Development Cycle Archive
Thread: AT-ST changes on Test Center
ssublime42 wrote:
Well, the weapons in Star Wars arent exactly lasers, they are more along the lines of some kind ofimaginary energy pulse. First of all you didnt state "weapons grade lasers cant be seen" you just said lasers. A lot of people would be confusedby what you said. Keep it clarified.
After my few initial posts, I wasn't speaking to the general public, I was speaking to those people who A.) Understood what I was saying, and B.) Have enough intelligence to respond.
However, I was talking about the lasers or projectiles from weapons onboard an AT-ST, and I assumed we were talking about lasers more powerful than barcode scanners. I suppose I should stop assuming I'm speaking to people capable of understanding this; but I'm not going to. I dont want to feel I have to explain every minor detail as I post.
Also, any form of radiation emitted in the form of a concentrated beam is by all aspects considered a LASER, because light is a form of radiation. But then again, we don't always consider Gamma radiation as light. Though it is. The only form of radiation the layperson considers to be "light" is that radiation within the visible wavelengths. i.e. visible light.
Agreed
Lets get back to the thread's discussion
I still feel the only true weakness an AT-ST should have is blast damage.
Photon:
1 : a unit of intensity of light at the retina equal to the illumination received per square millimeter of a pupillary area from a surface having a brightness of one candle per square meter (relativity)
2 : a quantum of electromagnetic radiation (quantum mechanics)
Thus, anything traveling fast enough (e=mc2) to become energy would surly emit photons. Photons are in everything as quantum particles (like neutrinos and other subatomic particles), but you cannot "see" them because they aren't travelling and striking your retina in a wavelength visible to you. A tachion beam wouldn't be visible, because it travels in the 4th dimension. Our eyes cannot see this dimension, we only realize it because of our intellect.
As smatter fallsinto a black hole, for example, it sheds energy and finally escapes as X-Rays. X-Ray radiation is light, of course. Thus, everything of that matter is shed until the subatomic particles, photons, are all that is left, and they are at such low energy levels they are in the wavelength of X-Rays.
Matter = Energy = Radiation that falls into the electromagnetic spectrum = Light = Photons = bla bla whatever photons are made of (quarks, etc). Thus, all matter is fundamentally "light," if you want to think of it that way. I think that's right.
Yes, you would have to fire that rod of steel at extremely high velocities, but it would still become energy concentrated into a beam- E.G. a LASER.
ssublime42 wrote:
Its been a looong time since ive read up on my quantum physics. I do remember that particles have different levels (i remember the number 8 in there) and when they changethey typicallyemit a photon, which has a level of what 2 or -2 or something to that sort. So ya if the rod was traveling fast, say the speed of light where it should break down right? Hmm now ive confused myself. Oh would energy be classified as a wave or a field or both like light?
Whats your frame of referance?
It truely depends on so many factors. But as far as modern science would say, its both a particle and a wave. But that's an entirely different argument. "Energy" is a relative term by itself. So only the person asking such a question (you) would have any hope of answering it with any accuracy. That is, unless you added more specifics to the question. Energy that istravelling and energy that is not are 2 totally different forms of energy. That's to say that steel cooled to 0K isn't energy, but it is, but its not, but it is.......... etc etc etc.
Everybody take a deep breath.
While I respect both sides of the current argument, I feel we mayhave strayed off topic a bit. Lets all keep future comments to the very seriousissue at hand: ATST changes on the Test Center. This may be the only way we can still solicit a mature response from the development team.
MalkavSez69 wrote:
Pssst... Fire shouldn't hurt a light war machine.
Grenades, yes
Rockets, yes
mines, oh heck ya.
poison, bleed, fire: nope.
Tell me, what makes it a war machine? The munitions, right? If they are chemical, such as a bullet, they need a propellent. THATs whats susceptible to flames. Lasers? Well, those need electronics. Light metals an polymers. Both of which... Susceptible to heat and flames.
Come ON! You guys can't be that oblivious to basic science!
Here are some BASIC experiments for you to try:
Please, go get a new bullet and hold a lighter to it. Or, go buy one of those little laser pens, make sure its encased in metal, and heat it for about 20 seconds (the average length of time a flamethrower is held on an AT-ST). See what happens in both experiments. (With the former, be sure to look closely at the lead tip of the bullet; you'll be suprised with the results!)
You guys are reaching so far your arms are falling off. You've been mind-raped with your undying desire to have an AT-ST. Your brains are gone!
Jaxia wrote:
Bla bla bla
If you don't know how to put your statement in a more intelligable format, don't write one at all. I'm not gonna bother reading it, but I assume its incorrect.