Reasons why the Lightsaber Needs to be Made Respectable

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Bah! I was looking foward to a good debate.

 

I find it strange that you detected any impatience or animosity in my words, let me assure you there was none, and I am taking this very lightheartedly.

 

And yes, I call this mostly deductive reasoning more logical then a typical emotionally-charged conversation between a bitter couple.

[Wilhuf]

But they do argue over such trivia!

 

So, to go totally off topic:

 

I am drawing my argument about blocking rails from US Navy history, from the torpedos used on US Navy submarines back in WWII.

 

At the start of the war, the combat line submarine torpedo had a serious detonator problem (they were fatally defective). Submariners were able to hit enemy targets, but the torpedos would simply bounce harmlessly off the ship hull without detaonating.

 

The Navy at first denied this was even a problem, going for years without doing anything about it. Submariners had to go out into combat, and for all intents and purposes, fire blanks at enemy vessels.

 

Finally, following dozens and dozens of complaints by crews and Captains about the failure of torpedos to detonate, the Navy conducted a test : they fired torpedos up against a seacliff wall on the Hawaii coast. All eleven or so torpedos hit the wall, and not a single torpedo detonated. It was only after this test that the Navy actually formally acknowleged there was a problem, and reworked the detonators. From that point on, Navy subs went medeival on the Japanese fleet.

 

So, capn' K-Ti, what is the point of my salty tale from beneath the waves of history? Well, it's just a simple analogy. If the torpedos could literally be slammed into a seacliff wall without detonating, despite the volatility of their explosives, then, by jimminy, a rail charge could be neutralized by a lightsaber without detonating. Blar!

[Syndrix]

Geez now I feel like I've let you down K-Ti, hehe . And yes I believe your earlier reasoning to be very sound.

 

 

Also Wilhuf, will I was argueing with you before, but think of this. The torpedoes had problems, why, this was due to three distinct problems, depth control, the magnetic influence exploder and the contact exploder. While slicing through a rail charge the saber would inevitably come into contact with the substance that causes the explosive reaction.

 

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Real rail guns exist in this world that fire not explosive projecticles like in JK2 but simple pieces of metal like tungsten. When this projectile is stopped the momentum, or energy created from its momentum, must be transfered in some way. When this tungsten rail hits a piece of metal or something else extremely solid the result is a fireball explosion. This was confirmed by a chemist who happened to be in the room when this came up, who witnessed such expirements in labs where military testing was taking place on the matter (no joke).

 

So, the energy transfered from the momentum of the rail when it slams into the saber could easily be enough to explode it even if there weren't even any explosives in the rail, so long as the rail casing is contructed out of a very firm substance.

 

The only other place this energy could transfer without causing an explosion would be into the Jedi if he absorbs it by getting thrown back. The only way a Jedi could not have that rail blow up on him is the force of it threw him back. Any blocking like we'd see in JK where the Jedi just stand steady and blocks with the saber out like a firm, immobile solid bar and he will be one toasted critter.

 

Finally, explosives obviously were not always immune to shock and impact. The military currently loves to use explosive materials that are immune to impact and shock triggering but it wasn't always that way. It hasn't been this way for that long either on a scale using the time that humans have had explosives in their possession. Alfred Nobel was able to make a breakthrough that enabled volatile contents that until previously exploded on even the faintest of impact -like contained Liquid Nitrogen- or exploded easily with signifigant force applied -like dynamite- to not explode with any impact at all. Who is to say that Jedi Knight uses a system where only non-volatile explosives have become popular?

 

PS- Wilhuf, what kind of stuff they argue is part of it...the other being how they argue about it... usually with big chips on their shoulders that they grew from having to put up with each other's finer qualities for so many years.

[Syndrix]

I believe you mean Nitroglycerine, unless you are trying to freeze someone. Also the reason why volatile explosives where used many years ago was because the chemical procedures used to create them are much simpler than that of stable explosives. Interestingly Nitroglycerine was first designed circa 1846, where as dynamite (which uses Nitro in it creation proccess) was only created years later. While no-one can say that the SW universe doesnt use non-volatile explosives, it is more likely as compairing technologies a blaster is much more complicated than a pistol. Also the reason why volatile explosives are not popular is just that, they are extrememly volatile, and because they are unstable it is more useful to use "solid" explosives such as plastique.

