The Lightspeed Turbolaser Argument (aka LOL)

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I think the actually idea is that turbolasers/ blasters use some sort of range finder to synchronize the impacts of the tracer and the laser. This means that the person firing must keep their gun perfectly still until the tracer makes contact with something (there is still the question of whether the actual weapon fires even when the tracer misses). I don't see this having any benefit over just using a light speed weapon to begin with, minus the tracer. Oh well, no matter how many holes we punch through this blaster/ TL is lightspeed crap the proponents of it will simply start shouting it's in the ICS:AotC it's canon!

[GStone]

Nice! Though I don't think Kane is paying much attention anymore. Frankly, it would nice if a few Warsies hanged around to make discussion.

Eventually, we'll do things that'll piss them off and a couple will come over. We just have to give it time.

I liked the diagrams, though the tracer itself might do something, even if it's just knocking him back a little.

[Kazeite]

I can always make a third one, with brave Jedi swinging two times, firstly to deflect invisible component, and secondly to deflect visible tracer. :D

But, again, this wouldn't be what we see in the movies, so, lightspeed invisible component theory would remain false. :)

I don't see this having any benefit over just using a light speed weapon to begin with, minus the tracer.

The very fact that there is a visible STL component should be a dead giveaway that there's no lightspeed component whatsoever :)

[Jedi Master Spock]

Well, the obvious answer to that is that we never see Jedi deflect turbolaser bolts, only blasters.

I don't think anyone will seriously argue that blasters are lightspeed, as related as the weapons are. Can you quote anyone having done so?

[GStone]

But, we never saw all of what Palp could potentially do. He and Dooku did things no one else did, like the lightning. Maybe it's a dark side trick of being able to deflect 200 gigaton blasts with a single lightsabre. It's dark side magic. ;-)

[Kazeite]

Well, besides EU agreeing that blasters are just scaled down turbolasers, "and largely the same despite the differences in weapon types and sizes" (SW Databank), nope, there's no reason to assume that blasters have anything in common with turbolasers :D

(It's kinda funny how Warsies can claim that superlaser is turbolaser scaled up when it suits them, but deny that blaster is turbolaser scaled down when it doesn't.)

[SailorSaturn13]

LOL

[SailorSaturn13]

You fire a tracer beam and then when the beam hits or is about to hit you fire the invisible portion thus using the tracer as targeting assistance. Your opening post said nothing to disprove this possibility.
Once again I'm not claiming that this is a particularly elegant solution but it does work.
I see that in your opening post you called lightspeed trubolasers a "belief". I'm sorry but the fact the turbolasers are ligthtspeed weapon comes from an official source and it is therefore a FACT not a belief. If you don't like it or don't want to include it in the debates then that's fine by me just don't go around pretending that people who claim that turbolaser are lightspeed don't have any official sources to back them up and are lying.

As Voland said "Allow me to congratulate you wholeheartedly!"
See what the theory you created does. It has no advantages for SW:
As the laser is not fired until the slow tracer hits enemy ships still have much time to outmeneuver the shot. Lightspeed shot doesn't help if you announce the exact shot line way before.
On the other hand , as the visible bolts are now tracers and the main shot is invisible there is nothing in the canon to disprove the point that weapons called "lasers" are ... lasers. Which leads us back to Okona...

Should I call this "official Warsies position" now?

[GStone]

Since there are gonna be some additions and changes to the ICS's official text, there may be changes to the 'official warsie view'.

[Mike DiCenso]

I don't think it'll much change the "offical position". I can see the rationalization as going along the lines of "The original AoTC ICS and RoTS texts still exists, so therefore they are still vaild canon evidence", or some such nonsense.
-Mike

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

Won't most people do with the ICS what they do with the films, the newest version is canon. So if they change the numbers then the Saxtonites position will be entirely self contradictory and BS, if however the numbers are removed from the ICS collection then the it's still out there argument has a tiny amount of validity.

[l33telboi]

Then allow me to play the devil's advocate. The bolts in the diagram are not TLs.

However, the best course of action to disprove this would be to check the movies, see if there's any case where there's something blocking the line of sight from the ship to whatever the tracer hits, yet no damage done to the thing blocking the line of sight. Said thing could be an asteroid, a fighter, a ship... basically anything.

EDIT: And because i was too lazy to read, i see my point was already brought up. A pox on you people. A pox.

[Mr. Oragahn]

He says the beam travels at light speed. Since he's been cautious, or not, by only talking about an energy beam, we may be able to fit something in.
That said, it would logically be light. All EM radiations travel at c, and all of them can be physically described as light. What type of EM radiation is another problem, but not really relevant here.

The problem lies in the claim of a weapon which can fire at c.

The amusing note is how your typical wars wanker says that a superlaser is a turbolaser on steroids, and yet, even a superlaser, which range wouldn't need to change, which would not need to be dialed down as far as the DSI was only concerned about blasting worlds, a beam which its target couldn't dodge, and above all, which would not need to be seen at all ("bolt" 200% useless), still travels, in the end, at only a fraction of c (requires several frames to cover roughly 6 planetary diameters).

