Survivors Particle Energy

[Mr. Oragahn]

Particle energy is nothing fancy. It's just KE and PE, and eventually anything related to rest mass in quantum physics.
The fact that Worf mentions positrons and antiprotons in his first statement does not collide with the concept of particle energy.
There will be particle energy from those particles, no matter what, just as there will be from the shower of particles released by annihilation.

All is full of particle energy.

Why ask: "Why should we assume that the first beam didn't contain particle energy"?

Worf gives the second measurement in particle energy, but not the first, and that is why it matters.

Please explain how the first beam could not contain and/or deliver particle energy.
Why would Worf pointing out that they've been hit with x watt of particle energy the second time they're hit necessarily exclude that they also had to cope with particle energy. Particle energy is a logical result of annihilation.

If you read the quote you provided, nowhere it says 400 GW per particle.

The definition of Particle energy is the energy a single particle has. Any measurement given in particle energy would be for a single particle.

No. Particle energy can mean a type of energy.
In this case, the energy of particles.
It does not have to only mean the energy of one particle.
It is a global statement.
And you don't rate the energy of a particle in watts.
Please acknowledge those points. It is necessary so you can see your mistake.

And how do you know how many particles hit the shield?

We can't know how many particles were fired, but we know there were enough to be seen with the naked eye. Unless you want to argue they are abnormally large particles the total number of particles would be rather large. ^_^

Which funnily is a point you completely dodged when I first pointed it out. Do you know how many particles you would begin to need in order to make the beam remotely opaque?
Yes, suddenly you realize that your position means the E-D was hit with something in the region of 4 e32~34 W.

Where? I believe you didn't read my posts properly from the beginning.

You are the one arguing that a 400GW DET weapon is powerful enough to bring down the Enterprise-D's shields, and melt the hull

0.095602294455067 Megaton is equal to 400 giga-joulse

No. Hence why I said you misunderstood my point. I thought it was rather clear though, when I precisely meant that the wattage of the beam, and the energy of the antimatter particles upon annihilation, would be two different things, and only the second part, which is not quantified properly, would be dangerous.

Of course, this theory is also silly in a way because Worf, or the E-D's sensors, would be too mediocre as to fail to notify, then, the true firepower of what really hit them.

I don't think the NX ever had that kind of firepower. Reed's statement, assuming it's taken literally, says a photonic torpedo will put a 3 km crater in an asteroid, which often are "glued" globes of rubble, sometimes loosely held by gravity, and that in space, which is a zero gravity environment.
It's completely different than trying to make a crater in the ground of a planet.

When have we ever seen an asteroid like you describe in Star Trek? ^_^
As I understand it the lack of an atmosphere means the bomb/missle/torpedo need to be more powerful to make the same sized craters.

Quite the contrary, and the atmosphere is totally irrelevant, as it's not going to change anything of significance.

They're the weapons that's most used. Check most of ENT battles for that. Only few superior civilizations, like the Klingons at that time, had ships which could cope with phasers, and even a torpedo with shields at full.

Yes, and those superior civilizations aren't superior by the time of TOS, and I seem to recall a TNG episode where a TOS era Klingon ship was not powerful enough to be a threat to the E-D.

Yeah but that's just not relevant to the point I made, which was a reply to your evocation of ENT yields and battles.

Canon is canon. Kirk clearly states what General Order 24 is, and his crew reads to carry it out. We have no reason to believe the order is anything but what it is portrayed as, or that they could not do it.

Aside from a gamble on hyperbole? Show me a GO24 being conducted and you'll have something. A captain like Kirk who says his ship can do X in the middle of a tense moment, in order to make a point and win whatever kind of debate he was locked in, is hardly reliable.

What are you trying with your Jedi tricks? Those don't work on me.

Seriously, I want to see the quote, and I want you to be more specific about what episodes you are talking about. "The Borg ship incident, not Relics" is kind of vague.

Was it Descent then? But I guess it's been addressed in this thread now.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. What's so special about Q Who?

If I'm not mixing up episode with Q in them it is the episode that has Data saying the warp is increasing it's output by something like 3 gigaton a second, and then the warp core explodes a few seconds later giving us an idea of the E-D's power generation capabilities..

Quote, perhaps?

You're wrong. My former posts in this thread were meant to explain why those 400 GW weren't the cause of the real damage, but the antimatter fired at the ship.
However, in my last two or three posts, I wondered if it could be possible to make ships with terawatt-range power production fit with the "facts" of Trek. Mind you, this hypothesis goes by the idea that the ship can stockpile "shield points" up in the petajoule range. See, we don't even need to get there. Even having shields charged to cope with hundreds of terajoules would laugh at the 400 GW beam so it doesn't matter, because even with this late hypothesis I'm exploring, I still need to explain the issue relative to the 400 GW threatening a ship which I believe could charge shields.

If simply shooting a 400 GW anti-matter particle beam at shields would bring them down then all the trek powers would do, and shields would be nigh useless for combat.

If 400 GW was enough to bring down shields easily then the NX-1 would have been a beast in combat.

Obviously. You've just acknowledged that there's an issue about "The Survivors". Going in circles isn't really helpful.

[Lucky]

Please explain how the first beam could not contain and/or deliver particle energy.

It's a bleeping particle beam, of course it had particle energy. The energy the beam was able to impart the first time was stated to be the "Equivalent firepower: forty megawatts".

Why would Worf pointing out that they've been hit with x watt of particle energy the second time they're hit necessarily exclude that they also had to cope with particle energy. Particle energy is a logical result of annihilation.

Because that is what Worf said?

No. Particle energy can mean a type of energy.
In this case, the energy of particles.
It does not have to only mean the energy of one particle.
It is a global statement.
And you don't rate the energy of a particle in watts.
Please acknowledge those points. It is necessary so you can see your mistake.

Particle Energy
(′pärd·ə·kəl ′en·ər·jē)
(mechanics) For a particle in a potential, the sum of the particle's kinetic energy and potential energy.
(relativity) For a relativistic particle the sum of the particle's potential energy, kinetic energy, and rest energy; the last is equal to the product of the particle's rest mass and the square of the speed of light.

Which funnily is a point you completely dodged when I first pointed it out. Do you know how many particles you would begin to need in order to make the beam remotely opaque?
Yes, suddenly you realize that your position means the E-D was hit with something in the region of 4 e32~34 W.

What dodge? It's rather clear we can't know the number of particles because no number was ever given.

Doesn't Kirk's Enterprise get hit with a sonic weapon that comes out to be about 4 e32~34 W?

No. Hence why I said you misunderstood my point. I thought it was rather clear though, when I precisely meant that the wattage of the beam, and the energy of the antimatter particles upon annihilation, would be two different things, and only the second part, which is not quantified properly, would be dangerous.

Of course, this theory is also silly in a way because Worf, or the E-D's sensors, would be too mediocre as to fail to notify, then, the true firepower of what really hit them.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Quite the contrary, and the atmosphere is totally irrelevant, as it's not going to change anything of significance.

I would think a solid hunk of rock or metal would be much harder to cater then the same amount of matter of the same type but in a sand like state. Please give an example of an asteroid in Star Trek that was anything like "glued" globes of rubble.

In the real world it takes 10 to 12 MT makes a crater of about 1.9 km on Earth.

Yeah but that's just not relevant to the point I made, which was a reply to your evocation of ENT yields and battles.

Just pointing out that firepower increased a lot for the Federation.

Aside from a gamble on hyperbole? Show me a GO24 being conducted and you'll have something. A captain like Kirk who says his ship can do X in the middle of a tense moment, in order to make a point and win whatever kind of debate he was locked in, is hardly reliable.

Such an ability was why they did not try the brute force method to get through a planetary shield. They would have killed the Kirk and company by shooting at the opposite side of the planet, and Kirk was in a rather sturdy bunker type place, and they knew that.

