Jump to content


Photo

Group of fictional armies vs modern day NAVY Seals


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 31 December 2010 - 05:40 PM

Actually, I'm pretty sure my Star Wars: Visual Dictionary says exactly the same thing. It really doesn't matter though, becuase blasters are funky, and don't have any characteristics shared by other weapons in sci-fi anyways. Whenever I read tech discussions on how a blaster weapon works I always assume that's what's going on inside the blaster, but none of that laser or gas actually comes out as the bolt.

For instance, they have recoil, sothe bolts must have mass, yet they never arc in atmosphere, they go faster the further out they must travel, etc etc. They are wierd.

Have you seen a blaster bolt that just goes on and on and on?

#42 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 31 December 2010 - 05:56 PM

Have you seen a blaster bolt that just goes on and on and on?


Battle of Geonosis, shots are fired out into the sky and they don't have an arc. Also:

The guerrillas have pretty good luck with them, even though they take a lot of practice—slugs are ballistic, y'know? You have to plot the trajectory in your head. Shee, gimme a blaster anytime." ―Phloremirlla Tenk

#43 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 31 December 2010 - 06:22 PM

Battle of Geonosis, shots are fired out into the sky and they don't have an arc. Also:

The guerrillas have pretty good luck with them, even though they take a lot of practice—slugs are ballistic, y'know? You have to plot the trajectory in your head. Shee, gimme a blaster anytime." ―Phloremirlla Tenk

So?, it could dissipate in like 30 miles, beyond combat range.

#44 TheJ0ke

TheJ0ke

    Nuked the fridge

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere... I think

Posted 31 December 2010 - 07:12 PM

You're a freaking retard. Plasma is an energized gas containing some charged particles in the mix, its an electrically conductive gas. Thats all. The atoms don't even free up until its heated, heated more and the electrons fly away and it becomes all charged particles, but its still a gas. All particle beams are purely charged subatomic particles, if you were to shoot a particle beam you would shoot pure electrons at someone, not superheated charged particles like plasma. Ignorant asses these days.

1. Plasma can be considered superheated gas, but it's actually a states of matter. So saying it's nothing more or less than "energized gas" is really like saying that air is a mix of superheated solids. What you're saying could provide a fairly accurate description, but it's not actually saying what plasma is.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "Plasma is an energized gas containing some charged particles in the mix", but it's basically just a incredibly high energy state of matter where most of the atoms are highly ionized due to all the energy. So there would probably be plenty of electrons floating around.
3. If you got a gun that fired alpha particles (helium atoms without electrons) you'd still call that a particle beam weapon. So I don't see your point in making such distinctions.
4. Cool it.

True, but it could just be poor word choice by the author. It all comes down to interpretation and semantics, IMO. But I accept your point.

Welp, that's also true, but that's why I only put "probably" rather than a definite statement. At any rate, well argued. It's so nice when people don't devolve into name calling and handle these things in a civilized manner.

#45 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 31 December 2010 - 07:41 PM

So?, it could dissipate in like 30 miles, beyond combat range.


He's poiting out the differences in blasters and slugthrowers, he points out how slugthrowers are ballistic. Therefore, blasters aren't. If he mean "only in combat ranges" he'd say that.

#46 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 December 2010 - 10:18 PM

I'm curious about CQC as well. The Stormies carry vibroblades, the Guard also carry monomolecular weapons, and the rest seem to carry normal knives and such.

#47 Skirmisher

Skirmisher

    Field Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elysium City, Eridanus II
  • Interests:The Halo Universe, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, Deconstructing the Hype of Star Wars, Still Like Star Wars though...

Posted 01 January 2011 - 09:36 PM

I'm curious about CQC as well. The Stormies carry vibroblades, the Guard also carry monomolecular weapons, and the rest seem to carry normal knives and such.

AFAIK, Stormtroopers do not carry Vibro weapons. They have some sort of powered attachment to one or both of their gauntlets that allows them to hit a little harder, but Stormtroopers =/= Republic Commandos.

#48 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 02 January 2011 - 04:11 PM

1. Plasma can be considered superheated gas, but it's actually a states of matter. So saying it's nothing more or less than "energized gas" is really like saying that air is a mix of superheated solids. What you're saying could provide a fairly accurate description, but it's not actually saying what plasma is.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "Plasma is an energized gas containing some charged particles in the mix", but it's basically just a incredibly high energy state of matter where most of the atoms are highly ionized due to all the energy. So there would probably be plenty of electrons floating around.
3. If you got a gun that fired alpha particles (helium atoms without electrons) you'd still call that a particle beam weapon. So I don't see your point in making such distinctions.
4. Cool it.


Welp, that's also true, but that's why I only put "probably" rather than a definite statement. At any rate, well argued. It's so nice when people don't devolve into name calling and handle these things in a civilized manner.

