peeked off.
Hence--<snip> the escort"
> 2.) The planet was very close, but this was not the entire reason for
> concern.
yes it was. read the book again.
> 3.) The damage done only took a few days to repair.
only?
page 150. enter of page. i quote
"Several days at the least, admiral.<snip> Depending on the dammage, it
could take as long as three to four weeks"
you also have to consider they had several days to shield the ship to
resist this sort of dammage
Aron Kerkhof
>In article <7k3moh$1...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> so...@execpc.com wrote:
>> One last time:
>> 1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
>> understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
>> travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law of
>> the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
>> pure and simple.
>how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
>observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind the
>actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making this
>remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
>base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
>behavior?
1) This is pure speculation. You will not find this "tracer" theory
in any official source that I am aware of
2) Even if you cling to this laser notion, the destructive part of the
beam *STILL* is slower than C. From the second you see the *visible*
tracer effect (presumably, when the shot is fired) there is always
apriciable lag between the object's destruction. Also, when the
cannon's fire, they make a distinctive noise. There again is
noticible lag between the noise and the target's destruction. So if
you are right and the TLs are lasers, they STILL are moving slower
than c.
>> 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I don't
>> care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
>I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect with
>thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
>physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it. hence
>very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields. in
>TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not. the
>shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for it
>self. This could acount for the explosion.
No it could not. TL's are seen to explode in mid air as well, in a
flak type pattern. Your concecture that SW shields cannot stop
physical matter is ludicrous. Anakin's fighter's shield when in
engaged, was strong enough to force the fighter off of the ground. In
TPM the gungans theater shield withstood not only blaster bolts, but
artilary shells. There are many precedents in SCI-FI for a shield that
is permiable to slow moving small objects but resist intense energy
and high KE projectiles. The Hoth base shield had to be opened to
allow the transports to escape Hoth. If they could not escape with
the shield closed, this is evidence for a tremendous capability for SW
shields to withstand intense KE attacks.
>> 3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition, has
>> all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
>> from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
>
>you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is invisible.
>the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can you
>say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
>invisible?
This is not an official fact. State your source. This is fanboy
speculation, created to account for a few glitches in the FX. By and
large, when we see a TL bolt, the damage and the bolt hit
simulatneously. If the beam that we see is so harmless, than why in
the asteroid field, did the asteroid start flowing a fraction of a
second before the bolt hit, but then when it hit the asteroid was
disentigrated? Sounds like the bolt packs quite a wallop.
>> Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument comes
>> from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
>> "turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common sense.
>reread your post. you have thrown it out the window. #1 you are are
>ignoring official facts int the tech manuals. #2 you judge the speed and
>nature of a weapon based on a side reaction that travels behind it.
>There is plently of evidence to show that turbo lasers are not plasma
>weapons like you claim and are probably lasers. for one. read page 389
>of "heir to the empire". this is the paper back. alos read the rest of
>the book. you will see several ties when "laser fire" is refered to, in
>refrence ot basic weaponry.
You have NO official source to back you up here. All you have is the
names. You want an official source that describes this tracer effect?
then state the source, and page number.
>> Heck, we have Lord Shaithas's photon torpedo discussion which
>> demonstartes the idiocy of this whole line of thinking.
>I have read many scientific papers. they refer to an anti matter
>particle as a photon of anti matter.
I have seen the papers you have posted. You seem not to see the
implications of many of them. Such as posting a paper that a meterial
has been found to slow down light. Wow. Most people have known that
light propegates through different materials at different speeds for
quite some time now. But since there are no exotic materials in
space, your argument was shot to hell. Now you are clinging to this
"tracer" speculation. I say again, cite your source.
www.starwars.com states they are plasma weapons, and that is pretty
official.
> To make
>> lasers do what they do requires the ability of Q.
>>
>> A laser cannot do any of those things. The ONLY logical conclusion is
>> that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
>> quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws of
>> creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
>if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that you
>are very happy.
How droll. Look, you are the one looking ignorant, pal.
aronk@_spam_galactec.com
to reply, remove the "_spam_" from address
a.s.v.s FAQ: http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.txt
Rob Pilkington
> > One last time:
> > 1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
> > understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
> > travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law
of
> > the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
> > pure and simple.
> how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
> observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind
the
> actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making this
> remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
> base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
> behavior?
In 99% of the bolts in the Star Wars trilogy, the object took damage
the same frame that the visible portion hits. In the other 1%, the
object takes SOME damage before the visible portion hits. The major
damage still occurs after the main bolt hits, however.
> > 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I
don't
> > care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
> I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect with
> thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
> physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it.
hence
> very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields.
in
> TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not.
the
> shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for
it
> self. This could acount for the explosion.
In TPM, we saw shields that can hold water out, but let other objects
in. It's selective shielding. I could say that Trek shields don't block
matter, because shuttle craft can go to and from docking bays. (Keep in
mind that the navigational deflectors are ALWAYS on.) But I won't,
because the shields there are just as selective as Star Wars' shields.
The bolts also explode when far out of the range shields, so there was
no contact with shields in these cases.
> > Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument
comes
> > from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
> > "turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common
sense.
> reread your post. you have thrown it out the window. #1 you are are
> ignoring official facts int the tech manuals. #2 you judge the speed
and
> nature of a weapon based on a side reaction that travels behind it.
But the damage occurs the same frame the visible portion of the bolt
hits 99% of the time! How can this be considered "behind"?
> There is plently of evidence to show that turbo lasers are not plasma
> weapons like you claim and are probably lasers. for one. read page 389
> of "heir to the empire". this is the paper back. alos read the rest of
> the book. you will see several ties when "laser fire" is refered to,
in
> refrence ot basic weaponry.
Lasers as a generalized term, anyone? Celes Knight did a good post on
this, comparing the common names we see around here... Idiot, moron,
stupid, and such words have different meanings, but we we goto name
calling, they are all used the same way. Several hundred years ago, we
wouldn't see this, as the words would be used properly. The same thing
could happen with lasers. You have no proof otherwise.
> To make
> > lasers do what they do requires the ability of Q.
> >
> > A laser cannot do any of those things. The ONLY logical conclusion
is
> > that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
> > quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws of
> > creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
> if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that
you
> are very happy.
Name calling? You have to resort to name calling?
From a previous post:
>I dont; know. the tech manuals say it is a side reaction. you have no
>prrof against this.
Yeah I do, the fact that this "side reaction" causes damage. :)
>> How come only ONCE in the four movies is there any evidence for a
>laser
>> being used?
>once?*lol*
Yeah, only once did the first part of damage occur fast enough after
firing. (One rock in the asteroid scenes.)
>>
>> Why is the invisible portion of the beam only slightly ahead of the
>> beam? If it was a laser, it would make its way through the beam, then
>> exit and go lightspeed before the bolt got very far.
>
>diffrent laws of physics? how do you knwo that the c being constant is
>a law there?
Invalid argument. Light is light in any galaxy. You can't answer this,
can you? The laser would exit the visible beam and hit lightspeed once
it exits, but the only way this wouldn't happen is if the very laws of
the universe were changed!
>> Well, turbolasers don't act like lasers, so your theory is kinda
>wrong.
