Could the Doomsphere destroy an unmanned ISD?

[Metrion Cascade]

Of course it would increase in volume, and rush out of every hole in the ground, and generally do alot of incredibly-visible things. The mantle in the pictures at around 12 seconds shows the mantle is not behaving as a gas, but as a liquid(Note the appearance of ejecta, not brilliant gas or plasma).

When it boils, it will boil in pockets. This will push up liquid and some gas in one mix or another.

The weapon's power increasing is consistent with its designer's statements about a prototype that did nearly the same damage and was clearly DET.

No it wasn't. There was no atmospheric reaction in line with a large scale energy release.

The second prototype was tested against a moon that didn't look to have any atmosphere.

You confuse 'there must be vapourization on scales that, by your theory, will be visible' with 'the world must uniformly vapourize'. The vapourization will be mostly around the beam, and should include events like massive steamclouds over the Atlantic and things like the nearby continents liquifying. You'll notice these are not present.

Aren't they?



And the very first indication of the beam hitting anything is a white cloud expanding outward from the end of it.

Extremely rapid energy input, like what happened when Alderaan's shield fell. Notice that after the shield glow vanished, the explosion was near instant. Compared to Twilight, where the energy input, even by your own theory, is slow.

So if the mantle boils fast enough, it will boil without expanding? Um, no.

Paramount, the current owners of Star Trek, declare it canon. And it is easy to reconcile: It's the timeline generated during First Contact. I know, I know, you apply a slippery slope fallacy to this and then insist we assume every episode is it's own, but your fallacies painted onto a legitimate argument don't revoke it.

Appeal to authority fallacy. A contradiction in terms presented by Paramount is still a contradiction in terms. And I don't see how every episode can be its own canon unless there's time trabbel or something. And I tried the "it's caused by First Contact so it must have the same physics" argument against DW. It doesn't work, because the events are still not the same canon and hence not true depictions (not to mention that in ENT some laws of physics can change just as they do in other Trek). It's as if a fanfic depicted a hand phaser destroying a whole planet. It claims to be the same tech, but doesn't reflect the physics accurately.

Utter lack of, among other things, the surface being vapourized. You did know that through DET the energy would have to bore through the ocean(Vapourizing it and generating cloud cover over the entire Atlantic), before it could even get close to the Mantle, right?

Yes, and we see it do just that. But vaporizing the water doesn't therefore mean you have to vape every drop before you'll hit the bottom. The vaporization creates a steam pocket around the beam.

At the observed rate of speed, it appeared to be over escape velocity. Keep in mind, at the minimum energies, it'll take ten minutes to double in size.

The problem is you want it to be DET, but don't seem to understand what that means. It means that it'll set fire to the atmosphere(Observable, not present), vapourize the Atlantic(Observable, not present), melt the continental plate(Observable, not present), all just to get at the mantle!

All are present, but solid rock will take longer to melt and boil than the mantle will to boil with the same rate of heat transfer. The chain reaction you are proposing would have to somehow generate outward force from some potential energy in the planet's matter, but without boiling it. Let's read that again: your funky chain reaction generates more energy than the planet's GB energy, but doesn't boil the mantle. It doesn't constitute an explanation at all, much less a plausible one. One way or another the planet could not come apart without being boiled.

[SirNitram]

Of course it would increase in volume, and rush out of every hole in the ground, and generally do alot of incredibly-visible things. The mantle in the pictures at around 12 seconds shows the mantle is not behaving as a gas, but as a liquid(Note the appearance of ejecta, not brilliant gas or plasma).

When it boils, it will boil in pockets. This will push up liquid and some gas in one mix or another.

And perhaps then you'll explain why the continental plates on top of the mantle are untouched by this massive input of energy? They were intact when the plate burst.

No it wasn't. There was no atmospheric reaction in line with a large scale energy release.

The second prototype was tested against a moon that didn't look to have any atmosphere.

I was thinking you meant the probe that attacked Earth. So what's your proof for it being DET?

You confuse 'there must be vapourization on scales that, by your theory, will be visible' with 'the world must uniformly vapourize'. The vapourization will be mostly around the beam, and should include events like massive steamclouds over the Atlantic and things like the nearby continents liquifying. You'll notice these are not present.

