The Navigational Deflector in Debates

[Lucky]

Why is the navigational deflector ignored in VS debates? Why do debators act as if the Navigational Deflector isn't there?

Its job is to stop the ship from crashing into things weather just sitting there, or while traveling at super luminal speeds.

It lets a ship travel at .7c there a planet's atmosphere without leaving any sign the ship was there. Heck, there are at least two examples of FTL travel in planetary atmospheres with no noticeable effect.

Its design requirements need it to be a perfect defense against anything the ship is likely to find in its way, meteors, photons, electrons, protons... It seems like such a technology would render a wide range of weapons completely useless.

When we see ships crash into/ram each other it seems like no one takes the Navigational deflector into account. There is far more going on then a simple collision when ships in star trek hit something.

[Trinoya]

It's because a huge number of debates would come down to, "how fast does your projectile go?" and would leave certain groups (mass effect, halo, battlestar, etc) so far behind in the debates that it isn't even funny.

[Lucky]

It's because a huge number of debates would come down to, "how fast does your projectile go?" and would leave certain groups (mass effect, halo, battlestar, etc) so far behind in the debates that it isn't even funny.

They already do come down to that. It is often pointed out that the huge spinal mounted slug throwers will never be able to land a hit do to the ranges and speeds the craft move at.

I just find the idea that you need to technobabble your way through them rather then brute force your way through more interesting in a debate. It kind of shoots dow the LOL bigatons I win crowd, and forces the debaters to actually know about the settings..

[sonofccn]

I just find the idea that you need to technobabble your way through them rather then brute force your way through more interesting in a debate. It kind of shoots dow the LOL bigatons I win crowd, and forces the debaters to actually know about the settings..

Except in the actual verse when ever a starship is presented with brute force, be it asteriods, solar flares or any other corporeal matter its treated as a threat. So in that sense and within that narrow, particular subject I would have to agree with the " LOL bigatons I win crowd". To knock out a starship its merely a question of raw force.

On a personal tangent I also would like to add I dislike the use of technobabble in debates same as I dislike the use of magic. Being unquantifiable nothing concrete can be established and the debate dissolves into pointless argument distracting from genuine concerns of stratego-tatical and logistical which, in my opinion, should be the meat and potatoes of any conquest scenario.

[Lucky]

I just find the idea that you need to technobabble your way through them rather then brute force your way through more interesting in a debate. It kind of shoots dow the LOL bigatons I win crowd, and forces the debaters to actually know about the settings..

Except in the actual verse when ever a starship is presented with brute force, be it asteriods, solar flares or any other corporeal matter its treated as a threat. So in that sense and within that narrow, particular subject I would have to agree with the " LOL bigatons I win crowd". To knock out a starship its merely a question of raw force.

Provide evidence to support your claims. I will not accept your word something is true given your track record in our dealings. You certainly make a point to not extend such a luxury to me even when I prove my case from the start.

On a personal tangent I also would like to add I dislike the use of technobabble in debates same as I dislike the use of magic. Being unquantifiable nothing concrete can be established and the debate dissolves into pointless argument distracting from genuine concerns of stratego-tatical and logistical which, in my opinion, should be the meat and potatoes of any conquest scenario.

Forcing someone to prove their side can exploit at least some of the known weaknesses of a defense is far more interesting then reading some math problem that likely suffers from a "garbage in garbage out" problem. I prefer debaters who actually know the settings involved in the debate.

I don't expect most settings to use weaponized polarons, but there are more mundane weaknesses even if they are extreme examples of those mundane things.

[sonofccn]

Provide evidence to support your claims. I will not accept your word something is true given your track record in our dealings. You certainly make a point to not extend such a luxury to me even when I prove my case from the start.

And I am most certainly willing to provide evidence upon request. From here from our previous debate on the matter:

Allegiance from the next generation.

Bridge

PICARD 2: Helm take us in to twenty million kilometres.
WESLEY: Aye, sir.
RIKER: Mister Worf, divert enough power to the shields to offset the increased radiation and magnetic fields.
DATA: Sir, at twenty million kilometres, our shields will only be effective for eighteen minutes.
PICARD 2: Noted, Mister Data.
RIKER: Captain, may I have a word with you?
PICARD 2: You have the Bridge, Mister Data.
DATA: Aye, sir.

