General Empire vs Borg musings

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-11 08:23am

The problem is that blasters show a variety of effects which are hard to explain:

They are terribly effective against rocks and Tatooine hangar pit walls, but on the other hand we see people use packing crates as cover against blasters in Clone Wars, Rebels and Rogue One.



Also, some objects cannot be destroyed or even damaged by blasters at all, like the door on the Death Star in "A New Hope."



__ __ __


Gentle parody aside, focusing on the packing crates isn't really valid any more, there are tons of examples of packing crates resisting blasters since the Star Wars TV serieses came out, when the blasters should logically also be switched to high-power and used to blow through them.

It's an effect of visual media, unfortunately, boxes are easy for set designers and 3d animators to work with.

NDF is used to explain why vaporization settings on phasers don't kill everyone all around, but they're not relevant to the packing crates - that's a sword that cuts both ways - both Star Wars and Star Trek feature packing crates that are mysteriously never challenged as cover.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Q99
Jedi Master
Posts: 1236
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Q99 » 2017-04-11 10:24pm

Quite. And, lesse, rewinding a bit on how we got to this tangent...

Ah yea, it was about Borg personal shielding and whether they could adapt to blaster fire's range of power. Which I feel is fairly definitively 'yes'.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14947
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Batman » 2017-04-11 10:46pm

And I feel it is fairly definitely 'no'. Which is not the same as saying they can't withstand it, but their adaption mechanism seems to be pretty much depend on their enemies trying AQ style frequency shenanigans. No, their shields don't cease to exist in the face of DET attacks, but they don't magically become immune to them once exposed to them either.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-12 08:29am

NecronLord wrote:Gentle parody aside, focusing on the packing crates isn't really valid any more, there are tons of examples of packing crates resisting blasters since the Star Wars TV serieses came out, when the blasters should logically also be switched to high-power and used to blow through them.

It's an effect of visual media, unfortunately, boxes are easy for set designers and 3d animators to work with.


This is a valid point, but since I haven't seen a single Star Wars TV episode, I can't say much about this.

But if you are right, the SW blasters are the same clusterfuck than the phasers now. This makes blasters worse, but it doesn't make phasers better.

NecronLord wrote:NDF is used to explain why vaporization settings on phasers don't kill everyone all around, but they're not relevant to the packing crates - that's a sword that cuts both ways - both Star Wars and Star Trek feature packing crates that are mysteriously never challenged as cover.


But the original point still stands: Since the packing crate doesn't move or show any other sign of an impact (like heating, scorches...), the pure energy released by the weapon can't be so big. The same goes for walls which are hit without a scorch etc.

So the main effect must come from some NDF reaction. This means that the weapon itself doesn't seem to release much energy to the target.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-12 08:42am

Q99 wrote:Simply being dismissive and insulting towards an argument isn't a good argument. I get your argument, it's just that your argument doesn't counter the reality of shown feats.

"In real life if you see a weapon do something in one circumstance, it can do it in others. It's as simple as that."

Rocks are, in fact, dense material.


Density of rocks: 2.0 – 2.6 g/cm 3
Density of steel: 7.75 - 8.05 g/cm3

Q99 wrote:Phasers at high do not penetrate, they remove. Doing so on a starship has obvious hazards as well, but spending a second or two to remove cover is, while something that logically would be an option, a lot different than simply penetrating it.


Somebody is shooting at you and takes cover. You have a weapon that can remove that cover.

Do you use this feature of your weapon?
Or do you put your weapon to a different setting, so the cover stays?

Only a moron would do the latter.

It's not that they specifically lower it when in ships. It's that the normal, what-you-have-your-sidearm-set-on level is at stun or normal kill, not high power disintegration.

Q99 wrote:They don't need to turn the power down- rather, we see them turn the power up when they specifically want to phaser away a large dense mass of rock or similar. That's not speculation, that's on-screen shown. The big feats come after hitting some buttons on the phaser.


