Your opinions: Minimum phaser setting to affect a stormtrooper?

[Lord Revan]

I don't have the density on Sandstone avaible atm in any source that easy to access or relible, but source I have gives the density on granite as 2700 kg/m3 and brick as 1400-1800 kg/m3 (and bricks are about the lightest thing could still realistically call "rock") while there's types of Lavastone that are less dense then bricks that's because they're mostly air per volume and the rocks in ROTJ are clearly solid.

btw Esquire a tiny request could you please use SI units next time, it would make things for us who don't use the imperial units anymore a lot easier.

Of course, I'm just more familiar with Imperial volume measurements so that's what I defaulted to. I want to say it's 2200 kg the cubic meter for sandstone.

that sounds reasonble estimate as I said I don't have the density of sandstone (as it's quite rare here) but sand is given as 1200-1600 kg/m3 and sandstone is denser then loose sand.

[Lord Revan]

Just to bring the final nail into the coffin of the Gorn argument (it wasn't much to begin with) Vulcans(and one would assume by extension romulans) and Klingons are said to stronger then humans yet have been beaten by humans in hand to hand, we've yet to see a gorn beaten by human in hand to hand in canon trek, in fact both times that human was forced into hand to hand fight with a gorn they lost and had to retreat, so the gorn are clearly stronger and tougher then either vulcans or klingons (in general that is).

[darthy2]

I'm sure you can demonstrate that Starfleet security troops are as resistant to impacts as a Gorn, especially as most humans are readily capable of using several-hundred-pound boulders as projectiles in combat. Oh, wait; neither of those things are true, and you've once again failed to provide any useful evidence for your argument. Debate in good faith or concede, if you please. I call on you to clearly state your rational for claiming that phaser fire will easily defeat stormtrooper armor, and to provide calculations supporting that claim if you have any.

Non-immunity to momentum transfer has nothing to do, except in the broadest possible scientific sense, with resistance to energy weapon fire. If you disagree, that's a positive claim and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it does. You assert that "[I'd] think a storm trooper [sic] could at least withstand an attack like [Ewok bolas]." Why would I think that? What do you mean by withstand? Why do you think the stormtrooper didn't withstand it? We see somebody stumble when hit in the face by a stone bola; this is hardly surprising or cause to doubt armor efficacy. Again, if you think being hit in the face with a large rock wouldn't make anybody pause a moment, I advise you to try it and report back.

Debate in good faith... you first, mr. exaggerator. If stormtrooper armor is supposed to be resistant against energy weapons, let's see some examples where having that armor on helped a stormtrooper resist an energy weapon. You moved the goal post making this about damaging armor. The original post was about affecting a stormtrooper. The gorn thing was a strawman as well. I made no argument there except showing that aliens on Star Trek can withstand a rock hit even without body armor.

Simple enough question; a goldshirt from the Enterprise D is attempting to shoot a stormtrooper, based on your opinion, what do you think the minimum setting he should use to be certain of affecting the target is?

Making excuses for that stormtrooper falling over after that little thing hit them and talking about how armor does not matter only enhances the point that a low setting on a phaser should do the trick. We see how the lowest setting affects Quark and that scene from Star Trek III shows that momentum incurred on the Klingon when hit. We see Ewoks hitting stormtrooper's over the head and getting pocked with sticks can take them out too. Affecting a stormtrooper does not take much. Stormtroopers dropped like flies in that movie, they make red shirts on Star Trek look good.

[Esquire]

Debate in good faith... you first, mr. exaggerator. If stormtrooper armor is supposed to be resistant against energy weapons, let's see some examples where having that armor on helped a stormtrooper resist an energy weapon. You moved the goal post making this about damaging armor. The original post was about affecting a stormtrooper. The gorn thing was a strawman as well. I made no argument there except showing that aliens on Star Trek can withstand a rock hit even without body armor.

Yes, I was at most five pounds off concerning a minor detail in a movie I haven't seen for years. Mea culpa. The point that being hit in the head with a large rock will generally knock a human down regardless of armor remains valid. Your 'point' that aliens have different physical characteristics than humans remains irrelevant.

I object to your accusation of moving the goalposts. You're the one who brought up Ewoks as a way of insinuating that stormtroopers are ineffective without having to actually prove it; since you chose to do so in a particularly stupid way, pointing that out is absolutely on topic. Armor does not prevent momentum transfer; internal damage can occur even if the armor doesn't fail. This is literally the same thing that we're (well, here in the US anyway) hearing about ad nauseam regarding football concussions.

Making excuses for that stormtrooper falling over after that little thing hit them and talking about how armor does not matter only enhances the point that a low setting on a phaser should do the trick. We see how the lowest setting affects Quark and that scene from Star Trek III shows that momentum incurred on the Klingon when hit. We see Ewoks hitting stormtrooper's over the head and getting pocked with sticks can take them out too. Affecting a stormtrooper does not take much. Stormtroopers dropped like flies in that movie, they make red shirts on Star Trek look good.

