Debate #2: Lord Edam
March 11, 2002 (Edam's third post, part 2/3)
Star Trek Shields: Plasma Weakness
Take away the supporting evidence and the idea is nothing more than fantasy. An idea with no support is as valid as no idea at all.
Exactly the same way you attack evolution theory, no doubt.
Don't ever remember attacking evolution theory. I said I was a creationist - I didn't say I spend my time attacking other people's religious choices simply because they don't see things my way
In both cases, the fallacy is that you have not taken away the evidence. At worst, you misrepresent it.
Or correct the misrepresentations of others.
At best, you point out that it might possibly be regarded as something else.
And if the "something else" is as valid as what I'm objecting to, how can we say which is right?
Science is not absolute, Edam. You could dismiss any theory if your litmus test is that piece after piece of supporting evidence could possibly be something else.
If most of the evidence is wrong and the rest has a 50/50 chance of contradicting the theory or supporting a far simpler theory then the original theory is wrong, no matter how much evidence has been twisted after the fact to fit it. In science, you create a theory and predict what will happen. That isn't what we do. We take evidence and formulate the best explanation for all of it. We are more historians than scientists. Unfortunately for you, you've treated it all exclusively as a scientific analysis - you've created your theory before examining the evidence and you are going out of your way to make everything you can find fit it. If you did things the historical way - start with the evidence and make a theory to explain it - you wouldn't get anywhere near your conclusions. But I'm going on again, and we both know how little time you have for this debate you insisted on, so lets continue...
You spend all your time writing off my arguments as strawmen, then go
and do the same.
You say: ST shields may have a weakness to charged particles, and here's examples of it
I say: clear mitigating circumstances and misrepresentation. You have no evidence for your opinion. It is just fantasy.
You're lying, Edam.
We'll see who's lying Mike.
You flatly deny the possibility of a weakness,
I keep insisting that is not the case, but you don't believe me, so let me put it more bluntly. If there is a possibility of a charged particle weakness none of these examples are firm enough to prove it. Several of them are blatant lies, others have clear mitigating circumstances you continue to insist are irrelevant. There are, at best, two exampes that would indicate a charged particle weakness, neither of which, either together or combined with others, are strong enough to actually prove the case.
When someone makes a vague theory of a "possible" weakness and you attack that as a "mistake", what could the "correct" position possibly be if not a flat denial of the possibility? Honesty is obviously not your strong suit.
Stop with the accusations of dishonesty Mike.
you lied aboutStarship down
you lied about Interface
you lied about the order of FC and A Call To Arms
You are not perfect, Mike. For each accusation of dishonesty you make against me I can prove dishonesty from you.All it does it distract from the debate and demonstrate how childish people can be when things don't go their way.
At the time, yes. It was all prior to the decision to do away with the TM. There is some support for it. The Pegasus normally results in torpedoes ranging anywhere from a few kT up to GT range. The Die is Cast (both original strategy and demonstrated abilities with the dustclouds & shockwaves), shockwaves in For The Uniform, destroying a large asteroid in Rise (Voyager) - average firepower is normally round about a few MT or higher.
Regarding shockwaves, your attempt to derive multi-megaton energy levels solely from shockwaves is completely invalid.
Which is why we use the shockwaves, and the dustclouds, and the original simulation. The larger of the shockwaves come from the the beam weapons rather than torpedoes in this case anyway
Simple thermodynamics also come into play. If these were multi-megaton blasts in atmosphere, where were the fireballs?
you won't get much of a fireball if the blasts were under the surface - as would be consitant with wanting to get rid of the crust entirely.
Why did the entire attack look no more impressive than a night-time lightning display? You can't pump that much energy into a small portion of the atmosphere and have it dissipate without revealing its presence, Edam! When a nuclear weapon explodes, it superheats the air in its vicinity to millions of degrees, creating a firewall which rises through the air and slowly radiates heat to its environment. If there's no white-hot fireball, there's no multi-megaton explosion.
If there's no white-hot fireball there's no multi-megaton explosion on the surface.
I'm tempted to ask for more detail regarding your other examples, but it's more important to establish whether this is even relevant. The original subject here is the weakness of shields to energetic and/or charged gases, and even if the ship can survive a 1 megaton nuclear warhead explosion at close range, that does not disprove the possibility of a particular weakness.