 

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[Wilhuf]

Well, if the Star Wars galaxy is inhabited by people who have mastered faster-than-light interstellar travel, energy-based weaponry, robotics, artificial intelligence, cloning, and anti-gravity, then somewhere along the line they just might have come up with a relatively stable form of explosive.

 

Speaking of blocking, I was hoping that in Star Wars Galaxies, you could play as a Jedi Knight and earn so much experience that you would have developed extreme lightsaber blocking skill. For instance a level 100 Wookie Jedi could use Force Blocking to deflect a Deathstar ray with his lightsaber!

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Whoops yes I did mean nitrocyclerine. Yes, I don't doubt that non-volatile explosives are more advanced then those of the volatile nature. I wouldn't have pointed out earlier that volatile explosives existed first if I did.

 

I understand what you are trying to say about the technology even if your example doesn't match up correctly. You can bet they had rifles during at least part of the age of strictly volatile explosives along with pistols. Still, I believe you are suggesting that we use come kind of comparative technology scaling to determine whether the more common explosives were non-volatile or volatile in JK. You look at weapon technologies that were around during the use of only non-volatile explosives in the real world, notice weapons that were in JK that are similar to weapons only found after non-volatile explosives were developed, then you have your premise for the existance of non-volatile explosives in the JK universe. Before you read my next statement, can you ask yourself if this is close to what you were thinking, I bet it was.

 

Basically, I think that when you have to compare technology on such a wide and general basis between our world and the SW world that every conclusion you draw becomes more and more volatile itself. The wider you to have look to explain your point the more broadly-based it becomes, bringing with it things that show more and more how our world's are really disimilar while attempting to prove your point. The more you try to grab at larger generalizations to prove your point the more overall validity will "slip through your fingers" by way of further inconsistancies that arise. Yes I do believe I can apply this to your overlapping technology theory.

 

This is why I think when comparing a science-fiction world to ours, where no one can truly present any real answers but the creator of the world, theories or points being made based on more or very specific similarities between the worlds have the stronger possible congruence.

 

This post dealt largely with what I guess you might call deductive theory, because when you end up having arguments based on a science fiction world with haphazard similarities, this helpful in making a best pick, which in this case is the placement of energy point I made earlier.

[Boba Jim]

Ohhhhhhh Geeez. I can't believe you're again debating the technical and chemical characteristics of stuff in a fantasy, let alone a game at that, but since you're on the subject...

 

The only protection from a rail gun that wouldn't seem silly would simply be a force push that made the charge stray off course and miss you. Obviously that wouldn't work close up, but for those long range shots (especially with the seeking rails) a force push would keep those shots way out of your face.

 

Any talk about Jedis and sabers being impervious to exploding weapons is silly. It's hard to fend of an explosion unless you're encased in concrete, whether from a rail charge, mine or grenade. My 2 centavos.

[CaptainRAVE]

The force doesnt just work like force push, force destruction etc. They could harness the power of the wind and push it away . Or just force jump over it

[Wilhuf]

So, going back into our fantasy Star Wars world, rather than real life examples (which I think were much better than the credit you're giving them):

 

1. The Force can guide the lightsaber to not only hit a laser blast (which presumably travels at near light speed) but actually direct it back to the person who fired it. No small feat. Therefore

 

2. It is perfectly reasonable that the same Jedi master could use the Force to guide his saber to precisely hit the detonation circuitry of a projectile (which travels much slower than a laser blast), thereby neutralizing it.

 

This topic reminds me of a question that was debated long ago: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[CaptainRAVE]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>This topic reminds me of a question that was debated long ago: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</STRONG>

 

HOW MANY??

 

Anyway, why wouldnt a jedi just jump over it. Actually palpatine would transport it into space.

[Wilhuf]

Sure, jump over it or just use 'force detonator manipulate' to disrupt the circuitry inside the munition.

 

If Yoda can levitate an xwing, and Luke can levitate 3po in front of a bunch of animated teddy bears, and if Darth can use the Force across space to choke an imperial officer stationed on a remote destroyer, then a Jedi Lord should have enough telekenetic mastery to simply sever the circuitry of an incoming projectile.

[Denise]

"When this projectile is stopped the momentum, or energy created from its momentum, must be transfered in some way. When this tungsten rail hits a piece of metal or something else extremely solid the result is a fireball explosion. This was confirmed by a chemist who happened to be in the room when this came up, who witnessed such expirements in labs where military testing was taking place on the matter (no joke).

So, the energy transfered from the momentum of the rail when it slams into the saber could easily be enough to explode it even if there weren't even any explosives in the rail, so long as the rail casing is contructed out of a very firm substance."