>> :) Apparantly (I don't have any sources on it), it only says that it
>is
>> initiated by a laser, not that it IS a laser. (But if a laser
>initiates
>> the reaction, why waste the laser? Fire it out, too! This seems to be
>> done in that SD vaping rocks scene.)
>>
>
>and all the rest of the scenes. and apprently the laser does allthe
>dammage too.
Umm, in 99% of the scenes, the damage occurs the same frame that the
visible bolt hits. 1% is *NOT* "all the rest of the scenes."
>Plasma is gas like. it is ionized gas.
Plasma has been called the 4th state of matter. It's more than just
ionized gas. The ionization is a side reaction. ;) (From being heated
beyond a gas, into something else -- plasma.)
>>Sometimes cause damage before visibly hitting, sometimes when hitting.
>
>the visibible part is not the bolt.
But the visible part is what causes the damage 99% of the time when
viewed in slow motion.
veg...@jps.net
> >> 1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
> >> understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
> >> travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law
of
> >> the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
> >> pure and simple.
> >how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
> >observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind
the
> >actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making
this
> >remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
> >base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
> >behavior?
>
> 1) This is pure speculation. You will not find this "tracer" theory
> in any official source that I am aware of
I belive it is int he essential guid to blah blah. it has been quoted
mnay times on the ng.
> 2) Even if you cling to this laser notion, the destructive part of the
> beam *STILL* is slower than C. From the second you see the *visible*
> tracer effect (presumably, when the shot is fired) there is always
> apriciable lag between the object's destruction. Also, when the
> cannon's fire, they make a distinctive noise. There again is
> noticible lag between the noise and the target's destruction. So if
> you are right and the TLs are lasers, they STILL are moving slower
> than c.
nope. It says that the side reaction is a HARMLESS byproduct. the
destructive part is ntop the side reaction. also who says the theory of
relitivity has to work in every dimention?
> >> 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I
don't
> >> care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
> >I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect
with
> >thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
> >physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it.
hence
> >very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields.
in
> >TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not.
the
> >shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for
it
> >self. This could acount for the explosion.
>
> No it could not. TL's are seen to explode in mid air as well, in a
> flak type pattern. Your concecture that SW shields cannot stop
> physical matter is ludicrous.
I am saying that the shields that stop ray weapons. can stop turbo
lasers. but will let pysical objects through. watch tpm. the battle with
the jar jar bank's people and the federation.
Anakin's fighter's shield when in
> engaged, was strong enough to force the fighter off of the ground. In
> TPM the gungans theater shield withstood not only blaster bolts, but
> artilary shells. There are many precedents in SCI-FI for a shield that
> is permiable to slow moving small objects but resist intense energy
> and high KE projectiles.
duen is a prime example. but we are talking about ray shielding. which
the army did use.
The Hoth base shield had to be opened to
> allow the transports to escape Hoth. If they could not escape with
> the shield closed, this is evidence for a tremendous capability for SW
> shields to withstand intense KE attacks.
yes. btu it is either one or the other with sw shielding. either they
deflect ray weapns of ke weapons. and since tl are stoped only by ray
weapons. this shwos that tl have no mass. I will conceed it is nto a
laser alone. but a particle beam. essentially a laser with somthign
piggy backing it. but not plasma.
> >> 3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition,
has
> >> all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
> >> from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
> >
> >you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is
invisible.
> >the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can
you
> >say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
> >invisible?
>
> This is not an official fact. State your source.
Sw the esseential guid to behilchaes etc(sp?) it has been quoted many
times. please look it up.
\This is fanboy
> speculation, created to account for a few glitches in the FX. By and
> large, when we see a TL bolt, the damage and the bolt hit
> simulatneously. If the beam that we see is so harmless, than why in
> the asteroid field, did the asteroid start flowing a fraction of a
> second before the bolt hit, but then when it hit the asteroid was
> disentigrated? Sounds like the bolt packs quite a wallop.
nope. the guide says it is harmless. it is pure coincidence that it
reaches there at the same time.
>
> >> Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument
comes
> >> from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
> >> "turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common
sense.
> >reread your post. you have thrown it out the window. #1 you are are
> >ignoring official facts int the tech manuals. #2 you judge the speed
and
> >nature of a weapon based on a side reaction that travels behind it.
> >There is plently of evidence to show that turbo lasers are not plasma
> >weapons like you claim and are probably lasers. for one. read page
389
> >of "heir to the empire". this is the paper back. alos read the rest
of
> >the book. you will see several ties when "laser fire" is refered to,
in
> >refrence ot basic weaponry.
>
> You have NO official source to back you up here. All you have is the
> names. You want an official source that describes this tracer effect?
> then state the source, and page number.
>
i dontl ahev the page number. can soemone who has the essential guid to
get it for me?
> >> Heck, we have Lord Shaithas's photon torpedo discussion which
> >> demonstartes the idiocy of this whole line of thinking.
> >I have read many scientific papers. they refer to an anti matter
> >particle as a photon of anti matter.
>
> I have seen the papers you have posted. You seem not to see the
> implications of many of them. Such as posting a paper that a meterial
> has been found to slow down light. Wow. Most people have known that
> light propegates through different materials at different speeds for
> quite some time now. But since there are no exotic materials in
> space, your argument was shot to hell. Now you are clinging to this
> "tracer" speculation. I say again, cite your source.
> www.starwars.com states they are plasma weapons, and that is pretty
> official.
only on instance wher eit does. and it is wrong.
peace,
ali
> > To make
> >> lasers do what they do requires the ability of Q.
> >>
> >> A laser cannot do any of those things. The ONLY logical conclusion
is
> >> that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
> >> quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws of
> >> creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
> >if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that
you
> >are very happy.
>
> How droll. Look, you are the one looking ignorant, pal.
>
> aronk@_spam_galactec.com
> to reply, remove the "_spam_" from address
> a.s.v.s FAQ: http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.txt
>
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> One last time:
>> 1. Turbolaser bolts travel at sub-light speeds in a vacuum. Do
>> understand that THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE for a laser! No light beam will
>> travel at less than c in a vacuum, period! That is a frickin' law of
>> the universe!!! To not recoginze that is to not recognize physics,
>> pure and simple.
>how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
>observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind the
>actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making this
>remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
>base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
>behavior?
Ali, the light may be a side reaction, but the weapon cannot be a laser.
Take the weapon speed threads from a few months back - using them, the
visible part moves at only about 10km/s (okay, it;s probably wrong - but
it's just used as an example). If the main power of Turbolasers was trully
a laser, the asteroids in ESB would be vaporised before the visible part
even left the barrel of the gun. TLs CANNOT be lasers. They can be
primarily energy weapons, yes. The visible part can be a side-reaction of
the true power of the bolt, yes. But they CANNOT be lasers.
>> 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I don't
>> care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
>I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect with
>thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
>physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it. hence
>very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields. in
>TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not. the
>shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for it
>self. This could acount for the explosion.
The Bolts are explosive even when they do not contact the target - Flack
effects (for want of a better description). Lasers cannot exhibit flack
effects. No photonic weapon can. It takes material to have flack, and
lasers have no real material.