I didn't make an excuse, I demonstrated a basic understanding of elementary physics. Why does the fact that stormtrooper armor doesn't prevent momentum transfer have anything to do with its anti-energy weapon effectiveness? We know that phasers don't work on direct energy transfer (see here) and that blasters do; it's entirely possible that the same phasers which fail to penetrate packing crates simply won't do anything at all to whatever the armor is made of. Moreover, in its own universe stormtrooper armor serves a valuable anti-fragmentation and NBC protection role even if it doesn't do anything to mitigate direct blaster hits, which remains an open question in any case. We never see stormtroopers shot by anything less powerful than a Star Wars military-grade carbine or heavy pistol, so it may very well be true that the armor protects against light civilian self-defense weapons, glancing hits, and/or stun bolts quite well. Clearly it does enough good to be worth buying in the billions.

Even assuming all weapons are equally-effective (which is a concession to the Trek side), I feel I'm not making too much of a leap here in suspecting that the side with body armor, a full equipment roster, and combined-arms tactics would win out against the side that has pajamas and at most a poorly-designed rifle.

I repeat: provide evidence for your claims, or concede.

[Batman]

Technically Leia DID drop a stormie in ANH which what Legends material called a low power sporting blaster, but that's Legends and thus out so this very well, too, might have been a high power military-grade weapon (that thing was almost as long-if not nearly as massive-as the stormie carbines), but even if it wasn't the operative term here is drop. Technically we don't know ANY of the stormtroopers shot in the OT actually died. Body armour doesn't make you invulnerable, it just mitigates the damage. Body armour that turns a kill hit into a survivable one has done its job even if the hit leaves you down for the count.

[darthy2]

Yes, I was at most five pounds off concerning a minor detail in a movie I haven't seen for years. Mea culpa. The point that being hit in the head with a large rock will generally knock a human down regardless of armor remains valid. Your 'point' that aliens have different physical characteristics than humans remains irrelevant.

I was not talking about rocks hitting storm troopers in the head. I was referring to the rocks hitting them in the chest. There go those goalposts again.

I object to your accusation of moving the goalposts. You're the one who brought up Ewoks as a way of insinuating that stormtroopers are ineffective without having to actually prove it; since you chose to do so in a particularly stupid way, pointing that out is absolutely on topic. Armor does not prevent momentum transfer; internal damage can occur even if the armor doesn't fail. This is literally the same thing that we're (well, here in the US anyway) hearing about ad nauseam regarding football concussions.

The accusation stands, you brought up armor. I did not. Armor can help distribute momentum transfer. Like a bullet proof vest. Yes some internal damage can occur, but even in your football example what they wear does protect against momentum. If I had a rock thrown at me, I'd rather have armor than not have it. The stormtroopers had it and they got knocked down from small rocks and sticks from ewoks.

We see people knocked out from phaser fire while wearing armor plenty of times where their armor does not appear damaged as well like hirogen,klingons, cardassians, borg.

I didn't make an excuse, I demonstrated a basic understanding of elementary physics. Why does the fact that stormtrooper armor doesn't prevent momentum transfer have anything to do with its anti-energy weapon effectiveness? We know that phasers don't work on direct energy transfer (see here) and that blasters do; it's entirely possible that the same phasers which fail to penetrate packing crates simply won't do anything at all to whatever the armor is made of. Moreover, in its own universe stormtrooper armor serves a valuable anti-fragmentation and NBC protection role even if it doesn't do anything to mitigate direct blaster hits, which remains an open question in any case. We never see stormtroopers shot by anything less powerful than a Star Wars military-grade carbine or heavy pistol, so it may very well be true that the armor protects against light civilian self-defense weapons, glancing hits, and/or stun bolts quite well. Clearly it does enough good to be worth buying in the billions.

Even assuming all weapons are equally-effective (which is a concession to the Trek side), I feel I'm not making too much of a leap here in suspecting that the side with body armor, a full equipment roster, and combined-arms tactics would win out against the side that has pajamas and at most a poorly-designed rifle.

I repeat: provide evidence for your claims, or concede.

You got your elementary physics wrong. I'm finding sandstone has a density of 132-135 pounds per cubic foot. Star wars hand weapons don't look that impressive to me. Princess leia even withstood a hit from a blaster without body armor in Return of the Jedi. With the recent obliteration of c-canon by Disney most evidence to support superior weaponry no longer exists. Any evidence to support superior weapons to star trek is scarce and the result of cherry picking (firing at crates example) and exploitation of bad CGI while ignoring dialogue about directed energy in star trek.