The specific subject here is the weakness of the shields to 400GW (200GJ) of charged particles, and how this took the shields down in an inordinately short period of time, and kept the shields down no matter how much Worf tried to re-establish them. The specific subject here is how this is contradicted by other examples of charged particles of higher energy not taking the shields down
First and foremost, there are numerous nebula shield failure incidents, and you have failed to provide an alternate explanation for them.
the only example you have provided has been explained. your misrepresentation about Chain of Command will be dealt with below, I believe. I have also provided numerous exampels where ships have entered nebulae unharmed - how does your theory deal with these examples?
Besides, how do you know that the charged-particle output of the weapon doesn't simply pass through the shield and hit the hull, while the EM radiation is absorbed and retransmitted by the shield?
Because that would mean 70% of the torpedo's energy not being blocked by the shields - the difference levels of damage between bleed-through and unshielded impacts are far larger than this would allow. With shields - a few consoles explode. That's about it. Without shields - bye bye hull.
"What's the reference?" If we use modern units and the only meaning of "iso" which makes sense when attached to "ton", the reference is "one ton of TNT", Edam. If we don't, it's up in the air and it's a useless figure.
Unless we already know "megaton" refers to tons of TNT it's a meaningless figure. Unless we already know the reference temperature or pressure, "isobar" and "isotherm" is meaningless. It is meaningless to us - just like gigaquad is meaningless to us. But it is far from meaningless to the people who use it - the people of Trek. You assume "isoton" refers to tons of TNT, but why should it? Why not tons of C4, why not tons of Korbarg'hed (popular with the terrorists in Debroli II I hear.)
Harping on about "iso=tons of TNT" is useless. Concentrate on what the weapons are shown to do, in dialogue (General Order 24 and similar examples from TOS, turning a planet to a smoking cinder in Broken Link, the whole TDiC mission plan) and in visuals (as previously referenced)
Fine, then why don't you solve the problem? Explain why Federation shields were collapsed by electrical discharges in ST2,
damaged ship, power of the discharges, unusual particles in the nebula (that one really needs cross-referencing with VOY: Flashback, but I don't have that episode available)
Cardassian shields were collapsed by nebula gas in "Chain of Command" , Borg shields were collapsed by photosphere gas in "Descent Part 2",
they weren't collapsed - they were never up.
and the Enterprise's shields took a 15% hit from a flare in "Relics"
I think we've been over Relics enough already
Explain why they can't block "verteron particles" (from "Force of Nature"),
The verteron burst came before the shields were up and overloaded all their systems. From this episode and a number of DS9 episodes (mostly dealing with the wormhole) it seems verteron particles are intimately linked with subspace, and large amounts of them cause distrubtion to subspace fields - you know, the stuff that they use to make their shields. for example, you will hardly ever see a shielded sihp in the DS9 wormhole - because they use verteron particles to make the safe passage.
or whatever particles were in the "nucleonic" beam from the mind-control device "The Inner Light".
We'd have to know what those particles were first. This was clearly not the same problem as the Enterprise had in ST2 - that was known to the crew, this was not. Infact, they could not explain how the particles (which got through shields which were not on full power - the shields that blocked the earlier nucleonic beam scanning the shields) managed to remain connected to Picard, and when Data finally found a way to reflect the particles they nearly killed their captain.
Explain why they can't safely fly through a planet's upper atmosphere.
The E-d isn't too good at sharp turns. Turbulence (sharp unexpected wind) is a problem for them. Why take risks when it isn't needed? Other ships (Defiant, Voyager, shuttles) do not have this problem.
Explain why ships ("Descent", "Redemption") and even whole shipyards ("Shadows and Symbols") can be wiped out with solar flares.
Descent - unatural flare against unshielded ships. Redemption unnatural flare cause by a ship going to warp near the star. Shadows and Symbols bloody enormous flare that shot out across several hundred thousand km in a matter of seconds to take on an unshielded shipyears.
No, but a thousand of them would definitely be a threat, and a thousand 4.2GW phaser banks is just 4.2 TW. Still nowhere near "multi-megaton", Edam.
And what effect do Phasers have on shields? We know they have increased effects on some materials - what effect do they have on shields? (plus, if there is a charged particle weakness, why did it take the Feds until the borg threat to develop plasma phasers - surely adding plasma to their main weapon would make it more effective, as it worked on the weakness the shields are known to have)
[Re: Night Terrors] Their biggest weapon that was being gradually drained by the rift, directed into the rift vs. a great big uncontrolled explosion. Obviously the explosion has different effects on the rare energy absorbing rift than directed energy does. Like firing a jet of gas through a hole in a pipe, vs just setting off the gas in an uncontrolled manner. Does this mean chemical explosions outside the effects of the rift have the same properties? We can't answer that until we have either more evidence or proper understanding of the rift.