>> 3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition, has
>> all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
>> from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
>you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is invisible.
>the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can you
>say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
>invisible?
So the actual damage-creating bolts is invisible. It doesn't make it a
Laser. It could be any form incoherent EM energy not in the extremely
narrow visible band.
>> Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument comes
>> from? One remark by Han, "laser blast", and the name of the weapon
>> "turbolaser". This is enough for everyone to ignore all common sense.
>reread your post. you have thrown it out the window. #1 you are are
>ignoring official facts int the tech manuals. #2 you judge the speed and
>nature of a weapon based on a side reaction that travels behind it.
>There is plently of evidence to show that turbo lasers are not plasma
>weapons like you claim and are probably lasers. for one. read page 389
>of "heir to the empire". this is the paper back. alos read the rest of
>the book. you will see several ties when "laser fire" is refered to, in
>refrence ot basic weaponry.
Laser is a hold over term refering to any weapon who's primary method of
destruction is EM energy.
>> Heck, we have Lord Shaithas's photon torpedo discussion which
>> demonstartes the idiocy of this whole line of thinking.
>I have read many scientific papers. they refer to an anti matter
>particle as a photon of anti matter.
I have read hundreds of scientific papers, several from the european
journal of particel physics and I have never seen an anti-matter particle
referred to as a photon of anti-matter.
in any case a photon is merely a quantised packet of energy. Primarily
used to describe the theoretical particle that transmits the
electromagnetic force, but useable for any quantised energy source.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>1) This is pure speculation. You will not find this "tracer" theory
>in any official source that I am aware of
Essential Guide to weapons and technology, page four, "BLASTERS: ... the
bolt's visible light is a harmless byproduct of this reaction"
Page 80, "LASER CANNONS: ... similar to blasters only much more
powerfull..."
Page 88, "TURBOLASERS: ...supercharged laser cannons..."
So the visible portion is a by-product of creating a blaster bolt. A laser
cannon is similar to a blaster, only more powerfull, and a Turbolaser is
simialr to a Laser cannon only mroe powerfull again, so a turbolaser must
be similar to a blaster.
unfortunately, there is no mention of a Laser being used in a blaster.
The visible portion is a by-product of ALL three weapons, so the main
destructive power must be invisible, but NOT a laser.
>>you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is invisible.
>>the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can you
>>say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
>>invisible?
>
>This is not an official fact. State your source. This is fanboy
>speculation, created to account for a few glitches in the FX.
No, this is official fact. The interpretation that it means the
destructive force is a laser is wrong though (the destructive force,
however, IS mainly energy because *ray* shield protect against TLs, not
particle shields)
>You have NO official source to back you up here. All you have is the
>names. You want an official source that describes this tracer effect?
>then state the source, and page number.
Essential guide to Weapons and Tecchnology, pages 4, 80 and 88 combined.
though the conclusions drawn by Ali are incorrect.
so...@execpc.com
>In article <7k3moh$1...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> so...@execpc.com wrote:
>> You know what, I had a whole bunch of things I wanted to say, but I'm
>> not going to. This discussion is just getting really stupid. Basic
>> science and logic are being ignored, and I'm tired of it. We've
>> provided one example after another of why these weapons can't be
>> lasers, and all the evidence is being ignored. I really sympathize
>> with Jonathan on the whole "Q" thing right now, because I feel just as
>> frustrated over this.
>Example after example which has been refuted quite easily. If you are
>tired of this because you cannot proove it. then admit defeat and leave
>this thread.
You know the moment that I decided I was done? When you claimed that
the speed of light may not be c in Star Wars. This does not show your
easy ability to refute our points, it shows that you are actually
willing to ignore science for your own answers. What I'm tired of is
having to read the butchery of science that has filled this thread.
I'm tired of this hydra of a discussion, where one unscientific theory
is beheaded only to have another equally incorrect one take its place.
And I'm just plain tired of repeating myself.
<snip>
>
>if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that you
>are very happy.
>peace,
>ali
>
Why... yes, of course, it all makes sense now! I must be wrong and
you must be right! Hoho, how silly of me to use logic and science
when I could just mock my opponent. I tip my cap to thee, fine sir,
for your barb has shown the err of my ways! I will follow your
example forevermore. Science be damned!! Logic be damned!! It's
insults that determine who is right!!
Aron Kerkhof
<Lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aron Kerkhof wrote in message <37667d35...@news.iquest.net>...
>>1) This is pure speculation. You will not find this "tracer" theory
>>in any official source that I am aware of
>
>Essential Guide to weapons and technology, page four, "BLASTERS: ... the
>bolt's visible light is a harmless byproduct of this reaction"
>
>Page 80, "LASER CANNONS: ... similar to blasters only much more
>powerfull..."
>
>Page 88, "TURBOLASERS: ...supercharged laser cannons..."
I stand corrected. Thanks for the quotes. Dang, I need to check out
EGWT...
<snip>
>Essential guide to Weapons and Tecchnology, pages 4, 80 and 88 combined.
>
>though the conclusions drawn by Ali are incorrect.
Still, I maintain that the invisible portion of the bolt travels
slower than c, and explodes in flak type pattern. I do not know what
exotic type of energy that would make such a show, but I do know that
it is not a laser. I have said all along that it is near impossible
to tell clearly what a TL or lightsabre *is*, but we can clearly see
what they are *not*, and that is lasers. On that point, I am glad we
are in agreement.
veg...@jps.net
>
> >how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
> >observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind
the
> >actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making
this
> >remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you can
> >base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
> >behavior?
>
> Ali, the light may be a side reaction, but the weapon cannot be a
laser.
> Take the weapon speed threads from a few months back - using them, the
> visible part moves at only about 10km/s (okay, it;s probably wrong -
but
> it's just used as an example). If the main power of Turbolasers was
trully
> a laser, the asteroids in ESB would be vaporised before the visible
part
> even left the barrel of the gun. TLs CANNOT be lasers. They can be
> primarily energy weapons, yes. The visible part can be a side-reaction
of
> the true power of the bolt, yes. But they CANNOT be lasers.
ok I agree. they are not lasers. but what are they? they canot be
plasma.
>
> >> 2. The bolts are explosive on contact. Lasers don't explode. I
don't
> >> care what it "reacts" with, it will NOT explode.
>
> >I say this is a reaction of the shield. trek has a similar effect
with
> >thier shield where it becomes visible. since sw shields canot block
> >physical objects. the beam doe not have a physical ascpect to it.
hence
> >very little mass. otherwise they would go right through the shields.
in
> >TPM we see the robots go through the shields het the blasts did not.
the
> >shields coudl also take the kenetic/heat energy and force it away for
it
> >self. This could acount for the explosion.
>
> The Bolts are explosive even when they do not contact the target -
Flack
> effects (for want of a better description). Lasers cannot exhibit
flack
> effects. No photonic weapon can. It takes material to have flack, and
> lasers have no real material.
>
ok.
> >> 3. The bolts can be viewed from the side. A laser, by definition,
has
> >> all of the light going in the same direction. It can ONLY be seen
> >> from the side if it is disrupted by matter.
>
> >you seem to be ignoring official facts here. The tl bolt is
invisible.
> >the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can
you
> >say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
> >invisible?