[Batman]

Yes, I was at most five pounds off concerning a minor detail in a movie I haven't seen for years. Mea culpa. The point that being hit in the head with a large rock will generally knock a human down regardless of armor remains valid. Your 'point' that aliens have different physical characteristics than humans remains irrelevant.

I was not talking about rocks hitting storm troopers in the head. I was referring to the rocks hitting them in the chest. There go those goalposts again.

...says the person who brought kinetic energy/momentum weapons into a discussion of energy weapon resiliance.

I object to your accusation of moving the goalposts. You're the one who brought up Ewoks as a way of insinuating that stormtroopers are ineffective without having to actually prove it; since you chose to do so in a particularly stupid way, pointing that out is absolutely on topic. Armor does not prevent momentum transfer; internal damage can occur even if the armor doesn't fail. This is literally the same thing that we're (well, here in the US anyway) hearing about ad nauseam regarding football concussions.

The accusation stands, you brought up armor. I did not. Armor can help distribute momentum transfer. Like a bullet proof vest. Yes some internal damage can occur, but even in your football example what they wear does protect against momentum. If I had a rock thrown at me, I'd rather have armor than not have it. The stormtroopers had it and they got knocked down from small rocks and sticks from ewoks.

Sticks example asshat.

We see people knocked out from phaser fire while wearing armor plenty of times where their armor does not appear damaged as well like hirogen,klingons, cardassians, borg.

Thank you for completely failing to understand the point people are trying to make. Stormtrooper armour refusing to ignore CoM is completely irrelevant to its resilience against DEW/technobabble weapons. Not that I see how the garbage the Klingons or Cardassians wear counts as 'armour' and the only 'explicitely' armoured drones are the 'tactical' ones from VOY, regular drones regularly get their asses handed to them by KE/momentum attacks. The 'regular' ones rely on shields and frequency shenanigans.

I didn't make an excuse, I demonstrated a basic understanding of elementary physics. Why does the fact that stormtrooper armor doesn't prevent momentum transfer have anything to do with its anti-energy weapon effectiveness? We know that phasers don't work on direct energy transfer (see here) and that blasters do; it's entirely possible that the same phasers which fail to penetrate packing crates simply won't do anything at all to whatever the armor is made of. Moreover, in its own universe stormtrooper armor serves a valuable anti-fragmentation and NBC protection role even if it doesn't do anything to mitigate direct blaster hits, which remains an open question in any case. We never see stormtroopers shot by anything less powerful than a Star Wars military-grade carbine or heavy pistol, so it may very well be true that the armor protects against light civilian self-defense weapons, glancing hits, and/or stun bolts quite well. Clearly it does enough good to be worth buying in the billions.
Even assuming all weapons are equally-effective (which is a concession to the Trek side), I feel I'm not making too much of a leap here in suspecting that the side with body armor, a full equipment roster, and combined-arms tactics would win out against the side that has pajamas and at most a poorly-designed rifle.
I repeat: provide evidence for your claims, or concede.

You got your elementary physics wrong.

ONE of you certainly has.

Star wars hand weapons don't look that impressive to me. Princess leia even withstood a hit from a blaster without body armor in Return of the Jedi.

No she didn't she withstood a 'near' hit.

With the recent obliteration of c-canon by Disney most evidence to support superior weaponry no longer exists.

The most relevant evidence still does-the movies. You want Wars firepower figures to go away, disprove the calculations derived from the movies.

Any evidence to support superior weapons to star trek is scarce and the result of cherry picking (firing at crates example) and exploitation of bad CGI while ignoring dialogue about directed energy in star trek.

Evidence for superior weapons is all over the place in the movies alone and how are the crates cherry-picking when phasers which are presumably AT LEAST on high stun are blocked by pretty much EVERYTHING all the time?

[darthy2]

...says the person who brought kinetic energy/momentum weapons into a discussion of energy weapon resiliance.

Phasers do cause momentum though. And momentum disables stormtroopers

JANEWAY: Come on, Chakotay, there must be some talent you have that people would enjoy. Maybe I could stand with an apple on my head and you could phaser it off.
CHAKOTAY: Sounds great. If I miss I get to be Captain. Atmospheric turbulence. We might be in for a rough landing.

See? Why deny the obvious?

Sticks example asshat.

It was in Return of the Jedi asshat. The ewoks had some stormtroopers cornered and kept poking them with sticks. You'd probably call them lethal spears or something.

Thank you for completely failing to understand the point people are trying to make. Stormtrooper armour refusing to ignore CoM is completely irrelevant to its resilience against DEW/technobabble weapons. Not that I see how the garbage the Klingons or Cardassians wear counts as 'armour' and the only 'explicitely' armoured drones are the 'tactical' ones from VOY, regular drones regularly get their asses handed to them by KE/momentum attacks. The 'regular' ones rely on shields and frequency shenanigans.