Let's not forget "The Die Is Cast".

Was it Descent then? But I guess it's been addressed in this thread now.

In "Descent" they dive into a very hot/odd star, and cause a technobabble phenomenon to happen destroying the cube.

12,000 degrees C hull with shields up.

Quote, perhaps?

"True Q"[TNG6],
Amanda: "It's hard to imagine how much energy is being harnessed in there."
Data : "Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating 12.75 billion gigawatts per . . . "

The script as I recall was said per second, and as I understand it that means an increase of power every second of 12.75 gigawatts. The Warp core goes boom a second or 3 after Data stops talking as I recall..

Obviously. You've just acknowledged that there's an issue about "The Survivors". Going in circles isn't really helpful.

Reread the OP careful if you truly believe that is the first time I showed there are issues with "Survivors".

[Mr. Oragahn]

Please explain how the first beam could not contain and/or deliver particle energy.

It's a bleeping particle beam, of course it had particle energy. The energy the beam was able to impart the first time was stated to be the "Equivalent firepower: forty megawatts".

So you admit the first beam also was particle energy.

Why would Worf pointing out that they've been hit with x watt of particle energy the second time they're hit necessarily exclude that they also had to cope with particle energy. Particle energy is a logical result of annihilation.

Because that is what Worf said?

For all we know, Worf didn't speak of annihilation. Besides, you admited that the first beam contained particle energy.

No. Particle energy can mean a type of energy.
In this case, the energy of particles.
It does not have to only mean the energy of one particle.
It is a global statement.
And you don't rate the energy of a particle in watts.
Please acknowledge those points. It is necessary so you can see your mistake.

Particle Energy
(?pärd·?·k?l ?en·?r·j?)
(mechanics) For a particle in a potential, the sum of the particle's kinetic energy and potential energy.
(relativity) For a relativistic particle the sum of the particle's potential energy, kinetic energy, and rest energy; the last is equal to the product of the particle's rest mass and the square of the speed of light.

You don't really get it. Again, particle energy can mean the total energy of all the particles, and as far as I'm concerned, it makes much more sense than claiming each particle carries 400 GW. And again, you'd know that it would be rated in joules, not watts.
Actually, science would want you to understand that if it's rated in watts, as per your explanation, then it means that the energy per particle is many orders of magnitude smaller, but delivered over a small fraction of a second, hence the high power. Just like for contemporary lasers which can be emitted in the petawatt range, yet emit meagre megajoules and less.
However, it also meats a dead end in that your particle, if anything normal, wouldn't be rated at more than x megaelectrovolts (and 1 MeV is about 1.06 e-13 J), and thus you'd need a silly low fraction of a second that would be, actually, faster than even the mere deceleration of the particle as it hits anything, or its capacity to transmit its micro-kinetic energy.

Science would actually have you to accept that 400 GW is 400 GW for the whole beam, and logic and parsimony would have you accept that it's the most simple way to understand the figure. But that apparently you don't want to hear it. Hence the current merry go round.

But let's not stop there.
You do realize that the only definition you can find on three pages of google for "particle energy" is solely found at answers.com, right?
You do realize that it's energy particle, not high energy particle, which means your single particle can't be rated at more than 100 MeV. That's just... oh, about a difference of 22 orders of magnitude.
You'd also have to finally admit that, yes, particle energy can be used as a broad term.
And that's without considering that scientists may think there are several definitions, some which should be changed.

And obviously, Worf would only give a wattage figure for a weapon if a Captain would immediately know what kind of danger it represents.

Which funnily is a point you completely dodged when I first pointed it out. Do you know how many particles you would begin to need in order to make the beam remotely opaque?
Yes, suddenly you realize that your position means the E-D was hit with something in the region of 4 e32~34 W.

What dodge? It's rather clear we can't know the number of particles because no number was ever given.

Right. So if we can't know, then I claim two particles.
Prove me wrong.

Doesn't Kirk's Enterprise get hit with a sonic weapon that comes out to be about 4 e32~34 W?

Try higher. The sonic weapon was rated in decibels and fired from the ground. There was more energy in the shot to blast several planetary systems.
Another silly high end TOS event which, fortunately, no people care about.
There's no point trying to solve this, because when people give a figure as an indication of what's going on, you're not supposed to follow this statement by running complex convertion calculations in your head.
That's quite the same problem with our 400 GW above, and my point about shooting Worf in the head.

Quite the contrary, and the atmosphere is totally irrelevant, as it's not going to change anything of significance.

I would think a solid hunk of rock or metal would be much harder to cater then the same amount of matter of the same type but in a sand like state. Please give an example of an asteroid in Star Trek that was anything like "glued" globes of rubble.

If Trek is the logical continuation of our level of science and knowledge of astronomy, then that's the way to go.

In the real world it takes 10 to 12 MT makes a crater of about 1.9 km on Earth.

Not so much compressible dense matter and gravity make it harder to gouge matter out of the crust and leave a neat hole.

Yeah but that's just not relevant to the point I made, which was a reply to your evocation of ENT yields and battles.

Just pointing out that firepower increased a lot for the Federation.

That I know but what you did was useless and just complicated the discussion. It's generally what people who want to score a point in debate do, when the visible conclusion of the current topic isn't favourable to them.
If there's nothing good to add, don't add.

Aside from a gamble on hyperbole? Show me a GO24 being conducted and you'll have something. A captain like Kirk who says his ship can do X in the middle of a tense moment, in order to make a point and win whatever kind of debate he was locked in, is hardly reliable.

Such an ability was why they did not try the brute force method to get through a planetary shield. They would have killed the Kirk and company by shooting at the opposite side of the planet, and Kirk was in a rather sturdy bunker type place, and they knew that.

Please clarify.

Let's not forget "The Die Is Cast".

Let's forget it.
Argued at length, and I'm yet to see over the Internet any better hypothesis than what the members of this forum have already typed in our own TDiC threads.

Quote, perhaps?

"True Q"[TNG6],
Amanda: "It's hard to imagine how much energy is being harnessed in there."?Data : "Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating 12.75 billion gigawatts per . . . "

Oh yes, that one. OK.

The script as I recall was said per second, and as I understand it that means an increase of power every second of 12.75 gigawatts. The Warp core goes boom a second or 3 after Data stops talking as I recall..

I may have vague memories of that, but I recall neither the per second part, nor the ship blowing up three seconds later.

[Lucky]

So you admit the first beam also was particle energy.

You can also measure the particle energy of the particles that make up your own body. What is your point with this red herring?

For all we know, Worf didn't speak of annihilation. Besides, you admited that the first beam contained particle energy.

The first beam's wattage was not given in particle energy, but simple mega watts. The particle energy was never given.

Both the first and second beam would have had nothing to react to except other anti-particles until they hit the Enterprise-D's hull for all practice purposes, and the damage describe was from the hull simply being heated.

You don't really get it. Again, particle energy can mean the total energy of all the particles, and as far as I'm concerned, it makes much more sense than claiming each particle carries 400 GW. And again, you'd know that it would be rated in joules, not watts.
Actually, science would want you to understand that if it's rated in watts, as per your explanation, then it means that the energy per particle is many orders of magnitude smaller, but delivered over a small fraction of a second, hence the high power. Just like for contemporary lasers which can be emitted in the petawatt range, yet emit meagre megajoules and less.
However, it also meats a dead end in that your particle, if anything normal, wouldn't be rated at more than x megaelectrovolts (and 1 MeV is about 1.06 e-13 J), and thus you'd need a silly low fraction of a second that would be, actually, faster than even the mere deceleration of the particle as it hits anything, or its capacity to transmit its micro-kinetic energy.

Science would actually have you to accept that 400 GW is 400 GW for the whole beam, and logic and parsimony would have you accept that it's the most simple way to understand the figure. But that apparently you don't want to hear it. Hence the current merry go round.