>
> So the actual damage-creating bolts is invisible. It doesn't make it a
> Laser. It could be any form incoherent EM energy not in the extremely
> narrow visible band.
do you think it could be radiation particle beam?
>
> >> Indeed, you wonder what the whole reason for the laser argument
comes
>
> I have read hundreds of scientific papers, several from the european
> journal of particel physics and I have never seen an anti-matter
particle
> referred to as a photon of anti-matter.
>
> in any case a photon is merely a quantised packet of energy. Primarily
> used to describe the theoretical particle that transmits the
> electromagnetic force, but useable for any quantised energy source.
yep^_-
thnakd for the info my lors. I conceed to your points.
peace,
ali
veg...@jps.net
> > how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
> > observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels behind
> the
> > actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not be making
this
> > remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic, say that you
can
> > base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a side reaction's
> > behavior?
>
> In 99% of the bolts in the Star Wars trilogy, the object took damage
> the same frame that the visible portion hits. In the other 1%, the
> object takes SOME damage before the visible portion hits. The major
> damage still occurs after the main bolt hits, however.
>
visible and that the light we see is a side reaction.
very good point. but thher eis this odd thing. they use ray shieldign to
block plasma botls? why would you? plasm is ke based.
yes. i don't I no longer belive they are lasers anymore. I however do
nto believe they are palsma weapons.
> is
> > > that they are not lasers. Please bring in your pseudoscience and
> > > quasi-logic and tell us why these weapons are violating the laws
of
> > > creation, I look forward to the entertainment.
> > if it makes you happy. ignorace is bliss you know. and it sems that
> you
> > are very happy.
>
> Name calling? You have to resort to name calling?
not really. it was a cleverly put pun. as a joke. I write this at 7 am.
and was too sleepy. sorry^_- hey it was nto that bad .
>
> From a previous post:
> >I dont; know. the tech manuals say it is a side reaction. you have no
> >prrof against this.
>
> Yeah I do, the fact that this "side reaction" causes damage. :)
nope. read edem's post^_- (thnaks my lord for the help with the quotes
and for clearign up my confusion)
>
> >> How come only ONCE in the four movies is there any evidence for a
> >laser
> >> being used?
> >once?*lol*
>
> Yeah, only once did the first part of damage occur fast enough after
> firing. (One rock in the asteroid scenes.)
> >
> >diffrent laws of physics? how do you knwo that the c being constant
is
> >a law there?
>
> Invalid argument. Light is light in any galaxy. You can't answer this,
> can you? The laser would exit the visible beam and hit lightspeed once
> it exits, but the only way this wouldn't happen is if the very laws of
> the universe were changed!
>
true. I was 1/2 sleep when writing this my bad.
> >> Well, turbolasers don't act like lasers, so your theory is kinda
> >wrong.
> >> :) Apparantly (I don't have any sources on it), it only says that
it
> >is
> >> initiated by a laser, not that it IS a laser. (But if a laser
> >initiates
> >> the reaction, why waste the laser? Fire it out, too! This seems to
be
> >> done in that SD vaping rocks scene.)
> >>
> >
> >and all the rest of the scenes. and apprently the laser does allthe
> >dammage too.
>
> Umm, in 99% of the scenes, the damage occurs the same frame that the
> visible bolt hits. 1% is *NOT* "all the rest of the scenes."
true. but the official source still refutes this. the visible pqrt is
only a side reaction.
>
> >Plasma is gas like. it is ionized gas.
>
> Plasma has been called the 4th state of matter. It's more than just
> ionized gas. The ionization is a side reaction. ;) (From being heated
> beyond a gas, into something else -- plasma.)
I know that. unfortunatly the last time I said that I was flamed. they
kept on insisting that it is just hot gas and they bugged the heck out
of me. Plasma is a state. which has all the propertise of a gas and a
liquid.
>
> >
> >the visibible part is not the bolt.
>
> But the visible part is what causes the damage 99% of the time when
> viewed in slow motion.
not really^_- we all make mistakes so no bigie^_-
thank you for correcitn my mistakes.
peace,
ali
veg...@jps.net
> You know the moment that I decided I was done? When you claimed that
> the speed of light may not be c in Star Wars. This does not show your
> easy ability to refute our points, it shows that you are actually
> willing to ignore science for your own answers. What I'm tired of is
> having to read the butchery of science that has filled this thread.
> I'm tired of this hydra of a discussion, where one unscientific theory
> is beheaded only to have another equally incorrect one take its place.
> And I'm just plain tired of repeating myself.
>
if we where to adhear to scence. ok fine. let's adhere to science.
hyper space cannot exist. so there fore no hyper space. Ther eis a
theory for warp. so it is possible. there for e sw has no ftl. being
fair. transporters do not exist. neither do replicators. phasers do not
exist. the death star is an imposibility without hyper matter which does
not exist. Sw ships are limited to low sublight speeds. due to a lack of
a good power source. aka only fusion reactions. light sabers do not
exist. neither does the force.if we bring real science into any of these
worlds you can see wht kind of chaos we create. sw is nto a science
oriented show. it is a fantasy sotry told in a scifi setting. if you
took the characters and palced them into a mid evil element. the story
woudl still be as good. and not loose anything. st how ever is very
science oriented. Star trek needs it's scence ascpect to tell it's
story. sw does not. also just becuas i say one thing that is stupid. it
does not mean that you have to jump the gun. if I insulted you then I am
sorry. I had no intention of doing so.
> >
> Why... yes, of course, it all makes sense now! I must be wrong and
> you must be right! Hoho, how silly of me to use logic and science
> when I could just mock my opponent.
i'm sorry. i was 1/2 sleep and it sounded cute. btw people who live in
glass houses should nto throw stones.
I tip my cap to thee, fine sir,
> for your barb has shown the err of my ways! I will follow your
> example forevermore. Science be damned!! Logic be damned!! It's
> insults that determine who is right!!
excuse me?
you do no reasearch before hand yet expect to know everything?. you
have not read into the natures of tl, as stated in the essential guide.
you balatetly choose to ignore the facts wehn I presented them to you.
you are taking this debate way to personaly. you should learn how do
debate and keep it friendly. again if you where in nay way insulted by
what i said I am sorry. I do agree with you that tl are not laseres. how
ever I do not belive that they are plasma.
Graeme Dice
> >in any official source that I am aware of
>
> bolt's visible light is a harmless byproduct of this reaction"
>
> Page 80, "LASER CANNONS: ... similar to blasters only much more
> powerfull..."
>
> Page 88, "TURBOLASERS: ...supercharged laser cannons..."
>
> cannon is similar to a blaster, only more powerfull, and a Turbolaser is
> simialr to a Laser cannon only mroe powerfull again, so a turbolaser must
> be similar to a blaster.
>
> unfortunately, there is no mention of a Laser being used in a blaster.
> The visible portion is a by-product of ALL three weapons, so the main
> destructive power must be invisible, but NOT a laser.
>
> >>the bolt you see is a harmless side reaction. not the beam. how can you
> >>say that the tl bolt canbee seen form the side when it is in fact
> >>invisible?
> >
> >This is not an official fact. State your source. This is fanboy
> >speculation, created to account for a few glitches in the FX.
