The Lightspeed Turbolaser Argument (aka LOL)
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
- Location: Outer Space
The Lightspeed Turbolaser Argument (aka LOL)
Over at SB.com there's a little discussion where the ICSers* are stating that TLs move at lightspeed. This is quite possibly one of the stupidest arguments you can possibly make. Although we are suppose to stay cordial here, the fact remains that there is simply no way a lightspeed TL can be even remotely supportable, and any competent review of the ICS argument will quickly run into the issue of how lightspeed TLs are impossible, so you can't help but to bash this argument a bit.
First of all, every single and last movie demonstration shows that they are not lightspeed. Every time we see a TL shot, we see the explosion within a frame or two of the shot and never before. In order to overcome this enormous barrier, the ICSers have come up with a truely incomprehensible argument: the "visible" portion is actually a tracer, and not any ordinary tracer, but a magical one where no damage is done whatsoever until the tracer actually reaches the target. Ignoring the absolute physical impossibility of this claim in general (lightspeed objects don't experience time, hence no tracers whatsoever), we also must believe that the lightspeed TL must be a guided weapon since numerous scenes show moving targets which imply that a lightspeed weapon should hit elsewhere if hit at all. Even more absurd, not only would the TL shot be guided, it must also magically predict this guided path and the tracer then moves in a straight line towards this target, which by the way means a time traveling portion of TLs (hence the "LOL" in the title).
Now that was ridiculous. Quite possibly then most cockamamie idea ever created by the ICSers. So I ask for two things: One, can anyone find any evidence whatsoever in the movies that can make the lightspeed argument even remotely possible? By that I don't mean an explosion that's off by a frame or two and any other obvious VFX errors, but something that genuinely supports lightspeed movement. Two, since the first is probably impossible anyways, we can nothing but try make more evidence to the contrary. Or laugh I guess. Whichever is easier for you.
* I've dubbed the phrase "ICSers" in place of Warsies since most Warsies likely would not support such a belief.
First of all, every single and last movie demonstration shows that they are not lightspeed. Every time we see a TL shot, we see the explosion within a frame or two of the shot and never before. In order to overcome this enormous barrier, the ICSers have come up with a truely incomprehensible argument: the "visible" portion is actually a tracer, and not any ordinary tracer, but a magical one where no damage is done whatsoever until the tracer actually reaches the target. Ignoring the absolute physical impossibility of this claim in general (lightspeed objects don't experience time, hence no tracers whatsoever), we also must believe that the lightspeed TL must be a guided weapon since numerous scenes show moving targets which imply that a lightspeed weapon should hit elsewhere if hit at all. Even more absurd, not only would the TL shot be guided, it must also magically predict this guided path and the tracer then moves in a straight line towards this target, which by the way means a time traveling portion of TLs (hence the "LOL" in the title).
Now that was ridiculous. Quite possibly then most cockamamie idea ever created by the ICSers. So I ask for two things: One, can anyone find any evidence whatsoever in the movies that can make the lightspeed argument even remotely possible? By that I don't mean an explosion that's off by a frame or two and any other obvious VFX errors, but something that genuinely supports lightspeed movement. Two, since the first is probably impossible anyways, we can nothing but try make more evidence to the contrary. Or laugh I guess. Whichever is easier for you.
* I've dubbed the phrase "ICSers" in place of Warsies since most Warsies likely would not support such a belief.
Last edited by Nonamer on Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:26 am, edited 4 times in total.
- AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
- Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
"Quite possibly then most cockamamy idea ever created by the ICSers." That is giving them more credit than they deserve. They didn't invent it, they just read it and try to back it up, since everyone knows a secondary source document that is also part of the EU is the highest form of canon. :) I also thing that there are four other ICS claims that ICSers try to defend that give this one a run for its money in terms of BS. Firepower figures, hypermatter annihilation reactors, Venator weapons range, and quadrillions of CIS battle droids.
I wonder, when was the last time an ICSer actually watched a Star Wars film?
I wonder, when was the last time an ICSer actually watched a Star Wars film?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
I'm a bit puzzled over how this ended up in RoE.