But let's not stop there.
You do realize that the only definition you can find on three pages of google for "particle energy" is solely found at answers.com, right?
You do realize that it's energy particle, not high energy particle, which means your single particle can't be rated at more than 100 MeV. That's just... oh, about a difference of 22 orders of magnitude.
You'd also have to finally admit that, yes, particle energy can be used as a broad term.
And that's without considering that scientists may think there are several definitions, some which should be changed.

I merely googled what Worf said. To apply a term other then "Particle energy" is to misquote the source. For that matter you seem to be ignoring the fact they particles are jacketed.

And obviously, Worf would only give a wattage figure for a weapon if a Captain would immediately know what kind of danger it represents.

Worf appeared to just be reading off a consul.

Right. So if we can't know, then I claim two particles.
Prove me wrong.

We can see the beams with the naked eye. For your idea to be correct the particles would have to be absurdly large, and stretched absurdly long, and this ignores the fact they arced like lightning over the shields.

Try higher. The sonic weapon was rated in decibels and fired from the ground. There was more energy in the shot to blast several planetary systems.
Another silly high end TOS event which, fortunately, no people care about.
There's no point trying to solve this, because when people give a figure as an indication of what's going on, you're not supposed to follow this statement by running complex convertion calculations in your head.
That's quite the same problem with our 400 GW above, and my point about shooting Worf in the head.

I guess I'm the only one who does that.

You would not shoot Worf for repeating what the computer told him.

If Trek is the logical continuation of our level of science and knowledge of astronomy, then that's the way to go.

Nice dodge.

Not so much compressible dense matter and gravity make it harder to gouge matter out of the crust and leave a neat hole.

Good because every asteroid we see in Star Trek seems to either be solid, or made out of magic sci-fi stuff. Heck, in Rise they are not surprised at all that they had to shoot a solid hunk of iron/nickle.

You are going to have to explain to me why not having an atmosphere makes making craters easier.

That I know but what you did was useless and just complicated the discussion. It's generally what people who want to score a point in debate do, when the visible conclusion of the current topic isn't favourable to them.
If there's nothing good to add, don't add.

You have me mixed up with someone else. I just get frustrated with people who seem to keep repeating themselves.

Please clarify.

I believe I am thinking of "Whom Gods Destroy" in which Kirk is trapped in the Elba 2 asylum.

Garak in DS9 said something to the effect of the Defiant being able to turn a planet to a cinder as I recall.

Let's forget it.
Argued at length, and I'm yet to see over the Internet any better hypothesis than what the members of this forum have already typed in our own TDiC threads.

We are looking at buried underwater explosions.

The view screen settings are meant to block out useless information.

They were getting false sensor readings.

Visuals not making sense does not mean they could not do it. The plot demands that they could have.

I may have vague memories of that, but I recall neither the per second part, nor the ship blowing up three seconds later.

Data is cut off before he says second.

The warp core explodes, but Amanda uses her Q powers to undo it. The fact the warp core exploded makes me think Data was stating the out put was increasing.

[Mr. Oragahn]

So you admit the first beam also was particle energy.

You can also measure the particle energy of the particles that make up your own body. What is your point with this red herring?

None other than Worf said particle energy the second time to avoid restarting everything the beam was about, as he stated the first time.

For all we know, Worf didn't speak of annihilation. Besides, you admited that the first beam contained particle energy.

The first beam's wattage was not given in particle energy, but simple mega watts. The particle energy was never given.

And yes it obviously is particle energy, and you admited it was.

You don't really get it. Again, particle energy can mean the total energy of all the particles, and as far as I'm concerned, it makes much more sense than claiming each particle carries 400 GW. And again, you'd know that it would be rated in joules, not watts.
Actually, science would want you to understand that if it's rated in watts, as per your explanation, then it means that the energy per particle is many orders of magnitude smaller, but delivered over a small fraction of a second, hence the high power. Just like for contemporary lasers which can be emitted in the petawatt range, yet emit meagre megajoules and less.
However, it also meats a dead end in that your particle, if anything normal, wouldn't be rated at more than x megaelectrovolts (and 1 MeV is about 1.06 e-13 J), and thus you'd need a silly low fraction of a second that would be, actually, faster than even the mere deceleration of the particle as it hits anything, or its capacity to transmit its micro-kinetic energy.

Science would actually have you to accept that 400 GW is 400 GW for the whole beam, and logic and parsimony would have you accept that it's the most simple way to understand the figure. But that apparently you don't want to hear it. Hence the current merry go round.

But let's not stop there.
You do realize that the only definition you can find on three pages of google for "particle energy" is solely found at answers.com, right?
You do realize that it's energy particle, not high energy particle, which means your single particle can't be rated at more than 100 MeV. That's just... oh, about a difference of 22 orders of magnitude.
You'd also have to finally admit that, yes, particle energy can be used as a broad term.
And that's without considering that scientists may think there are several definitions, some which should be changed.

I merely googled what Worf said. To apply a term other then "Particle energy" is to misquote the source. For that matter you seem to be ignoring the fact they particles are jacketed.

What a sniping there!
Oh, and there's no misquotating going on, because I use particle energy as well.
Besides, where did you get the idea that I ignored that particles were jacketed? Again, you should really read my posts instead of pretending having done so. My suggestion precisely was relative to the concept of the wattage being about what contained the antimatter particles. In other words, the jacketing.
Doh!
Besides, what does that add to your argument, aside from being a red herring?

Let's see. If you have nothing better to do than blockquote an entire sum of arguments, snipe them and then follow that with two strawmen and one red herring, perhaps you should just concede?

And obviously, Worf would only give a wattage figure for a weapon if a Captain would immediately know what kind of danger it represents.

Worf appeared to just be reading off a consul.

No, really?
Thank you for missing the point.
And it's a console, not consul.

Right. So if we can't know, then I claim two particles.
Prove me wrong.

We can see the beams with the naked eye. For your idea to be correct the particles would have to be absurdly large, and stretched absurdly long, and this ignores the fact they arced like lightning over the shields.

If they're visible, then see my much earlier posts about particle density that prove me right about the inane idea of thinking each particle is rated at 400 GW.
Again, how long will you keep ignoring my posts?

In fact, I can consider that you have conceded this argument.

Try higher. The sonic weapon was rated in decibels and fired from the ground. There was more energy in the shot to blast several planetary systems.
Another silly high end TOS event which, fortunately, no people care about.
There's no point trying to solve this, because when people give a figure as an indication of what's going on, you're not supposed to follow this statement by running complex convertion calculations in your head.
That's quite the same problem with our 400 GW above, and my point about shooting Worf in the head.

I guess I'm the only one who does that.

You would not shoot Worf for repeating what the computer told him.

Yes, because it's grimdark and because he provides useless information I don't care about and wasted several decibels of my Daily Tolerable Decibels budget.

If Trek is the logical continuation of our level of science and knowledge of astronomy, then that's the way to go.

Nice dodge.

Ha?
Star Trek = Earth's future, with relatively the same physics. No reason to deny what we know now.
So try Google instead.

Not so much compressible dense matter and gravity make it harder to gouge matter out of the crust and leave a neat hole.

Good because every asteroid we see in Star Trek seems to either be solid, or made out of magic sci-fi stuff. Heck, in Rise they are not surprised at all that they had to shoot a solid hunk of iron/nickle.

Yeah, because one lose and jurryrigged asteroid in some distant planetary system obviously establishes a trend about our own system...

*sigh*

You are going to have to explain to me why not having an atmosphere makes making craters easier.

No, because you're the one who claimed that an atmosphere made a difference, not me.

As I understand it the lack of an atmosphere means the bomb/missle/torpedo need to be more powerful to make the same sized craters.

That I know but what you did was useless and just complicated the discussion. It's generally what people who want to score a point in debate do, when the visible conclusion of the current topic isn't favourable to them.
If there's nothing good to add, don't add.

