That's a good argument.Mr. Oragahn wrote:It could be gluons to some extent, but parsimony would tell us that for any self respected EUphile, if a weapon says it's a turbolaser, chances are that we're dealing with photons.
Now I ask me, why I haven't seen it before. Somehow I feel stupid now.
In that context, we wouldn't only deal with a photon beam but even with a laser beam.
Because, you are right, it wouldn't make much sense to call the turbolaser so if they aren't based on lasers but other luxons - unless they call it traditionall a laser because they do with whatever luxons they are using the same what is done with photons for a laser: they are brought in a coherent state.
Sometimes I hate it to be the advocatus diaboli.
But why should someone, who has a degree in Astrophysics, use the term energy beam while never even mention photons or lasers, although the term laser would be more correct and is already common knowledge if he is really thinking of a laser?
I think it makes more sense to assume, that he knows what a laser is and hasn't thought at a laser while writting these lines, but has imagined some kind of other luxons of which that energy beams may consist.
But I don't think that we will agree on that point. You seem to be convinced that he has thought at a laser.
Without other arguments, I'm still thinking that he is educated enough to know that a laser wouldn't behave the way as shown in the movies and that he hasn't really thought at a laser while writing these lines but some other kind of energy beam that propagates with c, therefore is consisting of other luxons than photons, maybe a still unknown kind of luxon.
Your version would make him either uneducated or a fraud, who knows it better but is deliberately lying or misleading to deceive more uneducated people.