Aren't they?



And the very first indication of the beam hitting anything is a white cloud expanding outward from the end of it.

Indicating there is some thermal(DET) component, much like a Phaser. However, this cloud does not vapourize most of the ocean, or melt the continental plate below, as would be required for a beam of this level of power.

Extremely rapid energy input, like what happened when Alderaan's shield fell. Notice that after the shield glow vanished, the explosion was near instant. Compared to Twilight, where the energy input, even by your own theory, is slow.

So if the mantle boils fast enough, it will boil without expanding? Um, no.

No, Metrion. If you impart the energy fast enough, it will explode instead of boiling.

Paramount, the current owners of Star Trek, declare it canon. And it is easy to reconcile: It's the timeline generated during First Contact. I know, I know, you apply a slippery slope fallacy to this and then insist we assume every episode is it's own, but your fallacies painted onto a legitimate argument don't revoke it.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Paramount is a legitimate authority to answer whether ENT is Canon, therefore it is not a fallacy.

And I tried the "it's caused by First Contact so it must have the same physics" argument against DW. It doesn't work, because the events are still not the same canon and hence not true depictions (not to mention that in ENT some laws of physics can change just as they do in other Trek). It's as if a fanfic depicted a hand phaser destroying a whole planet. It claims to be the same tech, but doesn't reflect the physics accurately.

Now here's a proper Appeal To Authority fallacy. 'I tried the argument to back up one of my arguments, and it didn't fly'.

Utter lack of, among other things, the surface being vapourized. You did know that through DET the energy would have to bore through the ocean(Vapourizing it and generating cloud cover over the entire Atlantic), before it could even get close to the Mantle, right?

Yes, and we see it do just that. But vaporizing the water doesn't therefore mean you have to vape every drop before you'll hit the bottom. The vaporization creates a steam pocket around the beam.

Apparently you do not comprehend the amount of water required to be vapourized by the beam and the heat radiating out from steam that energetic.

At the observed rate of speed, it appeared to be over escape velocity. Keep in mind, at the minimum energies, it'll take ten minutes to double in size.

The problem is you want it to be DET, but don't seem to understand what that means. It means that it'll set fire to the atmosphere(Observable, not present), vapourize the Atlantic(Observable, not present), melt the continental plate(Observable, not present), all just to get at the mantle!

All are present, but solid rock will take longer to melt and boil than the mantle will to boil with the same rate of heat transfer. The chain reaction you are proposing would have to somehow generate outward force from some potential energy in the planet's matter, but without boiling it. Let's read that again: your funky chain reaction generates more energy than the planet's GB energy, but doesn't boil the mantle. It doesn't constitute an explanation at all, much less a plausible one. One way or another the planet could not come apart without being boiled.

Perhaps I should try an analogy to get this point across.

Take a triple-layer fudge cake with icing. Take a knife. Starting from the top, cut the bottom of the cake without cutting the middle.

THAT is why a DET weapon will melt the crust before it can vapourize the mantle.

[Metrion Cascade]

Of course it would increase in volume, and rush out of every hole in the ground, and generally do alot of incredibly-visible things. The mantle in the pictures at around 12 seconds shows the mantle is not behaving as a gas, but as a liquid(Note the appearance of ejecta, not brilliant gas or plasma).

When it boils, it will boil in pockets. This will push up liquid and some gas in one mix or another.

And perhaps then you'll explain why the continental plates on top of the mantle are untouched by this massive input of energy? They were intact when the plate burst.

Um, no they weren't. Not a single one of the Earth's known tectonic plates was intact before the planet chunked.

I was thinking you meant the probe that attacked Earth. So what's your proof for it being DET?

First prototype: damage confined to the line of fire, with a clean edge on either side.

Second prototype: solid moon (likely one with no atmosphere) starts breaking up, only lingering effect is momentum of moon debris.

So what would this atmospheric reaction look like, and what temperatures would be needed to cause it?

Indicating there is some thermal(DET) component, much like a Phaser. However, this cloud does not vapourize most of the ocean, or melt the continental plate below, as would be required for a beam of this level of power.
No, Metrion. If you impart the energy fast enough, it will explode instead of boiling.