>
> destructive force is a laser is wrong though (the destructive force,
> however, IS mainly energy because *ray* shield protect against TLs, not
> particle shields)
>
> >names. You want an official source that describes this tracer effect?
> >then state the source, and page number.
>
>
> though the conclusions drawn by Ali are incorrect.
Not that I'm arguing with tihs, but I think the description of blasters
using Tibanna Gas to fire comes originally from Cracken's Field Guide
from the first edition of the RPG.
Graeme Dice
Trying to not be so confrontational anymore. :)
so...@execpc.com
Several points I want to make clear.
1. I have never attacked an opponent in an argument on this
newsgroup. Please reread my responses to your posts, and you will see
this.
2. I haven't made any claims about the nature of turbolasers. I
don't think they're lasers. But I have never stated that they are
plasma weapons. I have stated before "I don't know what it is, but I
know what it isn't."
3. I don't own any of the tech journals or manuals, nor are they
available at the public library. I bring in science, which I know. I
only speak on issues where I have direct experience. (for example, I
haven't participated in the Neutronium Hull debate, since I have no
experience with it).
4. I am not here to make claims about Star Wars being better. I'm
here first to enjoy myself, and second to search for the truth (for
example, I've sided with Elim and Jonathan in the Q debate going on
right now). The reason I am fed up with this thread is that the first
one no longer applies.
5. All of my debates have been "civilized", even the ones with
Timothy. The lowest I've gone is the response to your response. I'll
admit, you hit a soft spot there. But understand, this only became
personal when you made it personal.
6. I hold science to be very important. And every day I watch on
television or the internet the abuse of science and logic to achieve
the ends of whoever is misusing it. Science isn't about knowledge,
it's a way of approaching the universe. And I think that if we refuse
to use science properly, then this group has no point. It becomes a
popularity contest.
I'll be taking a sabbatical from this group for about a week. I hope
things will improve while I'm gone.
Chuck Sonnenburg
I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me.
Strowbridge
>
> >
> > >how can you judge the speed of an invisible bolt based on visula
> > >observation? the light you see is a side reation that travels
> > >behind the actual bolt. if you had read the manuals. you would not
> > >be making this remark. how can you, who claims to undrestand logic,
> > >say that you can base the speed and nature of a weapon based on a
> > >side reaction's behavior?
> >
> > laser. Take the weapon speed threads from a few months back - using
> > them, the visible part moves at only about 10km/s (okay, it;s
> > probably wrong - but it's just used as an example). If the main
> > power of Turbolasers was trully a laser, the asteroids in ESB would
> > be vaporised before the visible part even left the barrel of the
> > gun. TLs CANNOT be lasers. They can be primarily energy weapons,
> > yes. The visible part can be a side-reaction of the true power of
> > the bolt, yes. But they CANNOT be lasers.
>
> ok I agree. they are not lasers.
Yeah!
> but what are they? they canot be plasma.
Why not?
C.S.Strowbridge
Rob Pilkington
> very good point. but thher eis this odd thing. they use ray shieldign
to
> block plasma botls? why would you? plasm is ke based.
Well, assuming plasma bolts, it could be that ray shielding can block
matter, but not nearly as well as KE shielding. (Which is why proton
torpedoes can make it past -- They're heavier.) Weak argument, yes...
There is probably a better one.. but the simplest answer is that it
isn't plasma... Oh well..
> yes. i don't I no longer belive they are lasers anymore. I however do
> nto believe they are palsma weapons.
Well, proving that they weren't lasers was my goal.
> not really. it was a cleverly put pun. as a joke. I write this at 7
am.
> and was too sleepy. sorry^_- hey it was nto that bad .
No, it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that nice, either.
> > Yeah I do, the fact that this "side reaction" causes damage. :)
>
> nope. read edem's post^_- (thnaks my lord for the help with the quotes
> and for clearign up my confusion)
Yeah, I just read it before reading this one...
> > Umm, in 99% of the scenes, the damage occurs the same frame that the
> > visible bolt hits. 1% is *NOT* "all the rest of the scenes."
> true. but the official source still refutes this. the visible pqrt is
> only a side reaction.
Canon overrides official. :)
But, the goal here is to make, as much as possible, official and canon
material fit together. To do this, it could be that the "side reaction"
lags just behind the actual damage, close enough that the camera at 24
fps isn't fast enough to really see the difference in most cases.
Michael January
Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
veg...@jps.net
> > > the bolt, yes. But they CANNOT be lasers.
> >
> > ok I agree. they are not lasers.
>
> Yeah!
>
> > but what are they? they canot be plasma.
>
> Why not?
1:) page 389 of "heir to the empire" which distinguishes plasma with
normal laser fire(don't worry I don't mean our type of lasers).
2:) Ray shielding stops TL bolts where as Particle shieding does not.
meaning it does nto have a physical ascpect.
3:) they are invisible
peace,
ali
veg...@jps.net
> > block plasma botls? why would you? plasm is ke based.
>
> matter, but not nearly as well as KE shielding. (Which is why proton
> torpedoes can make it past -- They're heavier.) Weak argument, yes...
> There is probably a better one.. but the simplest answer is that it
> isn't plasma... Oh well..
^_- yep. now we have to find out what it is^_-
>
> > yes. i don't I no longer belive they are lasers anymore. I however
> > nto believe they are palsma weapons.
>
> Well, proving that they weren't lasers was my goal.
And you reached it^_-
> > not really. it was a cleverly put pun. as a joke. I write this at 7
> am.
> > and was too sleepy. sorry^_- hey it was nto that bad .
>
> No, it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that nice, either.
true. i did appologize to him.
> > > Yeah I do, the fact that this "side reaction" causes damage. :)
> >
> > nope. read edem's post^_- (thnaks my lord for the help with the
quotes
> > and for clearign up my confusion)
>
> Yeah, I just read it before reading this one...
^_- cool.
>
> > > Umm, in 99% of the scenes, the damage occurs the same frame that
the
> > > visible bolt hits. 1% is *NOT* "all the rest of the scenes."
> > true. but the official source still refutes this. the visible pqrt
is
> > only a side reaction.
>
> Canon overrides official. :)
>
> But, the goal here is to make, as much as possible, official and canon
> material fit together. To do this, it could be that the "side
reaction"
> lags just behind the actual damage, close enough that the camera at 24
> fps isn't fast enough to really see the difference in most cases.
It's a low moving particle beam. I assume the gas is the besphian(sp?)
gas they pass the paritcle beam through?
veg...@jps.net
> >> 1.) The star was described as 'super hot'
> >page 143. second to last paragraph. i quote:
> >"Nkllon's a super hot planet--way too close to it's sun for any
normal
> >ship to get to without getting part of it's hull peeked off.
> >Hence--<snip> the escort"
> >> 2.) The planet was very close, but this was not the entire reason
for
> >> concern.
> >yes it was. read the book again.
> >
> >> 3.) The damage done only took a few days to repair.
> >only?
