The "Outrageous Okona" Falsehood

[Who is like God arbour]

First of all most of the energy a star emits goes straight "up". Only a miniscule amount is reflected sideways.

As you deviously dropped this point, I shall push it back again:

ANY PART OF SUN radiates energy equally in all directions, including inside, but also to all sides. It's just with the distance that all vectors appear away from Sun.

I'm not sure, that you have meant me, but I have not dropped this point:

• • • • First of all most of the energy a star emits goes straight "up". Only a miniscule amount is reflected sideways.

        Elaborate that statement. That contradicts what I have learned. As far as I know, each atom in a sun is very energized and will emit photons in all directions. That means that light is going from each point of the sun in all directions and not only (or mainly) in a straight line from the center of the sun away.

There was nothing more to say.

And I don't respond to Praeothmin if he doesn't read the threat after I have asked him to do it and then even lies to me. I have counted at least four posts which have dealed inter alia with that question [1], [2], [3], [4].

And I see no reason to further argue with Kane Starkiller.
I have asked him to provide a better theory, how the navigational deflector is working. He hasn't done it. Thus my theory is still the best theory we have.

He is correct, saying that we don't know subspace physics. But as far as I know and as far as he probably knows, the navigation deflector was always described as a device that is used to steer space debris, asteroids, microscopic particles and other objects that otherwise might collide with the ship, out of its path. I have never heard that it is a shield with which these objects collide.

My problem is, that I have no source, he would accept as canon, that is describing the working of the navigational shield. Maybe there is no such source and that is comming only from secondary literature like the Technical Manual (which I don't have).

A further problem is, that in the show, the terms navigation shield, navigation deflector, main shield or main deflector are not proper keeped apart. It is dificult to ascertain if there is a difference between the navigational deflector and the deflector shield.

My few leads are

• the TOS episode: The Cage, in which they are reffering to a "Metorite Beam".
• the TOS episode: The Paradise Syndrome, in which the Enterprise has used its deflector to attempt to shift a large asteroid off course when it threatened the planet Amerind.

These episodes are indicating that the ship is sending beams that steers space debris, asteroids, microscopic particles and other objects away and doesn't create a kind of energy shield with which these objecty collide. Other Star Trek episodes, in which the deflector is used to emit some kind of beam, support the notion, that the deflector doesn't create a shield but emits beams.

[Praeothmin]

And I don't respond to Praeothmin if he doesn't read the threat after I have asked him to do it and then even lies to me. I have counted at least four posts which have dealed inter alia with that question [1], [2], [3], [4].

Then I won't not respond to your not responding to me... :)
And you have a lot of nerves calling me a lawyer... er, a lyer... :)

The truth is W.I.L.G.A, I have read the thread, but unlike you, who seems to be used to read really long documents to the words, I read really quickly, and your response was one small fracking paragraph in a thread that was 6 or 7 pages long.

But, thanks to your links (and because I really didn't want to miss the explanation once more and be called a lyer anew), I have seen your "response".
And it hasn't convinced me.
The navigational deflectors deflect, as you have stated, small particles that are a threat to the vessel, such as space dust, micrometeorites, etc...
Phasers, as we have seen many times, do fire particles (nadions).
In that case, since those particles are threatening the ship, by your explanation the navigational deflector should deflect a Phaser "particle" beam.

And your explanation doesn't cover why photon torpedoes aren't affected by the deflectors.

As dust particles, when going at warp, will be arriving much faster then the speed of light, so the computer's reaction time would be extremelly decreased.
Although I can accept that the computer itself would have the time to compute the threat a that speed, I cannot accept that the deflectors can come on and off at such speeds, specially when we see how slow shields are when they are activated.

So I cannot accept your explanation of how the deflectors work.
It is inventive, and you clearly have done your research, but once again, I feel you manipulate the findings to fit with your pre-conceived conclusion, that the E-D's navigational deflectors are immune to all lasers.

[Who is like God arbour]

The truth is W.I.L.G.A, I have read the thread, but unlike you, who seems to be used to read really long documents to the words, I read really quickly, and your response was one small fracking paragraph in a thread that was 6 or 7 pages long.

And yet, it was already outright explained in the third post of that threat, the post in which I have explained my whole thoughts and which has started that debate at all.

The navigational deflectors deflect, as you have stated, small particles that are a threat to the vessel, such as space dust, micrometeorites, etc...
Phasers, as we have seen many times, do fire particles (nadions).
In that case, since those particles are threatening the ship, by your explanation the navigational deflector should deflect a Phaser "particle" beam.