People are missing the point. The question was how high of a phaser setting would be necessary to affect a storm trooper. Though "affect" was not defined. The lowest setting of a phaser will have some affect. Higher settings will have more affects. Again, common sense.

No she didn't she withstood a 'near' hit.

No, she was hit. There was no atomic blast or nuclear fallout after she got hit as exaggerated figures, scaling, or whatever it is that you're clinging onto that would lead you to believe those weapons are something special. Princess leia proved their weapons are not that great. Disney declared C-Canon as non-canon, It's over.

Evidence for superior weapons is all over the place in the movies alone and how are the crates cherry-picking when phasers which are presumably AT LEAST on high stun are blocked by pretty much EVERYTHING all the time?

Na, people probably just scaled down the deathstars superlaser to the size of a pistol and say that's the proof that star wars weapons are great. Cherry picking cool looking scenes and calling it a standard of all weapons afterwards. It's deceptive.

RIKER: No. If this is a real phaser, then I was on the Enterprise. But I fired it on myself, so I should be dead. None of this is real. I'm setting this to level sixteen, wide field. That should destroy half of this building. Unless, of course, this isn't a real phaser.

There, game over again.

[Simon_Jester]

More seriously, I'd bet on 'heavy stun' at least having a chance of having noticeable effect but very possibly not stopping them simply because it's failed before against well protected opponents. The armor might well provide some ablative protection against the lightest 'kill' settings, but would definitely fail at medium-to-heavy destructive settings.

...says the person who brought kinetic energy/momentum weapons into a discussion of energy weapon resiliance.

Phasers do cause momentum though. And momentum disables stormtroopers

Do you actually think that "stormtroopers fall down when you throw a big rock at them" equates to "momentum disables stormtroopers, so any weapon with momentum transfer is a win against them?"

Yes or no. No games.

[darthy2]

More seriously, I'd bet on 'heavy stun' at least having a chance of having noticeable effect but very possibly not stopping them simply because it's failed before against well protected opponents. The armor might well provide some ablative protection against the lightest 'kill' settings, but would definitely fail at medium-to-heavy destructive settings.

...says the person who brought kinetic energy/momentum weapons into a discussion of energy weapon resiliance.

Phasers do cause momentum though. And momentum disables stormtroopers

Do you actually think that "stormtroopers fall down when you throw a big rock at them" equates to "momentum disables stormtroopers, so any weapon with momentum transfer is a win against them?"

Yes or no. No games.

No but I was talking about small projectile to the chest from an Ewok who was spinning it above his head from a little rope moments before.

But people are acting like it was one of these:

[Batman]

...says the person who brought kinetic energy/momentum weapons into a discussion of energy weapon resiliance.

Phasers do cause momentum though. And momentum disables stormtroopers

Evidence. OTHER than that one incidence on Genesis, where things where wacky to begin with.

JANEWAY: Come on, Chakotay, there must be some talent you have that people would enjoy. Maybe I could stand with an apple on my head and you could phaser it off.
CHAKOTAY: Sounds great. If I miss I get to be Captain. Atmospheric turbulence. We might be in for a rough landing.

See? Why deny the obvious?

This is supposed to be evidence of-what, exactly?

Sticks example asshat.

It was in Return of the Jedi asshat. The ewoks had some stormtroopers cornered and kept poking them with sticks. You'd probably call them lethal spears or something.

I note a complete and utter absence of you showing that actually HAPPENED.

Thank you for completely failing to understand the point people are trying to make. Stormtrooper armour refusing to ignore CoM is completely irrelevant to its resilience against DEW/technobabble weapons. Not that I see how the garbage the Klingons or Cardassians wear counts as 'armour' and the only 'explicitely' armoured drones are the 'tactical' ones from VOY, regular drones regularly get their asses handed to them by KE/momentum attacks. The 'regular' ones rely on shields and frequency shenanigans.

People are missing the point. The question was how high of a phaser setting would be necessary to affect a storm trooper. Though "affect" was not defined. The lowest setting of a phaser will have some affect. Higher settings will have more affects. Again, common sense.

How stupid are you ? I mean besides the painfully obvious 'abysmally'? Yeah, we're talking about about a firearm vs body armour, why would anybody care about wether or not the firearm managed to DEFEAT the armour as long as it managed to AFFECT it in a miniscule way.

No she didn't she withstood a 'near' hit.

No, she was hit. There was no atomic blast or nuclear fallout after she got hit as exaggerated figures, scaling, or whatever it is that you're clinging onto that would lead you to believe those weapons are something special. Princess leia proved their weapons are not that great. Disney declared C-Canon as non-canon, It's over.

Rewatch the movie fuckface,

Evidence for superior weapons is all over the place in the movies alone and how are the crates cherry-picking when phasers which are presumably AT LEAST on high stun are blocked by pretty much EVERYTHING all the time?