 

Excepting, of course, that the JK rail detonator is not a railgun by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't have anywhere near that kind of velocity. It's a rocket (leaves a smoke trail), and darned slow for one of those, too. In MOTS it has guided ammunition and in any version of the game you can fire "sticky" rails.

 

Anyway, aside from the intense heaT ( ) of a lightsaber not being guaranteed to play nice with an explosive warhead, there is the minor matter of basic physics. The saber's blade is energy, and energy does not play by matter's rules. Intense amounts of energy can have a weak kinetic effect (witness the solar sail concept of propulsion), but in this case it is unlikely to make the lightsaber behave like a baseball bat. Witness how Luke's attempts to deflect Vader's Force-thrown objects with his saber are almost wholly unsuccessful, and he's dealing with denser objects that are more likely to be affected (and moving slower, to boot).

 

So when you slice through that projectile the pieces will, as they say, "tend to remain in motion". If you're in any postion to put your saber through one it will probably be "tending" directly towards you and you're going to get hit anyway. I wonder what it feels like to get slammed into by a fist-sized glob of semi-molten material? There must not be much consolation in actually stopping the explosion at that point.

 

And anyway, as was discussed before, a gunner will more than likely be firing for splash and not direct hits in the first place, so even if the rails (read: rockets) are genuinely (but unrealistically) deflectable it won't make that much of a difference.

 

Personally, I think a Force power is a more plausible defense against such things. Some form of telekinesis could alter the trajectory of the incoming fire; there is precedent for this in the EU on projectiles up to the starfighter missile scale (Luke has been known to, quote, "tap" proton torpedoes to ensure a hit, see the escape from the Chimera in Heir to the Empire). Care would have to be taken to avoid this power becoming too useful, but it's just a rough idea.

 

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Denise ]

[DeathBoLT]

why knock it off course? why not just throw up a wall of force at it(force push) and detonate it on that(assuming its operating on detonate-on-impact and nothing more intelligent than that)

[Guest Kurgan]

Speaking of the properties of lightsabers, it seems they do need to be "pushed" through stuff, they don't simply cut through it like nothing. Example: Qui Gon and the blast door in TPM.

 

So in that sense, there would probably be some sort of impact of the rail charge hitting the stationary blade.

 

Just a thought...

 

Oh, and don't forget Force Protection for absorbing explosive damage. ; )

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Tap[RR]]

TAP!!!!!!!!! No one seemed to notice my other post on the near end of page four that sux0rs anyways (what are you waiting for go to page four!!!) the rails were so slow i could dodge them without using force speed, i ran past the rails shot at me, moving side to side and hit the gunner, but the saber was so weak and lag was so great it didnt do much. Heh so if the rail gun shoots at the same speed as in jk it should be NO problem at all.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

lol

[Denise]

Originally posted by Kurgan:

<STRONG>Speaking of the properties of lightsabers, it seems they do need to be "pushed" through stuff, they don't simply cut through it like nothing. Example: Qui Gon and the blast door in TPM.

 

So in that sense, there would probably be some sort of impact of the rail charge hitting the stationary blade. </STRONG>

 

Mm hmm, but we have ample example of sabers cutting effortlessly through objects more to scale with the rail charge here, for example the steering vanes on the one speeder bike on Endor. Had there been any significant kinetic transfer from the speeder bike to the saber, Luke would have been tossed through the forest like a rag doll --not that I recommend going out with a staff and smacking speeding motorcycles to check this principle, as it tends to be hazardous to your health.

 

Rockets are simply not made with the density or resistance of blast doors (the idea is to let the explosion out, after all). Neither are speeder bikes, hand railings, human wrists, or, apparently, even the bellies of AT-ATs. We see all of these slashed easily by sabers over the course of the trilogy.

 

And if I wanted to be really contrary I could argue that Qui-Gon is slow about it because he's dealing with the heat of suddenly reducing that much metal to a molten state... but I won't, as I think that the movie evidence is simply contradictory.

 

-----------------

 

Edit: Oh, and as for why I didn't suggest a Force Wall of sorts, that could be the ultimate extension of such a skill (four stars, in JK parlance), but Jedi with lesser affinity for telekinetic skill wouldn't necessarily be able to pull it off. The only parallel we have would be something Luke did after assuming the title of Jedi Master.

 

Bleh, the things one does with one's idle moments. I must go do something more tied to reality..