How does liquid explode without boiling?

Paramount is a legitimate authority to answer whether ENT is Canon, therefore it is not a fallacy.

Their authority doesn't change the fact that a single canon would be a contradiction in terms. You do not have the logical option of saying two contradictory histories are the same timeline, and neither does Paramount. Unless you've got some blanket reconciliation between both of them...?

Now here's a proper Appeal To Authority fallacy. 'I tried the argument to back up one of my arguments, and it didn't fly'.

The fact that I already tried it wasn't presented as why it's wrong. I said it was wrong because the events aren't still not in the same timeline.

Apparently you do not comprehend the amount of water required to be vapourized by the beam and the heat radiating out from steam that energetic.

Then let's see some numbers.

Perhaps I should try an analogy to get this point across.

Take a triple-layer fudge cake with icing. Take a knife. Starting from the top, cut the bottom of the cake without cutting the middle.

THAT is why a DET weapon will melt the crust before it can vapourize the mantle.

False analogy. You're not sticking a solid object through another object. You're directing an energy beam at a liquid surrounded by solids. A better analogy would be pointing a cutting laser at a wooden ball filled with water. Once the laser cuts a hole in the wood, the wood is no longer being heated as much because there's a hole in it and only the edge of that hole is in contact with the beam. Unlike the water, which can conduct heat away from the beam. And if vaporized, more of it can flow in to maintain contact with the beam. Once the initial hole was made in Earth's crust, the crust was no longer being heated by contact with the beam so much as by contact with the increasingly hot mantle.

[SirNitram]

When it boils, it will boil in pockets. This will push up liquid and some gas in one mix or another.

And perhaps then you'll explain why the continental plates on top of the mantle are untouched by this massive input of energy? They were intact when the plate burst.

Um, no they weren't. Not a single one of the Earth's known tectonic plates was intact before the planet chunked.

Images don't lie.



The Atlantic split straight down the middle, right along where magma has been coming up. I fail to see any major plates melted to nothing to allow heat transfer through to the mantle.

First prototype: damage confined to the line of fire, with a clean edge on either side.

DET isn't very clean when this amount of energy is involved. If you knew more about physics, you'd understand this. There's no atmospheric fireballs, no melting along the sides...

Second prototype: solid moon (likely one with no atmosphere) starts breaking up, only lingering effect is momentum of moon debris.

And this is evidence for DET how?

So what would this atmospheric reaction look like, and what temperatures would be needed to cause it?

Atmospheric fireballs, between tens and hundreds of miles in diameter, lasting for up to a half-hour.

How does liquid explode without boiling?

Sudden, vast kinetic release below it. This beam is absolutely not sudden, and it's impact effect is not kinetic(It's closer to a mid-range nuke, come to think of it), but closer to thermal at first(What it does afterwards is against most known forms of chain reaction and energy transfer, but matches exactly the effect from Scorpion.).

Their authority doesn't change the fact that a single canon would be a contradiction in terms. You do not have the logical option of saying two contradictory histories are the same timeline, and neither does Paramount. Unless you've got some blanket reconciliation between both of them...?

Multiple timelines. Canon in Star Trek, re: Parallels. Enterprise is one of those timelines. Do not be dense, Metrion.

The fact that I already tried it wasn't presented as why it's wrong. I said it was wrong because the events aren't still not in the same timeline.

And multiple timelines are Canon in Star Trek(Re: TNG "Parallels"). So the only reconcilation problem is you refusing to budge.

Then let's see some numbers.

You're the one claiming it must be DET, Metrion. The burden of proof is therefore on you, howevermuch you shrik it.

False analogy. You're not sticking a solid object through another object. You're directing an energy beam at a liquid surrounded by solids. A better analogy would be pointing a cutting laser at a wooden ball filled with water. Once the laser cuts a hole in the wood, the wood is no longer being heated as much because there's a hole in it and only the edge of that hole is in contact with the beam. Unlike the water, which can conduct heat away from the beam. And if vaporized, more of it can flow in to maintain contact with the beam. Once the initial hole was made in Earth's crust, the crust was no longer being heated by contact with the beam so much as by contact with the increasingly hot mantle.