See above. Only a moron wouldn't phaser away a packing crate if feasible. Or crank the power up so that the packing crate at least is heated up - it is not directly comfortable taking cover behind something with a temperature of 1000 C.

If a weapon can be used in such a way, it will. Since it isn't used in such a way, it doesn't have the capabilities you fantasize about, sorry.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

User avatar
seanrobertson
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: 2002-07-12 05:57pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby seanrobertson » 2017-04-12 04:51pm

I certainly agree that, when the crates are used for cover, the people using them as such should expect decent, if not complete, protection from even high-powered phaser/analogue fire. They're smart enough to know that if the enemy could remove (or severely damage) that cover, they'd do so -- and vice a versa.

However, I don't really see how this is NOT ultimately an "huhhuh phasers are weak!" claim without coming out and saying as much in so many words. We know a phaser rifle outputs about a megawatt; "The Mind's Eye" firmly established that. Phase pistols were more energetic still when the need arose. The Borg adapted to both. Simply saying "packing crates!" doesn't change the fact that these are still pretty nasty weapons, even before accounting for the nuclear disruption jazz.

If anything, given what we've seen phasers and blasters alike accomplish on various occasions, I submit that we take a closer look at these "packing crates" and try to rationalize their resilience to Trek and Wars small-arm firepower than go about it the other way.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, ya got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man ... and give some back.
-Al Swearengen

Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
Image

User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7510
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Solauren » 2017-04-12 05:08pm

Considering all the packing crates look the same,and we've seen them ship anything from clothes to explosives to fucking anti-matter in Star Trek, could be they are all made to deal with the harshest conditions possible.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14947
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Batman » 2017-04-12 08:37pm

It's physically impossible to build materials that won't react with antimatter (outside the Perryverse at any rate) so antimatter containment is not likely to figure into packing crate durability.
That being said, we know so little about the operational principles of phasers and related weapons that saying 'if they could NDF the cover away they'd do it' is, at best, leaping to the conclusion you want without considering the alternatives. Maybe they can but it takes too long (entire target NDF usually takes a couple of seconds), as already mentioned, it might eat a prohibitively large part of the phaser's charge, and that's assuming the crate is EMPTY.
What if it is filled with something really hard to NDF away? Or something that explodes when you try to NDF it?
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Q99
Jedi Master
Posts: 1236
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Q99 » 2017-04-13 01:54am

BabelHuber wrote:See above. Only a moron wouldn't phaser away a packing crate if feasible. Or crank the power up so that the packing crate at least is heated up - it is not directly comfortable taking cover behind something with a temperature of 1000 C.


Unless there's circumstances like it taking a lot of ammo load, it taking a long enough beam as to leave one vulnerable, or so on.

And most of the time? The people can just move to *other* cover.

Plus, we do have other instances of people in Trek not using features we know would be useful, like Wide Beam (which we both have seen used in practice, and rarely used even where it'd be super helpful), so, no, we also know for a fact that Trek people don't always make tactically wise calls in setting usage (for, let's face it, reasons of 'writers don't think about it much').

If a weapon can be used in such a way, it will. Since it isn't used in such a way, it doesn't have the capabilities you fantasize about, sorry.


I like how you neatly are handwaving away multiple times we see it used at high power just because it isn't used in *one* specifical type of circumstance.

Heck, even if they have some special don't-NDF-away thing, we have seen phasers used to both cut and melt similar phaser resistant material (Nemesis, Picard welded a door shut and then it resisted a fair amount of disruptor fire).

Fact of the matter is, it can and has been used to do feats of this level, just not in combat. So, yea, your excuses are excuses, you can't ask us to just ignore all other instances of high power.


[quote=seanrobertson]
However, I don't really see how this is NOT ultimately an "huhhuh phasers are weak!" claim without coming out and saying as much in so many words. We know a phaser rifle outputs about a megawatt; "The Mind's Eye" firmly established that. Phase pistols were more energetic still when the need arose. The Borg adapted to both. Simply saying "packing crates!" doesn't change the fact that these are still pretty nasty weapons, even before accounting for the nuclear disruption jazz.