Red herring nitpick
You brought the episode up, Mike. Live with your actions.
You act as if they had no way to create an explosion besides the chemical burn.
they had no way to create the explosion besides the chemical burn.
News flash: photon torpedoes create explosions, Edam.
And require significant amounts of energy to launch, and if they are based on anything like starship technology would use some form of subspace/AMRE field to travel (actally required for warp travel, as we know they can do from eg. TNG: Emmissary) - harldy much use in an environment that sucks up subspace energy ridiculously quickly.
They knew exactly what this "rift" was, and if a photorp would have been more effective than their big deflector-dish weapon, they would have used it
Unless there was a problem getting the torpedoes far enough away to get them out of the rift without destroying the ship.
Face it; their entire weapons complement was inferior to a large chemical explosion! And since you obviously have all the scripts, you can look up the episode for yourself and see that they're talking about the amount of energy, not some mystical property of the chemicals involved in the reaction. That also fits with "Star Trek: Insurrection", where they destroyed So'na warships with a chemical flame because their weapons weren't up to the task. Remember that one? Or are you going to try to wriggle out of that one too?
Why should I try to wriggle out of it? It has nothing to do with the charged particle weakness, and we should base the abilities of weapons on what they are shown to do not what they are claimed to do. If the conclusion of that is that Trek can create chemical / nuclear explosions more powerful than matter/anti-matter that is just another canon fact we have to live with.
"Survivors" Escape Clause
[Re: Survivors] When it clearly contradicts other examples of similar attacks (ie, the ability of the shields to absorb charged particles) we should look at mitigating circumstance - in this case, the very clear mitigating circumstance is that it is all an illusion created by a superbeing. You know it isn't real, so why should you treat is as such? [You go on to repeat this nonsensical idea of the entire attack being an "illusion" or "fantasy" 5 times]
Too bad, so sad, but it was not an illusion, Edam.
I guess they really destroyed teh ship as well, then? I guess the house and garden really did exist then?
They took real damage and real casualties. And during that very real damage, its systems withstood what they measured to be a 400 GW blast, which means that its effects were identical to a real 400GW blast.
I notice you've ignored all the other examples where their systems really did show what was not really there - why are they any different to this one? Kevin Uxbridge created everything in the illusion in an attempt to make the Enterprise leave.
LOL! you can try signing up for a physics.org e-mail address if you like. Doubt most people would get much luck, though. Last time I checked only people who fulfilled the academic requirements for Chartered Physicist status and were willing to join the IoPgot one. Why not ask the people in charge
I suspected you would try to appeal to the authority of that domain name.
I'm not appealing to the authority of anything, Mike. You brought it up. I'm just clearing up your lies. I would have been quite happy to go through the whole debate without mentioning my background. I would have quite happily let this drop after correcting your mistake. Why do you want to carry on with it?
Physics.org is owned by a publishing company, Edam.
Yes, it is owned by Institue of Physics Publishing, the publishing arm of the UK Insititute of Physics.
And while I don't know how to get a physics.org E-mail address (and you know full well that I can't possibly get a response to E-mail inquiries on the weekend),
You need a degree in the sciences or engineering, then you need to get a current IoP member to sponsor your application to membership, and you need to pay £30 (more for overseas - actual price might be a bit off, anyone who's interested can follow the link above)
I'm pretty sure that you don't meet the requirements you refer to.
who cares? All you are doing here is attacking me and my education - something you know nothing about. For someone so big on pointing out logical fallacies maybe you'd like to tell us which one refers to attacking your opponent rather than his claims.
They include extensive professional experience in the field, and you work in computer tech support! Is computer tech support regarded as physics?
is this relevant to the debate or are you just looking for an excuse to attack me rather than continue? For someone so quick to complain about logical fallacies you sure do like making them, don't you?
If you want to shore up your credibility despite your creationism
My religious beliefs have no relevance to sci-fi debates.
and your bizarre attempt to attack a sketchy theory by saying it's imperfect rather than providing a better explanation for the incidents I brought up, then why don't you simply scan your physics degree and post it?