> >page 150. enter of page. i quote
> >"Several days at the least, admiral.<snip> Depending on the dammage,
it
> >could take as long as three to four weeks"
> >you also have to consider they had several days to shield the ship to
> >resist this sort of dammage
> >
> >peace,
> >ali
> >
>
> Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
> within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
a massive magnet. it does not generate any heat energy, does not
generate any energy at all. Any ship with repulsolift tech can get this
close to a neutron star without any problems. since repulso lift tech
depends on magnetic fields. Franky I am suprprised it did affect him.
strong gravitational /magnetic fields usually develop an even horizon.
massive black holes are quite calm outside of this. a person with a
modern day space suit can easily space walk near it. and not feel a
thing.
I have included a definitin of a netron star for your reading pleasure.
peace,
ali
Neutron star
A neutron star has a mass of about 1.4 times the mass of the sun,
but is not much bigger than a small city, about 15 km in
radius.
A teaspoon of neutron star material would weigh about 10 million
tons. The gravitational field is intense; the escape
velocity is about 0.4 times the speed of light.
The collapsed star is so dense that electrons and protons do not
exist separately, but are fused to form neutrons. The
outer layers form a rigid crust surrounded by an atmosphere of a
highly energetic electrons and excited atoms.
The neutron star acts like an enormous magnet, with the magnetic
poles tipped at an angle to the axis of rotation. Like
the Earth, the pulsar is surrounded by a magnetosphere, a region in
which electrons and other particles are accelerated
by the magnetic field. However, the magnetic field of the neutron
star is much stronger than the Earth's and the electrons
move at velocities close to the speed of light, emitting
synchrotron radiation in a narrow beam along the direction of the
magnetic poles.
Since nuclear fusion is no longer possible, the neutron star has no
new source of internal energy generation. With time, its
rotation should slow and its magnetic field should decrease. Unless
the neutron is "spun-up", it will eventually become
"invisible".
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>though the conclusions drawn by Ali are incorrect.
>
>slower than c, and explodes in flak type pattern.
unless it is the visible part of the bolt that explodes in a Flack pattern
and the invisible part is generated by the visible part (but is the actual
intended destructive force). What I have been bandying around for a while
but not yet posted to the group is that the visible part is super-heated
gas undergoing fusion, so it is emmitting a lot of energy (enough to melt
asteroids). It is still very rough, but is a better explanation that the
fact that a laser actually travels along the path to the target.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> Ali, the light may be a side reaction, but the weapon cannot be a
>laser.
>> Take the weapon speed threads from a few months back - using them, the
>> visible part moves at only about 10km/s (okay, it;s probably wrong -
>but
>> it's just used as an example). If the main power of Turbolasers was
>trully
>> a laser, the asteroids in ESB would be vaporised before the visible
>part
>> even left the barrel of the gun. TLs CANNOT be lasers. They can be
>> primarily energy weapons, yes. The visible part can be a side-reaction
>of
>
>ok I agree. they are not lasers. but what are they? they canot be
>plasma.
Yes they can. Superheated plasma, undergoing fusion, emitting so much
energy that they actually start to melt asteroids from a few feet away.
The remainder of the energy(both thermal and macroscopic KE) is imparted
to the asteroid when the two collide, thus causing it to vaporise.
>> So the actual damage-creating bolts is invisible. It doesn't make it a
>> Laser. It could be any form incoherent EM energy not in the extremely
>> narrow visible band.
>
>do you think it could be radiation particle beam?
The visible beam is not going to be anything other than plasma. However,
the visible portion of the beam is going to be emitting so much energy
(both as a result of radiative cooling and fusion reactions) that it can
melt asteroids from some distance away. If we assume blasters operate on
similar principles this would explain Luke's hand starting to melt in ROTJ
also.
Lord Edam de Fromage
<3767c101...@ct-news.iafrica.com>...
>Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
>within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
mature neutron stars have little to no radiation, but intense gravity.
Superhot stars like Agathea have a shit load of radiation, but
comparitively little gravity. It was the radiation that damaged the ISDs
not the gravity.
Kynes
> 1000km form a neutron star is plenty enough. A neutron star is basically
> a massive magnet.
I apologize for my profanity:
What the FUCK are you talking about?
A neutron star has an average gravity of 1.4 times that of our *sun.* 1000km
from one is not "plenty enough."
> it does not generate any heat energy, does not
> generate any energy at all.
Nor is anyone saying it does; we're saying that it requires massive acceleration
to stay near one without getting pulled in.
> Any ship with repulsolift tech can get this
> close to a neutron star without any problems. since repulso lift tech
> depends on magnetic fields. Franky I am suprprised it did affect him.
> strong gravitational /magnetic fields usually develop an even horizon.
> massive black holes are quite calm outside of this. a person with a
> modern day space suit can easily space walk near it. and not feel a
> thing.
This paragraph is so comic that I'm recording the entire message to quote
from if you ever try to be credible again.
--
-Kynes
"If all else fails, simply base your entire argument on the NAMES of the weapons."
- The Trekkie's Creed
[NG FAQ: http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.txt]
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> 1000km form a neutron star is plenty enough. A neutron star is
basically
>> a massive magnet.
>
>I apologize for my profanity:
>
>What the FUCK are you talking about?
>
>A neutron star has an average gravity of 1.4 times that of our *sun.*
1000km
>from one is not "plenty enough."
>
>> it does not generate any heat energy, does not
>> generate any energy at all.
>
>Nor is anyone saying it does; we're saying that it requires massive
acceleration
>to stay near one without getting pulled in.
Umm, maybe that's what you normally say, but when someone starts off
saying "ISDs can't stand being some distance from a really hot star" and
someone else replies "Well the MF stood a neutron star so it must be
better" it is usually assumed the seconder person is trying to compare the
heat-withstanding abilities from one example with similar abilities from a
second example, nto soemthing completely different. There is no logical
reason whatsoever to compare withstanding gravity (neutron star) with
withstanding the searing heat of a star's chromosphere.
veg...@jps.net
said. was that the planet was too close to it's star. nto that the start
was super hot. In other words the star was emmitting alot mroe radiation
then normal
peace,
ali
Elim Garak
>
> Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
> within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
Oh, come on, you already said this a thousand times - and have been answered a thousand times! (Or somebody at least.) I already explained that neutron stars
are not that big of a deal if you approach them right - duh!
Crystal Psyborg
Elim, could you repost or send to me personally why that is? I'm not
doubting you, I am just curious since I don't know as much about neutron
stars, etc as I would like. Later...
"Better living through psionic enhancement and quantum manipulation..."
Kynes
> > > Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
> > > within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
> >
> > Oh, come on, you already said this a thousand times - and have been
> answered a thousand times! (Or somebody at least.) I already explained
> that neutron stars
> > are not that big of a deal if you approach them right - duh!
>
> Elim, could you repost or send to me personally why that is? I'm not
> doubting you, I am just curious since I don't know as much about neutron
> stars, etc as I would like. Later...
Don't believe a word he says. Here are the facts: a neutron star has an average
mass of about 1.4 times that of our sun. Thus, to stay within 1000km of one, you'd
have to be capable of some serious acceleration.
Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
newsgroup for two weeks.
veg...@jps.net
"Crystal Psyborg" <kalas_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well then, the MF is tougher than an ISD, since Han approached to
> > > within 1000km of a *neutron* star without any ill-effects.
> >
> > Oh, come on, you already said this a thousand times - and have been
> answered a thousand times! (Or somebody at least.) I already
explained
> that neutron stars
> > are not that big of a deal if you approach them right - duh!
