Blaster fire speed

[Admiral Valdemar]

Blaster bolts move at c?

Does the speed of light slowdown in the Star Wars galaxy?

[Ender]

Blaster bolts move at c?

Does the speed of light slowdown in the Star Wars galaxy?

The visable tracer is slower then C, the beam itself is lightspeed. Its in the AOTC ICS, take it up in PSW if you want to argue it.

[Vendetta]

Blaster bolts move at c?

Does the speed of light slowdown in the Star Wars galaxy?

The visable tracer is slower then C, the beam itself is lightspeed. Its in the AOTC ICS, take it up in PSW if you want to argue it.

Damage before impact doesn't necessitate the damaging component of the beamn moving at C.

If it was, then every instance of blaster fire we see would have the damage being instantaneous with firing as far as our eyes could see, not fractionally ahead of the visible component.

[Ender]

Blaster bolts move at c?

Does the speed of light slowdown in the Star Wars galaxy?

The visable tracer is slower then C, the beam itself is lightspeed. Its in the AOTC ICS, take it up in PSW if you want to argue it.

Damage before impact doesn't necessitate the damaging component of the beamn moving at C.

No, the flat out explicit statement that it moves at C mecessitates it move at C.

If it was, then every instance of blaster fire we see would have the damage being instantaneous with firing as far as our eyes could see, not fractionally ahead of the visible component.

*sigh* this has all been covered in depth, in numerous multipage threads detailing it. Like I said, take it to PSW.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, the flat out explicit statement that it moves at C mecessitates it move at C.

The movies override the AotC ICS and in the movies, the blaster bolt, which is the part that does damage, very clearly does not move at anywhere near the speed of light. Whether there is a lightspeed component or not, it's not the part that does the damage, ergo a blaster is effectively a much slower than light weapon.

*sigh* this has all been covered in depth, in numerous multipage threads detailing it. Like I said, take it to PSW.

I'm sure you can be arsed to repeat yourself, if you have all the answers already.

[Ender]

No, the flat out explicit statement that it moves at C mecessitates it move at C.

The movies override the AotC ICS and in the movies, the blaster bolt, which is the part that does damage, very clearly does not move at anywhere near the speed of light. Whether there is a lightspeed component or not, it's not the part that does the damage, ergo a blaster is effectively a much slower than light weapon.

Yes Gil, the fact that the damage occurs prior to the visable part hitting clearly means the visable part does the fucking damage. I bow before your logic. You are quite right, if we ignore part of what we see in the movies, then they do show it to be wrong and allow it ot override it.

*sigh* this has all been covered in depth, in numerous multipage threads detailing it. Like I said, take it to PSW.

I'm sure you can be arsed to repeat yourself, if you have all the answers already.

Since you are apparently either to stupid or lazy to use the search function, I will. The beam is not a constant power output, it builds up. The computer components typically time it so that the peak portion, the damaging part, corresponds with the impact of the visable portion. However, owing to error and other things, this is not always the case. Thus the damaging portion moves at C.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes Gil, the fact that the damage occurs prior to the visable part hitting clearly means the visable part does the fucking damage. I bow before your logic. You are quite right, if we ignore part of what we see in the movies, then they do show it to be wrong and allow it ot override it.

I'm not ignoring the movies. The damage always occurs in and around when the glowing part hits the target. Unless you can point to a scene where the damage was way off, as in more than a few frames, we've got nothing to argue about here.

Since you are apparently either to stupid or lazy to use the search function, I will. The beam is not a constant power output, it builds up. The computer components typically time it so that the peak portion, the damaging part, corresponds with the impact of the visable portion. However, owing to error and other things, this is not always the case. Thus the damaging portion moves at C.

It's not about being lazy or stupid, it's just much easier for you to summerize your position than it is for me to pick though page after page of posts to get it.

Secondly, if blasters work that way, then in a meaningful way, they aren't lightspeed weapons. Whether the invisible portion is moving at lightspeed or not, the blaster doesn't do damage the damage until the blaster bolt hits.

Thirdly it's inconsistant to where we see the Jedi deflect the bolt back at foes. If we assume that you are right that the invisible portion does the damage, when when a Jedi uses his lightsabre to bounce the weapon back, when the blaster bolt hits the lightsabre and the power of the blaster ramps up to do damage, the foe should be instantly hit by it. Instead, the blaster bolt has to travel all the way back to the foe, and then the foe gets blasted.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ender: that theory only applies for TLs and most laser cannons. The turbolaser tracks the traget with its c-propogating beam long enough for the power to ramp up to full and incur damage. Consequently in TESB and elsewhere, the bolts correct their trajectory as they fly toward the target, as the beam is being shifted to stay on the target.