Because it is entirely irrelevant to the debate. The qualifications of the debator are irrelevant. It is the claims that are under scrutiny. Why do you insist on repeatedly attacking people's education? do your claims not stand on their own? Do they need the weight of your degree behind them before anyone will take them seriously?
Why go through this roundabout way of "proving" that you're a chartered physicist by referring to your physics.org E-mail address
I'm not trying to prove I'm a chartered physicist (I'm not), and I didn't mention my physics.org e-mail address. why did you mention it Mike?
instead of simply showing people the degree that you supposedly needed in order to get it? And while you're at it, why don't you try to explain how you graduated from physics without understanding the basics of the scientific method?
Why would I be interested in doing something that has no relevance to the debate?
But it DOES invalidate the effects of their systems - the warp drive wasn't working as hard as it should for the Traveller episodes, because the superbeing was doing the work. The Inertial dampeners worked better in Q-Who because Q was doing all the work. The shields worked badly in Survivors because Kevin Uxbridge made them fail.
Irrelevant. Their instrumentation worked fine in those cases, and it is the readings on their instrumentation which you are trying to dismiss. Kevin Uxbridge made the shields fail ... with something that had the exact same effect that a real 400 GW blast would have had.
Or Kevin Uxbridge made the shields fail with something that read as a 400GW blast would, but had far greater effect. It was a fantasy. It was not real. The instrumentation cannot be trusted for the 400GW blast any more than it can for the fact they destroyed the ship, or there was a house, garden and two humans on the planet. this is even more obvious when you consider the 400GW blast is several orders of magnitude below the minimum firepower of torpedoes - torpedoes that just happen to be 70% energetic charged particles.
Whilst you ignore the full context of the situation and easily explainable contradictions, and declare this the real answer. How does your theory deal with the fact that a couple hundred GJ of charged particles drop the shields in one episode, but the shields withstand similar energies from charged particles in another?
It doesn't, and it doesn't have to.
So I can point out as many inconsistancies in your long list of examples of a charged particle weakness as I like, and you will continue insisting "it's still valid it's still valid"
now I know why you had to drag out my education - your only hope is to discredit me rather than my claims.
ST2 Escape Clause
So what use is this in VS debates (and specifically, Trek-Wars where no one seems to have lightening guns)? The electrostatic dicharges (lightening) caused the problems - where's the lightening in most chargd particle weaponry?
Lightning is made up of charged particles, Edam. They're called electrons. Look it up, Mr. "Chartered Physicist".
There's more to lightning than simple electrons, Mike.
Some nebulae are generating energies that do threaten the shields. no need for charged particle weaknesses - just accept that shields handle whatever [energy level], and anything that drops the shields is above that level.
What kind of explanation is that? Are you seriously suggesting that these nebulae were hitting the ship with so much raw energy that its shields collapsed,
Or they contained verteron particles, or other exotic particles known to damage subspace fields.
Face it; you have no explanation whatsoever for nebula-related shield failures,
the only nebula related shield failure given was the Mutara nebula. Where's the rest of them, and why didn't similar things happen in the other nebula examples I gave?
so you're reduced to ludicrous fantasies about the Mutara nebula being more energetic than the close proximity to a star! If the ship has a fixed energy handling limit and "anything that drops the shields is above that level", then how do you explain the fact that the shields were dropped by a nebula which was demonstrably not that energetic, since it did no damage to the ship whatsoever once its shields dropped?
electrostatic discharge & metal = flows through the surface of
Electrostatic discharge & insulator = blocked or blows up the insulator.
Shields have different conductive properties to the metal hull of ships, so are affected differently by electrostatic discharges.
The Cardie ships in "Chain of Command Part 2" could only stay in there for a brief period of time because their hulls were being degraded by corrosive nebula gases. Their shields were down, but only a blithering idiot would lower his shields with full knowledge that this would let corrosive gas eat away at his hull!
Or they traded the energy required to keep the shields up with the knowledge that they would not be in there long enough to be in serious danger from the corrosive gasses. Or shields raised means a nice big energy signature giving away the ships that are hiding in the nebula. The shields were not up in the nebula, the shields were certainly not dropped by the charged particles as you continue to claim.
STG Escape Clause
[Re: STG BOP] a technological weakness of the cloaking system. Hit it just right (luckily Worf knew the "just right" that was needed) and, even though the shot is not enough to overcome the shields, the cloak engages and (as a result) the shields drop.