>
> Elim, could you repost or send to me personally why that is? I'm not
> doubting you, I am just curious since I don't know as much about
neutron
> stars, etc as I would like. Later...
you can easily search for infomation on the internet. btw If you like I
have put up information on nutron star behaviors.
http://x39.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=490310020.1&
mhitnum=57&CONTEXT=929573167.1024983057
yo can read my post there.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message <9aT93.4504$UK2....@news.rdc1.md.home.com>...
> >Nor is anyone saying it does; we're saying that it requires massive
> acceleration
> >to stay near one without getting pulled in.
>
> Umm, maybe that's what you normally say, but when someone starts off
> saying "ISDs can't stand being some distance from a really hot star" and
> someone else replies "Well the MF stood a neutron star so it must be
> better" it is usually assumed the seconder person is trying to compare the
> heat-withstanding abilities from one example with similar abilities from a
> second example, nto soemthing completely different. There is no logical
> reason whatsoever to compare withstanding gravity (neutron star) with
> withstanding the searing heat of a star's chromosphere.
oops. How embarrassing. :)
Sorry!
veg...@jps.net
"Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
> <veg...@jps.net> wrote in message news:7k8mor$qe6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
basically
> > a massive magnet.
>
> I apologize for my profanity:
>
> What the FUCK are you talking about?
>
distant. besides. and pardon my french. what the fuck does this have to
do with how much heat an isd can withstand? I put up a quote with states
that an isd cannot get in close proximity of a star. becuas it woudl
overwelhm the shields and peel it's hull of. then Michael says. that the
falcon cna go near a neutron star? what does one have to do with the
other?
> A neutron star has an average gravity of 1.4 times that of our *sun.*
1000km
> from one is not "plenty enough."
>
> > it does not generate any heat energy, does not
> > generate any energy at all.
>
> Nor is anyone saying it does; we're saying that it requires massive
acceleration
> to stay near one without getting pulled in.
So? what does this have to do with the falcons shields? my argument. if
you had bothered to read the post. was thet the isd coudl nto get close
to a super hot planet, whcih was too close to it;s sun. The shields
coud not take it. and at best it woudl take 3-4 weeks to repair the
dammage. this has nothign to do with gravity.
>
> > Any ship with repulsolift tech can get this
> > close to a neutron star without any problems. since repulso lift
tech
> > depends on magnetic fields. Franky I am suprprised it did affect
him.
> > strong gravitational /magnetic fields usually develop an even
horizon.
> > massive black holes are quite calm outside of this. a person with a
> > modern day space suit can easily space walk near it. and not feel a
> > thing.
>
> This paragraph is so comic that I'm recording the entire message to
quote
> from if you ever try to be credible again.
they are calm. if you knwo what you are tlaking about. I was nto tlaking
about the gravity fields. I was talking about radiation storms etc. the
more masssive the black hole the clamer it is out side the event
horizon. fighting the gravity is another matter. but I was nto tlakng
about gravity was I? we wher discussing radioation. escecificly heat
radion.
Elim Garak
>
> Don't believe a word he says. Here are the facts: a neutron star has an average
> mass of about 1.4 times that of our sun. Thus, to stay within 1000km of one, you'd
> have to be capable of some serious acceleration.
>
> Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
> and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
> newsgroup for two weeks.
LOL. That happened exactly twice, both times for reasons outside my control. Are you saying that I was asked for sources only twice in the past year?
veg...@jps.net
Well at least you did not barge into a conversation. assume you where
talking about gravity when you are tlaing about thermal radiation. call
you an idiot. say that you will keep the post to show how much of an
idiot you are in the future. well at least he did appologize.
Kynes
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > Don't believe a word he says. Here are the facts: a neutron star has an average
> > mass of about 1.4 times that of our sun. Thus, to stay within 1000km of one, you'd
> > have to be capable of some serious acceleration.
> >
> > Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
> > and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
> > newsgroup for two weeks.
>
> LOL. That happened exactly twice, both times for reasons outside my control. Are
> you saying that I was asked for sources only twice in the past year?
People ask you for sources *all the time* and I have never ONCE seen you produce
any sort of quote.
--
-Kynes
"This Timothy Jones guy is a real nutcase, eh?"
-- Mike Wong
[NG FAQ: http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.txt]
Strowbridge
>
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > Don't believe a word he says. Here are the facts: a neutron star has an average
> > mass of about 1.4 times that of our sun. Thus, to stay within 1000km of one, you'd
> > have to be capable of some serious acceleration.
> >
> > Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
> > and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
> > newsgroup for two weeks.
>
> LOL. That happened exactly twice, both times for reasons outside my control. Are you
> saying that I was asked for sources only twice in the past year?
Say you disappear every time you are cornered was just wishful think on
Kynes part. However, you almost NEVER give proof when asked. And when
the proof does come it's riddled with errors ranging from basic math and
physics, to nomenclature.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
>
> > > Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
> > > and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
> > > newsgroup for two weeks.
> >
> > LOL. That happened exactly twice, both times for reasons outside my control. Are
> > you saying that I was asked for sources only twice in the past year?
>
> any sort of quote.
Then you are blind.
Elim Garak
>
> > > Anton has a reputation for riddling his "proofs" with "I think," "I seem to recall,"
> > > and "probably." When asked for sources on any of this, he disappears from the
> > > newsgroup for two weeks.
> >
> > LOL. That happened exactly twice, both times for reasons outside my control. Are you
> > saying that I was asked for sources only twice in the past year?
>
> Kynes part. However, you almost NEVER give proof when asked. And when
> the proof does come it's riddled with errors ranging from basic math and
> physics, to nomenclature.
LOL! Riight. You wish.
Strowbridge
Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You STILL
think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You couldn't tell the
difference between Induction and Deduction (Nomenclature) you used the
term evaporation when you meant boiling and every time I pointed this
out you scream "I never said boiling!"
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
>
> > > Say you disappear every time you are cornered was just wishful think on
> > > Kynes part. However, you almost NEVER give proof when asked. And when
> > > the proof does come it's riddled with errors ranging from basic math and
> > > physics, to nomenclature.
> >
> > LOL! Riight. You wish.
>
> Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You STILL
> think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You couldn't tell the
> difference between Induction and Deduction (Nomenclature) you used the
> term evaporation when you meant boiling and every time I pointed this
> out you scream "I never said boiling!"
You have a very long memory for inconsequential things. You are lucky that I forgot so much crap you put out. Some of it is not that old, however - you claim
that most of ST happened on a holodeck, despite all logic or even common sense. Talk about insane!
Strowbridge
I never said that, you said it was impossible and I was trying to show
you it was possible.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > > Say you disappear every time you are cornered was just wishful think on
> > > > Kynes part. However, you almost NEVER give proof when asked. And when
> > > > the proof does come it's riddled with errors ranging from basic math and
> > > > physics, to nomenclature.
> > >
> > > LOL! Riight. You wish.
> >
> > Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You STILL
> > think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You couldn't tell the
> > difference between Induction and Deduction (Nomenclature) you used the
> > term evaporation when you meant boiling and every time I pointed this
> > out you scream "I never said boiling!"