So it is just a matter of brute force. Or I could point to Genesis:

RIKER: Even for your newly improved phasers?
PICARD: Maintain a sensor lock on the torpedo, Mister Worf. We'll have to go after it.
DATA: That would be inadvisable, sir. The asteroid field is unusually dense. The Enterprise is too large to safely navigate through it.
PICARD: Then I'll take a shuttlecraft and retrieve it. Mister Data, you're with me.
Asteriods can defeat the Enterprise combat rated shields. In some number they are a threat.

Or I could point to Relics

[Bridge]

DATA: The sphere appears to be abandoned. Sensors show that the star is extremely unstable. It is experiencing severe bursts of radiation and matter expulsions.
PICARD: Then that would explain why they abandoned it. But if there's no one still living there, how were we brought inside?
DATA: I believe we triggered a series of automatic piloting beams designed to guide ships into the sphere.
WORF: Sir, Sensors show a large magnetic disturbance on the star's surface.
DATA: It is a solar flare, Captain. Magnitude twelve, class B.
PICARD: Shields?
WORF: Shields are up, but only at twenty three percent.
DATA: The star has entered a period of increased activity. Sensors indicate that the solar flares will continue to grow. In three hours, our shields will no longer be sufficient to protect us, sir.

In keeping with your reply in that thread I'll also repost the definition of radiation:

Physics .
a. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.

just to ensure no misunderstandings.

Forcing someone to prove their side can exploit at least some of the known weaknesses of a defense is far more interesting then reading some math problem that likely suffers from a "garbage in garbage out" problem.

Which is fine when its dealing with quantifiable parameters but we are discussing technobabble ie "magic" with has none. There is nothing really to prove against since none of us understand how technobabble actually works at best a person could point to some bit of pesudo-tech from their faction and argue it trumps your technobabble. Which dissolves the debate into a he said/she said sort of shouting match since there is no objective way to compare the two.

I prefer debaters who actually know the settings involved in the debate.

Familarity is important, through its always fun when you "play against" a Verse you haven't encountered before with all of its new possibilities, I would concure.

I don't expect most settings to use weaponized polarons, but there are more mundane weaknesses even if they are extreme examples of those mundane things.

And to me that doesn't sound like a fun debate.

[Lucky]

And I am most certainly willing to provide evidence upon request. From here from our previous debate on the matter:

You have not provided evidence to support your claim just like in the thread you are copying and pasting from. Provide the evidence that actually supports your claim that all that matters is the amount of energy transfered!

Your entire claim is based on cherry picking, over generalizations, and conspicuously ignoring things that disprove your claim. You are engaging in logic fallacies and lies in order to support a stance, and that sounds like a few other threads where we debate. Sadly you posted exactly what I expected you to.

Bridge


PICARD 2: Helm take us in to twenty million kilometres.

WESLEY: Aye, sir.

RIKER: Mister Worf, divert enough power to the shields to offset the increased radiation and magnetic fields.

DATA: Sir, at twenty million kilometres, our shields will only be effective for eighteen minutes.

PICARD 2: Noted, Mister Data.

RIKER: Captain, may I have a word with you?

PICARD 2: You have the Bridge, Mister Data.

DATA: Aye, sir.

[Bridge]

DATA: The sphere appears to be abandoned. Sensors show that the star is extremely unstable. It is experiencing severe bursts of radiation and matter expulsions.

PICARD: Then that would explain why they abandoned it. But if there's no one still living there, how were we brought inside?

DATA: I believe we triggered a series of automatic piloting beams designed to guide ships into the sphere.

WORF: Sir, Sensors show a large magnetic disturbance on the star's surface.

DATA: It is a solar flare, Captain. Magnitude twelve, class B.

PICARD: Shields?

WORF: Shields are up, but only at twenty three percent.

DATA: The star has entered a period of increased activity. Sensors indicate that the solar flares will continue to grow. In three hours, our shields will no longer be sufficient to protect us, sir.