Wrong. The cloak is an internal system, Edam.
Direclty linked to the shields - you know, shield up cloak down. cloak up shields down. There was a weakness such that something that would not be enough to overpower the shields would be enough to cause the ship to cloak - a weakness peculiar to that cloak/shield combination. A weakness corrected later.
Booby Trap, where they had an uncorrectable continuously increasing energy drain. Infact, (baring major changes between the script and episode, of course), the problem was not radiation leaking through the shields - it was the shields failing within three hours from the energy drain, which would result in the radiation killing everyone onboard. [snip chunk of script]
Red herring The point was that you cannot deny penetration simply because there was no obvious structural damage.
you cannot prove penetration, which is required for your charged particle problem. There was no penetration in Booby Trap, the problems with the shields in booby Trap were not caused by the radiation. There is no point in mentioning Booby Trap whatsoever.
Beating on the Strawman
the shields on the old BoP have a specific vulnerability to a specific low level ionic pulse that Worf knew about - not a general weakness to all charged particles. Consider all the evidence, not just the bit you want to use to support your theory
Strawman. I never claimed that there must be a "general weakness to all charged particles"
you certainly forgot to specify which charged particles the weakness applies to, and your examples seem extremely general.
[Re: nucleonic beam from "Inner Light"] Yes. One is charged, the other, well, we just don't know. If it isn't charged it does not support your case, unless you want to extend that to "a weakness to all particles everywhere", but then we're back to just the normal shields with no particularly notable weakness
Strawman again. My claim is nowhere near as over-arching and generalized as you make it out to be.
you were listing examples of charged particle weaknesses - that's what you said, and that's what you did. this deals with that list of examples. The Inner Light has a 50% chance of not supporting your case, and infact more so given the discussion above.
Maybe. Why not?
Because then you're back to no weakness at all - and if there's no weakness at all there's no need to list examples of the weakness.
I did mention both "high temperature gases and charged particles" in my shield page; do I need to explain to you that high temperature gases are composed of high velocity particles, Mr. "Chartered Physicist"?
you also went on to give a list of examples you claimed were a charged particle weakness.
Besides, I never claimed to know exactly what causes the weakness; I offered up a "possibility", but the point is that the weakness does exist, and you won't admit it.
None of your examples of a general weakness are required. There are specific weaknesses - particles known to affect subspace fields, be they charged or not, but a lot of your examples are simply nothing.
We could spend all day pointing out how we are "assuming the other bloke is telling the truth" - it gets us nowhere. If you have reason to belive I am misrepresenting anything bring up the reasons. I do you the same honour. In fact, that's what this part is all about.
I might have believed that crap a week ago, but I don't make the same mistake twice. The games you played by witholding the "Relics" screenshot and defending your wildly exaggerated 470,000 m² area figure despite full knowledge of its falsehood have clearly revealed you to be nowhere near the honest and forthright debater that you pretend to be.
Which has so much to do with my claims it might as well be all there is. Oh, hang on...
Specialized Shield-Piercing Weapon Escape Clause
[Re: shield-piercing weapon] How would an alien species on the other side of the galaxy know about the weaknesses of Alpha quadrant technology? Explain that and you might have a point.
Thanks, then I guess it is irrelevant Star Wars is from a different galaxy when I point out how effective Dominion weaponry will be against SW ships.
the point is that the Voyager crew knew it had special shield-piercing properties, and they had to develop a countermeasure for those properties. Even if it was unintentional on the part of its designer, it was very real to them, and that's the only thing that matters
One of the aliens from the species that invented the weapon said it was designed to penetrate any shield, not the Voyager crew. The special properties of the weapon were by design not accident. Or haven't you watched this episode before making claims about it, Mike? If the positions were reversed there would probably be wild accusations of lying being fired off now, but we now it's just bad memory of a never seen episode, don't we?
"Interface" Escape Clause
[Re: Interface] so because no one said the problem wasn't the shields we can assume the problem was? What reason is there to assume the shields were the problem at all? what reason is there to assume the charged particle weakness of the shields specifically was the problem?
Unless you've got some other explanation, a threat to the shields is the best explanation. The USS Raman was destroyed shortly after shield failure in the planet's atmosphere, remember? How can you deny that this had something to do with the shields and maintain a straight face?