You have seen, that phasers are firing particles? Wow, you must have exceptionally eyes which have not only a resolution that is so high that it can even catch more details than the resolution of a screen allows to show, you must also be able to see things, which have a speed so high, that we simple folk aren't able to see them.
Joke aside.

What do you know about nadions?

Are they really particles? Which kind of particle?

What mass do they have? A positive or negative rest mass or maybe zero rest mass? Are they affected by gravity? What speed can they achieve? Why can they achieve speeds faster than light but are sometimes slower than light? Do they propagate in our real space or do they propagate in subspace along the path, the phaser is taking in real space?
Are they merely a by-product of the phaser beam or are they the particle which creates the phaser beam? Would the phaser beam cease to exit, when all nadions in it are deflected or would the phaser beam continue unaffected without the maybe irrelevant nadions?
Are they necessary to create the phaser beam in the prefire chamber or the emission aperture or are they created by creating the phaser beam?
What is the "Rapid Nadion Effect"?

The truth is, nobody knows anything about nadions but that they have characteristics totally different from all us known sub-atomic particles or elementary particles.

And you should not equate elementary particles, sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules. The latter two are often called particles too. Space debris, asteroids, microscopic particles like molecules and atoms have nothing to do with the first two kinds of particles and usually never reach speed above 1/10 c naturally.

And your explanation doesn't cover why photon torpedoes aren't affected by the deflectors.

A photon torpedos is also able to achieve or hold warp speeds. That is only possible if it has no mass in the us known real space-time. And if it has no mass, it isn't affected by gravitation. Somehow it transfers its mass in subspace. That is often described as mass lightening effect.
Besides, a photon torpedo has a guidance system. If it comming of course because it is attracted by a gravitation source, it will simply compensate like a pilot who doesn't allow that his plane is blown of course from wind.

And as SailorSaturn13 has already said, when a photon torpedo explodes - either at the shields of a ship or at the hull of that ship, it is already too late to deflect the torpedo.

As dust particles, when going at warp, will be arriving much faster then the speed of light, so the computer's reaction time would be extremelly decreased.
Although I can accept that the computer itself would have the time to compute the threat a that speed, I cannot accept that the deflectors can come on and off at such speeds, specially when we see how slow shields are when they are activated.

See, that is the ingenious at my idea. If the navigation shield is projecting a constant gravitation source in the path of the ship, it would attract each mass automatically. Not each particle has to be steered away separately . They all would be attracted at the same time and by falling to the gravitation source would clear the path of the ship.

So I cannot accept your explanation of how the deflectors work.

You don't have to accept anything. But your reason, why you don't accept something should be logical. It's not logical, when you are not able to show that my theory is irreconcilable with what was shown in Star Trek or you can't provide a better theory.

It is inventive, and you clearly have done your research, but once again, I feel you manipulate the findings to fit with your pre-conceived conclusion, that the E-D's navigational deflectors are immune to all lasers.

Read the threat again. I have already explained that that is wrong.

[Praeothmin]

A photon torpedos is also able to achieve or hold warp speeds.

Wrong!
A photon torpedo is only able to sustain warp speeds once it has been fired at warp.

Thus it cannot have "zero" mass, thus it should be affected by your theory.

If the navigation shield is projecting a constant gravitation source in the path of the ship, it would attract each mass automatically. Not each particle has to be steered away separately . They all would be attracted at the same time and by falling to the gravitation source would clear the path of the ship.

Yet if I remember correctly, you stated that the navigational delfectors wouldn't be active all the time.
Now you're stating it does.

Also, depending on the distance and the mass of other objects nearby, wouldn't objects also be attracted by the navigational deflectors?
All the times we've seen other ships, like in "The Outrageous Okona", right in front of the E-D, not be attracted to the E-D means that the navigational deflectors don't work as you think.

But your reason, why you don't accept something should be logical. It's not logical, when you are not able to show that my theory is irreconcilable with what was shown in Star Trek or you can't provide a better theory.

This is the funny part:
To me, your explanation isn't logical in view of all we've seen and heard on how things work in ST.
I don't need to find a better explanation in order to point out the logical flaws of yours.

For example, even though I don't know how a nuclear reactor works, I know, from all I've read and heard, that it doesn't inlcude burning coal to achieve its goal.
I don't have to provide an explanation on how it works in order to point this out.