None of that shows you can brute force with any form of "Radiation" like you are claiming will be effective. What I'm seeing here is someone who either doesn't have any idea as to what they are talking about, or someone who is purposely being dishonest.

You have conspicuously ignored "TNG: The Outrageous Okona" in which we are bluntly told that LASER can't penetrate the Navigational deflector Shields, but photons are a form of radiation, and that means not all radiation is equally effective against Federation shields completely destroying your claim that all that matters is how much energy is transfered to the target. We also know polarons can outright ignore all forms of shielding used by the Federation until mid/late DS9.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4 ... r_embedded

Before you go on about "no limits fallacies", LASER(light) can not over come gravity's pull no matter how high the output or how narrow the focus.

I'm sure you realize why the solar flares and pulsar you chose to use as evidence are unquantifiable.

RIKER: Even for your newly improved phasers?
PICARD: Maintain a sensor lock on the torpedo, Mister Worf. We'll have to go after it.
DATA: That would be inadvisable, sir. The asteroid field is unusually dense. The Enterprise is too large to safely navigate through it.
PICARD: Then I'll take a shuttlecraft and retrieve it. Mister Data, you're with me.

Asteriods can defeat the Enterprise combat rated shields. In some number they are a threat.

So you have nothing. Your example of asteroids being a threat to a Federation starships is a magical asteroid field with a large number of seemingly unnatural properties. It is oddly stable, and oddly dense. We aren't getting the full story as to why these tiny asteroids are dangerous, and if they are so dangerous how did the Enterprise-D get into the middle of the asteroid field to begin with?

Booby trap screen captures
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=53

Genesis Screen Captures
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbna ... 170&page=2

Odd how you conveniently ignore "TNG: Boonytrap" were the Enterprise-D effortlessly travels through an asteroid feild without a problem. Then there is "Voyager: Once Upon a Time", and "DS9: The Ship" where we see damaged ships VS planets, and the outcome is either a tie or in favor of the ships that were damaged before hitting the planets, and on top of that you ignore "TNG: Chain of Command", and "Star Trek: 4" where ships travel through Earth's and Titan's atmospheres at .7c and higher with no problems.

In keeping with your reply in that thread I'll also repost the definition of radiation:

Physics .
a. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.

just to ensure no misunderstandings.

This is an insult.

According to the definition you provided radiation is a vague term for all radiated particles. By your argument all forms of radiation should be equally effective at penetrating the navigational deflector shields and combat shields, but we know that this is not true. It is in fact a plot point of a number of episodes that some forms of radiation can defeat the shields while others can not no matter the weapon's output.

Which is fine when its dealing with quantifiable parameters but we are discussing technobabble ie "magic" with has none. There is nothing really to prove against since none of us understand how technobabble actually works at best a person could point to some bit of pesudo-tech from their faction and argue it trumps your technobabble. Which dissolves the debate into a he said/she said sort of shouting match since there is no objective way to compare the two.

I find this rather amusing given your example of a pulsar and solar flare fall under unquantifiable magic things we can't understand.

Polarons and magnetic fields are hard science. There is nothing magical about them, but they are stated technobabble weaknesses to the Enterprise-D's shields because there is no real reason gravitational warps should be effected by them. This is why studying a setting is so important.

Familarity is important, through its always fun when you "play against" a Verse you haven't encountered before with all of its new possibilities, I would concure.

You need one person well versed in each of the settings to actually take part, they must be able to provide the evidence, and they must be honest when providing evidence.

And to me that doesn't sound like a fun debate.

Someone providing evidence to support a claim seems like a debate to me, and seeing people trying to think of things beyond firepower makes things more interesting.

[sonofccn]

You have not provided evidence to support your claim just like in the thread you are copying and pasting from. Provide the evidence that actually supports your claim that all that matters is the amount of energy transfered!

I have demostrated multiple examples of corporeal matter striking a starship and either damaging it or being a threat to damage. Conversely you have not provided to my knowledge a single direct example of a navigational deflector protecting the ship in the manner you describe. No effortless shruging off asteriods or particles indefinatly which you ascribe the navigational deflector.