You have me mixed up with someone else. I just get frustrated with people who seem to keep repeating themselves.

I don't need your frustration if it's just going to lengthen posts for no useful matter.
And talking about ignoring points, I believe you've made a fine demonstration of that thus far.

Please clarify.

I believe I am thinking of "Whom Gods Destroy" in which Kirk is trapped in the Elba 2 asylum.

Yeah well when I asked for more information, I really meant it. Never mind, that's not relevant to the thread.
Start a new one about that incident alone, it will be better that way.

Garak in DS9 said something to the effect of the Defiant being able to turn a planet to a cinder as I recall.

Are you going to recite all of Trek, or focus on "The Survivors"?

Let's forget it.
Argued at length, and I'm yet to see over the Internet any better hypothesis than what the members of this forum have already typed in our own TDiC threads.

We are looking at buried underwater explosions.

The view screen settings are meant to block out useless information.

They were getting false sensor readings.

Visuals not making sense does not mean they could not do it. The plot demands that they could have.

As I said, this is not the place for another rehash of the same old claims about TDiC. Please bump the appropriate thread (after having read it entirely, that said).

I may have vague memories of that, but I recall neither the per second part, nor the ship blowing up three seconds later.

Data is cut off before he says second.

The warp core explodes, but Amanda uses her Q powers to undo it. The fact the warp core exploded makes me think Data was stating the out put was increasing.

Yes, because Data would be stupid enough to bring the warp core to overload levels just for the sake of it, right at a time when the entire crew is idling.
It's not exactly relevant to this topic either.

[Lucky]

None other than Worf said particle energy the second time to avoid restarting everything the beam was about, as he stated the first time.

How do you know that?

And yes it obviously is particle energy, and you admited it was.

The first beam is stated to be the equivalent of 40 MW.

The second beam is stated to be 400 GW of particle energy.

The second beam is not said to be the equivalent of 400 GW that you are claiming.

What a sniping there!

???

Oh, and there's no misquotating going on, because I use particle energy as well.
Besides, where did you get the idea that I ignored that particles were jacketed? Again, you should really read my posts instead of pretending having done so. My suggestion precisely was relative to the concept of the wattage being about what contained the antimatter particles. In other words, the jacketing.
Doh!
Besides, what does that add to your argument, aside from being a red herring?

Let's see. If you have nothing better to do than blockquote an entire sum of arguments, snipe them and then follow that with two strawmen and one red herring, perhaps you should just concede?

Your theory doesn't make sense. We went over this already went over that. There was nothing to respond to.

If just a few hundred giga watt could easily take down shields then the NX-1 would have been a monster in combat, it wasn't.

No, really?
Thank you for missing the point.
And it's a console, not consul.

It's rather stupid to shoot the messenger.

Forgive me for using a spell checker, but not the dictionary on my computer.

If they're visible, then see my much earlier posts about particle density that prove me right about the inane idea of thinking each particle is rated at 400 GW.

We are dealing with an R.O.B. that can seemingly control matter and energy in any way he wishes, and has vast psychic powers., my theory is hardly inane given the powers at work. It's like saying you can kill a Q with a mundane sniper rifle.

Again, how long will you keep ignoring my posts?

In fact, I can consider that you have conceded this argument.

I don't recall ignoring any of your posts directed at me.

I've repeatedly shot down you 400 GW D.E.T. theory. Change your argument, and I may change mine. As it stand, yours makes no sense.

Yes, because it's grimdark and because he provides useless information I don't care about and wasted several decibels of my Daily Tolerable Decibels budget.

I'd go after the guy who programed the computer.

Ha?
Star Trek = Earth's future, with relatively the same physics. No reason to deny what we know now.
So try Google instead.

Last time I checked Trek Earth had a very different history when compared to the real world.

Yeah, because one lose and jurryrigged asteroid in some distant planetary system obviously establishes a trend about our own system...

*sigh*

Name one asteroid in Trek that is like the type you describe.

No, because you're the one who claimed that an atmosphere made a difference, not me.

You know that without an atmosphere there will be no blast wave or fireball, and most of the energy will be hard radiation. Atmosphere makes a big difference. No atmosphere means no blast wave to help make the crater.

Secondly you are ignoring the fact that most space rocks in Trek are solid hunks of rock or metal from what we see.

Support your claim that not having an atmosphere makes making craters easier.

I don't need your frustration if it's just going to lengthen posts for no useful matter.
And talking about ignoring points, I believe you've made a fine demonstration of that thus far.

I'll be blunt: Stop repeating arguments that have already been shot to hell.

Yeah well when I asked for more information, I really meant it. Never mind, that's not relevant to the thread.
Start a new one about that incident alone, it will be better that way.

Are you going to recite all of Trek, or focus on "The Survivors"?

As I said, this is not the place for another rehash of the same old claims about TDiC. Please bump the appropriate thread (after having read it entirely, that said).

Yes, because Data would be stupid enough to bring the warp core to overload levels just for the sake of it, right at a time when the entire crew is idling.
It's not exactly relevant to this topic either.

They are very much on topic. You just don't want to acknowledge them as such because they make your argument that a mere 400 GW D.E.T. can do anything to of note to a Galaxy class ship look foolish. Seriously how does 400 GW raise the hull temperature above 12,000 degrees C.

Q was testing Amanda so that explains no one batting an eye when the warp core was going to explode until it was to late.

[Picard]

I may have vague memories of that, but I recall neither the per second part, nor the ship blowing up three seconds later.

"Seconds" part was only in script, which is non-canon.

[Lucky]

"Seconds" part was only in script, which is non-canon.

Scripts may not be "canon" for Star Trek, but they can tell us what the author's intent was for a scene, and that can be very useful because among other things the FX crew messed stuff up a lot.

There are people who claim to hear Data say "per second" (I'm not one of them), and I'm not sure if they have per second in the subtitles.

7:42 is when Data gives the line in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qagSVwX8vp4

[Mr. Oragahn]

None other than Worf said particle energy the second time to avoid restarting everything the beam was about, as he stated the first time.

How do you know that?

The question is not if I know it or not, but if it fits. And it does. Here's how we can understand it:

Statement 1: It's a beam of particles X and Y blah blah. 40 MW. Should be easy, captain.
Statement 2: Doh! We've been hit with 400 jiggawoots of particle energy this time. What shall we do?

And yes it obviously is particle energy, and you admited it was.

The first beam is stated to be the equivalent of 40 MW.

The second beam is stated to be 400 GW of particle energy.
The second beam is not said to be the equivalent of 400 GW that you are claiming.

As proved above, and as admited by you, both beams will be dealing damage with... particle energy. It's just that the first time, Worf named the obvious particles.

What a sniping there!

???

You sniped an entire portion of my post without even adressing any bit of it, while it was totally relevant to the point of explaining why your suggestion didn't work.

Oh, and there's no misquotating going on, because I use particle energy as well.
Besides, where did you get the idea that I ignored that particles were jacketed? Again, you should really read my posts instead of pretending having done so. My suggestion precisely was relative to the concept of the wattage being about what contained the antimatter particles. In other words, the jacketing.
Doh!
Besides, what does that add to your argument, aside from being a red herring?

Let's see. If you have nothing better to do than blockquote an entire sum of arguments, snipe them and then follow that with two strawmen and one red herring, perhaps you should just concede?

Your theory doesn't make sense. We went over this already went over that. There was nothing to respond to.

We? I ,and only I, provided a criticism of my own "theory". Despite sucking sweaty donkey balls, it's still largely superior to the claim you made.

If just a few hundred giga watt could easily take down shields then the NX-1 would have been a monster in combat, it wasn't.

How many times will I have to explain that my theory is that the 40 MW and 400 GW parts were only relevant to the jacketing, not the particle energy released by the annihilation of the antimatter particles when hitting the hull?

