The Lightspeed Turbolaser Argument (aka LOL)

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:18 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: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.

True, but there is significant enough overlap to consider both groups largely one and same, with perhaps a few notable exceptions.
-Mike

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:45 am

A large percent of them existed before Saxton wrote the ICS. We could call them the Mike-Wongers, or maybe the ASVS trolls :p.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:49 am

Well, that's partially true, but most of those people, particularly Wong, Young and Poe base a lot of their arguments and "evidence" on Saxton's work, or are inspired by it to some degree. By that I mean the SW Technical Commentaries. It's all just branches of the same club.
-Mike

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Do you people have proof that visible part is not a tracer? Yes visible tracer hiting at about the same time as the damage is done is somewhat contrieved but do you have a better explanation for what a variable speed/green blob might be? It's not as if this is some fan theory it is an official source.
Secondly I would like to ask you "LOL the turbolasers are not lighspeed" wether you think photon torpedoes and phasers are light speed? Because frame examination shows that phasers themself move no faster than 10km/s.
The phaser beam from starships shooting at Borg cube in FC took 3 frames on average to reach the cube. Photon torpedoes are also shown not to impact a target at more than a few km/s the same velocity they were fired.

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:12 pm

No one I believe argues that phasers or photon torpedoes are lightspeed, especially the latter. That would be a strawman.

And please read my OP. That was pretty much written against the sames points you just made.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:47 pm

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.

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:00 pm

Please re-read the OP again. I distinctively said "non-ICS."

Your arguments are also very much in line with the absurdity of existing claims that tries to make it work. Tracers in real life are used for automatic weapons where aiming was done by hand, and that bullets take a long time to reach their targets so you needed to see the bullet trajectory. You would never use them if you had a computerized targeting system that use lightspeed weapons. It also begs the question why tracers are sublight themselves but the weapon is light speed. All in all, you could never believe such a claim given rational thought.

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign · Post by **AnonymousRedShirtEnsign** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:16 pm

People who claim light speed turbolasers don't use rational thought. They start with their conclusions and then hunt for evidence, like people who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Like the Bible believers, they also tend to disregard any evidence that counters or disproves their notion of the way things are. This is due to human nature, as we don't like to change our beliefs, and thus tend not to.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:21 pm

Nonamer wrote:Please re-read the OP again. I distinctively said "non-ICS."

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You attack the lightspeed turbolaser that comes from the ICS but don't want to include it into the debate? Are you serious?

Nonamer wrote:Your arguments are also very much in line with the absurdity of existing claims that tries to make it work. Tracers in real life are used for automatic weapons where aiming was done by hand, and that bullets take a long time to reach their targets so you needed to see the bullet trajectory. You would never use them if you had a computerized targeting system that use lightspeed weapons. It also begs the question why tracers are sublight themselves but the weapon is light speed. All in all, you could never believe such a claim given rational thought.

Of course you forget to mention that turbolaser bolts have various speed and always take 3-5 frames to get between ships regardless of the distance. You still haven't disproven the lightspeed turbolasers that comes from ICS. If you don't want to use the ICS then obviously there is no support for lightspeed turbolasers.
But you seem to be attacking the people who use ICS to claim that turbolasers are light speed weapon and barring the ICS from use in discussion at the same time.

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:People who claim light speed turbolasers don't use rational thought. They start with their conclusions and then hunt for evidence, like people who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Like the Bible believers, they also tend to disregard any evidence that counters or disproves their notion of the way things are. This is due to human nature, as we don't like to change our beliefs, and thus tend not to.

The fact comes from ICS. Can you disprove it?

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:28 pm

Yes, we are totally and completely ignoring the ICS here. Obviously, since the ICS is mostly unique in its position and blatantly states that TLs are lightspeed, it would be meaningless from a discussion standpoint to use it as a source.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:34 pm

Nonamer wrote:Yes, we are totally and completely ignoring the ICS here. Obviously, since the ICS is mostly unique in its position and blatantly states that TLs are lightspeed, it would be meaningless from a discussion standpoint to use it as a source.

So basically you can't disprove any of it and the thread was nothing more than venting about how much you don't like ICS?

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:51 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Nonamer wrote:Yes, we are totally and completely ignoring the ICS here. Obviously, since the ICS is mostly unique in its position and blatantly states that TLs are lightspeed, it would be meaningless from a discussion standpoint to use it as a source.
So basically you can't disprove any of it and the thread was nothing more than venting about how much you don't like ICS?

Yet again you make the same absurd arguement that nearly every lightspeed TL believer have made. If you ignore the ICS, then the case is open and shut against it, as there is no evidence for it and a host of problems against it. That is all. If you can't accept that we are disregarding the ICS, then please recuse yourself from the debate as this is not needed.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:55 pm

Nonamer wrote:Yet again you make the same absurd arguement that nearly every lightspeed TL believer have made. If you ignore the ICS, then the case is open and shut against it, as there is no evidence for it and a host of problems against it. That is all. If you can't accept that we are disregarding the ICS, then please recuse yourself from the debate as this is not needed.

I can accept that you decide do disregard the ICS but if you disagree with ICS you are in fact claiming that it is wrong. Therefore it is up to you to prove that lightspeed turbolasers are wrong.

Nonamer · Post by **Nonamer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:01 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Nonamer wrote:Yet again you make the same absurd arguement that nearly every lightspeed TL believer have made. If you ignore the ICS, then the case is open and shut against it, as there is no evidence for it and a host of problems against it. That is all. If you can't accept that we are disregarding the ICS, then please recuse yourself from the debate as this is not needed.
I can accept that you decide do disregard the ICS but if you disagree with ICS you are in fact claiming that it is wrong. Therefore it is up to you to prove that lightspeed turbolasers are wrong.

Says who? There is no canon policy on this board. You are free to believe what you will regarding canon. I do not need to justify my position.

Post by **Mike DiCenso** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:01 pm

Case in point: Kane Starkiller.

"Prove that lightspeed TLs don't exist!" he cries!

Ah, that's is one of the oldest fallacies in the book. It's up to the Saxtonites/ICSers to prove that light speed TLs exist, which it doesn't as anyone looking at the asteroid destruction scene in TESB could tell you, even with the FX gaffee of an asteroid starting to be destroyed a few frames in advance of the TL bolt that is supposed to be destroying it.
-Mike