Your entire claim is based on cherry picking, over generalizations, and conspicuously ignoring things that disprove your claim.

If I cherry picked than you should easily be able to find evidence to support your stance. If I over generalized you can point out what context of the example I'm overlooking. If I'm ignoring things which disprove my claim you surely could bring them to my attention.

None of that shows you can brute force with any form of "Radiation" like you are claiming will be effective. What I'm seeing here is someone who either doesn't have any idea as to what they are talking about, or someone who is purposely being dishonest.

It is quite simple. In the examples run of the mill matter, nothing exceptional or unduly exotic, is being "fired" at a starship. You advocate that energy is irrevelent to the process, that barring special anti-shield technologies a starship is essentially protected indefinitly, and therefore a starship should be able to "sun bath" with impunity. The example instead shows the shields are "eroded" by the contact. Energy, in the form of myraid radiations, threatened the intergity of the shield in both cases and given sufficent time or increase of intensity would have pierced both.

Your only counter-argument would be to try and argue that there is a special anti-shield radiation inherent in stars and pulsars in the Trek universe and that is what they mean by "radiation" however such line of reasoning violates Occam's Razor and need not be contemplated further.

You have conspicuously ignored "TNG: The Outrageous Okona" in which we are bluntly told that LASER can't penetrate the Navigational deflector Shields, but photons are a form of radiation, and that means not all radiation is equally effective against Federation shields completely destroying your claim that all that matters is how much energy is transfered to the target.

I do not forget "the Outrageous Okona" conspiciously or otherwise. Strictly speaking even if I were to assume wholly and without reservation that based off of that no laser could ever pierce the navigational deflector that would not mandate it must stop all light or all of the EM spectrum but merely render Lasers ineffective. A dispersal effect would suffice. Further since said quote is part of a casual conversation rather than a technical briefing or example of the effect in action to fully understand the context of it we would need to look at the wider Verse in question.

Additionaly your basic argument offered appears to be operating under a faulty assumption. Namely if you can prove a difference in interaction I am therefore wrong. However I, in essence, argue shields are akin to physical constructs which can and are battered down by physical interaction. A human body is a physical construct which can and is battered down by physical interactions as well. However the same force applied to a bullet composed of absobent spongy matter will not have precisely the same result as one composed out of lead but one would hardly argue the force of energy was immaterial and humans merely have a special weakness to lead.

We also know polarons can outright ignore all forms of shielding used by the Federation until mid/late DS9.

The fact that Polarons bypassed shields rather than battering them down would point in my favor. A clear cut example of encountering something the shield's had a weakness to.

Before you go on about "no limits fallacies", LASER(light) can not over come gravity's pull no matter how high the output or how narrow the focus.

If we are talking about the gravitonal pull of a black hole beyond its event horizon you are correct. If you have evidence of a comparable state regarding the Navigational deflector you may invoke such. However the quote in question does not state that and assuming no EM radiation or indeed no laser could ever pierce the navigational deflectors would indeed be a "no limits fallacy".

I'm sure you realize why the solar flares and pulsar you chose to use as evidence are unquantifiable.

For my purposes it is unimportant what wattage is being outputted in the examples. Merely that it is pummeling down the shield.

So you have nothing. Your example of asteroids being a threat to a Federation starships is a magical asteroid field with a large number of seemingly unnatural properties. It is oddly stable, and oddly dense

Its only unusual property is that it, the asteriod belt, is abnormally dense. If these were special, magic asteriods Data would have pointed such out. Since he did not any claims of such, without evidence, can be dismissed.

Odd how you conveniently ignore "TNG: Boobytrap" were the Enterprise-D effortlessly travels through an asteroid feild without a problem.

Since I did not argue the Enterprise couldn't enter any asteriod field at all merely that in the quote I provided they couldn't because of the dangers involved. If at any point in Boobytrap they state a collision with an asteriod is immaterial due to them being impervious to corporeal matter you may of course provide that in support of your argument. Otherwise in and of itself that the Enterprise could enter an asteriod field does not disprove my argument.

