Group of fictional armies vs modern day NAVY Seals

[Guest TheJ0ke]

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.

[Guest force_echo]

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.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

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.

[Guest force_echo]

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.

[Guest TheJ0ke]

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.