Surely, calculations couldn't provide anything but a lower estimate (unless one has considered the use of a higher density of matter). I still go for the unusual = super active.Mike DiCenso wrote:For a point of comparison our Sun's corona is has a density about 0.0000000001 times that of the Earth's sea-level atmosphere. That's so tenuous that it would not even be visible, but for the high temperature making it glow. But how much is this other star's super dense corona? Enough that a shuttle left a visible wake while flying through it. But whatever else, the point is made that this is not a normal star and therefore any calculations are going to be on the lower end of such estimates.
Yes, plenty of normal reasons, mostly related to antimatter based reactions (some speculate that such reactions would also happen in stars).Except that there is plenty of precedence for Trek tech generating neutrinos. Just read through the listing here at Memory Alpha. Often times this occurs quite incidentally.
Nothing refutes the idea that neutrinos came from the star, on the contrary!
It's the most simple explanation and nothing in the list is anyway relevant, since the amount of odd events that would be related to neutrino emission, and even more, odd events involving shields, is precisely zero.
The only distant reference one could find is a neutrino emission related to leaking nacelles, which are responsible of warp, and the relation between subspace and warp fields.
That list even provides elements in favour of the stellar source:
"Timicin, a scientist from Kaelon II, considered neutrino counts among countless variables when he experimented with a way to revive a dying star. (TNG: "Half a Life") "
In 2370, Martus Mazur's probability-altering gambling machines caused more than eighty percent of solar neutrinos in Deep Space 9 to spin clockwise. Jadzia Dax noticed that most of the neutrinos on Deep Space 9 were spinning in the same direction, when really the direction of a neutrino's spin should have been random. (DS9: "Rivals")
The only other normal solution I'd accept is that the neutrinos caught in the shield were those emitted by an antimatter core inside the ship; also because of the numerous references about neutrinos emited from ships.
Not sure how that makes much of a difference though.
Unless you counted on those neutrino emissions as a proof of some star oddity?
I'd have to assume that the hull, although it insulates well, also sucks at radiating the heat away.Overactive is still an off-normal condition. We have to consider based on prior precedence that this is not a normal star since the G-type star in "Relics" did not heat up the E-D's hull to 12,000 degree Celsius in a matter of seconds. Hell, it didn't raise it up that much even after minutes or perhaps hours.
Anyway, coronas are massively hot, but have absurdly low densities. Now, keep the reasons that make the coronas hot (allegedly huge magnetic fields twisting and snapping), raise the quantity of matter on top of that (like, say, the star farted and a huge amount of lingering matter remained in orbit), and you'd get both your +millions kelvin temp and enough matter to actually transmit more of that heat by contact, whilst the star retains its usual luminosity.
How long did it stay around the star? At what altitude?On top of that, a battle damaged BoP in "Redemption, Part 2" swoops down to the photosphere of a star and doesn't get suffer like that.
In Rama's entire list of BS, there still were some lines about Klingon officers being worried about getting close to stars (which were totally normal).
Those maneuvers, as I recall them, are FAST ones.The Constitution-class Enterprise never had too much trouble when it did a sling shot around the Sun in "Tomorrow is Yesterday", neither did the BoP in "Star Trek: The Voyage Home", which was canonically shown to be a very close flyby for the time-travel sling shot maneuver to work.
How long did they stay there?In DS9's "By Inferno's Light", a runabout and the Defiant get very close to the Bajoran sun, which by all accounts is a noramal G-type star as seen here:
So let's keep all this in perspective. These ships rarely suffer too much, unless the star is abnormal in some way.
Multi-gigajoule meter wide beams and unfocused low kiloton blasts were about the best they had to deal with. We now have to compare that to data about those black holes.That just means that Star Trek ships are incredibly tough, even very primitive ones.
Now, the NX-01 may have been tough, but the rocks found in that soup were not armoured.
Why no figures then?Black holes are a fairly well understood phenomena, and we know what their lower limits are, so we can at least derive a minimum from it, just like we can from neutron stars and pulsars.
Not the point. Do pulsars emit large amounts of energy through beams or just omnidirectional radiations?Could you please be bothered to click on the links I provide. It seems at this point that you are deliberately going out of your way to handwave away all evidence provided. But I'll help you out by providing more: https://www.google.com/#q=pulsar+100%2C ... l+than+sun
-Mike