Man-portable blasters are obviously not held over the target long enough for the couple-frame power-up ramp, and also fire blaster beams while other beams are still in transit.

The best candidate for man-portable blasters are some sort of plasma or energetic "warhead" if you will confined by a small containment-field generator combined with a tiny repulsorlift coil in a miniture projectile inside the blaster bolt, which keeps the flight level and contains the bolt until impact.

[Ender]

Ender: that theory only applies for TLs and most laser cannons. The turbolaser tracks the traget with its c-propogating beam long enough for the power to ramp up to full and incur damage. Consequently in TESB and elsewhere, the bolts correct their trajectory as they fly toward the target, as the beam is being shifted to stay on the target.

Man-portable blasters are obviously not held over the target long enough for the couple-frame power-up ramp, and also fire blaster beams while other beams are still in transit.

The best candidate for man-portable blasters are some sort of plasma or energetic "warhead" if you will confined by a small containment-field generator combined with a tiny repulsorlift coil in a miniture projectile inside the blaster bolt, which keeps the flight level and contains the bolt until impact.

And yet we see the predamage doen by blasters same as TLs, and we see the smae bits with how it tapers, and how it can be opaque or transparent.

[Ender]

It's not about being lazy or stupid, it's just much easier for you to summerize your position than it is for me to pick though page after page of posts to get it.

Secondly, if blasters work that way, then in a meaningful way, they aren't lightspeed weapons. Whether the invisible portion is moving at lightspeed or not, the blaster doesn't do damage the damage until the blaster bolt hits.

And the part that dos the damage, the part that makes it a threat, moves at lightspeed from the barrel to the target. So yes, they are lightspeed weapons in a meaningful way, the other part before and after is the meaninglesss part.

it's inconsistant to where we see the Jedi deflect the bolt back at foes. If we assume that you are right that the invisible portion does the damage, when when a Jedi uses his lightsabre to bounce the weapon back, when the blaster bolt hits the lightsabre and the power of the blaster ramps up to do damage, the foe should be instantly hit by it. Instead, the blaster bolt has to travel all the way back to the foe, and then the foe gets blasted.

When it hits the lightsabre, it will lose some of its energy, and the resultant bolt that is reflected back will be weaker and less intense. Therefore in the time it takes for the lower power beam to do as much damage, the visable tracer will typically also be there, since it is observable that the speed of the tracer varies with the power of the bolt.

[Gil Hamilton]

And the part that dos the damage, the part that makes it a threat, moves at lightspeed from the barrel to the target. So yes, they are lightspeed weapons in a meaningful way, the other part before and after is the meaninglesss part.

But it doesn't do damage until the bolt just about arrives at the target. Since it doesn't hurt a person until then, the speed of the weapon, in a meaningful way, is limited by the bolt.

Besides, you never did address Illuminatus Primus point about multiple blaster bolts being in the air before the first blaster bolt hits the target or the fact that often times, the barrel of the gun is no longer pointed at the place where the blaster bolt strikes.
With your thoery of how blasters work, it would only be able to fire one "tracer" at the time and the person firing the gun would have to hold the gun on the target until the "tracer" hits for the power ramp-up to hurt the person.
It also means that we should see the damage happening at a different place on the foes body or miss entirely in many cases, since the barrel of the gun is no longer pointed at the same place on the foes body (or not at it at all). We should see the tracer bolt hitting one area and the damage happening a few degrees to the left and down, for example, to match where the barrel is pointed at. Considering that we see blasters used at considerable range, even a tiny half-degree wobble in the gun barrel, which you'd expect from someone using a gun, could mean that the damaging part would be way off.

This indicates that the blaster bolt is the whole business when it comes to devestation.

When it hits the lightsabre, it will lose some of its energy, and the resultant bolt that is reflected back will be weaker and less intense. Therefore in the time it takes for the lower power beam to do as much damage, the visable tracer will typically also be there, since it is observable that the speed of the tracer varies with the power of the bolt.