Na, people probably just scaled down the deathstars superlaser to the size of a pistol and say that's the proof that star wars weapons are great. Cherry picking cool looking scenes and calling it a standard of all weapons afterwards. It's deceptive.

Prove it. Prove their scaling is WRONG. Prove the firepower numbers derived from the MOVIES are WRONG.

RIKER: No. If this is a real phaser, then I was on the Enterprise. But I fired it on myself, so I should be dead. None of this is real. I'm setting this to level sixteen, wide field. That should destroy half of this building. Unless, of course, this isn't a real phaser.

There, game over again.

Only in your fevered imagination. Even if we assume this was a realistic assesment of phaser firepower this tells us nothing we don't already know. Phasers being able to NDF away large amounts of low density material was never under contention.

[Batman]

People are acting like the actually understand CoM, which is more than can be said for YOU.

[Simon_Jester]

I advise keeping anger at the obvious troll who even has the same screenname as a previous troll from years ago to a minimum?

I mean seriously, I'm done; he's already failed the Turing Test.

[darthy2]

Sticks example asshat.

It was in Return of the Jedi asshat. The ewoks had some stormtroopers cornered and kept poking them with sticks. You'd probably call them lethal spears or something.

I note a complete and utter absence of you showing that actually HAPPENED.

[darthy2]

Phasers do cause momentum though. And momentum disables stormtroopers

Evidence. OTHER than that one incidence on Genesis, where things where wacky to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ewfyyE6DI at 2:25 The klingon gets knocked back and hits the wall when shot with a phaser in zero gravity. Definitely momentum transfer there.

[Esquire]

Yes, I was at most five pounds off concerning a minor detail in a movie I haven't seen for years. Mea culpa. The point that being hit in the head with a large rock will generally knock a human down regardless of armor remains valid. Your 'point' that aliens have different physical characteristics than humans remains irrelevant.

I was not talking about rocks hitting storm troopers in the head. I was referring to the rocks hitting them in the chest. There go those goalposts again.

You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate that a fifteen-pound impact to the chest won't knock down an average human. I await your calculations.

I object to your accusation of moving the goalposts. You're the one who brought up Ewoks as a way of insinuating that stormtroopers are ineffective without having to actually prove it; since you chose to do so in a particularly stupid way, pointing that out is absolutely on topic. Armor does not prevent momentum transfer; internal damage can occur even if the armor doesn't fail. This is literally the same thing that we're (well, here in the US anyway) hearing about ad nauseam regarding football concussions.

The accusation stands, you brought up armor. I did not. Armor can help distribute momentum transfer. Like a bullet proof vest. Yes some internal damage can occur, but even in your football example what they wear does protect against momentum. If I had a rock thrown at me, I'd rather have armor than not have it. The stormtroopers had it and they got knocked down from small rocks and sticks from ewoks.

In a thread which is literally about stormtrooper armor, this wears a little thin. Furthermore, 'troops were knocked down by fifteen-pound rocks' is not equivalent to 'troops are disproportionately vulnerable to a completely different weapon with a completely different mechanism of action.' Demonstrate that phasers can penetrate stormtrooper armor at low power settings, using actual facts and figures, or concede. This is your second chance.

We see people knocked out from phaser fire while wearing armor plenty of times where their armor does not appear damaged as well like hirogen,klingons, cardassians, borg.

You may demonstrate equivalence between stromtrooper and Star Trek [antagonist] armor at your leisure. Until this task is completed, I remain unconvinced that there is any relevance between the resilience against energy weapons (of different types, no less) of stormtrooper armor and that of Starfleet's opponents.

I didn't make an excuse, I demonstrated a basic understanding of elementary physics. Why does the fact that stormtrooper armor doesn't prevent momentum transfer have anything to do with its anti-energy weapon effectiveness? We know that phasers don't work on direct energy transfer (see here) and that blasters do; it's entirely possible that the same phasers which fail to penetrate packing crates simply won't do anything at all to whatever the armor is made of. Moreover, in its own universe stormtrooper armor serves a valuable anti-fragmentation and NBC protection role even if it doesn't do anything to mitigate direct blaster hits, which remains an open question in any case. We never see stormtroopers shot by anything less powerful than a Star Wars military-grade carbine or heavy pistol, so it may very well be true that the armor protects against light civilian self-defense weapons, glancing hits, and/or stun bolts quite well. Clearly it does enough good to be worth buying in the billions.

Even assuming all weapons are equally-effective (which is a concession to the Trek side), I feel I'm not making too much of a leap here in suspecting that the side with body armor, a full equipment roster, and combined-arms tactics would win out against the side that has pajamas and at most a poorly-designed rifle.

I repeat: provide evidence for your claims, or concede.