Yes, his explanation is most stupid. I'd like them to look at ROTJ and provide an explanation as to why some weapons, on Jabba's barge, were destroyed even before Luke's lightsabre cut through them.

... hey, isn't there already a lightspeed turbolaser argument thread or something here?

1. He doesn't say laser.
2. His description doesn't fit to a laser
3. Not each light beam is a phaser
4. Not only electromagnetic radiation propagtes with c
5. His explanation, that there is an energy beam that propagates with c doesn't mean that it is a laser
6. His explanation, that there is an energy beam that propagates with c is obviously fallacious [1]
7. If you want to debatte if there are light speed turbo lasers, please use the thread, Nonamer has already linked to.
8. If you want to debate if Saxton means laser while speaking from energy beam, please use either the aforementioned thread or create a new thread.

Let's reread the extract first.

Energy Weapons

Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt"
is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed... The
light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a
beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the
energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

Now, the reply:

1. Exact.
2. His description is actually pretty vague. He doesn't mention how he makes the beam spin like a solenoid. If it was a technology similar to tractor beams, that is, something based on artificial gravitaty, the control of photons to a certain degree could be possible.
3. Phasers are not relevant.
4. EM waves travel at c. Nothing else that we know of travels at such speeds. It only leaves light, physics wise (not visible light only).
5. And what could travel at c exactly, then? The amount of energy you'd waste accelerating particles to exactly c would be... don't even think about it. It's at the scale of the universe, if not beyond. It would be the most stupid, impossible and wasteful system ever designed, if it could even be designed. Unless you find an alternative to photons, we're left with that. Only that.
Considering that he speaks of a beam of energy, he clearly seems to be excluding matter, or at least, any element, particle, whatsoever, which would have a mass.
Only particles with zero mass, as photons, match his description. And only those particles would travel at c, at least within reasonable physics boundaries, no exotic unproved technobabble, and within mere plausibility.
6. I didn't claim it was correct. I'm merely looking at his claim. Any honest and sufficiently objective person knows it's just fanwank, more bollocks.

I'll also quote myself about another problem this ICS description meets, regarding the Death Star's superlaser:

The amusing note is how your typical SW wanker says that a superlaser is a turbolaser on steroids, and yet, even a superlaser, which range wouldn't need to change, which would not need to be dialed down as far as the DSI was only concerned about blasting worlds, a beam which its target couldn't dodge, and above all, which would not need to be seen at all ("bolt" 200% useless), still travels, in the end, at only a fraction of c (requires several frames to cover roughly 6 planetary diameters).

Yes, his explanation is most stupid. I'd like them to look at ROTJ and provide an explanation as to why some weapons, on Jabba's barge, were destroyed even before Luke's lightsabre cut through them.

[Who is like God arbour]

1. -
2. I have never denied, that his description doesn't bring us forward, is not better than no description and is with nothing reconcilable we have seen in the movies
   • - but he doesn't describe a laser - and I don't see that he is thinking at a laser while giving that describtion
3. My mistake - I have meant laser: Not each light beam is a laser
4. There are three kinds of particles:
   1. A tardyon or bradyon is a particle that travels slower than light.
   2. A luxon is a particle that always travels at the speed of light.
   3. A tachyon is a particle that travels at superluminal velocity.
   The tachyon is only hypothetical.
   But there are known two particles that are luxons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).
   The also hypothetical graviton would also be a luxon.
   Neutrinos were, until recently, thought to be luxons.
   There could be other particals that are to classify as luxon, we don't know today.
5. Gluons, gravitons and other particels we don't know today like nadions (?).
   • If Star Trek can use exotic particles, I see no reason to demand that Star Wars isn't allowed to make up such particles. That by that Star Wars don't get more scientifical than Star Trek is self-evident. And to provide a scientifical useless explanation, a degree in Astrophysics isn't necessary. Each scriptwriter could have provided an explanation that is just as scientifical.
   But even if he has meant photons, that doesn't mean that he has meant a laser.
   By the way, according to the special relativity, it is impossible to accelerate a tardyon or bradyon to lightspeed, regardless how much power is useable.
6. We agree that the turbolasers aren't lightspeed weapons.
7. -
8. -

[Mr. Oragahn]

Okay, we agree that his explanation only leaves room for particles which travel at c.

His description largely implies that mass has little to no room in that, since he's so focused on talking about energy beams. Which is a funny thing to do, really. It sounds more like a layman term.

Using neutrinos, particles with negligible but still present mass, for a weapon would be utterly stupid, due to low interactivity.

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.
Isolating gluons from hadrons, and use them either as a crushing weapon or mass disrupting weapon is more like an exotic system, and more complicated than using lasers.

In the end, whatever it uses is not our problem.

So until they manage to explain it properly, it is safe to consider it incorrect.