All this without showing us the hole, the atmospheric fireball in line with energy releases far in excess of a kiloton-range weapon, the evidence of any thermal effect at all(The planet would not chunk under a 'slow ramp up' of energy, as was repeatedly explained to you. This thing called heat transfer would make the crust melt in entire sections first, which it did not, to anyone with eyes).

[Metrion Cascade]

And perhaps then you'll explain why the continental plates on top of the mantle are untouched by this massive input of energy? They were intact when the plate burst.

Um, no they weren't. Not a single one of the Earth's known tectonic plates was intact before the planet chunked.

Images don't lie.



The Atlantic split straight down the middle, right along where magma has been coming up. I fail to see any major plates melted to nothing to allow heat transfer through to the mantle.

That wouldn't be necessary. A hole in the crust would let the heat through it without heating the crust itself as much as the mantle. And what plate do you see intact there? The North American/Caribbean? No. The South American? No. The Eurasian? Hm. No also. Not one of them was intact.

DET isn't very clean when this amount of energy is involved. If you knew more about physics, you'd understand this. There's no atmospheric fireballs, no melting along the sides...

Nice ad hominem, but the point where the beam hits is completely white. As in it's already as bright as it could possibly be.

And this is evidence for DET how?

DET is the default explanation because unlike yours it obeys the laws of physics. The burden of proof is on your statement that the laws of physics aren't being applied.

Atmospheric fireballs, between tens and hundreds of miles in diameter, lasting for up to a half-hour.

The atmosphere itself didn't last half an hour. And the point where the beam hit was white-hot.

Sudden, vast kinetic release below it. This beam is absolutely not sudden, and it's impact effect is not kinetic(It's closer to a mid-range nuke, come to think of it), but closer to thermal at first(What it does afterwards is against most known forms of chain reaction and energy transfer, but matches exactly the effect from Scorpion.).

No it doesn't. First off it doesn't matter because Scorpion is a separate canon. Secondly the effects of the weapon in Scorpion didn't gradually move through the planet like the heat from the Doomsphere.

And where the hell does this sudden kinetic release come from? Are you saying this "chain reaction" created outward kinetic energy out of nothing? Of course the beam's impact wouldn't appear kinetic. It's an energy beam with no momentum. Unless you want to violate conservation of momentum, its effects will be thermal.

Multiple timelines. Canon in Star Trek, re: Parallels. Enterprise is one of those timelines. Do not be dense, Metrion.

What canon policy did Paramount ever set? And how do you intend to show that alternate universes must have the same (fictitious) physics when the same physics don't even apply universally within individual realities?

And multiple timelines are Canon in Star Trek(Re: TNG "Parallels"). So the only reconcilation problem is you refusing to budge.

Your refusal to override Paramount where they contradict themselves doesn't change the fact that alternate timelines do not necessarily have the same physics.

You're the one claiming it must be DET, Metrion. The burden of proof is therefore on you, howevermuch you shrik it.

Bullshit. You're the one who wants to create kinetic energy out of nothing instead of trying something that's actually possible. DET obeys the laws of physics and is therefore the default explanation. The burden of proof is on the position that ENT physics are different in a specific area.

All this without showing us the hole, the atmospheric fireball in line with energy releases far in excess of a kiloton-range weapon, the evidence of any thermal effect at all(The planet would not chunk under a 'slow ramp up' of energy, as was repeatedly explained to you. This thing called heat transfer would make the crust melt in entire sections first, which it did not, to anyone with eyes).

The planet is liquid on the inside. It couldn't "chunk" at all. The crust did. And before you talk about heat transfer you'll have to show that the beam fired its full power into the crust in spite of the fact that we know it didn't fire at full power at first. Steps in what the Doomsphere does:

1.) Initiate low-power beam to drill through crust (maybe some NDF).
2.) Once hole is made, increase power to boil mantle.
3.) Be destroyed by ejecta when mantle boils and foces the few solid remnants of the crust apart.

[SirNitram]

Um, no they weren't. Not a single one of the Earth's known tectonic plates was intact before the planet chunked.