You got your elementary physics wrong. I'm finding sandstone has a density of 132-135 pounds per cubic foot. Star wars hand weapons don't look that impressive to me. Princess leia even withstood a hit from a blaster without body armor in Return of the Jedi. With the recent obliteration of c-canon by Disney most evidence to support superior weaponry no longer exists. Any evidence to support superior weapons to star trek is scarce and the result of cherry picking (firing at crates example) and exploitation of bad CGI while ignoring dialogue about directed energy in star trek.

As my figure is from the United States Geological Survey, I am a bit skeptical of yours. Even if it were true - and, again, I'm not convinced it is - I'd ask that you please provide sources for your main claims or concede, as I'd be at most two pounds off. Please demonstrate that a thirteen pound rock-to-the-face (or chest, same thing) isn't enough to drop an average human, or - again - concede. Statements aren't enough here, you're going to need actual facts.

[darthy2]

Yes, I was at most five pounds off concerning a minor detail in a movie I haven't seen for years. Mea culpa. The point that being hit in the head with a large rock will generally knock a human down regardless of armor remains valid. Your 'point' that aliens have different physical characteristics than humans remains irrelevant.

I was not talking about rocks hitting storm troopers in the head. I was referring to the rocks hitting them in the chest. There go those goalposts again.

You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate that a fifteen-pound impact to the chest won't knock down an average human. I await your calculations.

What justifies comparing humans here to humans there? They're in another galaxy long long ago far far away.

In a thread which is literally about stormtrooper armor, this wears a little thin. Furthermore, 'troops were knocked down by fifteen-pound rocks' is not equivalent to 'troops are disproportionately vulnerable to a completely different weapon with a completely different mechanism of action.' Demonstrate that phasers can penetrate stormtrooper armor at low power settings, using actual facts and figures, or concede. This is your second chance.

It's about affecting a stormtrooper. The word armor was not mentioned in the original post. People have already conceded the it is not necessary to penetrate armor to affect a stormtrooper.

You may demonstrate equivalence between stromtrooper and Star Trek [antagonist] armor at your leisure. Until this task is completed, I remain unconvinced that there is any relevance between the resilience against energy weapons (of different types, no less) of stormtrooper armor and that of Starfleet's opponents.

We see lasers penetrate stormtrooper armor and we know that lasers cannot even penetrate navigation shields. I know people say that lasers in Star Wars are not actual lasers because they behave differently. Lasers on Star Trek do not behave like lasers either. They're still talking about the same lasers. They look, sound, and behave the same. Lasers are regarded as old technology in the Star Trek universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaTPhp6FaUw

As my figure is from the United States Geological Survey, I am a bit skeptical of yours. Even if it were true - and, again, I'm not convinced it is - I'd ask that you please provide sources for your main claims or concede, as I'd be at most two pounds off. Please demonstrate that a thirteen pound rock-to-the-face (or chest, same thing) isn't enough to drop an average human, or - again - concede. Statements aren't enough here, you're going to need actual facts.

We see augment humans in enterprise can withstand a hard hit without being affected. If this is an unacceptable comparison for you then you would need to concede as well that star wars humans cannot be compared to average humans here on Earth.

[Esquire]

<snip bullshit>

In descending order of target coherence:

1) The claim that human-species depiction A and human-species depiction B are not interchangeable is a positive one; demonstrate that Star Trek and Star Wars humans aren't the same species or shut up.

2) If you really want to argue that one needn't penetrate stormtrooper armor to affect stormtroopers with energy weapons, I really don't know what to tell you besides "you're an idiot." It's the standard uniform and the blindingly-obvious intention of the OP, as one can plainly see from the thread title.

3) Neither phasers nor turbolasers are lasers. It is either stupid or insane to argue that a thing with none of the characteristics of a laser is one. You are, again, welcome to prove me wrong using actual facts and figures.

4) You say that we see "humans in enterprise [sic] can withstand a hard hit." Demonstrate your claim and explain why anybody should care.

Non-indexed: you have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence that low-power phaser fire would defeat Imperial stormtroopers (your explicit claim) or that Starfleet security troops are superior to Imperial stormtroopers (your implicit claim). If you continue to fail to do so, I will count it as a concession. Support your claims or STFU.

[WATCH-MAN]

What justifies comparing humans here to humans there? They're in another galaxy long long ago far far away.

The claim that human-species depiction A and human-species depiction B are not interchangeable is a positive one; demonstrate that Star Trek and Star Wars humans aren't the same species or shut up.

Only because the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago looks superficially like humans from today from Earth - we can not assume that they are like humans from Earth. Homo sapiens sapiens that evolved on Earth, appeared round about 200.000 years ago and hasn't developed the means for intergalactic travel yet. Insofar it seems not plausible to assume that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth, is related in any way with the homo sapiens sapiens. It seems more plausible to assume a convergent evolution that resulted in a at least superficial similar appearance. If you want to claim, that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth are the same species, demonstrate it or shut up.