For Plasma to actually have high levels of free electrons it would require more heat than a blaster could muster. I never said plasma is a superheated gas, it dosen't even have to be hot at all, its just that when it comes out of a blaster, it is superheated. Plasma weapons don't fire alpha particles, because then it would be a particle beam weapon. If a plasma weapon did fire alpha particles than yes, it would be a particle beam weapon, but there's no proof that it does so, as most plasma is not made up of alpha particles. Also, I'm pretty sure alpha particles are HYDROGEN (the one with 1 valence electron) atoms without electrons, not helium ones, you could make them out of helium but if would be alot harder than Hydrogen.

#49 TheJ0ke

TheJ0ke

    Nuked the fridge

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere... I think

Posted 02 January 2011 - 09:18 PM

For Plasma to actually have high levels of free electrons it would require more heat than a blaster could muster. I never said plasma is a superheated gas, it dosen't even have to be hot at all, its just that when it comes out of a blaster, it is superheated. Plasma weapons don't fire alpha particles, because then it would be a particle beam weapon. If a plasma weapon did fire alpha particles than yes, it would be a particle beam weapon, but there's no proof that it does so, as most plasma is not made up of alpha particles. Also, I'm pretty sure alpha particles are HYDROGEN (the one with 1 valence electron) atoms without electrons, not helium ones, you could make them out of helium but if would be alot harder than Hydrogen.

You clearly missed all of my points entirely.

1. You clearly said in the post I quoted earlier that "Plasma is an energized gas containing some charged particles in the mix, its an electrically conductive gas. Thats all." Well, after you called Skirm a "freaking retard" that is.
2. While, plasma technically does not have to be hot, the fact is that the amount of energy it takes to turn any known substance into plasma is so great that it becomes extremely hot by our standards. Oh and when I said "superheated gas", I was referring to the above quoted statement in which you clearly define plasma as being "an energized gas... an electrically conductive gas. Thats all." I don't know about you, but to me, my statement sounds like a pretty accurate summation of what you said there. Besides which, you did say this later on in that statement: "superheated charged particles like plasma".
3. I never said that plasma weapons fire alpha particles. Nor did I ever say that plasma was made up of alpha particles. I was using the hypothetical to show how (forgive me for this, but there really is no better adjective I can think of) anal you are being by making distinctions between plasma weapons and particle weapons like "All particle beams are purely charged subatomic particles, if you were to shoot a particle beam you would shoot pure electrons at someone, not superheated charged particles like plasma."
4. The whole purpose of having my hypothetical use alpha particles was to show that your definition of a particle beam not only poor, it is incorrect. After all, I hardly think that alpha particles are "pure electrons". Yet, bafflingly enough, you seem to have agreed with me in saying that an alpha particle firing weapon would be a particle beam weapon.
5. We must have radically different methods of determining what element an atom is. I mean I don't know about you, but I determine what element it is by tallying up all the protons and seeing what element it matches up with. So since alpha particles are by definition nothing more or less than two protons and two neutrons bound together, I determine them to be helium nuclei. I don't know what you think, but that's my result. Regardless, if I am incorrect, I think it rather odd that scientists would use 42He2+ as the nuclear notation...

#50 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 03 January 2011 - 07:48 PM

You clearly missed all of my points entirely.

1. You clearly said in the post I quoted earlier that "Plasma is an energized gas containing some charged particles in the mix, its an electrically conductive gas. Thats all." Well, after you called Skirm a "freaking retard" that is.
2. While, plasma technically does not have to be hot, the fact is that the amount of energy it takes to turn any known substance into plasma is so great that it becomes extremely hot by our standards. Oh and when I said "superheated gas", I was referring to the above quoted statement in which you clearly define plasma as being "an energized gas... an electrically conductive gas. Thats all." I don't know about you, but to me, my statement sounds like a pretty accurate summation of what you said there. Besides which, you did say this later on in that statement: "superheated charged particles like plasma".
3. I never said that plasma weapons fire alpha particles. Nor did I ever say that plasma was made up of alpha particles. I was using the hypothetical to show how (forgive me for this, but there really is no better adjective I can think of) anal you are being by making distinctions between plasma weapons and particle weapons like "All particle beams are purely charged subatomic particles, if you were to shoot a particle beam you would shoot pure electrons at someone, not superheated charged particles like plasma."
4. The whole purpose of having my hypothetical use alpha particles was to show that your definition of a particle beam not only poor, it is incorrect. After all, I hardly think that alpha particles are "pure electrons". Yet, bafflingly enough, you seem to have agreed with me in saying that an alpha particle firing weapon would be a particle beam weapon.
5. We must have radically different methods of determining what element an atom is. I mean I don't know about you, but I determine what element it is by tallying up all the protons and seeing what element it matches up with. So since alpha particles are by definition nothing more or less than two protons and two neutrons bound together, I determine them to be helium nuclei. I don't know what you think, but that's my result. Regardless, if I am incorrect, I think it rather odd that scientists would use 42He2+ as the nuclear notation...