Images don't lie.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/ ... ame769.jpg

The Atlantic split straight down the middle, right along where magma has been coming up. I fail to see any major plates melted to nothing to allow heat transfer through to the mantle.

That wouldn't be necessary. A hole in the crust would let the heat through it without heating the crust itself as much as the mantle. And what plate do you see intact there? The North American/Caribbean? No. The South American? No. The Eurasian? Hm. No also. Not one of them was intact.

http://www.nps.gov/prsf/geology/images/plates.gif

So where's the melted continental plate from the energy input, Metrion? Where? Oh right, it isn't there. Do you not comprehend this or something? Do you think that magma bursting over fault lines is equal to melting a hole in a continental plate?

Nice ad hominem, but the point where the beam hits is completely white. As in it's already as bright as it could possibly be.

Nice non-reply. I was addressing the lack of bleedoff which would be present if it worked like you wish it did.

DET is the default explanation because unlike yours it obeys the laws of physics. The burden of proof is on your statement that the laws of physics aren't being applied.

Two of three events do not jive with DET. The third one having no immediately obvious problems does not make it DET.

The atmosphere itself didn't last half an hour. And the point where the beam hit was white-hot.

And still produced no fireballs on par with what should be present. What a pity, your theory fails. The 'whiteness' of the beam is irrevelent.

No it doesn't. First off it doesn't matter because Scorpion is a separate canon. Secondly the effects of the weapon in Scorpion didn't gradually move through the planet like the heat from the Doomsphere.

No, it's exactly the same canon, Star Trek. Your refusal to admit this is grating.

And second, if the Doomsphere is applying heat, it must melt continental plates(It didn't, at best it cause them to come apart in places, not even glowing hot), cause massive atmospheric fireballs(It didn't), and generally act nothing like how it did. The Scorpion weapon's visual effects are near identical: Long burst, followed by ejecta, then the planet finally exploding.

And where the hell does this sudden kinetic release come from? Are you saying this "chain reaction" created outward kinetic energy out of nothing? Of course the beam's impact wouldn't appear kinetic. It's an energy beam with no momentum. Unless you want to violate conservation of momentum, its effects will be thermal.

Oh god, you actually beleive an energy beam has no momentum. U/c, Metrion! First year Physics!

What canon policy did Paramount ever set? And how do you intend to show that alternate universes must have the same (fictitious) physics when the same physics don't even apply universally within individual realities?

'Whatever's Live Action Star Trek is canon. Everything else is not.' Direct quote from the continuity editor Paramount employs.

The second is laughably simple: Because all their toys work.

Your refusal to override Paramount where they contradict themselves doesn't change the fact that alternate timelines do not necessarily have the same physics.

Show the contradiction, if it actually exists.

Bullshit. You're the one who wants to create kinetic energy out of nothing instead of trying something that's actually possible. DET obeys the laws of physics and is therefore the default explanation. The burden of proof is on the position that ENT physics are different in a specific area.

No, Metrion. You are the one making assertions, I am showing them for the tripe they are. Do not try this bullshit on me. You don't even know that momentum and kinetic energy will exist in a laser beam! Who are you trying to kid here? I've already shown that Trek physics envelope ENT: The Enterprise-E and Borg Sphere functioned.

The planet is liquid on the inside. It couldn't "chunk" at all. The crust did. And before you talk about heat transfer you'll have to show that the beam fired its full power into the crust in spite of the fact that we know it didn't fire at full power at first. Steps in what the Doomsphere does:

1.) Initiate low-power beam to drill through crust (maybe some NDF).
2.) Once hole is made, increase power to boil mantle.
3.) Be destroyed by ejecta when mantle boils and foces the few solid remnants of the crust apart.

And if it's ramping up it's power, we should see fireballs the size of states, continental plates glowing red from waste heat, and actual vapour. We didn't. Your WoI is annoying, Metrion.

[Metrion Cascade]

Oh god, you actually beleive an energy beam has no momentum. U/c, Metrion! First year Physics!

::shooting Coke through the screen::

Now that's some funny shit. You are one dumb motherfucker if you think fucking LIGHT MOMENTUM from a dim red beam magically overcame the planet's GBE and somehow went from being parallel to the beam to pointing away from the core in all directions.