If anything, given what we've seen phasers and blasters alike accomplish on various occasions, I submit that we take a closer look at these "packing crates" and try to rationalize their resilience to Trek and Wars small-arm firepower than go about it the other way.[/quote]

Agreed.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 05:00am

BabelHuber wrote:But the original point still stands: Since the packing crate doesn't move or show any other sign of an impact (like heating, scorches...), the pure energy released by the weapon can't be so big. The same goes for walls which are hit without a scorch etc.

So the main effect must come from some NDF reaction. This means that the weapon itself doesn't seem to release much energy to the target.


Did you miss the guy scorched to a charred corpse on the former page?

Let me help you out with another one.

Image

It's not a hard and fast rule that they don't do anything consistent with a 'conventional' energy weapon by any means.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 07:18am

NecronLord wrote:It's not a hard and fast rule that they don't do anything consistent with a 'conventional' energy weapon by any means.


And this cannot be an NDF-reaction which looks similarly to a direct energy weapon because?
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 07:28am

Q99 wrote:Fact of the matter is, it can and has been used to do feats of this level, just not in combat. So, yea, your excuses are excuses, you can't ask us to just ignore all other instances of high power.


Except that the NDF-theory can explain everything - if some materials aren't affected by a phaser, the NDF doesn't work. If a material is, it does.

Since phasers do work well on rocks, but not on high-density materials like most metals, probably this play a role.

OTOH, your theory isn't consistent - it relies on trained soldiers behaving in a stupid way, which is much more implausible.

Otherwise, we'd see people behave differently. I generously give you an example:

If soldiers would set their phasers to lower energy levels becouse otherwise they could damage the outer hull, the smart thing to do would be to take cover exactly there - in front of the outer hull. Then you would be protected by high-energy shots (because your adversary can't take the risk of damaging the hull).

On the other hand, you'd be able to fire higher-powered shots at your adversary, because who cares if you damage or partly disintegrate a wall inside the ship.

If this would be the case, we'd seen such a behavior on screen. We'd see people trying to stand in front of the outer wall, we'd see officers giving according orders etc. But we don't, hence your theory is crap.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 07:34am

BabelHuber wrote:
NecronLord wrote:It's not a hard and fast rule that they don't do anything consistent with a 'conventional' energy weapon by any means.


And this cannot be an NDF-reaction which looks similarly to a direct energy weapon because?

Do you understand what NDF is? It's magic by which the target is converted to neutrinos.

Even IF the burn effects are due to waste heat from that process, that is still energy being delivered to the target.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 07:35am

BabelHuber wrote:If soldiers would set their phasers to lower energy levels becouse otherwise they could damage the outer hull, the smart thing to do would be to take cover exactly there - in front of the outer hull. Then you would be protected by high-energy shots (because your adversary can't take the risk of damaging the hull).

On the other hand, you'd be able to fire higher-powered shots at your adversary, because who cares if you damage or partly disintegrate a wall inside the ship.

If this would be the case, we'd seen such a behavior on screen. We'd see people trying to stand in front of the outer wall, we'd see officers giving according orders etc. But we don't, hence your theory is crap.



Are... you suggesting that they should go EVA and shoot in through windows?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 07:43am

NecronLord wrote:Are... you suggesting that they should go EVA and shoot in through windows?


What? No!

I'm suggesting that if a certain location gives you an advantage during a shootout, the people involved would most likely try to be at this location (e.g. being in front of the outer hull so the enemy won't risk to use high-power shots).

But we don't see such a behavior on screen, so I'd dismiss this theory.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 07:48am

Or they'll just stun you because you are not obscured.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 07:50am

NecronLord wrote:Even IF the burn effects are due to waste heat from that process, that is still energy being delivered to the target.