It's irrelevant whether it loses some power on the lightsabre, we know that blaster bolts reflecting off lightsabres still carry enough energy to kill men and battledroids with equal aplomb. If the blaster is putting out an invisible beam that travels at the speed of light, when the "tracer" hits the light sabre and the guns power ramps, the beam would be reflected and instantly BOOM dead battledroid, before the blaster bolt worked it's way back there. This is not what we see, not even close. Besides, why the blasters lose velocity when losing energy if we assume they are like lasers and travel at the speed of light, and for that matter lose that much velocity when they didn't lose that much energy? The amount of energy the beam loses on a lightsabre is negligible, it's still just as lethal afterwards. Why should it's power drop from the speed of light to a few meters a second? I mean, god, my laser pointer that I use for school presentations loses a greater percentage of it's energy when it reflects off a piece of sheet metal, yet it still travels the same speed afterwards as before hand.

Actually, based on what we see in the movies, blaster bolt velocity seems to vary on the distance it has to cover, since they always seem to have the same duration no matter how far they travel. HDS showed me a chart he made of the effect. Of course, there is a good reason for this, but it's not one you can arrive at without thinking of StarWars as a movie, which we can't do.

[Alyeska]

Lightspeed weapons that you must hold on target for a few seconds...

Real nice light speed weapons.

Or how about this. Because there is a light speed component, blasters must be light speed weapons.

Wow, did you know the US military has been using light speed weapons since the 80s? What you ask? Laser guided ordinance...

Give it up Ender. The damage is caused by the visible bolt thus the weapon is not light speed. If the weapon was light speed then the damage would be caused the instant the trigger is pressed and the visible bolt would be very meaningless.

[YT300000]

Obviously, the visible bit doesn't cause the damage. But the damage part can't be too far ahead of it.



Similar occurence. Then again, TL's work differently, so it might not be relevant to the discussion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And yet we see the predamage doen by blasters same as TLs, and we see the smae bits with how it tapers, and how it can be opaque or transparent.

This is totally irrelevent to my point.

This simply necessitates that part of the energetic damaging component is invisible.

Apply what you're saying. Blaster bolts always take a few frames to hit the target. Even if damage is a single frame behind, that's under C. If the blaster bolt was part of a c-propogating beam, it would only be visible within a single frame. This is undeniable fact.

Hand blasters cannot be c-propogating weapons like TLs. They are not held across the target for the duration of the bolt's path to the target.

The theory listed above works.

As for critics of the "c-propogating, delayed pulse" theory for TLs, how is it a problem at all? The damage still occurs at c, and cannot be dodged. All that matters is the beam is placed over the target when it ramps up to full power. The beam before that is irrelevent, as can be seen in HDS' "bolt course-correction" vid.

The damage is caused by the visible bolt thus the weapon is not light speed. If the weapon was light speed then the damage would be caused the instant the trigger is pressed and the visible bolt would be very meaningless.

This is also incorrect.

TLs and lasers--the visible bolt is very obviously not a distinct entity, and just a pulse along a larger phenomenon. The only way to intelligently explain TL and laser behavior is with a c-propogating beam, which takes a few frames to ramp up to full power, during which a pulse or disturbance along the beam creates a visible "bolt." Sometimes the bolt is not timed correctly by gunnery systems with the full-power ramp-up, and damage occurs before the "ripple" along the beam arrives. Notice that bolts vanish--the beam is deactivated after it charges to full power and delivers the faction-of-a-second damaging intensity.

Don't start arguing this Alyeska, because its borderline trolling. You have more than the ability to search for these debates, and the extensive video and photographic evidence as well as detailed explanations of the theory and why its the only that works. I'm not doing your homework for you.

[Alyeska]

This is also incorrect.

TLs and lasers--the visible bolt is very obviously not a distinct entity, and just a pulse along a larger phenomenon. The only way to intelligently explain TL and laser behavior is with a c-propogating beam, which takes a few frames to ramp up to full power, during which a pulse or disturbance along the beam creates a visible "bolt." Sometimes the bolt is not timed correctly by gunnery systems with the full-power ramp-up, and damage occurs before the "ripple" along the beam arrives. Notice that bolts vanish--the beam is deactivated after it charges to full power and delivers the faction-of-a-second damaging intensity.

Don't start arguing this Alyeska, because its borderline trolling. You have more than the ability to search for these debates, and the extensive video and photographic evidence as well as detailed explanations of the theory and why its the only that works. I'm not doing your homework for you.

And what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? Your prattling on about Turbo Lasers when I am responding to the issue of Blasters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? Your prattling on about Turbo Lasers when I am responding to the issue of Blasters.

Your comment about bolts and lightspeed weapons applies to TLs. I was heading off where these debates usually end up.

[Alyeska]

And what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? Your prattling on about Turbo Lasers when I am responding to the issue of Blasters.