>
> You have a very long memory for inconsequential things. You are lucky that I forgot
> so much crap you put out. Some of it is not that old, however - you claim
> about insane!
One more thing, you never even tried to deny the accusations, so are you
going to finally admit you were wrong on these points?
C.S.Strowbridge
sea...@my-deja.com
> Ah, TPM, the movie that finally proves that SW weapons are not
lasers, or at
> least not what we consider lasers.
>
> First of all, there is the reference to Anakin calling a lightsaber a
"laser
> sword." There is no way a lightsaber beam can be a laser. Lasers
don't
> turn around after 3 feet can come back. Lasers aren't solid, so they
don't
> bounce off each other. Lasers can't be seen the way lightsabers are.
> Lasers don't give off shadows the way lightsabers do. You don't see
a light
> beam slowly expanding the way you see a lightsaber beam expand as it's
> turned on. Anakin is relatively knowledgeable about SW tech, and
should
> probably know the basics of how SW weapons work, yet he still calls
it a
> "laser sword." I think this suggests that any SW beam can be
referred to as
> a laser--so "laser" no longer has the meaning it has for us--the way
"gun"
> might today refer to a lot of non-missile shooting weapons from a
laser to a
> ray gun to the weapons on battleships to handheld firearms.
>
> Now let's take a look at the droid battle at the end. On page 267 of
TPM
> novilization, it says that the tank canons are lasers. Yet in the
movie, we
> see those "lasers" explode off the Gungan's large shields. Lasers
wouldn't
> do that. Also, lasers don't give the large amount of recoil we see
from
> those tanks. What we are seeing is more like what particle or
projectile
> weapons would do. Again, this suggests that laser is a generic term
for any
> beam type weapon.
>
> As the Nubian transport escapes in the beginning, they lose shields
and are
> rocked by fire. We constantly hear explosions, and from the outside,
> sometimes see the enemy "laser" beams explode for no reason. This
again
> suggest that they are particle weapons, not lasers. Lasers don't
explode
> for no reason, but with a particle weapon, (say a beam made up of
> anti-matter, matter, and a small radio receiver) it makes sense to
blow up
> the "beam" when it is near you opponent, (in order to cause him _some_
> damage). Also, lasers can't see seen in a vacuum the way those
weapons
> could be. All in all, there is no way those weapons could be lasers
by out
> definition.
>
> On one side note, the technology required to get light, and therefor
lasers,
> to do all of those things that we see SW beams do is so far ahead of
us and
> ST that it would truly be magic. The Federation fighting a race like
that
> would be like a tribe of cavemen fighting NATO. There is simply no
way the
> could ever cause any real damage. I don't think you ST supporters
_really_
> want to go on calling SW weapons lasers.
>
> --
> Celes Knight
Agreed on all counts save your last paragraph, wherein you made
a grand statement without even attempting to back it up. Tell
me: how is a particle beam "so far beyond ST" that it seems magical?
For that matter, is the creation of a weapon--starts with "ph"!--
that violates physics not similarly magical?
Will
Elim Garak
>
> > > Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You STILL
> > > think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You couldn't tell the
> > > difference between Induction and Deduction (Nomenclature) you used the
> > > term evaporation when you meant boiling and every time I pointed this
> > > out you scream "I never said boiling!"
> >
> > You have a very long memory for inconsequential things. You are lucky that I forgot
> > so much crap you put out. Some of it is not that old, however - you claim
> > that most of ST happened on a holodeck,
>
> you it was possible.
About as possible as all rats on Earth learning to fly in the next 10 minutes, and taking off for Alpha Century.
Elim Garak
>
> > > Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You STILL
> > > think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You couldn't tell the
> > > difference between Induction and Deduction (Nomenclature) you used the
> > > term evaporation when you meant boiling and every time I pointed this
> > > out you scream "I never said boiling!"
> >
> > You have a very long memory for inconsequential things. You are lucky that I forgot
> > so much crap you put out. Some of it is not that old, however - you claim
> > about insane!
>
> One more thing, you never even tried to deny the accusations, so are you
> going to finally admit you were wrong on these points?
No. I didn't deny the accusations because I completely forgot what the arguments were, and don't have the desire or the time to dig it all up from dejanews.
However, if I denied them before, I must have had a good reason - therefore I continue to deny them.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > > Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You
> > > > STILL think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You
> > > > couldn't tell the difference between Induction and Deduction
> > > > (Nomenclature) you used the term evaporation when you meant
> > > > boiling and every time I pointed this out you scream "I never
> > > > said boiling!"
> > >
> > > You have a very long memory for inconsequential things. You are
> > > lucky that I forgot so much crap you put out. Some of it is not
> > > that old, however - you claim that most of ST happened on a
> > > holodeck,
> >
> > show you it was possible.
>
> About as possible as all rats on Earth learning to fly in the next 10
> minutes, and taking off for Alpha Century.
I'd put it at a 10% chance (The Holodeck, not the Great Rat Exodus)
BTW, I guess these means you FINALLY admit you were wrong on the above
points.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > > Anton, we argued for two weeks about heat vs. temperature. You
> > > > STILL think they are the same (Basic Physics/Chemistry.) You
> > > > couldn't tell the difference between Induction and Deduction
> > > > (Nomenclature) you used the term evaporation when you meant
> > > > boiling and every time I pointed this out you scream "I never
> > > > said boiling!"
> >
>
> No. I didn't deny the accusations because I completely forgot what
> the arguments were, and don't have the desire or the time to dig it
> all up from dejanews. However, if I denied them before, I must have
> had a good reason - therefore I continue to deny them.
Stupid and Stubborn is not a good combination
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
>
> > > One more thing, you never even tried to deny the accusations, so are
> > > you going to finally admit you were wrong on these points?
> >
> > No. I didn't deny the accusations because I completely forgot what
> > the arguments were, and don't have the desire or the time to dig it
> > all up from dejanews. However, if I denied them before, I must have
> > had a good reason - therefore I continue to deny them.
>
> Stupid and Stubborn is not a good combination
You are right - so why don't you drop one of those traits?
Elim Garak
>
> > > I never said that, you said it was impossible and I was trying to
> > > show you it was possible.
> >
> > About as possible as all rats on Earth learning to fly in the next 10
> > minutes, and taking off for Alpha Century.
>
> I'd put it at a 10% chance (The Holodeck, not the Great Rat Exodus)
You think that there is a 1 in 10 chance that the next episode that the writers will create will say that most of ST happened on a holodeck? Hmm, I guess that
means that within then next 10 episodes there should be one that says this. If there isn't, then I guess we will know that you are wrong.
> BTW, I guess these means you FINALLY admit you were wrong on the above
> points.
Nope. I already talked to you about this many times.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > > I never said that, you said it was impossible and I was trying
> > > > to show you it was possible.
> > >
> > > About as possible as all rats on Earth learning to fly in the next
> > > 10 minutes, and taking off for Alpha Century.
> >
> > I'd put it at a 10% chance (The Holodeck, not the Great Rat Exodus)
>
> You think that there is a 1 in 10 chance that the next episode that
> the writers will create will say that most of ST happened on a
> holodeck?
No, I think that there is a 10% chance of it happening before Star Trek
ends.
C.S.Strowbridge