Yes, but this is at least a consistent theory - if the NDF works on a target, lots of damage is done. If the NDF doesn't work, almost no damage is done.

The NDF always seems to work on people, clothing, rocks etc. It doesn't seem to work on a lot of metals,but on others it does.

But your theory that phasers directly deliver energy to a target can't explain the instances where we see no effect whatsoever - if I can melt a few cubic meters of rock with a weapon, it has to have some effect on walls, packing crates, metal doors and whatnot. It shouldn't simply have no effect at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 07:51am

NecronLord wrote:Or they'll just stun you because you are not obscured.


Except if I stand between a packing crate and the outer hull :D
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 08:00am

BabelHuber wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Even IF the burn effects are due to waste heat from that process, that is still energy being delivered to the target.


Yes, but this is at least a consistent theory - if the NDF works on a target, lots of damage is done. If the NDF doesn't work, almost no damage is done.

The NDF always seems to work on people, clothing, rocks etc. It doesn't seem to work on a lot of metals,but on others it does.

But your theory that phasers directly deliver energy to a target can't explain the instances where we see no effect whatsoever - if I can melt a few cubic meters of rock with a weapon, it has to have some effect on walls, packing crates, metal doors and whatnot. It shouldn't simply have no effect at all.

Motherfucker why does it matter if it's 'direct' or not?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-13 08:25am

NecronLord wrote:[Motherfucker why does it matter if it's 'direct' or not?


Because then it's a completely different type of weapon with completely different characteristics and completely different tactical ramifications.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26826
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby NecronLord » 2017-04-13 08:30am

The type of energy the weapon uses is amongst the least significant factors.

Image

Take a look at the jump between the 2367 gun, and the 2373 models.

One of these is the gun the main site talks about being grossly inferior to blasters, one of these could only be improved for tactical purposes by adding a sling (and maybe some rails or attachments, if it doesn't have them).

They both use the same type of energy, but tactically they're very different indeed.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Q99
Jedi Master
Posts: 1236
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Q99 » 2017-04-13 09:13am

BabelHuber wrote:Except that the NDF-theory can explain everything - if some materials aren't affected by a phaser, the NDF doesn't work. If a material is, it does.

Since phasers do work well on rocks, but not on high-density materials like most metals, probably this play a role.


You keep saying this but we see phasers cut metal, weld metal, make bank vaults go poof, etc.. You aren't backing up that it doesn't work, we have evidence to the contrary.

Also, phasers make rocks go poof on some settings, not others, depending on the setting.

But your theory that phasers directly deliver energy to a target can't explain the instances where we see no effect whatsoever - if I can melt a few cubic meters of rock with a weapon, it has to have some effect on walls, packing crates, metal doors and whatnot. It shouldn't simply have no effect at all.


We see it have an effect on walls, crates, etc. all the time, making sparks and such.

And no, a weapon at lower settings does not have to cause significant damage. It can melt a few cubic meters of rock, but they don't use that setting even when fighting among rock, so what makes you think that's what they're using against crates in any of those instances?

The phasers have different settings. Most of the time they don't mess with it, only occasionally do they do so. What you think they should do with these settings does not change that what we see from these settings is pretty consistent and doesn't change what their actual usage is.

Your point only applies if they turn it up and it still doesn't cause much visible effect, which is not the case.

"But they must for tactical reasons," is your assertion and not in evidence, it's certainly not proof, and indeed is contradicted by multiple on-screen examples. We can speculate why they act that way, I find it odd too, but at the end of the day they've never used the big rock-vaporizing settings against the crates and that's fact.

An argument based on what you'd assert is logical behavior does not counter physical examples.


BabelHuber wrote:Because then it's a completely different type of weapon with completely different characteristics and completely different tactical ramifications.


Phasers have different characteristics at different settings. We know this.

We know they keep it at oddly low settings most of the time, we also know they can ramp it up and up the power as we have seen multiple times and have no contradiction information on.