 

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Denise ]

[Sarcastic Saint]

You know i'll bet that when this game comes out you will hear nobody complain or discuss anything for at least 2 weeks.

[Denise]

No, when a game first comes out the boards all go from sweetness and light to true nastiness. Remarkably predictable cycle, sometimes even if the subject matter is a five-star game.

 

Anyway.... don't worry, my Sarcastic friend. We're just going over fun little what-ifs. I can't really speak for the others, but I'm just interested in the trading of perspectives on the pseudo-science here.

 

Or, put bluntly, this is nothing compared to what's in store closer to release, particularly after.

[UberChild]

In my green aahze of wisdom do you guys think it might be possible to forcs push weapon projectiles away from you, i.e the bolts or rockets or whatever, or maybe a new force shield which pops up for 3 seconds or something, both of these ideas comin at the expense of a little bit of force power, this would give the saberist time to get up to the shooter while they reload, and slash them to hell... also i suggest takin away force powers from gunners to even things up a bit or at least decrease their powers. forcew speed plus conc = unfair.. well it did in jk.. these are just ideas, and i know the last bit has been debated elsewhwer.. well thats whayt im thinkin...

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Denise:

<STRONG>Personally, I think a Force power is a more plausible defense against such things. Some form of telekinesis could alter the trajectory of the incoming fire; there is precedent for this in the EU on projectiles up to the starfighter missile scale (Luke has been known to, quote, "tap" proton torpedoes to ensure a hit, see the escape from the Chimera in Heir to the Empire). Care would have to be taken to avoid this power becoming too useful, but it's just a rough idea.</STRONG>

 

Well, there's a precedent for this kind of telekinesis in this very game. We already know that the saber can be guided through the air to a target once it's been thrown. So if a saber can, why not a detonator charge?

 

Anyway, I don't know what all this argument is about the lightsaber blade resistance. As somebody pointed out, electrons cause friction, so if the saber blade is pure energy, it would follow that for it to create friction/resistance against a solid object, it would have to be electrical energy. Is it? I would assume if it was that nobody could survive any lightsaber hit, as the electrical charge would kill even if the blade did not...

[Emperorsbauble]

Thank God we, the fans, are not in charge of making this game. If we were, we would still be debating the title of it, much less the game mechanics.

[KillerBee]

/me thinks force throw should effect thermal dets and rail launcher charges

so a jedi can use force throw to defend against thermies and rails.

leaving the conky to go through the sabre, but should not be as powerful as rails or thermies or blasters..

 

(and the name should be DF3)

[Guest Vagabond]

Originally posted by Denise:

Mm hmm, but we have ample example of sabers cutting effortlessly through objects more to scale with the rail charge here, for example the steering vanes on the one speeder bike on Endor.

 

A counter-example occurs during the duel in The Empire Strikes Back. There, Luke strikes Vader on his shoulder armor with his lightsaber. Although it was a glancing blow, according to your previous statements Luke's blow would have travelled unimpeded into Anakin's shoulder muscle and bone.

 

We know that this is not what happened. Rather, sparks flew, the blow was partially deflected off of Vader's armor, and apparently some heat energy was transfered to Vader's body as evidenced by his vocalization of pain.

 

What I am illustrating is that your apparent position that a lightsaber can move through matter, without resistance, is not supported by the visual evidence from the movies. Let's recap:

 

1. Luke's blow to Vader's shoulder armor (TESB).

 

2. Qui-Gonn assault on the blast door (TPM).

 

3. Obi-Wan's inability to penetrate the shield door (TPM).

 

4. That lightsabers do not pass through each other (all movies).

 

5. Luke's assault on the skiff guards that apparently resulted in no dismemberment (ROTJ) - I found that odd though.

 

And just for the sake of argument, let us presume that lightsabers do in fact cut through all matter without resistance (which I don't believe is the case). With regard to intercepting a rail detonator with the lightsaber, if one did intercept the projectile and disarm it, one is still subjected to physical damage in the form of the two cleaved detonator halves that:

 

(a) are still traveling at a velocity

great enough to impart significant harm to a biological entity.

 

(b) due to the Jedi's intervention to deflect the projectile, the detonator halves are now likely centered on a direct collision course to the Jedi's body.

 

So, even if a Jedi could disarm a rail detonator in flight, there are still two very fast moving pieces of projectile that will impact the Jedi. Non-explosive, granted, but equivalent to large, relatively slow-moving bullets.

 

Either way, harm comes to the Jedi.