Clearly it had something to do with the shields - but was it really charged particles? Or something else. Like, maybe poor power available on the stricken ship, or the pressure being too great (going back to the end of part one - the shields use forces to counter forces)
you're the one who's finding evidence of a charged particle weakness in an episode where nothing like that is ever mentioned or indicated. You have the scripts for TNG(for your TNG canon database). Check out Scene 47 - "two shuttle craft staggered between the Raman and the Enterprise, with their shields adjusted to refocus the tractor beam" - how can they do that if shields fail when they encounter the charged particles of the gas giant's atmosphere (or does the weakness only apply to the E-d's shields?)
The shuttles were supposed to stop at a much higher altitude than the Raman, Edam. Don't be obtuse
Ah, so even though the shields are vulnerable to charged particles in nebulae they aren't vulnerable to far greater numbers of charged particles in certain parts of gas giants atmospheres? your ideas just get worse and worse with every comment you make, Mike.
. They were afraid to go down to the Raman's altitude,
Because they were stretching the abilities of the probe.
"Arsenal of Freedom" Escape Clause
And yet the hull temperature was nowhere near danger levels - they were in far more danger in Descent than they were here. The ship was nowhere near being destroyed.
Red herring. Even if the ship's hull would have survived the heat after shield failure, the point was that the atmospheric friction killed their shields!
which were still up when they left the atmosphere. I've actually provided a possible explanation for this in the discussion no turbulence up above, and teh force vs force aspects previously.
Don't be a smart-ass, Edam. Your position is far too weak for that. Are you going to seriously pretend that Worf's statement about imminent shield failure means nothing?
imminent shield failure on a ship that is half missing, yes. How can this be applied to the ship as a whole, to the shields as a whole? How much did they lose when they seperated? You'll need to explain all of that if you want your idea to have any validity.
"Descent" Escape Clause
[Re: Descent CME] Yet it managed to cover the distance to the Borg
ship outside the corona in just a few seconds. Obviously looks can be
Even if it was the chromosphere the CME still covered(several thousand km) the distance in a second or two - clearly far faster than the "dozen km/s" it started off at.
You're still missing the point, which is that we don't know the distance. The corona and chromosphere aren't like national borders with clearly defined lines, Edam.
No, but they are generally accepted to have a certain depth. They say "we're out of that" so we assume they are out of it and use the common limits to judge teh distance - not still burried half way in
You seem to assume that it must have been completely outside the corona or the chromosphere, as if there was some velvet rope and they got stopped by the bouncer. It's just a matter of gas density, Edam. There was obviously some point beyond which the E-D could go but the Borg ship couldn't, although it would have obviously tried to get as close as possible. Your inference about the Borg ship being thousands of kilometres away is unsupported in fact.
It was stated to be outside, we know where outside is commonly accepted to be, so we can use that as a judge. If you want to reduce the figure go ahead and try. that'll probably mean watching the episode, though, something you seem a little adverse to at the moment.
As for "looks can be deceiving", they happen to be canon in this case.
so how did the burst cover the distance from the surface of the star to the borg ship in a few seconds? Transported half the distance?
Too bad for you, Edam. Funny how you're willing to use screen time ("a second or two") as direct evidence while ignoring visuals. How long did the flare really take to hit the ship? A time lapse during a camera change is an acceptable rationalization, but simply ignoring the ship's destruction scene and its flare velocity is not.
riight. The E-d could onyl survive a few minutes in the star, but we actually ahve a 10 minute time cut whilst we wait for the flare to do its work.
you theory conveniently ignores situations such as Interface and A Matter of Time where the E-d specifically uses its shields (or the shields of shuttles) in environments where the plasma you claim should threaten the shields exists. Infact, in A Matter of time the shields were used specifically to attract high energy plasma - why would they do that if it was a threat to their systems?
It didn't look like high energy plasma to me, Edam. In appreciable quantities, high energy plasma looks like the surface of the sun. That was just a bunch of upper-atmosphere pollution.
They said it was high-energy plasma, we have no reason to believe they were wrong(and small quantities of high energy plasma can look like the stuff in A Matter of Time - just look at the pictures from things like SPHERE or STAR or other high-energy plasma experiments), and the shields certainly held, so this case of high-energy plasma clearly contradicts examples of lower energy plasma over lesser area having greater effect - how do you explain that? How do you explain the high-energy gas frmo Clues that had similarly useless effect on the shields? Personally, I don't think you've even seen A Matter of time recently - I think you're just bluffing because you ahve problems accepting stated fact, but that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?