It's about affecting a stormtrooper. The word armor was not mentioned in the original post. People have already conceded the it is not necessary to penetrate armor to affect a stormtrooper.

If you really want to argue that one needn't penetrate stormtrooper armor to affect stormtroopers with energy weapons, I really don't know what to tell you besides "you're an idiot." It's the standard uniform and the blindingly-obvious intention of the OP, as one can plainly see from the thread title.

I'd say that depends how one defines the term "penetrate". It is conceivable to cook a stormtrooper in its armor without damaging the armor as a cooking pot isn't damaged while the food is cooked in it - ergo affected by the surrounding heat. Of course this could be seen as a penetration too - as sound penetrates the armour too.

We see lasers penetrate stormtrooper armor and we know that lasers cannot even penetrate navigation shields. I know people say that lasers in Star Wars are not actual lasers because they behave differently. Lasers on Star Trek do not behave like lasers either. They're still talking about the same lasers. They look, sound, and behave the same. Lasers are regarded as old technology in the Star Trek universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaTPhp6FaUw

Neither phasers nor turbolasers are lasers. It is either stupid or insane to argue that a thing with none of the characteristics of a laser is one. You are, again, welcome to prove me wrong using actual facts and figures.

The fact that some of the weapons seen in Star Trek and Star Wars are called "laser" IS a fact that supports the claim that they are lasers.

If they do not behave like what we understand under the term "laser", one could conclude that there is another understanding of that term. Language changes over time after all. The term "laser" - as used on Earth today - is an acronym (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Maybe in Star Trek it developed to a generic term for a certain kind of weapon - that does not have to be light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

[Esquire]

Only because the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago looks superficially like humans from today from Earth - we can not assume that they are like humans from Earth. Homo sapiens sapiens that evolved on Earth, appeared round about 200.000 years ago and hasn't developed the means for intergalactic travel yet. Insofar it seems not plausible to assume that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth, is related in any way with the homo sapiens sapiens. It seems more plausible to assume a convergent evolution that resulted in a at least superficial similar appearance. If you want to claim, that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth are the same species, demonstrate it or shut up.

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are different enough to prevent physical comparisons of the two. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

I'd say that depends how one defines the term "penetrate". It is conceivable to cook a stormtrooper in its armor without damaging the armor as a cooking pot isn't damaged while the food is cooked in it - ergo affected by the surrounding heat. Of course this could be seen as a penetration too - as sound penetrates the armour too.

All perfectly plausible. Please demonstrate that phasers can do it when they routinely fail to penetrate - for any definition of the word - packing crates.

The fact that some of the weapons seen in Star Trek and Star Wars are called "laser" IS a fact that supports the claim that they are lasers.

If they do not behave like what we understand under the term "laser", one could conclude that there is another understanding of that term. Language changes over time after all. The term "laser" - as used on Earth today - is an acronym (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Maybe in Star Trek it developed to a generic term for a certain kind of weapon - that does not have to be light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers. I'm saying that they don't work the same way as anything else that's called a laser, and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument. They've got nothing to do with each other; it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'

[darthy2]

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are different enough to prevent physical comparisons of the two. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

That's not how things work either. You're the one with the positive claim that they can be compared. How about when Kirk was hitting Khan repeatedly in star trek into darkness and was not able to knock khan off his feet from it. Or here at 0:38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPcVf-qQzxM

Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers. I'm saying that they don't work the same way as anything else that's called a laser, and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument. They've got nothing to do with each other; it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'

If humans can be compared because they sound and look alike then why can't star trek lasers be compared to star wars lasers. When Worf told Picard that they were locking lasers on them, Picard was not worried. He did not need to ask what kind of lasers.

[WATCH-MAN]

Only because the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago looks superficially like humans from today from Earth - we can not assume that they are like humans from Earth. Homo sapiens sapiens that evolved on Earth, appeared round about 200.000 years ago and hasn't developed the means for intergalactic travel yet. Insofar it seems not plausible to assume that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth, is related in any way with the homo sapiens sapiens. It seems more plausible to assume a convergent evolution that resulted in a at least superficial similar appearance. If you want to claim, that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth are the same species, demonstrate it or shut up.

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are different enough to prevent physical comparisons of the two. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are equal. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

I'd say that depends how one defines the term "penetrate". It is conceivable to cook a stormtrooper in its armor without damaging the armor as a cooking pot isn't damaged while the food is cooked in it - ergo affected by the surrounding heat. Of course this could be seen as a penetration too - as sound penetrates the armour too.

All perfectly plausible. Please demonstrate that phasers can do it when they routinely fail to penetrate - for any definition of the word - packing crates.

Please provide evidence that phasers routinely fail to penetrate packing crates.