You lose, bitch.

[Metrion Cascade]

Not to mention that your proposed "light momentum" solution IS direct energy transfer.

[SirNitram]

Oh god, you actually beleive an energy beam has no momentum. U/c, Metrion! First year Physics!

::shooting Coke through the screen::

Now that's some funny shit. You are one dumb motherfucker if you think fucking LIGHT MOMENTUM from a dim red beam magically overcame the planet's GBE and somehow went from being parallel to the beam to pointing away from the core in all directions.

You lose, bitch.

Idiotic. You stated that energy beams have no momentum, I show they do, and you strawman into this to run away? I did you too much credit in explaining this stuff to you.

[SirNitram]

Not to mention that your proposed "light momentum" solution IS direct energy transfer.

This is just sad. You think a tiny beam imparting momentum to a point under the Atlantic will cause the Earth explode omnidirecitonally after a quarter of a minute?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Next time could you guys at least put in some effort so that there isn't so much "he said, she said" crap?

[Metrion Cascade]

Not to mention that your proposed "light momentum" solution IS direct energy transfer.

This is just sad. You think a tiny beam imparting momentum to a point under the Atlantic will cause the Earth explode omnidirecitonally after a quarter of a minute?

No. You're the one proposing omnidirectional kinetic energy out of nothing.

[SirNitram]

Not to mention that your proposed "light momentum" solution IS direct energy transfer.

This is just sad. You think a tiny beam imparting momentum to a point under the Atlantic will cause the Earth explode omnidirecitonally after a quarter of a minute?

No. You're the one proposing omnidirectional kinetic energy out of nothing.

*Sighs* I don't know whether you have a compulsive need to strawman everything because you realize your theory sucks, or whether you just don't know what you're on about.

To get a planet to explode outwards requires an omnidirectional kinetic energy release from the centre. Acheiving this is very hard, as anyone who knows physics would know. Your proposed theory does not even vaguely acheive this. If you want credibility, you better have more than 'it gradually increases energy.. THEN BANG! DET.'

[Metrion Cascade]

This is just sad. You think a tiny beam imparting momentum to a point under the Atlantic will cause the Earth explode omnidirecitonally after a quarter of a minute?

No. You're the one proposing omnidirectional kinetic energy out of nothing.

*Sighs* I don't know whether you have a compulsive need to strawman everything because you realize your theory sucks, or whether you just don't know what you're on about.

To get a planet to explode outwards requires an omnidirectional kinetic energy release from the centre. Acheiving this is very hard, as anyone who knows physics would know. Your proposed theory does not even vaguely acheive this. If you want credibility, you better have more than 'it gradually increases energy.. THEN BANG! DET.'

Your theory doesn't even...oh, wait, you don't have one. You aren't even offering any explanation as to what creates this omnidirectional kinetic energy. You can disagree with mine after you offer an alternative, which you haven't.

[SirNitram]

No. You're the one proposing omnidirectional kinetic energy out of nothing.

*Sighs* I don't know whether you have a compulsive need to strawman everything because you realize your theory sucks, or whether you just don't know what you're on about.

To get a planet to explode outwards requires an omnidirectional kinetic energy release from the centre. Acheiving this is very hard, as anyone who knows physics would know. Your proposed theory does not even vaguely acheive this. If you want credibility, you better have more than 'it gradually increases energy.. THEN BANG! DET.'

Your theory doesn't even...oh, wait, you don't have one. You aren't even offering any explanation as to what creates this omnidirectional kinetic energy. You can disagree with mine after you offer an alternative, which you haven't.

It uses a chain reaction similar to the visually-similar Scorpion blast to produce the omnidirectional burst.

Oh yea, you had to lie and say I don't have a theory, even when I stated that several times. Lying is bad for you, Metrion.

[Metrion Cascade]

*Sighs* I don't know whether you have a compulsive need to strawman everything because you realize your theory sucks, or whether you just don't know what you're on about.