Your comment about bolts and lightspeed weapons applies to TLs. I was heading off where these debates usually end up.

Usualy ends up? I damned well know that TL bolts have a light speed element to them. However for practical purposes in standard combat they travel STL.

BTW, I have a theory on TL speed. TL speed is directly related to the speed of the target. In order to maximize TL firepower, TLs are made as slow as possible. TLs fired at or near light speed are elongated and their firepower is lessened as the TL bolt lengthens. Fire control computers judge the speed of the target and fire the most powerful TL bolt possible while going just fast enough to ensure a hit. This is why when SW ships are in close combat going relativistic speeds their TLs appear to be traveling slow. In reality they are merely traveling as fast as the situation calls for and allows maximum firepower.

[Illuminatus Primus]

However for practical purposes in standard combat they travel STL.

False.

The damaging component travels at c. The beam's duration is longer than the propogation speed-to-target. It doesn't matter what the beam is doing until the damaging intensity is reached a few frames after initial activation--notice the beam at low power in the asteroid sequence is not aimed at the asteroid properly. The beam lines up with the asteroid (the bolt actually adjusts its straight-line trajectory in mid-flight) just as the beam hits full intensity and vapes the rock. Since the damage travels at c and the gunnery systems only need to put the beam on target at the damaging intensity, it is a c-propogating weapon for all intents and purposes.

BTW, I have a theory on TL speed. TL speed is directly related to the speed of the target. In order to maximize TL firepower, TLs are made as slow as possible. TLs fired at or near light speed are elongated and their firepower is lessened as the TL bolt lengthens. Fire control computers judge the speed of the target and fire the most powerful TL bolt possible while going just fast enough to ensure a hit. This is why when SW ships are in close combat going relativistic speeds their TLs appear to be traveling slow. In reality they are merely traveling as fast as the situation calls for and allows maximum firepower.

Unnecessary. TL and laser bolts always propogate to target over basically the same span of time. Therefore, Mad hypothesized that laser/TL weapons require a "warm-up" period which is basically the same regardless of weapon scale. The cannon fires a c-propogating beam at the target as it warms up, and the guidance computers for targeting simplicity calculate the speed of the beam "ripple" to reach the target at the same time the beam hits full power. That way, TL bolts have the same travel time regardless of target range. However, the gunnery systems are not perfect, and the beam sometimes hits full power before the ripple which produces the visible bolt reaches the target. An example of this would be the infamous asteroid shot. After the beam briefly surges to damaging intensity, it is shut-off, obviously, and the bolt vanishes as the beam is deactivated. This is precisely as observed in the same asteroid shot: the invisible beam destroys the asteroid, and shuts up, and the bolt vanishes without hitting a thing. Same with XX-9 turrets tracking X-Wings in A New Hope, the beam is shut off after the damaging portion--the beams miss the fighters, and the beams are shut off, such that the visible bolts vanish where the fighter should've been, without flying out into space. The beam itself ALWAYS propogates at C. The "ripple" along the beam travels anywhere up to and including c depending on the adjustments of the gun itself.

[Mad]

A quick canon quote for blasters (in addition to the arguments already provided):

Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters.

So typical blasters are projectile-type weapons, not lightspeed weapons like turbolasers.

Edit: here's a couple animated .gifs of turbolaser/laser redirection in action in support of the lightspeed turbolaser theories:

ISD adjusting aim against asteroid
Wedge's X-wing

[McC]

Well, might as well jump in and get my feet wet

While visual evidence does seem to occasionally support the idea that there's a nonvisible element to a blaster/turbolaser bolt (and I emphasize the notion that they appear to be the same phenomenon, simply scaled based on their platform), I don't think there's enough to suggest that there's any damaging component traveling at lightspeed, published material notwithstanding. That last image of the Star Destroyer apparently redirecting its aim led me to consider an idea that also contributes to something that had perplexed me for some time - how one makes a coherent 'bolt' of plasma, such as blaster bolts appear to be.

Consider: perhaps there is a lightspeed element, but not one that contributes to the destructive force of the weapon in any way. Instead, think of it more as a guide shaft that conducts, if you will, the particle 'bolt' along its length until the bolt intercepts some physical (or shield-like) object, whereupon it interacts as a high-speed plasma cloud would. The visible/nonvisible aspect could simply be a by-product of this guide-laser (for lack of a better term) element, perhaps indicating that the guide-laser is illuminating the plasma bolt as the bolt travels along its length.