And then please provide evidence that these packing crates are less durable than stormtrooper armor.

The fact that some of the weapons seen in Star Trek and Star Wars are called "laser" IS a fact that supports the claim that they are lasers.

If they do not behave like what we understand under the term "laser", one could conclude that there is another understanding of that term. Language changes over time after all. The term "laser" - as used on Earth today - is an acronym (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Maybe in Star Trek it developed to a generic term for a certain kind of weapon - that does not have to be light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers.

Strawman.

I have not claimed that anybody says turbolasers aren't called lasers.

I'm saying that they don't work the same way as anything else that's called a laser,

That's what I have already said.

What is called laser in Star Wars is not a weapon based on light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument.

Why?

They've got nothing to do with each other;

That's what I have already said.

What is called laser in Star Wars is not a weapon based on light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'

Why is it "literally the same argument"?

[Esquire]

Look, you two. There's an idea in science and philosophy called the principle of parsimony, usually called 'Occam's Razor' which you'll probably have heard of but clearly didn't fully comprehend. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is usually the best. Let's see how this principle plays out in the two questions at hand.

1) Are Star Wars and Star Trek humans the same? I hypothesize that they are. As we can't actually run a full genetic analysis on representative samples from each, we look at the visual evidence provided. Barring differing local flavors of mysticism and accounting for standard species variation, the two populations look the same, act the same, and are capable of the same sorts of things. Darthy, your two supposed counter-examples both involve highly modified humans, and therefore have nothing to do with anything.

2) Are turbolasers lasers? I hypothesize they are not. Here we actually can do proper scientific tests: we know what lasers are, and we know that glowing slower-than-light energy bolts isn't it. They are not lasers. This isn't an opinion or a theory, they are by definition not lasers (because a real laser emits a lightspeed invisible beam, literally the opposite of what turbolasers do), regardless of the name.

For question 1, it makes sense to go with the parsimonious explanation, i.e. both humans are the same. We can't do the tests required to know for certain, but there's no reason to suspect that there's any difference. For question 2, the parsimonious explanation (both universes mean the same thing by 'laser') is clearly not true.

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are equal. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

I submit twenty movies and decades of TV episodes in which Star Wars and Star Trek humans look, move, and act the same. What have you got? I'm not doing your work for you, if there's a reason not to accept the straightforward explanation, find it.

Please provide evidence that phasers routinely fail to penetrate packing crates.

And then please provide evidence that these packing crates are less durable than stormtrooper armor.

I submit TNG "The Vengeance Factor" and any number of firefights in DS9. This has been done to death here and on the main site; if you disagree with those arguments, say why. We can't test the durability of the crates or of stormtrooper armor because we haven't seen both get hit by something we can quantify. That's my whole point; phasers have effects dependent on the target material. It's not a question of raw firepower because phasers don't work by direct energy transfer.

If they do not behave like what we understand under the term "laser", one could conclude that there is another understanding of that term. Language changes over time after all. The term "laser" - as used on Earth today - is an acronym (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Maybe in Star Trek it developed to a generic term for a certain kind of weapon - that does not have to be light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers.

Strawman.

Then make your argument more clearly. What are you getting at here?

and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument.

Why?

Are you... serious? A proper laser has nothing to do with a turbolaser. They are not remotely comparable. The usefulness of one has no bearing on the usefulness of the other, even if 'all lasers are completely useless against Star Trek ships' wasn't a logical fallacy. Which it is.

They've got nothing to do with each other;

That's what I have already said.

What is called laser in Star Wars is not a weapon based on light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'

Why is it "literally the same argument"?

Because the problem with both is that they draw inaccurate conclusions from outdated data. It's a loose literalism at best, I'll grant, but the point remains valid. Why is it that nobody but you has this much trouble with not making semantics arguments in foreign languages?

[Lord Revan]

Watch-man do you know why the princible of "innocent until proven guilty" exist in western legal procidings? I yes this is relevant to this discussion and I'll exaplain why once you're replied to that question.

[Simon_Jester]

This has happened several times in the past. WATCH-MAN has no normal concept of "burden of proof."

Instead, he appears to believe it's a thing that happens to other people.

Every time we have a discussion involving Wars or Trek, he turns it into this weirdly formatted mass of quote spaghetti where his only debating tactics:

1) To nitpick and misunderstand other people's words, wasting time and making himself look like an utter idiot.
2) To demand evidence for blindingly obvious claims, especially claims that are strongly supported by Occam's Razor.
3) To treat his own randomly generated opinion as some kind of default hypothesis that everyone else has to run around in circles trying to disprove.

He works so hard at it that it's hard to imagine him being a troll, but if he's not, then he's got one of the most bizarre combinations of English-language illiteracy and mutant anti-logic that I have ever seen outside of the Time Cube website.