To get a planet to explode outwards requires an omnidirectional kinetic energy release from the centre. Acheiving this is very hard, as anyone who knows physics would know. Your proposed theory does not even vaguely acheive this. If you want credibility, you better have more than 'it gradually increases energy.. THEN BANG! DET.'

Your theory doesn't even...oh, wait, you don't have one. You aren't even offering any explanation as to what creates this omnidirectional kinetic energy. You can disagree with mine after you offer an alternative, which you haven't.

It uses a chain reaction similar to the visually-similar Scorpion blast to produce the omnidirectional burst.

Oh yea, you had to lie and say I don't have a theory, even when I stated that several times. Lying is bad for you, Metrion.

That does not constitute an explanation. The Scorpion explosion is outside ENT canon (period) and could not have been caused by the weapon itself. No "chain reaction" exists that moves evenly through a body and then causes it to spontaneously and uniformly shatter. Not even in Trek. Saying that there is doesn't explain how it violated actual physics or where the force came from, and is hence NOT an explanation for the explosion. The planet in "Scorpion" was hit by a DET weapon whose effects were confined to the impact site. It then (likely because of the Borg tech on/in the planet going haywire) exploded several seconds later, with no indication of any kind of energy gradually moving from the impact site through the rest of the planet as the heat in "Twilight" did.

[SirNitram]

It uses a chain reaction similar to the visually-similar Scorpion blast to produce the omnidirectional burst.

Oh yea, you had to lie and say I don't have a theory, even when I stated that several times. Lying is bad for you, Metrion.

That does not constitute an explanation. The Scorpion explosion is outside ENT canon (period) and could not have been caused by the weapon itself.

Flat out lie, shown above.

No "chain reaction" exists that moves evenly through a body and then causes it to spontaneously and uniformly shatter. Not even in Trek.

Flat out lie(VOY: "Scorpion").

Saying that there is doesn't explain how it violated actual physics or where the force came from, and is hence NOT an explanation for the explosion. The planet in "Scorpion" was hit by a DET weapon whose effects were confined to the impact site. It then (likely because of the Borg tech on/in the planet going haywire) exploded several seconds later, with no indication of any kind of energy gradually moving from the impact site through the rest of the planet as the heat in "Twilight" did.

Flat out lie. The Scorpion blast not only violated DET in all the manners shown here that you could not refute, it also visibly had the beam shut down before the detonation. These things are called 'facts', Metrion, and they should be known before you start insist you're right.

[Metrion Cascade]

It uses a chain reaction similar to the visually-similar Scorpion blast to produce the omnidirectional burst.

Oh yea, you had to lie and say I don't have a theory, even when I stated that several times. Lying is bad for you, Metrion.

That does not constitute an explanation. The Scorpion explosion is outside ENT canon (period) and could not have been caused by the weapon itself.

Flat out lie, shown above.

No "chain reaction" exists that moves evenly through a body and then causes it to spontaneously and uniformly shatter. Not even in Trek.

Flat out lie(VOY: "Scorpion").

Saying that there is doesn't explain how it violated actual physics or where the force came from, and is hence NOT an explanation for the explosion. The planet in "Scorpion" was hit by a DET weapon whose effects were confined to the impact site. It then (likely because of the Borg tech on/in the planet going haywire) exploded several seconds later, with no indication of any kind of energy gradually moving from the impact site through the rest of the planet as the heat in "Twilight" did.

Flat out lie. The Scorpion blast not only violated DET in all the manners shown here that you could not refute, it also visibly had the beam shut down before the detonation. These things are called 'facts', Metrion, and they should be known before you start insist you're right.

I never said the beam didn't shut off. Lots of things in Trek explode well after being hit by a beam that didn't necessarily have the power to physically vape their actual mass. What I am saying is that the beam in "Scorpion" did its limited damage (not enough to destroy the whole planet), and then the Borg tech blew up. That happens. Especially to the Borg (BOBW, First Contact). Chain reactions you can't explain that violate the laws of physics and wouldn't do what happened in "Scorpion" even if they could exist don't.

[SirNitram]

I never said the beam didn't shut off. Lots of things in Trek explode well after being hit by a beam that didn't necessarily have the power to physically vape their actual mass. What I am saying is that the beam in "Scorpion" did its limited damage (not enough to destroy the whole planet), and then the Borg tech blew up. That happens. Especially to the Borg (BOBW, First Contact). Chain reactions you can't explain that violate the laws of physics and wouldn't do what happened in "Scorpion" even if they could exist don't.