Now, should I...
Now, should I...
- Leave this put, since it's a discussion of the validity of the ICS.
- Move it to Trek/Wars because it's talking about turbolaser speeds.
Or: - Move it to "Other Websites" since it's talking about what's happening on SB.com.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Hm. Guess I'll leave it put and put in my two cents about what this means with respect to evidentiary standards.
As I mention briefly on my website here, this is not a problem entirely limited to Star Wars, although Star Wars is certainly by far the worst (and most consistently bad) offender in this regard.
The basic problem is that slow weapons look nice onscreen. We can follow them, and there's that moment of suspense while you wonder if it's going to hit or not. The lack of speed makes some sense when ranges are necessarily very close, but the incredible advantage afforded to faster weapons makes what we see unpalatable. Turbolaser bolts don't move any faster than modern ballistic shells - which limits them to the sort of range that modern ballistic shells can be effectively used in.
This is, IMO, one of the cases that demonstrates that taking special effects from movies as if they were perfectly accurate documentation is a bad idea. It simply doesn't work when the special effects aren't constructed with painstaking attention to reality. Apply some common sense here. Claiming lightspeed turbolasers fit with the visual effects of the movies based on what are fairly clearly FX gaffes is at best inconsistent. The conclusion is palatable in crossovers, but that particular argument lacks credibility.
As I mention briefly on my website here, this is not a problem entirely limited to Star Wars, although Star Wars is certainly by far the worst (and most consistently bad) offender in this regard.
The basic problem is that slow weapons look nice onscreen. We can follow them, and there's that moment of suspense while you wonder if it's going to hit or not. The lack of speed makes some sense when ranges are necessarily very close, but the incredible advantage afforded to faster weapons makes what we see unpalatable. Turbolaser bolts don't move any faster than modern ballistic shells - which limits them to the sort of range that modern ballistic shells can be effectively used in.
This is, IMO, one of the cases that demonstrates that taking special effects from movies as if they were perfectly accurate documentation is a bad idea. It simply doesn't work when the special effects aren't constructed with painstaking attention to reality. Apply some common sense here. Claiming lightspeed turbolasers fit with the visual effects of the movies based on what are fairly clearly FX gaffes is at best inconsistent. The conclusion is palatable in crossovers, but that particular argument lacks credibility.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Well, it may sound indecisive of me, but it really depends on how you're looking at Star Wars.
If you want to take it literally, you're stuck with pretty slow weapons.
If you want to take it with a grain of salt, or as a cinematic/literary depiction with some inadequate depictions of physical events, then you can reasonably say "Hey, these are supposed to be light speed weapons."
If you want to take it literally, you're stuck with pretty slow weapons.
If you want to take it with a grain of salt, or as a cinematic/literary depiction with some inadequate depictions of physical events, then you can reasonably say "Hey, these are supposed to be light speed weapons."
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
- Location: Outer Space
Even with your highly interpretive method, it's still impossible. Force users have to be able to block them with their lightsabers, somethings multiple shots in rapid order. If they were lightspeed they'd never do it.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Well, it may sound indecisive of me, but it really depends on how you're looking at Star Wars.
If you want to take it literally, you're stuck with pretty slow weapons.
If you want to take it with a grain of salt, or as a cinematic/literary depiction with some inadequate depictions of physical events, then you can reasonably say "Hey, these are supposed to be light speed weapons."
- AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
- Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
I thought that's where the force comes in, precognition. If Jedi can see things before they happen then it doesn't prove sub-light speed blasters. Also, are blasters and turbolasers basically the same thing? They look similar and both fire bolts that travel at a similar speed relative to the size of the weapon that fired them. The only decent argument for light speed turbolasers is their apparent lack of mass, since they don't fall towards gravity wells.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
- Location: Outer Space
Precog is a weak argument since Jedi can stop mutliple shots in a short period of time, or at least dodge them. If they were truly lightspeed, this would be rather difficult.