I realize this is moderately far-fetched. I know of no known analogous system we have today for an example, save one, but it's more of a reverse example. Do a google search on the "anti-personnel beam weapon" or "non-lethal tetanizing beam weapon" and see what you think. I suspect it doesn't relate, but the idea itself seems intriguing enough to consider.

[Ender]

A quick canon quote for blasters (in addition to the arguments already provided):

Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters.

So typical blasters are projectile-type weapons, not lightspeed weapons like turbolasers.

Edit: here's a couple animated .gifs of turbolaser/laser redirection in action in support of the lightspeed turbolaser theories:

ISD adjusting aim against asteroid
Wedge's X-wing

Problem is that we know they don't arc in the atmosphere and that they are pure energy weapons, so there is no "homing warhead" explanation available. So they are not projectiles, despite what the novel says. The ANH novel says they are lasers, so we just have to accept that they are subordinate and conflicting.

It can't be plasma, that would arc and it wouldnt' be green.

Particle bemas would reacct more with atmosphere and arc over the lond distances like AOTC and ESB

Mazers and such are C speed (which is against your opinion) and would not be visable.

There are explicit statements saying that blasters and TLs work in the same manner.

[Ender]

Well, might as well jump in and get my feet wet

While visual evidence does seem to occasionally support the idea that there's a nonvisible element to a blaster/turbolaser bolt (and I emphasize the notion that they appear to be the same phenomenon, simply scaled based on their platform), I don't think there's enough to suggest that there's any damaging component traveling at lightspeed, published material notwithstanding.

The shots do not arc in the presence of gravity, a hallmark of massless weapons, and massless weapons inherently move at C.

That last image of the Star Destroyer apparently redirecting its aim led me to consider an idea that also contributes to something that had perplexed me for some time - how one makes a coherent 'bolt' of plasma, such as blaster bolts appear to be.

They are clearly not plasma, at no temperature will plasma be green, which both blasters and TLs have been observed to be.

Consider: perhaps there is a lightspeed element, but not one that contributes to the destructive force of the weapon in any way.

In every single film we see damage done or a shield reaction whitout the visable portion there yet or already past. Clearly the damamge is at least partly done by teh invisaable portion.

Instead, think of it more as a guide shaft that conducts, if you will, the particle 'bolt' along its length until the bolt intercepts some physical (or shield-like) object, whereupon it interacts as a high-speed plasma cloud would. The visible/nonvisible aspect could simply be a by-product of this guide-laser (for lack of a better term) element, perhaps indicating that the guide-laser is illuminating the plasma bolt as the bolt travels along its length.

While such an explanation works in atmosphere, it requires the nonvisable portion to do damage (it has to have energy to ionize the air to allow passage), and it would be useless in a vacuum where we see TLs work.

I realize this is moderately far-fetched.

Substitute "moderate" with "extremely". Your theory contradicts much of what we see in the films.

I know of no known analogous system we have today for an example, save one, but it's more of a reverse example. Do a google search on the "anti-personnel beam weapon" or "non-lethal tetanizing beam weapon" and see what you think. I suspect it doesn't relate, but the idea itself seems intriguing enough to consider.

No, it does not relate bar the atmospheric ionizing that occurs as part of the related partical beam weapons DARPA is looking into.

[McC]

The shots do not arc in the presence of gravity, a hallmark of massless weapons, and massless weapons inherently move at C.

Are we entirely certain of this? I'm unaware of an instance wherein we've seen a blaster traverse a large enough distance in a gravity well to confirm that it does not, in fact, arc.

They are clearly not plasma, at no temperature will plasma be green, which both blasters and TLs have been observed to be.

I was under the impression that plasma color was based on the element in question. Based on images I've come across in the past, current experimental fusion reactors, for example, exhibit a pinkish or purple plasma.

In every single film we see damage done or a shield reaction whitout the visable portion there yet or already past. Clearly the damamge is at least partly done by teh invisaable portion.

While it is true that we see this in every film, we don't see it consistently in every film. That is, it doesn't happen every single time a blaster/laser is fired.

While such an explanation works in atmosphere, it requires the nonvisable portion to do damage (it has to have energy to ionize the air to allow passage), and it would be useless in a vacuum where we see TLs work.

Oh, I certainly agree that the exact statement I made is impossible for a turbolaser, but my intention was to suggest an analogous scenario might be occuring -- some form of beam acting as a guide path.

Substitute "moderate" with "extremely". Your theory contradicts much of what we see in the films.

