Brian quantifies Isotons

[Mr. Oragahn]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, plenty of normal reasons, mostly related to antimatter based reactions (some speculate that such reactions would also happen in stars).
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?

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.

I'd have to assume that the hull, although it insulates well, also sucks at radiating the heat away.
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.

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.

How long did it stay around the star? At what altitude?
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).

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.

Those maneuvers, as I recall them, are FAST ones.

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.

How long did they stay there?

That just means that Star Trek ships are incredibly tough, even very primitive ones.

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.
Now, the NX-01 may have been tough, but the rocks found in that soup were not armoured.

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.

Why no figures then?

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

Not the point. Do pulsars emit large amounts of energy through beams or just omnidirectional radiations?

[Mike DiCenso]

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.

Sure. But "super-active" means likely more energetic, which in turn means higher-end estimates, and that's in part what I'm getting at here. The star in "Suspicions" was not a normal star. To use normal, G-type star calcs for this and claim it is an upper limit for Trek is flawed or dishonest.

Yes, plenty of normal reasons, mostly related to antimatter based reactions (some speculate that such reactions would also happen in stars).
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:

No, my premise is that Trek tech leaks neutrinos. Whether or not it has to do with the warp care, a nacelle, or something else is largely irrelevant. The fact is, there are other ways besides the star for the neutrino count to be elevated and because no one stated where the neutrino elevation comes from (star or warp engines, etc), we can't make any assumptions here. Not to mention, in "Descent, Part 2", no mention is made of neutrinos when the shields are turned on there, which then gets to the slippery slope of, if it was the star causing them, then that is yet more proof that is NOT a normal star.

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?

See above. But to bring this back in line with the thread. All this goes to show that Brian Young is completely wrong about Star Trek ships having trouble with stellar coronas. At best you can say here with the counter evidence provided is that some Trek ships have some difficulty in the coronas of some stars, and in those times, the stars are very unusual in some manner. Hell, in TNG's "I, Borg" we have the E-D hiding for several minutes it seems in the chromosphere of a star to hide from the Borg while they come to pick Hugh up:

PICARD: The Borg ship will enter orbit in one hour. You'll soon be headed home. We'll beam him down and then we'll take up a position in the star's chromosphere. The interference will hide us from their sensors.

The Sun's chromosphere is only about 2,000 km thick on average, so that's not that far above the photosphere relatively speaking.

I'd have to assume that the hull, although it insulates well, also sucks at radiating the heat away.

Uh, no. Because we don't see the hull glowing in a way that indicates it is reaching its refractory limits, which means that the temperature was not enough to go through to the other side of the plating and indeed, we don't see anyone sweating, unable to stand near walls or other indications, spoken or otherwise of heat leakage to the interior, at least in the case of "Descent", and nothing is ever said of that in "Relics", nor "Allegiance".

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.

But there is no evidence of that. The G-type star in "Relics", for example, was increasing its radiation output as well as spewing out massive amounts of matter (CMEs?) and we see the flares and later the E-D flying through them. Either way, the ship is taking a massive amount of thermal and other radiation to the shields. In a normal steady state condition, the ship would be taking 42 megawatts per square meter. But with the flares, it would be taking at least an order of magnitude more energy than that.

How long did it stay around the star? At what altitude?
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).

I don't know much about Rama's list, so it might be helpful if you provided some quotes o anything else. Remember that in "Redemption", the important context is that Kurn and Worf's BoP is heavily battle damaged, it's shields are battered down and is still under nearly constant attack almost all the way down to the star's photosphere. And bear in mind these are BoPs, the majority of which are weaker one-on-one compared to ships the the Galaxy-class. Even back in TOS, the BoP was generally ten times weaker than a refit Constitution-class starship. So, that's only lower limits, not upper ones here. As for "klingon officers getting worried". No one in "Shadows and Sybols" except Quark really expresses such a thing. Worf expresses concern, but so would I, if I was in a heavily battered BoP trying to skim above a photosphere and through the chromosphere, I'd be a bit worried, too!

Those maneuvers, as I recall them, are FAST ones.

But still require the ship to fly through the stellar coronas, nonetheless, and fly at the star on the way out there to pull it off, which in turn gets at the point being made against Brian Young's assertion that Trek ships have trouble entering stellar coronas.

How long did they stay there?

A good minute or more in the case of the damaged BoP in "Redemption", and more than five in the case of Martok's BoP in "Shadows and Symbols". In "By Inferno's Light", the Defiant doesn't stay too long, their goal was only to grab the Changeling hijacked runabout so it wouldn't drop it's star killer bomb into it. But the runabout had been going in there for a least a minute while the Defiant was there for at least 20 seconds. But in neither case was there any real difficulty, which again goes against Brian Young's idea that Trek ships have trouble with stellar coronas. They don't... under normal circumstances.

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.
Now, the NX-01 may have been tough, but the rocks found in that soup were not armoured.

That was the best the NX-01 could manage firepower-wise at that point in time (500 GJ, per cannonn actually, or 800 after Reed and Tucker's modifications). The Vulcans, Klingons, and Andorians clearly had far superior weapons and possessed shields that could take it. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is that according to dialog, the NX-01 passed about 2 million km from that black hole and material is shown glowing brightly:



But the scene in particular that you describe occurs not long before the ship exits the accretion disk:




Arguably, that one rock there looks like its glowing, or very intensely illuminated. But either way, the ship survived and without shields.

Why no figures then?

If you must have them, remember that a black hole doesn't radiate itself, at least according to our current understanding of physics, except for the theoretical Hawking radiation. But the accretion disks of matter do as the immense gravitational forces and angular momentum convert that matter into energy at an astonishing 10 to 40 percent efficiency. So, using E=mc2, assuming only 1 million kilograms of matter were being converted and at 10%, we would see Voyager being exposed to some portion of 2.1 petatons of hard radiation, mostly in the form of X-rays. If you go with what should be the amount of converted matter, billions to trillions of metric tons, then it gets stupidly high, and Voyager as you saw in the image was very close and even went inside the event horizon.

Not the point. Do pulsars emit large amounts of energy through beams or just omnidirectional radiations?

Both. The pulsar radiates omnidirectionaly, but the intense magnetic fields around them focus some of that into beams. At least that's what I understand from the material and as one source pointed out, the understanding of pulsars is very much still in it's infancy. So the E-D being hit every fraction of a second by the emission beam in "Allegiance" is a stupidly insanely amazing feat for the ship to withstand for any length of time!
-Mike