Anyways, the whole idea that everything we saw is only symbolic, not what is actually meant to happen, is very untenable given the problems of lightspeed TLs and the prequel trilogy. We actually saw continuous beams in the prequel trilogy, and they clearly have enough FX technology to simulate lightspeed TLs. In order to believe lightspeed TLs, you'd practically have to dismiss all G-canon altogether in favor of your own interpretation.
The other argument I hear so often from ICSers is that sublight TL theories have technical issues of their own as well as lightspeed TL theories. Of course in their minds this somehow "proves" lightspeed TL theories are true, which is completely absurd given how much larger the problems of lightspeed TLs are compared to sublight ones. Exactly how a lightspeed weapon can have a tracer is a physical impossible event, not to mention how the weapon can wait until the tracer actually hits before doing any damage, are to two biggest problems.
At least with a sublight weapon you can actually conceive of some method of the energy bolt having a way to levitate that is physically possible. A way to for the bolt to stick together is another physically possible mechanism. Perhaps impractical, but not outside the realms of valid physics. Hell, you can always merely play dumb and point out we never saw a blaster shot in the atmosphere long enough to definitively point out it didn't experience gravity, since the bolts never last more than a second anyways.
One last argument I hear is that somewhere in the original trilogy we saw TLs that followed the movement of the ship that fired it (I believe it was a Tie fighter). Since we never see this anywhere in the prequel trilogy, this is likely a VFX error.
Anyways, the whole idea that everything we saw is only symbolic, not what is actually meant to happen, is very untenable given the problems of lightspeed TLs and the prequel trilogy. We actually saw continuous beams in the prequel trilogy, and they clearly have enough FX technology to simulate lightspeed TLs. In order to believe lightspeed TLs, you'd practically have to dismiss all G-canon altogether in favor of your own interpretation.
The other argument I hear so often from ICSers is that sublight TL theories have technical issues of their own as well as lightspeed TL theories. Of course in their minds this somehow "proves" lightspeed TL theories are true, which is completely absurd given how much larger the problems of lightspeed TLs are compared to sublight ones. Exactly how a lightspeed weapon can have a tracer is a physical impossible event, not to mention how the weapon can wait until the tracer actually hits before doing any damage, are to two biggest problems.
At least with a sublight weapon you can actually conceive of some method of the energy bolt having a way to levitate that is physically possible. A way to for the bolt to stick together is another physically possible mechanism. Perhaps impractical, but not outside the realms of valid physics. Hell, you can always merely play dumb and point out we never saw a blaster shot in the atmosphere long enough to definitively point out it didn't experience gravity, since the bolts never last more than a second anyways.
One last argument I hear is that somewhere in the original trilogy we saw TLs that followed the movement of the ship that fired it (I believe it was a Tie fighter). Since we never see this anywhere in the prequel trilogy, this is likely a VFX error.
Last edited by Nonamer on Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5836
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Take care how you use the term. While Saxtonites support lightspeed turbolasers, not necessarily all of those who support lightspeed turbolasers are Saxtonites.
Most, perhaps.
Most, perhaps.
-
- Security Officer
- Posts: 5836
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Nonamer wrote:Even with your highly interpretive method, it's still impossible. Force users have to be able to block them with their lightsabers, somethings multiple shots in rapid order. If they were lightspeed they'd never do it.Jedi Master Spock wrote:Well, it may sound indecisive of me, but it really depends on how you're looking at Star Wars.
If you want to take it literally, you're stuck with pretty slow weapons.
If you want to take it with a grain of salt, or as a cinematic/literary depiction with some inadequate depictions of physical events, then you can reasonably say "Hey, these are supposed to be light speed weapons."
I think that the fact that Jedi, who while being quick for humans, are not able to move fast enough to intercept a light-speed energy bolt says a lot about the nature of blaster bolts, if not TLs.
The TESB asteroid destruction scene even shows that TLs are clearly sublight, even with the FX gaffee of one asteroid starting to "vaporize" just a frame or two ahead of the TL bolt. Even if we assumed an invisible component, that component does not traverse the couple of kilometers distance significantly faster than the visible green bolt portion. This particular FX blooper, it should be noted, is never quite seen before or since throughout the two Trilogies.
-Mike