I don't quite think that's true. My theory goes against anything I know of in real physics, but I don't think there's anything in my theory that implicitly goes against the films.

No, it does not relate bar the atmospheric ionizing that occurs as part of the related partical beam weapons DARPA is looking into.

Didn't think so, but it's still an interesting concept unto itself!

In any case, if the turbolaser/blaster is indeed a massless c-speed beam rather than a focused plasma bolt, how do you reconcile this with the clearly demonstrated fact that turbolaser bolts possess momentum (ref: Millennium Falcon in ESB asteroid chase). A laser beam wouldn't possess momentum, as far as I'm aware. Further, turbolasers can be clearly seen from any angle, refuting the notion that they are lasers at all (unless you are willing to accept that every time we see a space battle in Star Wars, there is a tremendous particle density surrounding the combatant vessels that can provide means for a laser to be visible).

I am still curious as to what justification you can provide regarding the idea that turbolasers and blasters are indeed not plasma/particle bolts. The trajectory argument, to my knowledge, lacks substantial canonical visual support, and there is a great deal of visual support suggesting that turbolasers and blasters are subluminal phenomena.

[Ender]

Are we entirely certain of this? I'm unaware of an instance wherein we've seen a blaster traverse a large enough distance in a gravity well to confirm that it does not, in fact, arc.

ANH Tantive IV scene, ANH Death Star attack, AOTC clones shooting. Distances are such it should have been noticable, particularily the first two which have been gone over with a fine tooth comb.

I was under the impression that plasma color was based on the element in question. Based on images I've come across in the past, current experimental fusion reactors, for example, exhibit a pinkish or purple plasma.

Its temperature based to the extent of my knowledge, and since that has been supported by everyone I've talked too, and seen in my research, I'm sticking with that. Now if you can find a pic of green plasma and the corresponding temp, present it.

While it is true that we see this in every film, we don't see it consistently in every film. That is, it doesn't happen every single time a blaster/laser is fired.

Picking and choosing is not allowed. Explanation is as was stated above: Firing contol circuits usually time is so the damaging portion hits at same instance as bolt hits.

Oh, I certainly agree that the exact statement I made is impossible for a turbolaser, but my intention was to suggest an analogous scenario might be occuring -- some form of beam acting as a guide path.

Such a theory was put forth in the early debates when the C thing came out (along with a number of others such as luxons moving in a circular pattern). It doesn't work because you can't get a containment field to propegats at C.

I don't quite think that's true. My theory goes against anything I know of in real physics, but I don't think there's anything in my theory that implicitly goes against the films.

Real physics is what we are trying to mesh with here. Further, like I said, the things don't arc in a gravity well and at no temperature will plasma be green. You can get certain elements to burn green like in fireworks, but plasma won't glow like that.

In any case, if the turbolaser/blaster is indeed a massless c-speed beam rather than a focused plasma bolt, how do you reconcile this with the clearly demonstrated fact that turbolaser bolts possess momentum (ref: Millennium Falcon in ESB asteroid chase). A laser beam wouldn't possess momentum, as far as I'm aware.

If you look on the site (I think you have to go to the index for this page, so missing it is understandable), you will see that not only is that false, but that you can get a yield from it.

Momentum = energy / C

Further, turbolasers can be clearly seen from any angle, refuting the notion that they are lasers at all (unless you are willing to accept that every time we see a space battle in Star Wars, there is a tremendous particle density surrounding the combatant vessels that can provide means for a laser to be visible).

They aren't lasers. They are an exotic, unknown material. It is a particle beam and thus can be affected by EM fields, and by applying the high energy to it, it becomes both damaging and starts to decay from the particles into visable light that leaves at all angles. "spinning" the beam makes it decay less, thus retain more energy. As it loses the energy as it flies, it depletes in strength until it is gone. One of the advantages of white armor for the stormies is tat white shoudl cause it to decay more as it is more reflective, thus increasing survivability.

I am still curious as to what justification you can provide regarding the idea that turbolasers and blasters are indeed not plasma/particle bolts. The trajectory argument, to my knowledge, lacks substantial canonical visual support,

You are incorrect. Look at the TL page on this site, or look to the old debates on this topic, particularily he one with Marc Xaiver. It has been throughly checked.

and there is a great deal of visual support suggesting that turbolasers and blasters are subluminal phenomena.

Well, if so it is yet to be presented in a form that cannot be explained, picked apart, contradicted, or anything else.

[Ender]

Oh, and when Saxton measured it the Death Star's SL moved at C. So unless they are distinctly different phenomana, there you go.