I also pointed out how silly this was, albeit less silly than your proposition.
It would be like rating the output of a nuclear rocket's engine, instead of the output of the warhead itself.

Other than that, common sense would have us admit that 400 GW was a real threat, but I already dismissed that idea, although at some point in the history of this short thread, I wondered if the TNG writers hadn't tried to depict an UFP with ships powered by terawatt cores, but with petawatt weapons. Somehow, it is entirely possible, within the confines of certain pieces of evidence (but generally those who go for the high petawatts dismiss the low figures they call low outliers, so who's hypocrit?).

That said, the idea that a ship with a terawatt core could still come with petajoule level shields. As I said, it still meant that the 400 GW being a threat didn't make sense, even with this very conservative approach regarding power production capacity.

Basically, in ALL cases, 400 GW makes no sense. And that, I'm sorry, I made it clear from the beginning. So if you're thinking you have to debunk anything, I'm afraid you're barking at the wrong tree.

No, really?
Thank you for missing the point.
And it's a console, not consul.

It's rather stupid to shoot the messenger.

It reduces the amount of stupidity in the galaxy. Can't hurt.
And it sends a message to the next asshole who's going to stand behind the blood stain- ... sorry, the nadion stained console.
Unless, of course, the whole crew is made of assholes.

If they're visible, then see my much earlier posts about particle density that prove me right about the inane idea of thinking each particle is rated at 400 GW.

We are dealing with an R.O.B. that can seemingly control matter and energy in any way he wishes, and has vast psychic powers., my theory is hardly inane given the powers at work. It's like saying you can kill a Q with a mundane sniper rifle.

And? You realize that I can use the same silly excuse to claim that our dear Random Omnipotent Being decided that his fancy particles could glow like thousands of trillions of them, simply because we can assume he cheats the core laws of physics?
See, that's just another way to dodge the point. You know that if you want to claim that there has to be plenty of particles for the beam to be visible, you'll have to go with densities which make your figure damn absurd. And that's nothing new, because I already made this point, oh, like ages ago now.

Again, how long will you keep ignoring my posts?
In fact, I can consider that you have conceded this argument.

I don't recall ignoring any of your posts directed at me.

Probably because you don't pay attention to my remarks, unfortunately.

I've repeatedly shot down you 400 GW D.E.T. theory. Change your argument, and I may change mine. As it stand, yours makes no sense.

See above.

Yes, because it's grimdark and because he provides useless information I don't care about and wasted several decibels of my Daily Tolerable Decibels budget.

I'd go after the guy who programed the computer.

I'd go after him, the messenger, and the families of both, plus any fuckhead who greenlighted this then. Just to be sure the stupid doesn't spread.

Ha?
Star Trek = Earth's future, with relatively the same physics. No reason to deny what we know now.
So try Google instead.

Last time I checked Trek Earth had a very different history when compared to the real world.

And that means with proof that asteroids will have a different history as well? I mean... structure?
You do realize that all the science and facts you use to analyze Star Trek is from *our* history.

This must be the moment you understand the logical flaw in your reasoning.

Yeah, because one lose and jurryrigged asteroid in some distant planetary system obviously establishes a trend about our own system...

*sigh*

Name one asteroid in Trek that is like the type you describe.

Easy. Those in our systems, of which the structure is theorized today. Since, you know, I don't see any reason to dismiss our current knowledge about asteroid structure.
Or, right from Trek, how about the big asteroid in ENT's "Singularity" that breaks on its own?

On another note, that one is once again fascinating. I'm really realizing that there's a huge amount of incidents which show phasers (or their "ancestors") and disruptors fired at targets (often asteroids in case of large scale weapons) and doing near to nothing, and suddenly making stuff pop.

No, because you're the one who claimed that an atmosphere made a difference, not me.

You know that without an atmosphere there will be no blast wave or fireball, and most of the energy will be hard radiation. Atmosphere makes a big difference. No atmosphere means no blast wave to help make the crater.

Ahem. The blast wave is only useful if you're dealing with an airbust, as the pressure against the ground can damage the ground and eventually leave a mark on the ground. It's perfectly illustrated by the example in the video Mith recently posted in his Halo thread at SFJN. The voice off speaks of a formidable crater or something when what really happened is that the woods were largely flattened, and the ground very lightly damaged. Enough to declare the existence of a crater, since it did leave a circular mark.
Now, with an explosion that takes place as your missile slams into the ground, I'm afraid the atmospheric blast pressure will already be largely nullified in that it will be hitting the ground right where the missile (or torpedo) hit, and be largely deflected upwards, at least sufficiently so it won't pressure much against the ground to make any crater over a large radius, and therefore, what will create the crater will largely be due to the heating of the surrounding soil.

Secondly you are ignoring the fact that most space rocks in Trek are solid hunks of rock or metal from what we see.

How do you know that? Many of those asteroids are so pulverized or even vaporized to some degree that you can't tell how losely held they were or not. On the outside, even those "fragile" asteroids still look menacing and heavy, and dense.

Support your claim that not having an atmosphere makes making craters easier.

*sigh*
Again, I never made such a claim. I said it makes no difference since we're dealing with ground contact bursts, counting the projectile's own momentum.
Now, that's already twice you're attempting this strawman - things may get nasty if you continue down that road.

I don't need your frustration if it's just going to lengthen posts for no useful matter.
And talking about ignoring points, I believe you've made a fine demonstration of that thus far.

I'll be blunt: Stop repeating arguments that have already been shot to hell.

You're not a good shot, sorry. :P

[Lucky]

The question is not if I know it or not, but if it fits. And it does. Here's how we can understand it:

Statement 1: It's a beam of particles X and Y blah blah. 40 MW. Should be easy, captain.
Statement 2: Doh! We've been hit with 400 jiggawoots of particle energy this time. What shall we do?

Your theory relies on reading Worf's mind rather then take what he says at his word? The only reason to state the beams power differently is if it means something different.

As proved above, and as admited by you, both beams will be dealing damage with... particle energy. It's just that the first time, Worf named the obvious particles.

You haven't proved anything from what I see. You are stating author's intent/reading Worf's mind, but providing no proof.

You sniped an entire portion of my post without even adressing any bit of it, while it was totally relevant to the point of explaining why your suggestion didn't work.

Long post stuff gets missed sometimes, but I don't recall missing any relevant information you posted.

We? I ,and only I, provided a criticism of my own "theory". Despite sucking sweaty donkey balls, it's still largely superior to the claim you made.

The only theories that make sense are that the shields were brought down either through brute force, or magic. To claim the NX-1 has more powerful weapons then a ship of the TOS era on runs counter to canon, and is just silly.

So far we need to toss out multiple episodes for your idea to be useable.

For "my" idea we need not ignore canon, and just assume the computer gave a very strange reading.

How many times will I have to explain that my theory is that the 40 MW and 400 GW parts were only relevant to the jacketing, not the particle energy released by the annihilation of the antimatter particles when hitting the hull?

There is nothing to support your claim of the anti-particles hitting the hull.

I also pointed out how silly this was, albeit less silly than your proposition.

Yes, because taking an outlier over multiple episodes makes sense.^_^

It would be like rating the output of a nuclear rocket's engine, instead of the output of the warhead itself.

Only if you assume there is not an unstated reason to do so.

Other than that, common sense would have us admit that 400 GW was a real threat, but I already dismissed that idea, although at some point in the history of this short thread, I wondered if the TNG writers hadn't tried to depict an UFP with ships powered by terawatt cores, but with petawatt weapons. Somehow, it is entirely possible, within the confines of certain pieces of evidence (but generally those who go for the high petawatts dismiss the low figures they call low outliers, so who's hypocrit?).

I guess the writer of the show?

Mr.O there are only two gigawatt beams in Star Trek that I'm aware of, and they both did odd things to the ships they hit.

That said, the idea that a ship with a terawatt core could still come with petajoule level shields. As I said, it still meant that the 400 GW being a threat didn't make sense, even with this very conservative approach regarding power production capacity.

Basically, in ALL cases, 400 GW makes no sense. And that, I'm sorry, I made it clear from the beginning. So if you're thinking you have to debunk anything, I'm afraid you're barking at the wrong tree.

It can't have been 400 gigawatt.

It reduces the amount of stupidity in the galaxy. Can't hurt.
And it sends a message to the next asshole who's going to stand behind the blood stain- ... sorry, the nadion stained console.
Unless, of course, the whole crew is made of assholes.

Shoot the console might do bad things to the ship, and there is some evidence that Federation ships may be self-aware.

And? You realize that I can use the same silly excuse to claim that our dear Random Omnipotent Being decided that his fancy particles could glow like thousands of trillions of them, simply because we can assume he cheats the core laws of physics?
See, that's just another way to dodge the point. You know that if you want to claim that there has to be plenty of particles for the beam to be visible, you'll have to go with densities which make your figure damn absurd. And that's nothing new, because I already made this point, oh, like ages ago now.

To me it means it wasn't 400 GW that did.

Do remember that a lot of things in Star Trek seem to break the laws of physics.

Probably because you don't pay attention to my remarks, unfortunately.

You made a claim, prove it.

See above.

You already said the claim made no sense, and yet you continue to argue it.

I'd go after him, the messenger, and the families of both, plus any fuckhead who greenlighted this then. Just to be sure the stupid doesn't spread.

Picard already throws Worf into life threaten situations. Worf's job is to shoot and punch things, and repeat what the computer tell him.

And that means with proof that asteroids will have a different history as well? I mean... structure?
You do realize that all the science and facts you use to analyze Star Trek is from *our* history.

This must be the moment you understand the logical flaw in your reasoning.

You made the claim that in trek asteroids are the same as real world. Then you used history as proof, but I pointed out trek history is very different from real world history, and that solid asteroids are treated as the norm.

Easy. Those in our systems, of which the structure is theorized today. Since, you know, I don't see any reason to dismiss our current knowledge about asteroid structure.
Or, right from Trek, how about the big asteroid in ENT's "Singularity" that breaks on its own?

And Rise and several other episodes tell us solid hunks of stuff are not rare.

On another note, that one is once again fascinating. I'm really realizing that there's a huge amount of incidents which show phasers (or their "ancestors") and disruptors fired at targets (often asteroids in case of large scale weapons) and doing near to nothing, and suddenly making stuff pop.

That sounds like most any energy/particle beam weapon. Do you have an example in mind?

Ahem. The blast wave is only useful if you're dealing with an airbust, as the pressure against the ground can damage the ground and eventually leave a mark on the ground. It's perfectly illustrated by the example in the video Mith recently posted in his Halo thread at SFJN. The voice off speaks of a formidable crater or something when what really happened is that the woods were largely flattened, and the ground very lightly damaged. Enough to declare the existence of a crater, since it did leave a circular mark.
Now, with an explosion that takes place as your missile slams into the ground, I'm afraid the atmospheric blast pressure will already be largely nullified in that it will be hitting the ground right where the missile (or torpedo) hit, and be largely deflected upwards, at least sufficiently so it won't pressure much against the ground to make any crater over a large radius, and therefore, what will create the crater will largely be due to the heating of the surrounding soil.

That sounds like you are talking about a buried explosive VS air burst, and saying that the buried explosive needs to be more powerful then the air burst to make the same size crater?

What about the bomb that goes off right at the surface?

How do you know that? Many of those asteroids are so pulverized or even vaporized to some degree that you can't tell how losely held they were or not. On the outside, even those "fragile" asteroids still look menacing and heavy, and dense.

In Voyager: Rise they scan a solid hunk of metal, and treat it as if there was nothing odd about it.

*sigh*
Again, I never made such a claim. I said it makes no difference since we're dealing with ground contact bursts, counting the projectile's own momentum.
Now, that's already twice you're attempting this strawman - things may get nasty if you continue down that road.

From the looks your last post you are talking about buried explosives VS air burst, and not something that explodes at ground level, but is not buried?

You're not a good shot, sorry. :P

You already agreed that 400GW that isn't even a focused beam doesn't make sense.

[Lucky]

The question is not if I know it or not, but if it fits. And it does. Here's how we can understand it:

Statement 1: It's a beam of particles X and Y blah blah. 40 MW. Should be easy, captain.
Statement 2: Doh! We've been hit with 400 jiggawoots of particle energy this time. What shall we do?

Your theory relies on reading Worf's mind rather then take what he says at his word? The only reason to state the beams power differently is if it means something different.

As proved above, and as admited by you, both beams will be dealing damage with... particle energy. It's just that the first time, Worf named the obvious particles.

You haven't proved anything from what I see. You are stating author's intent/reading Worf's mind, but providing no proof.

You sniped an entire portion of my post without even adressing any bit of it, while it was totally relevant to the point of explaining why your suggestion didn't work.

Long post stuff gets missed sometimes, but I don't recall missing any relevant information you posted.

We? I ,and only I, provided a criticism of my own "theory". Despite sucking sweaty donkey balls, it's still largely superior to the claim you made.

The only theories that make sense are that the shields were brought down either through brute force, or magic. To claim the NX-1 has more powerful weapons then a ship of the TOS era on runs counter to canon, and is just silly.

So far we need to toss out multiple episodes for your idea to be useable.

For "my" idea we need not ignore canon, and just assume the computer gave a very strange reading.

How many times will I have to explain that my theory is that the 40 MW and 400 GW parts were only relevant to the jacketing, not the particle energy released by the annihilation of the antimatter particles when hitting the hull?

There is nothing to support your claim of the anti-particles hitting the hull.

I also pointed out how silly this was, albeit less silly than your proposition.

Yes, because taking an outlier over multiple episodes makes sense.^_^

It would be like rating the output of a nuclear rocket's engine, instead of the output of the warhead itself.

Only if you assume there is not an unstated reason to do so.

Other than that, common sense would have us admit that 400 GW was a real threat, but I already dismissed that idea, although at some point in the history of this short thread, I wondered if the TNG writers hadn't tried to depict an UFP with ships powered by terawatt cores, but with petawatt weapons. Somehow, it is entirely possible, within the confines of certain pieces of evidence (but generally those who go for the high petawatts dismiss the low figures they call low outliers, so who's hypocrit?).

I guess the writer of the show?

Mr.O there are only two gigawatt beams in Star Trek that I'm aware of, and they both did odd things to the ships they hit.

That said, the idea that a ship with a terawatt core could still come with petajoule level shields. As I said, it still meant that the 400 GW being a threat didn't make sense, even with this very conservative approach regarding power production capacity.

Basically, in ALL cases, 400 GW makes no sense. And that, I'm sorry, I made it clear from the beginning. So if you're thinking you have to debunk anything, I'm afraid you're barking at the wrong tree.

It can't have been 400 gigawatt.

It reduces the amount of stupidity in the galaxy. Can't hurt.
And it sends a message to the next asshole who's going to stand behind the blood stain- ... sorry, the nadion stained console.
Unless, of course, the whole crew is made of assholes.

Shoot the console might do bad things to the ship, and there is some evidence that Federation ships may be self-aware.

And? You realize that I can use the same silly excuse to claim that our dear Random Omnipotent Being decided that his fancy particles could glow like thousands of trillions of them, simply because we can assume he cheats the core laws of physics?
See, that's just another way to dodge the point. You know that if you want to claim that there has to be plenty of particles for the beam to be visible, you'll have to go with densities which make your figure damn absurd. And that's nothing new, because I already made this point, oh, like ages ago now.

To me it means it wasn't 400 GW that did.

Do remember that a lot of things in Star Trek seem to break the laws of physics.

Probably because you don't pay attention to my remarks, unfortunately.

You made a claim, prove it.

See above.