As for "Interface", you continue to ignore the fact that the USS Raman did suffer total shield failure despite your preposterous claim that the incident has nothing to do with shields!
It has nothing to do with your claimed charged particle weakness.
Ah, I see. But they stay so close that they can't avoid a CME moving at a dozen km/s? Don't make me laugh. If they just wanted to wait it out, they could have pulled back a half million kilometres and just sat there.
And lost the Enterprise when it left in a different direction. oops.
Explain why they needed special shields to go inside, and why Federation scientists were shocked when somebody proposed a theoretical shield designed to survive entry into a star!
Key point being into a star. Not just the atmosphere.
What?!?!? The "entire example" includes every part of it, including the visuals which you ignore! How can you stand there and claim that it's OK to completely ignore the most objective part of the evidence because you're "relying on the entire example"? What does the word "entire" mean in your dictionary, Edam?
entire - everything - the whole thing. The fact the CME covered the distance in a few seconds.
No, you're trying to prove that Federation shields have no weakness other than to brute-force energy levels,
I'm fairly certain I know better than you what I amtrying to prove. This is specifically about your list of charged particle weaknesses, and how they are not what you claim. Most of them have already been demonstrated as such.
As for your attempt to paint the whole incident as a "side line" by claiming that the Borg ship's shields were down, you're just desperately searching for loopholes.
Just stating the facts, Mike. Showing why it doesn't support your claims
Don't play games, Edam. It's obviously not a natural CME,
then how can you be certain of its properties? You don't even know how phasers would affect other materials, so you can't deduce the likely properties.
So, how does a phaser induce a solar flare in a star Mike?
Red herring. The point is that regardless of how it's induced, it is composed of photosphere gas being hurled upwards, and it will obey natural laws.
so you know for a fact its density will not change, you know its internal energy won't change. You know all this because you know exactly how pahsers work. Hang on...
Scout ship? I think you're imagining things again Mike. who said that was a scout ship? In Scorpion Seven of Nine present a Multi Kinetic Neutronic Mine - quite a powerful little thing, by all accounts. Where are you getting the idea it's a scout ship? Borg scouts are normally small(ish) cubes like that one Hugh was found near in I Borg
Nonsense. This "bomb" was equipped with weapons, superluminal and subluminal propulsion systems, sensors, etc.
to get it where it was going to go.
It was capable of defeating the Federation's most powerful starship in battle. It was a full-fledged starship by every conceivable definition, and since it was relatively small, I figure it was the Borg's idea of a scout ship.
We know what their scoutships look like. the only time we see the ship in Descent it is described as a Multi Kinetic Neutronic Mine. If you want to say it isn't a mine (aka bomb - explosive device) find us another example where it is something else. Until then, it's a Borg bomb.
Edam, this kind of empty rhetorical answer merely proves to me that you can't adequately defend your arguments, so smart-ass remarks are all you have left.
I'm correcting your assumptions about my arguments. You I assume I label a scout ship a bomb - I don't. I label a bomb a bomb. they call it a bomb, so it is. If you want it to be something different that's up to you
Sure. The Borg multi-kinetic neutronic mine, which scatters nanoprobes over a five light-year wide area without vapourizing them in the process, the way an explosive device would.
Do you know the properties of borg nanoprobes? no? Then how can you say an explosive device would vaporise them?
I present piece after piece of concrete evidence
misrepresentations, lies and fantasies.
which are consistent with the idea that some kind of special vulnerability exists to certain high temperature gases and charged particles. In each case, you try to show that there is some ambiguity, some kind of doubt. This is not a court of law, Edam. You are not the defendant, you do not get the advantage of an asymmetrical burden of proof, and you can not slither away by attacking my theory without admitting that your own theory (which you claim does not exist, even though you described it twice) is vastly inferior. Science is not about certainty; it will always incorporate a certain amount of doubt. You've got to find a better theory in order to kill this one, not just prove that this one's not perfect.
I've done better than prove this one is not perfect - I've proven it has no reason whatsoever. None of your examples require this theory, many of your examples are directly contradicted by apparently similar examples. If you want this to be a theory work on it. Take the examples that need correcting and correct them. That is, after all, what this is about - pointing out the mistakes you have made in the page.
Your attempt to claim that the only way to hurt Federation shields is brute force
And a very small number of known weaknesses, none of which are related to a general weakness as you described.
Return to main debate page