You could attempt to argue a descrepency due to similar visuals but that is going to be messy affair, doubly so since you normally disregard visuals, with us posting different screenshots at different vantages to try and prove our argument.

Such as this from Boobytrap compared to this from Genesis showing the latter is the denser field.

Then there is "Voyager: Once Upon a Time", and "DS9: The Ship" where we see damaged ships VS planets, and the outcome is either a tie or in favor of the ships that were damaged before hitting the planets

In every event the planet succefully stopped the ship. Said planet was not unduly harmed while the ships usually were the worse for wear. Further as far as I am aware, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, on those crashes which we are witness to the velocity is relatively pedestrian. Now that they survived relatively intact, and in atleast one case managed to be fixed enough to leave, is impressive from a real world viewpoint but it is not super-impervious to the material universe impressive you are advocating.

and on top of that you ignore "TNG: Chain of Command", and "Star Trek: 4" where ships travel through Earth's and Titan's atmospheres at .7c and higher with no problems.

The fact that Earth's atmosphere didn't combust points to tomfoolery of physics as we understand them. As for Chain of Command since we still do not understand how vessels accelerate to such speeds the assumption that they do it via brute force real world physics is just that. An Assumption. Or in other words a speculative theroy which must be tested against known facts.

This is an insult.

If you choose to take it as such. I was merely trying to save time and effort.

According to the definition you provided radiation is a vague term for all radiated particles.

I provided the link, that is the definiition of "radiation" as I have been able to ascertain. If you have another one you may cite it.

It is in fact a plot point of a number of episodes that some forms of radiation can defeat the shields while others can not no matter the weapon's output.

If it is the example I think it is the quote says lasers not EM radiation. If there are others I welcome their admission.

I find this rather amusing given your example of a pulsar and solar flare fall under unquantifiable magic things we can't understand.

No solar flares and pulsars are real, physical things. Reasonable estimate can be made. That writers botched the real world science should not be ignored but neither does it make all that happen vanish into thin air.

Polarons and magnetic fields are hard science.

Within the RL Verse yes. Within how they interact with a fictional device not so much.

There is nothing magical about them, but they are stated technobabble weaknesses to the Enterprise-D's shields because there is no real reason gravitational warps should be effected by them

So you are in agreement you don't know how a Polaron based weapon actually does its thing. Do not understand the scientific rational why it works which can be used to objectively rate and quantify how another society may achieve similar results. All you have is Magic A and that can't be debated.

Someone providing evidence to support a claim seems like a debate to me, and seeing people trying to think of things beyond firepower makes things more interesting.

Except it descends into arguing if Magic B can touch Magic A, think of how the Death Note/Doctor Strange debate went, with nothing being accomplished. In many ways its a parrellel to rather than a devation of arguing firepower. Has the same effect of stifling actual debate and railroading disccussions into predictable paths. I don't consider that particuarly fun.

Now then Lucky. You have made multiple insuinuations in this post and previously that I have acted in a dishonorable manner in our debates. If you feel the matter strongly enough I welcome you to bring it to the Mods and will accept whatever judgment they deem. However I do ask you to please refrain from reciting such allegations within your posts. They needlessly clutter up and expand your posts and are not conductive to polite, reasoned debate. Thank you.

[359]

You have conspicuously ignored "TNG: The Outrageous Okona" in which we are bluntly told that LASER can't penetrate the Navigational deflector Shields, but photons are a form of radiation, and that means not all radiation is equally effective against Federation shields completely destroying your claim that all that matters is how much energy is transfered to the target.

I do not forget "the Outrageous Okona" conspiciously or otherwise. Strictly speaking even if I were to assume wholly and without reservation that based off of that no laser could ever pierce the navigational deflector that would not mandate it must stop all light or all of the EM spectrum but merely render Lasers ineffective. A dispersal effect would suffice. Further since said quote is part of a casual conversation rather than a technical briefing or example of the effect in action to fully understand the context of it we would need to look at the wider Verse in question.