We have no known instances of them trying high power against packing crates- and we also have plenty of instances of them using the same lower settings when people are using rocks, a known-NDFable material, as cover. "If it's possible they must do it," is in your head, the effects of different settings is on screen. On screen evidence trumps out of universe assumptions.

BabelHuber
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2002-10-30 10:23am

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby BabelHuber » 2017-04-14 05:50am

Q99 wrote:You keep saying this but we see phasers cut metal, weld metal, make bank vaults go poof, etc.. You aren't backing up that it doesn't work, we have evidence to the contrary.


I explain it a last time, since I get tired of repeating myself: Sometimes a higher energy output would be advantageous to a situation, like fucking heating up a cover someone hides behind. Since nobody does it, it is not possible.

You can point at other examples all day long, but this doesn't change the fact that these other situations occur, too. And you haven't provided a sane explanation for this, just lame excuses why people don't use the settings they should have available according to your theory.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision the day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people.

Q99
Jedi Master
Posts: 1236
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Q99 » 2017-04-14 07:32am

BabelHuber wrote:I explain it a last time, since I get tired of repeating myself: Sometimes a higher energy output would be advantageous to a situation, like fucking heating up a cover someone hides behind. Since nobody does it, it is not possible.


You've got a chain of logic there, but the last step is assumption contradicted by on-screen evidence. It is this last leap that's at issue. It is not that I am either ignoring or not understanding what you are saying, I am saying I am pointing out a flaw of it which repetition of your point does not address.

No-one does it in combat, but we have seen higher power elsewhere.

We also have other examples of phaser settings that would be tactically useful being drastically under-used, but that also doesn't make wide-beam or such impossible, just oddly underused for not fully understood reasons, as it is demonstrated possible.

Hm, for that matter, on heat, whenever they've heated a rock or such, it's been a longer duration beam. Superheating a quarter-inch patch of a box on a side facing you does not make staying behind cover uncomfortable, a more sustained heating would be needed. Heat beams don't work quite like you assume, it's not just a 'shoot and heat up the whole thing'.

You can point at other examples all day long, but this doesn't change the fact that these other situations occur, too.


So? I don't think you get how proof works. To prove something is possible, it only has to happen once. To prove something is impossible, one example of it happening eliminates that possibility. High settings has happened on multiple occasions and has been used against metal and similar materials, so metal being immune is out, and it not existing at all is out.

All you've demonstrated is that they don't in many situations- which has a variety of possible explanation of which 'can't' is one of the only ones we can rule out. If something both does and doesn't happen in different circumstances, then it is possible, but leaves us with a question of what the differences are.

And you haven't provided a sane explanation for this, just lame excuses why people don't use the settings they should have available according to your theory.


Your opinion on whether or not the explanations are sane doesn't change that here are the facts as they stand-

One, people have used these settings on multiple occasions.
Two, these uses include against metal and other dense material
Three, they have not used them in combat, including against rock and other similar cover, not just metal.
Four, why they do not use them in combat is unknown.

We can speculate as to why, there are multiple logical side-effects of higher settings (ammo usage, amount of beam time on target needed to get the effects, whatever), none of which are proven, but one, two, and three solidly torpedo your thesis here. You cannot get impossibility from the components you have presented us with, and you rejecting possible explanations does not make yours true- other explanations merely need to be possible and not-contradicted by onscreen evidence to have a highly likelyhood of being correct than yours.

User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7510
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: General Empire vs Borg musings

Postby Solauren » 2017-04-14 09:47am

Batman wrote:It's physically impossible to build materials that won't react with antimatter (outside the Perryverse at any rate) so antimatter containment is not likely to figure into packing crate durability.


I was more thinking it has built in contaiment systems to hold the anti-matter (or it's put into the crate inside said system) and is capable of containing a small anti-matter reaction with endangering the ship.

Kind of like how some ammo crates can take their contents going off. Yeah, the crate is ruined, but the explosion within is usually contained.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests