Survivors Particle Energy

[Praeothmin]

While I kept out of this debate because I didn't want to get dragged in an incredibly long post-count debate, I have to say I agree with Oragahn, the 400 GW of particle energy more than likely meant the "total power" of the beam, not the power of each particle, or Worf would have stated this as:
"We've been hit with particle energy, of 400 GW per particle"...

[Lucky]

While I kept out of this debate because I didn't want to get dragged in an incredibly long post-count debate, I have to say I agree with Oragahn, the 400 GW of particle energy more than likely meant the "total power" of the beam, not the power of each particle, or Worf would have stated this as:
"We've been hit with particle energy, of 400 GW per particle"...

400 GW DET doing anything to the Enterprise-D does not make sense for a number of reasons, and that is something Mr.O and I agree on.

I feel that since it does not make sense it must be the wrong interpretation, and that's ignoring the stuff wrong with the 40 MW line.

Worf : "The vessel is firing jacketed streams of streams of positrons
and anti-protons. Equivalent firepower: forty megawatts. Shields are
holding."

Positrons and anti-protons are the same particle. It does not make sense to list both.

Why say "Equivalent firepower"? It makes it sound as if they weren't really hit with 40 MW.

[Mr. Oragahn]

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.

I don't really think I dropped anything when every time I presented science you ignored it. When I presented interpretations which were valid, you threw red herrings, dodged them or claimed they didn't work without showing why. And you also repeatedly strawmanned my position for about three pages. That's quite a performance. Most people would have given up before that.

[Lucky]

I don't really think I dropped anything when every time I presented science you ignored it. When I presented interpretations which were valid, you threw red herrings, dodged them or claimed they didn't work without showing why. And you also repeatedly strawmanned my position for about three pages. That's quite a performance. Most people would have given up before that.

Yes, i know you haven't dropped anything which is strange, and why I'm just dropping out of this thread. It is pointless to talk to someone who in one post says disagrees with himself. You argued in this post that 400 GW are not enough to bring down the shields and damage the E-D, and at the same time you seem to claim that 400 GW is enough to bring down the shields, and damage the E-D.

I have not knowingly done anything you claim in this post, and I have seen you seem to do those things to me.

You seem to be treating a search for the truth as a debate to be won or lost, and that is just not conducive to getting answers. Clearly we are misunderstanding each other to such an extreme degree that it is better to just walk away.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I don't really think I dropped anything when every time I presented science you ignored it. When I presented interpretations which were valid, you threw red herrings, dodged them or claimed they didn't work without showing why. And you also repeatedly strawmanned my position for about three pages. That's quite a performance. Most people would have given up before that.

Yes, i know you haven't dropped anything which is strange, and why I'm just dropping out of this thread.

It would have been easier if you had dropped out earlier, instead of pushing your luck with those argumentation fallacies.
I don't think there is anything strange in wanting to correct such fallacies, notably when they involve copious amounts of strawmen. Not being in agreement is one thing, and that's fine. Lying about the position of the other side is not.

It is pointless to talk to someone who in one post says disagrees with himself.

Where? I forwarded an idea, while being capable of self criticism and knowing about its weaknesses.
It is something considered positive and constructive.

You argued in this post that 400 GW are not enough to bring down the shields and damage the E-D, and at the same time you seem to claim that 400 GW is enough to bring down the shields, and damage the E-D.

I offered two solutions. Either take the information at face value, and know that it won't hold well against other facts from Trek, thus making it an outlier, or trying to rationalize this, which my first post was about, just as yours.

I have not knowingly done anything you claim in this post, and I have seen you seem to do those things to me.

Well your sight needs checking. It's unarguable that the sniping that went on like one page ago is an example of what I'm talking about. You do realize that you have yet to even address any piece of science I brought that disagrees with your position, right?

You seem to be treating a search for the truth as a debate to be won or lost, and that is just not conducive to getting answers.

That's two silly things to say.
For one, assuming there was such a thing as a Search for the Truth, it seems pretty obvious that aiming at getting the truth is a way at getting some valuable answers. Of course one can satisfy himself with lies and BS answers, but I'm not really interested in those.
Secondly, I'm not looking for a definitive answer, but just throwing ideas and criticism, and I'm expecting an honest discussion.

Clearly we are misunderstanding each other to such an extreme degree that it is better to just walk away.

Well, I don't think anything I'm saying is particularly hard to grasp, but... meh.

[Mith]

I have to agree with Oraghan on the whole 400 GW thing. There is very little way to reason such a glaring problem. On the other hand, it is clearly an outlier, given just how impossible it would be for the ships to do anything else throughout the three following series.

I just reasoned that it was some sort of technobabble weapon similar to their phasers. Perhaps an anti-shield weapon. We should remember that their small phaser bank generators are rated in the gigawatts, so this shouldn't be anything of a surprise.

[Praeothmin]

I have to agree with Oraghan on the whole 400 GW thing. There is very little way to reason such a glaring problem. On the other hand, it is clearly an outlier, given just how impossible it would be for the ships to do anything else throughout the three following series.

I just reasoned that it was some sort of technobabble weapon similar to their phasers. Perhaps an anti-shield weapon. We should remember that their small phaser bank generators are rated in the gigawatts, so this shouldn't be anything of a surprise.

Technobabble, meaning "funky"?
so you are basically saying:

Or it was a funky weapon, since the shield's weren't brought down by the power of the beam, but were "disassembled", as Worf wasn't trying to bring them up, as they usually do, but to "re-assemble" them...

:)

[Lucky]

It would have been easier if you had dropped out earlier, instead of pushing your luck with those argumentation fallacies.
I don't think there is anything strange in wanting to correct such fallacies, notably when they involve copious amounts of strawmen. Not being in agreement is one thing, and that's fine. Lying about the position of the other side is not.

You realize you could be banned from this site for this sort of behavior. You are implying I am doing these things on purpose, and that is extremely insulting. To lie, I must know that I am stating something not true, and to use a straw man I must understand your ideas to not be what I am saying them to be.

Our own inability to express an idea in a manner the other understands is not my fault, and the reason to drop out of the thread.

Where? I forwarded an idea, while being capable of self criticism and knowing about its weaknesses.
It is something considered positive and constructive.

You have insisted Worf could only have meant the beam was 400 GW total, but then you say things you do below...

I offered two solutions. Either take the information at face value, and know that it won't hold well against other facts from Trek, thus making it an outlier, or trying to rationalize this, which my first post was about, just as yours.

And, we both know saying it's an outlier is not a valid argument.

I still don't understand why you interrupt it as Worf saying: "Equivalent firepower: 400 GW," like he bluntly said for the MW quote? Worf never struck me as one to not be blunt and clear information as you claim. It's not like there is not more then one way to measure something, and that is what we clearly see in the episode.

Well your sight needs checking. It's unarguable that the sniping that went on like one page ago is an example of what I'm talking about. You do realize that you have yet to even address any piece of science I brought that disagrees with your position, right?

No, I got my sight checked about last month.

That's like saying the ICS is correct because the science is sound. Be more specific, or drop it. I'm not going to dig through an entire thread because I missed an unimportant point you likely were not even bothering to state clearly.

That's two silly things to say.
For one, assuming there was such a thing as a Search for the Truth, it seems pretty obvious that aiming at getting the truth is a way at getting some valuable answers. Of course one can satisfy himself with lies and BS answers, but I'm not really interested in those.
Secondly, I'm not looking for a definitive answer, but just throwing ideas and criticism, and I'm expecting an honest discussion.

I don't see this in your posts when your counter arguments don't make sense. I assume I am missing something, or thinking in a drastically different fashion.
Example:

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

I take it that this is the sort of thing you are talking about.

"The Survivors"[TNG3]
Worf: "The vessel is firing jacketed streams of streams of positrons and anti-protons. Equivalent firepower: forty megawatts. Shields are holding."

[Vessel fires again]

Worf: "Again, forty megawatts. No damage."

Well, I don't think anything I'm saying is particularly hard to grasp, but... meh.

You are clearly misunderstanding me, and I'm have trouble understanding you. Just remember that what may be simple and clear to you could be extremely confusing to someone else.

_____

One could put forth the idea that the ROB was using mind control, and all the little odd things wrong are him making mistakes.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It would have been easier if you had dropped out earlier, instead of pushing your luck with those argumentation fallacies.
I don't think there is anything strange in wanting to correct such fallacies, notably when they involve copious amounts of strawmen. Not being in agreement is one thing, and that's fine. Lying about the position of the other side is not.

You realize you could be banned from this site for this sort of behavior.

Ah?

You are implying I am doing these things on purpose, and that is extremely insulting. To lie, I must know that I am stating something not true, and to use a straw man I must understand your ideas to not be what I am saying them to be.
Our own inability to express an idea in a manner the other understands is not my fault, and the reason to drop out of the thread.

The intent was not to insult you. Not that I think that kind of stuff would even be worth a warning here.

Where? I forwarded an idea, while being capable of self criticism and knowing about its weaknesses.
It is something considered positive and constructive.

You have insisted Worf could only have meant the beam was 400 GW total, but then you say things you do below...

I offered two solutions. Either take the information at face value, and know that it won't hold well against other facts from Trek, thus making it an outlier, or trying to rationalize this, which my first post was about, just as yours.

And, we both know saying it's an outlier is not a valid argument.

On the contrary, we do it quite a lot in VS debates. A rationalization is better, but sometimes it's just not going to work.

I still don't understand why you interrupt it as Worf saying: "Equivalent firepower: 400 GW," like he bluntly said for the MW quote? Worf never struck me as one to not be blunt and clear information as you claim. It's not like there is not more then one way to measure something, and that is what we clearly see in the episode.

Are you doing it on purpose?
Someone who is blunt would have actually provided a useful information, NOT expecting the crew to go through mental gymnastics and left to speculate in order to imagine how really powerful the beam would be, working from unknown premises such as the quantities of particles in the beam. That's just incredibly, hopelessly retarded.
How can I make it any clearer??
Are you going to press the same inane argument for five more pages or what?

Well your sight needs checking. It's unarguable that the sniping that went on like one page ago is an example of what I'm talking about. You do realize that you have yet to even address any piece of science I brought that disagrees with your position, right?

No, I got my sight checked about last month.

That's like saying the ICS is correct because the science is sound.

Not really. The problem of the ICS is its faulty premises. The science behind the numbers is sound.
You're certainly nowhere there. Your science is faulty, and your premise fails just as much.

Be more specific, or drop it.

I can hardly be more specific that I've already been.

I'm not going to dig through an entire thread because I missed an unimportant point you likely were not even bothering to state clearly.

It's not unimportant, when it's crucial to the understanding of the situation. Yet you entirely sniped that passage instead of, at least, requiring clarification.
Now you backpedal and pretend you didn't address anything I said because you needed more details?
Damn, that's really a broken methodology.
What you will do is precisely go through the bits you ignored and ask for clarification. Once you have done your part of the task, I'll try to help you understand what you missed.
That said, I'm not confident that it will make any difference, because the arguments I brought forth about the energy of particles, physics and the terms "particle energy" were nothing hard to understand at all.

That's two silly things to say.
For one, assuming there was such a thing as a Search for the Truth, it seems pretty obvious that aiming at getting the truth is a way at getting some valuable answers. Of course one can satisfy himself with lies and BS answers, but I'm not really interested in those.
Secondly, I'm not looking for a definitive answer, but just throwing ideas and criticism, and I'm expecting an honest discussion.

I don't see this in your posts when your counter arguments don't make sense. I assume I am missing something, or thinking in a drastically different fashion.
Example:

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

I take it that this is the sort of thing you are talking about.

And?

Well, I don't think anything I'm saying is particularly hard to grasp, but... meh.

You are clearly misunderstanding me, and I'm have trouble understanding you. Just remember that what may be simple and clear to you could be extremely confusing to someone else.

Again, I don't think what I'm saying requires being a Mensa old timer. Besides, if you don't understand, don't claim that the others are wrong and argue for a million pages, when it's you who doesn't get it.

One could put forth the idea that the ROB was using mind control, and all the little odd things wrong are him making mistakes.

You mean like I did in one of my latest posts in this thread? Yes, if you want to. After all, we don't know what that thing is capable of. However, if he were capable of such psychic powers, then it's a damn convoluted plan in order to get the UFP crew buzz off his planetary system.

[Praeothmin]

Lucky, Mr. O., please be careful, as while you haven't done anything meriting a warning, both your tones are getting more and more abrasive towards each other.
Please don't let it get worse.

As for the subject at hand, while the numbers don't agree with the rest of ST in general, the facts are pretty clear, and you need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get anything different then what is presented.
The first time, Worf states what type of particles they are attacked with, and their equivalent firepower.
The second time, he still states the power, but simply says it's "particle energy".
Since he described the particles in detail earlier, there was no reason for him to rename them, and saying "We've been hit with 400GW of particle energy" is the most concise way of saying it.
If I had been notified earlier we'd been hit with "positrons and anti-protons", then hearing "particle energy" the second time would automatically make me think we're hit with the same type of beam, only more powerful...

[Lucky]

Lucky, Mr. O., please be careful, as while you haven't done anything meriting a warning, both your tones are getting more and more abrasive towards each other.
Please don't let it get worse.

Why do you think I wanted to drop the topic with Mr.O?

As for the subject at hand, while the numbers don't agree with the rest of ST in general, the facts are pretty clear, and you need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get anything different then what is presented.
The first time, Worf states what type of particles they are attacked with, and their equivalent firepower.
The second time, he still states the power, but simply says it's "particle energy".
Since he described the particles in detail earlier, there was no reason for him to rename them, and saying "We've been hit with 400GW of particle energy" is the most concise way of saying it.
If I had been notified earlier we'd been hit with "positrons and anti-protons", then hearing "particle energy" the second time would automatically make me think we're hit with the same type of beam, only more powerful...

Why would Worf not simply just say 400 GW then?

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm out of this anyway.

[Praeothmin]

Why would Worf not simply just say 400 GW then?

You'd have to ask him... :)