I was using electrons as an example, I know it could fire any subatomic particle, but electrons are the most common on account of they have almost no mass in relation to protons and neutrons so I chose that one to use. Usually I don't say things with the intention of someone breaking down every word for no good reason. In my book, that qualifies as being "anal".

I was confused to the meaning of apha particle for a moment, I thought you meant free protons. Well no, shooting an alpha particle would not be considered a particle beam, it has to be purely subatomic particles for it to be considered such. A particle beam firing an alpha particle would be extremly inefficient as nothing more than a sheet of metal would block it and the alpha particle would be too heavy. "Subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and protons can be accelerated to high velocities and energies, usually expressed in terms of center-of-mass energy, by machines that impart energy to the particles in small stages, ultimately achieving very high energy particle beams, measured in terms of billions and even trillions of electron volts."

#51 TheJ0ke

TheJ0ke

    Nuked the fridge

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere... I think

Posted 03 January 2011 - 09:51 PM

I was using electrons as an example, I know it could fire any subatomic particle, but electrons are the most common on account of they have almost no mass in relation to protons and neutrons so I chose that one to use. Usually I don't say things with the intention of someone breaking down every word for no good reason. In my book, that qualifies as being "anal".

I was confused to the meaning of apha particle for a moment, I thought you meant free protons. Well no, shooting an alpha particle would not be considered a particle beam, it has to be purely subatomic particles for it to be considered such. A particle beam firing an alpha particle would be extremly inefficient as nothing more than a sheet of metal would block it and the alpha particle would be too heavy. "Subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and protons can be accelerated to high velocities and energies, usually expressed in terms of center-of-mass energy, by machines that impart energy to the particles in small stages, ultimately achieving very high energy particle beams, measured in terms of billions and even trillions of electron volts."

Analyzing every single phrase you type in a debate could be considered "anal", yes. However, seeing as how this is a debate conducted over a text based forum, by the time you post something that is meant to provide a strong argument, you should probably have run a quick check and revision before posting so that muddled phrases like "if you were to shoot a particle beam you would shoot pure electrons at someone" are fixed.

*Groans*
Why are you so hung up on attacking the idea that alpha particles should be used in particle weapons. I am aware that alpha particles would make poor ammunition for a particle gun, I never said otherwise. I just used them as an example because they were the first thing that came to mind that fit the bill.
Our definitions of particle weapons seem to differ. The definition that I use is "a weapon that uses an ultra-high-energy beam of atoms or electrons to damage a physical target". Yours seems to leave out the bit about atoms.

At any rate, I believe that Tesla's "Teleforce" weapon was designed so that it would shoot a beam of mercury/tungsten atoms (correct me if I'm wrong). Yet, that is still considered to be a particle beam weapon. So either I'm wrong about what it shot, or you're definition is off.

#52 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 04 January 2011 - 07:09 PM

I just gave you the definition of a particle beam in my reply. The definition says it shoots sub-atomic particles, not atoms, subatomic particles like electrons, positrons, and such.

#53 TheJ0ke

TheJ0ke

    Nuked the fridge

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere... I think

Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:08 PM

I just gave you the definition of a particle beam in my reply. The definition says it shoots sub-atomic particles, not atoms, subatomic particles like electrons, positrons, and such.

See the last sentence of my previous post. It's pretty self-explanatory. Either I'm mistaken in thinking that Tesla's weapon was designed to shoot whole atoms or your definition is too narrow. Even if it is me that's actually at fault, I'd think it odd that Tesla would design a weapons using subatomic particles since he never really cared all that much about atomic theory.

Either way, I don't know why we're bickering about this stuff. Whether or not something has is properly named has little bearing on how each group would fair in these fights.

#54 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 05 January 2011 - 07:14 PM

See the last sentence of my previous post. It's pretty self-explanatory. Either I'm mistaken in thinking that Tesla's weapon was designed to shoot whole atoms or your definition is too narrow. Even if it is me that's actually at fault, I'd think it odd that Tesla would design a weapons using subatomic particles since he never really cared all that much about atomic theory.

Either way, I don't know why we're bickering about this stuff. Whether or not something has is properly named has little bearing on how each group would fair in these fights.

Or maybe Tesla isn't a particle beam weapon in the first place.

You're the one who brought it up, I imagine you were mad at me from what I called Skirmisher. I don't know why, he started it, don't blame me if I retaliate.

#55 TheJ0ke

TheJ0ke

    Nuked the fridge

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere... I think

Posted 05 January 2011 - 07:39 PM

Or maybe Tesla isn't a particle beam weapon in the first place.

You're the one who brought it up, I imagine you were mad at me from what I called Skirmisher. I don't know why, he started it, don't blame me if I retaliate.

Then why is it classified as one in nearly every source I can find? (The only ones that don't say so just don't classify it.)

Brought what up, the exact nature and nomaclature of blaster bolts? Because that wasn't me. I was just responding to you and for the record, I wasn't mad at you. If I was mad, I would have said something different than "cool it". I just dislike it when people devolve into name calling and cursing in the middle of a debate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users