In TNG:"Q Who?" it is stated that the Borg are using a laser beam to cut into the Enterprise's hull. There is no mention of navigational deflectors being disabled.

Worf: "A type of laser beam is slicing into the saucer section."
Riker: "They're Carving us up like a roast."

[Lucky]

In TNG:"Q Who?" it is stated that the Borg are using a laser beam to cut into the Enterprise's hull. There is no mention of navigational deflectors being disabled.

Worf: "A type of laser beam is slicing into the saucer section."
Riker: "They're Carving us up like a roast."

There isn't a contradiction. The LASER wasn't used until after the beam had drained the shields leaving them defenseless.

WORF: The beam is draining our shields.

RIKER: If they pull down our shields, we're helpless.

PICARD: Warp eight, any heading. Engage.

WESLEY: Captain, the beam is holding us here.

RIKER: Increase power!

WORF: Shields weakening.

DATA: Shields will be down in eighteen seconds.

PICARD: Locate the exact source of the tractor beam. Lock on phasers.

WORF: Phasers locked on target.

PICARD: Fire.

WORF: They still have us.

DATA: Shields are down, sir.

(A circular cut is made in the hull, and a section of several decks is pulled out)

WORF: A type of laser beam is slicing into the saucer section.

RIKER: Carving us up like a roast.

So what ever that anti-shield weapon was it apparently worked on all the shields at once.

[Praeothmin]

This argument is the same one we had with KirkSkywalker a year or so ago, where he too ascribed to the "Da Shieldzzz are the Uber shitzz, and have gravity and can push everything away"...
Except that people did bring up all the asteroids and physical objects striking a ship while the deflector and shields were active (which was ignored, of course, without explanation)...
And the Outrageous Okona is a no limits fallacy...
They were threatened by lasers from a lower technology-based culture, so the logical explanation in this case is that the laser's power wasn't sufficient to overcome the shields, not that "HURRR, NO LAZARZZZ KIN TOUCH USSSSS"...

[sonofccn]

You have conspicuously ignored "TNG: The Outrageous Okona" in which we are bluntly told that LASER can't penetrate the Navigational deflector Shields, but photons are a form of radiation, and that means not all radiation is equally effective against Federation shields completely destroying your claim that all that matters is how much energy is transfered to the target.

I do not forget "the Outrageous Okona" conspiciously or otherwise. Strictly speaking even if I were to assume wholly and without reservation that based off of that no laser could ever pierce the navigational deflector that would not mandate it must stop all light or all of the EM spectrum but merely render Lasers ineffective. A dispersal effect would suffice. Further since said quote is part of a casual conversation rather than a technical briefing or example of the effect in action to fully understand the context of it we would need to look at the wider Verse in question.

In TNG:"Q Who?" it is stated that the Borg are using a laser beam to cut into the Enterprise's hull. There is no mention of navigational deflectors being disabled.

Worf: "A type of laser beam is slicing into the saucer section."
Riker: "They're Carving us up like a roast."

Thank you for the example 359. I had forgotten it through in this one case I do have to agree with Lucky that the anti-shield ability of the Borg does muddle an otherwise clear example.

[Mike DiCenso]

The real issue is that the nav deflector, unlike the combat shields, is not all around in it's coverage. So theoretically, moving off to the side of a Trek ship, you can attack it with lasers or kinetic objects since there's no nav deflector beam there. When the Borg attacks with it's cutting beam, it does so from a very high angle of attack or 45-90 degrees to one side:

"Q who?"


"Q Who?"


"Best of Both Worlds"


How do we know the nav deflector doesn't cover that high an area? Simple, the rare times the beam is visible, it is a relatively narrow beam as seen in TOS and TNG:

"The Paradise Syndrome"


"Best of Both Worlds, Part 2"


So this is not as cut and dried as people believe it is. That's why Trek ships bother to even have combat shields at all, otherwise you would only need the deflector.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

But do you agree that the Deflector cannot deflect "everything", and that there are limits to what it can affect?

[Mike DiCenso]

Given the evidence provided, I don't really know since the nav deflector is seldom a factor in combat. Have we ever seen anyone actually directly fire at it with anything?
-Mike