You already said the claim made no sense, and yet you continue to argue it.

I'd go after him, the messenger, and the families of both, plus any fuckhead who greenlighted this then. Just to be sure the stupid doesn't spread.

Picard already throws Worf into life threaten situations. Worf's job is to shoot and punch things, and repeat what the computer tell him.

And that means with proof that asteroids will have a different history as well? I mean... structure?
You do realize that all the science and facts you use to analyze Star Trek is from *our* history.

This must be the moment you understand the logical flaw in your reasoning.

You made the claim that in trek asteroids are the same as real world. Then you used history as proof, but I pointed out trek history is very different from real world history, and that solid asteroids are treated as the norm.

Easy. Those in our systems, of which the structure is theorized today. Since, you know, I don't see any reason to dismiss our current knowledge about asteroid structure.
Or, right from Trek, how about the big asteroid in ENT's "Singularity" that breaks on its own?

And Rise and several other episodes tell us solid hunks of stuff are not rare.

On another note, that one is once again fascinating. I'm really realizing that there's a huge amount of incidents which show phasers (or their "ancestors") and disruptors fired at targets (often asteroids in case of large scale weapons) and doing near to nothing, and suddenly making stuff pop.

That sounds like most any energy/particle beam weapon. Do you have an example in mind?

Ahem. The blast wave is only useful if you're dealing with an airbust, as the pressure against the ground can damage the ground and eventually leave a mark on the ground. It's perfectly illustrated by the example in the video Mith recently posted in his Halo thread at SFJN. The voice off speaks of a formidable crater or something when what really happened is that the woods were largely flattened, and the ground very lightly damaged. Enough to declare the existence of a crater, since it did leave a circular mark.
Now, with an explosion that takes place as your missile slams into the ground, I'm afraid the atmospheric blast pressure will already be largely nullified in that it will be hitting the ground right where the missile (or torpedo) hit, and be largely deflected upwards, at least sufficiently so it won't pressure much against the ground to make any crater over a large radius, and therefore, what will create the crater will largely be due to the heating of the surrounding soil.

That sounds like you are talking about a buried explosive VS air burst, and saying that the buried explosive needs to be more powerful then the air burst to make the same size crater?

What about the bomb that goes off right at the surface?

How do you know that? Many of those asteroids are so pulverized or even vaporized to some degree that you can't tell how losely held they were or not. On the outside, even those "fragile" asteroids still look menacing and heavy, and dense.

In Voyager: Rise they scan a solid hunk of metal, and treat it as if there was nothing odd about it.

*sigh*
Again, I never made such a claim. I said it makes no difference since we're dealing with ground contact bursts, counting the projectile's own momentum.
Now, that's already twice you're attempting this strawman - things may get nasty if you continue down that road.

From the looks your last post you are talking about buried explosives VS air burst, and not something that explodes at ground level, but is not buried?

You're not a good shot, sorry. :P

You already agreed that 400GW that isn't even a focused beam doesn't make sense.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The question is not if I know it or not, but if it fits. And it does. Here's how we can understand it:

Statement 1: It's a beam of particles X and Y blah blah. 40 MW. Should be easy, captain.
Statement 2: Doh! We've been hit with 400 jiggawoots of particle energy this time. What shall we do?

Your theory relies on reading Worf's mind rather then take what he says at his word? The only reason to state the beams power differently is if it means something different.

That's stupid. People usually don't bother reformulating the entire length of a former statement when the next one only has a variation, like here, the power figure.
Damn, this is getting really dumb. I hate it when someone cannot just drop an argument so much as it drags the discussion into stupid bickerings on the use of English, or actually any language for that matter.

As proved above, and as admited by you, both beams will be dealing damage with... particle energy. It's just that the first time, Worf named the obvious particles.

You haven't proved anything from what I see. You are stating author's intent/reading Worf's mind, but providing no proof.

Well then you can't see shit, because it's damn clear that I have shown that it's easily understandable the way I present it. Especially since we know that in both cases, damage will be dealt with particle energy. No need to be a genius, no need ro "read Word's mind" (for the notice, I don't read anything, I merely listen to dialogue).

You sniped an entire portion of my post without even adressing any bit of it, while it was totally relevant to the point of explaining why your suggestion didn't work.

Long post stuff gets missed sometimes, but I don't recall missing any relevant information you posted.

Bullshit. If a paragraph or two is already too long for you, I suggest you keep to Twitter.

We? I ,and only I, provided a criticism of my own "theory". Despite sucking sweaty donkey balls, it's still largely superior to the claim you made.

The only theories that make sense are that the shields were brought down either through brute force, or magic. To claim the NX-1 has more powerful weapons then a ship of the TOS era on runs counter to canon, and is just silly.

Yeah but as we already understood, you can't read properly.
Read my first posts.

So far we need to toss out multiple episodes for your idea to be useable.

No, if you read properly.

For "my" idea we need not ignore canon, and just assume the computer gave a very strange reading.

Of we need to ignore canon, genius, since your theory requires the ship taking trillion times 400 GW if not more -refer to the number of particles, notably in the science facts you keep ignoring.

And what's that silliness now about a computer giving a strange reading? Is that your best defense? A computer provides gibberish data? And work stupidly repeats it aloud? And expects the captain to automatically understand!?
It just gets better and better (read: your defense is getting poorer).

How many times will I have to explain that my theory is that the 40 MW and 400 GW parts were only relevant to the jacketing, not the particle energy released by the annihilation of the antimatter particles when hitting the hull?

There is nothing to support your claim of the anti-particles hitting the hull.

Aside from the fact that Worf had trouble reassembling the shields you mean?
I'm not even pretending that the 400 GW beam defeated the shields to hit the hull. It was a ROB who could do what he wanted to basically, at this level.
Yet the E-D's computers would still be reading stuff.

No theory will be good enough, by far.

The best thing surely being to admit the existence of the canonical fact of a beam of 400 GW did hurt the shields, and compare that to the rest of Trek.

But if you want to rationalize 400 GW in light of the other higher figures, then you'll have to make sure that your theory works.
Mine goes as:

Beam contains AM. First time the beam is stopped.
ROB pretends the beam is much more powerful the second time, and makes the beam cheat the shields. Thermal damage is done to the hull, but since Picard and all knew that AM was involved, they're not surprised.

Hell, we could simplify this and say that 40 MW and 400 GW exactly was the power of the beam, as in the total energy of all AM particles over x seconds (instead of saying that it was the power of the jacketing part of the beam).
Then the annihilation caused more damage. Both the lack of surprise and lack of panic can be explained by the fact that Picard and all knew AM was involved, so they expected things to get bad if AM touched the hull, but the damage remained low enough because there was just the equivalent of a couple grams of AM that hit the ull.

I also pointed out how silly this was, albeit less silly than your proposition.

Yes, because taking an outlier over multiple episodes makes sense.^_^

Of course, if only I pretended that 400 GW of brute force defeated the shield... which I didn't.

It would be like rating the output of a nuclear rocket's engine, instead of the output of the warhead itself.

Only if you assume there is not an unstated reason to do so.

Double negatives. Bad.

Other than that, common sense would have us admit that 400 GW was a real threat, but I already dismissed that idea, although at some point in the history of this short thread, I wondered if the TNG writers hadn't tried to depict an UFP with ships powered by terawatt cores, but with petawatt weapons. Somehow, it is entirely possible, within the confines of certain pieces of evidence (but generally those who go for the high petawatts dismiss the low figures they call low outliers, so who's hypocrit?).

I guess the writer of the show?

Mr.O there are only two gigawatt beams in Star Trek that I'm aware of, and they both did odd things to the ships they hit.

Fine but I don't care cause I'm not pretending those gigawatts took down shields naturally.

That said, the idea that a ship with a terawatt core could still come with petajoule level shields. As I said, it still meant that the 400 GW being a threat didn't make sense, even with this very conservative approach regarding power production capacity.