You will of course provide the proof that Borg technology exploded on that planet. If you have any, which, having seen Scorpion myself, I know doesn't exist.

[The Kernel]

Uhh...question: How exactly did the Borg tech blow up the planet? Are you suggesting that they have the power generation sufficient to disrupt a planet violently? If so, then why have they never demonstrated these capabilities?

[Metrion Cascade]

I never said the beam didn't shut off. Lots of things in Trek explode well after being hit by a beam that didn't necessarily have the power to physically vape their actual mass. What I am saying is that the beam in "Scorpion" did its limited damage (not enough to destroy the whole planet), and then the Borg tech blew up. That happens. Especially to the Borg (BOBW, First Contact). Chain reactions you can't explain that violate the laws of physics and wouldn't do what happened in "Scorpion" even if they could exist don't.

You will of course provide the proof that Borg technology exploded on that planet. If you have any, which, having seen Scorpion myself, I know doesn't exist.

Two possibilities for Scorpion:

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.
2.) Chain reaction that violates conservation of energy and then uses magically created energy to overcome planet's GB energy without vaping it. Cannot happen, and would not happen the way it did in "Scorpion" even if present. Would have spread through planet gradually instead of enveloping entire mass and then magically actuating outward on cue. Would not have chunked planet but instead would move more evenly through its mass vaping or liquefying it as it went.

The burden of proof is on your self-contradictory stance and the proof does not exist.

[The Kernel]

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.

Borg have NEVER demonstrated this level of power production. If they could generate this kind of energy, then they wouldn't have had any problems conquering the Federation or destroying Voyager. Sorry, but this theory doesn't hold water.

[SirNitram]

I never said the beam didn't shut off. Lots of things in Trek explode well after being hit by a beam that didn't necessarily have the power to physically vape their actual mass. What I am saying is that the beam in "Scorpion" did its limited damage (not enough to destroy the whole planet), and then the Borg tech blew up. That happens. Especially to the Borg (BOBW, First Contact). Chain reactions you can't explain that violate the laws of physics and wouldn't do what happened in "Scorpion" even if they could exist don't.

You will of course provide the proof that Borg technology exploded on that planet. If you have any, which, having seen Scorpion myself, I know doesn't exist.

Two possibilities for Scorpion:

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.
2.) Chain reaction that violates conservation of energy and then uses magically created energy to overcome planet's GB energy without vaping it. Cannot happen, and would not happen the way it did in "Scorpion" even if present. Would have spread through planet gradually instead of enveloping entire mass and then magically actuating outward on cue. Would not have chunked planet but instead would move more evenly through its mass vaping or liquefying it as it went.

The burden of proof is on your self-contradictory stance and the proof does not exist.

And the proof for Borg technology that well-exceeds planetary destruction does exist? Don't be so stupid, Metrion. Parsimony doesn't work the way you want it. The event we saw did not line up with Direct Energy Transfer. Deal with this fact, it's been demonstrated sufficiently for everyone else with a working brain.

We are not restricted to only DET, as much as you desperately, desperately wish we were. Phasers are just one of many funky chain reactions seen, over and over, in Trek. That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

[Metrion Cascade]

Uhh...question: How exactly did the Borg tech blow up the planet? Are you suggesting that they have the power generation sufficient to disrupt a planet violently? If so, then why have they never demonstrated these capabilities?

A Borg cube couldn't do it with its weapons, if that's what you mean. But if you fill a planet with M/AM reactors and AM containers, and they all go off the way Borg ships do, there you have it.

[The Kernel]

Uhh...question: How exactly did the Borg tech blow up the planet? Are you suggesting that they have the power generation sufficient to disrupt a planet violently? If so, then why have they never demonstrated these capabilities?

A Borg cube couldn't do it with its weapons, if that's what you mean. But if you fill a planet with M/AM reactors and AM containers, and they all go off the way Borg ships do, there you have it.

*snicker*

That's a joke right?