Basically, in ALL cases, 400 GW makes no sense. And that, I'm sorry, I made it clear from the beginning. So if you're thinking you have to debunk anything, I'm afraid you're barking at the wrong tree.

It can't have been 400 gigawatt.

You need to understand that a beam of antimatter could be rated at a certain power even before its AM particles reacted with any matter. A bit like rating the kinetic energy of a nuclear MIRV.

It reduces the amount of stupidity in the galaxy. Can't hurt.
And it sends a message to the next asshole who's going to stand behind the blood stain- ... sorry, the nadion stained console.
Unless, of course, the whole crew is made of assholes.

Shoot the console might do bad things to the ship, and there is some evidence that Federation ships may be self-aware.

Then the ship is aware that you don't fuck with the captain. Btw, you gain the extra card of knowing that you can directly hold a console hostage now.

And? You realize that I can use the same silly excuse to claim that our dear Random Omnipotent Being decided that his fancy particles could glow like thousands of trillions of them, simply because we can assume he cheats the core laws of physics?
See, that's just another way to dodge the point. You know that if you want to claim that there has to be plenty of particles for the beam to be visible, you'll have to go with densities which make your figure damn absurd. And that's nothing new, because I already made this point, oh, like ages ago now.

To me it means it wasn't 400 GW that did.

Do remember that a lot of things in Star Trek seem to break the laws of physics.

Cheap cop out, but I'm not surprised. You just don't seem to understand, nor even be able to make the simple multiplication that results from your claim.
Of course, if he cheats physics so much, then we can infer that there has never been any 400 GW, that there were no particles and that light was just suggested into the minds of the crewmen by the ROB, etc.

But then, I hardly see how it helps your theory at all, since you do pretend that it sticks to laws of physics well enough so that 400 GW are true gigawatts.
This is nothing more than a very messy double standard you're going on with, here.

I'd go after him, the messenger, and the families of both, plus any fuckhead who greenlighted this then. Just to be sure the stupid doesn't spread.

Picard already throws Worf into life threaten situations. Worf's job is to shoot and punch things, and repeat what the computer tell him.

Then Worf hasn't been threatened enough. I wouldn't bother threatening him. That would just be one less xeno on board.

And that means with proof that asteroids will have a different history as well? I mean... structure?
You do realize that all the science and facts you use to analyze Star Trek is from *our* history.

This must be the moment you understand the logical flaw in your reasoning.

You made the claim that in trek asteroids are the same as real world.

Just quoted for comedic purposes.
Sue me for stating such a thing.

Then you used history as proof, but I pointed out trek history is very different from real world history, and that solid asteroids are treated as the norm.

That, I'm afraid, is something you just pulled out of nowhere.

Easy. Those in our systems, of which the structure is theorized today. Since, you know, I don't see any reason to dismiss our current knowledge about asteroid structure.
Or, right from Trek, how about the big asteroid in ENT's "Singularity" that breaks on its own?

And Rise and several other episodes tell us solid hunks of stuff are not rare.

Several asteroids? There are some of which the composition is clearly indicated, and most of the rocky ones are shown to be pulverized or/and partially vaporized, which is not going to help much to determine how they used to remain whole before being violently blasted.

And obviously, if you're going to point at asteroids with bases in or on them, what would that prove, other than the engineers not being too dumb as to pick a fragile asteroid?
Precisely nothing.

On another note, that one is once again fascinating. I'm really realizing that there's a huge amount of incidents which show phasers (or their "ancestors") and disruptors fired at targets (often asteroids in case of large scale weapons) and doing near to nothing, and suddenly making stuff pop.

That sounds like most any energy/particle beam weapon. Do you have an example in mind?

The episode with the Groumal ship, some Cardassian freighter which is given a planetary disruptor weapon, used later on to attack a Klingon BoP witha cocky captain at her helm. One phaser beam is tested on an asteroid: the asteroid only pops after a while. WILGA made a thread somewhere.
In "Treachery, Faith and the Great River", Odo trying to escape from Jemmie Bugs in a Runabout: ice asteroids get shot at and then pop after a delay.
In "Conspiracy", Riker shooting his hand phaser at the head of a Starfleet general or admiral whose body is parasited: the explosive effect comes late.
In "Cost of Living", Picard having the dish emitter used to destroy the very dense and special core of an asteroid, which none of their weapons could blast. The asteroid is exposed to the DNE of the beam for some time, it doesn't pop right from the moment it's touched.
And ENT's "Singularity", which I presented here.

That's all I can think of right now, and that's not really relevant either.

Ahem. The blast wave is only useful if you're dealing with an airbust, as the pressure against the ground can damage the ground and eventually leave a mark on the ground. It's perfectly illustrated by the example in the video Mith recently posted in his Halo thread at SFJN. The voice off speaks of a formidable crater or something when what really happened is that the woods were largely flattened, and the ground very lightly damaged. Enough to declare the existence of a crater, since it did leave a circular mark.
Now, with an explosion that takes place as your missile slams into the ground, I'm afraid the atmospheric blast pressure will already be largely nullified in that it will be hitting the ground right where the missile (or torpedo) hit, and be largely deflected upwards, at least sufficiently so it won't pressure much against the ground to make any crater over a large radius, and therefore, what will create the crater will largely be due to the heating of the surrounding soil.

That sounds like you are talking about a buried explosive VS air burst, and saying that the buried explosive needs to be more powerful then the air burst to make the same size crater?

What about the bomb that goes off right at the surface?

I won't generate the blast wave that comes from above as it happens with an airbust, as shown in the video Mith posted.

How do you know that? Many of those asteroids are so pulverized or even vaporized to some degree that you can't tell how losely held they were or not. On the outside, even those "fragile" asteroids still look menacing and heavy, and dense.

In Voyager: Rise they scan a solid hunk of metal, and treat it as if there was nothing odd about it.

And?
It also goes without saying that the scan in question may be of unreliable quality since it didn't pick the devices inside.

*sigh*
Again, I never made such a claim. I said it makes no difference since we're dealing with ground contact bursts, counting the projectile's own momentum.
Now, that's already twice you're attempting this strawman - things may get nasty if you continue down that road.

From the looks your last post you are talking about buried explosives VS air burst, and not something that explodes at ground level, but is not buried?

With the torpedo slamming into the ground, you're ought to get some of it partially entering the ground. To which degree, I don't know. At least it totally guarantees a ground level burst.
That said, we also know that torpedoes can somehow dig into the ground. This is what happened with some torps the E-D fired at the hard surface of a planet. So you can't totally neglect the possiblity that the 3km crater is not with a buried device. Obviously, if torpedoes can bury themselves, then if you're looking to make the biggest crater possible - so that would fix the biggest crater such a torpedo can do - then you would want to bury your torpedo as much as possible, under the conditions of a launching from a spaceship.

[Lucky]

The question is not if I know it or not, but if it fits. And it does. Here's how we can understand it:

Statement 1: It's a beam of particles X and Y blah blah. 40 MW. Should be easy, captain.
Statement 2: Doh! We've been hit with 400 jiggawoots of particle energy this time. What shall we do?

Your theory relies on reading Worf's mind rather then take what he says at his word? The only reason to state the beams power differently is if it means something different.

That's stupid. People usually don't bother reformulating the entire length of a former statement when the next one only has a variation, like here, the power figure.
Damn, this is getting really dumb. I hate it when someone cannot just drop an argument so much as it drags the discussion into stupid bickerings on the use of English, or actually any language for that matter.

Agreed, this is pointless. I really hate deal with someone who can't deal with simple logic.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Agreed, this is pointless. I really hate deal with someone who can't deal with simple logic.

Concession accepted.

[Lucky]

Agreed, this is pointless. I really hate deal with someone who can't deal with simple logic.

Concession accepted.

No Concession given. Dropping the tropic and conceding the point (which you have already done) are two different things.