Darth Vader inside a Cube

[Durandal]

But we've seen that many weapons fire beams that don't have a set duration - Sovereign class phasers, Lt. Reed's 10 MJ phase pistol, etc. If I were TPTB, I might use joules for pulse weapons, but not for beam weapons. If there's no set timeframe within which certain weapons deliver their stated energy output, how do we determine their power and demonstrate that the energy isn't being delivered at a nice leisurely pace? I'm not sure the 2.1 MJ weapon is an example of this (maybe it was a pulse weapon, I don't recall), but what about the phase pistol or Sovereign class phasers?

This is still no justification for your ludicrous claim that it delivers its energy in a nanosecond. A reasonable figure for power output would be 2.1 Watts, or Joules per second.

[Metrion Cascade]

I didn't even bother answering that because anyone who quotes dictionary definitions on a matter of physics is obviously just sloshing around in ignorance. The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is actually not the average molecular kinetic energy anyway.

It's almost funny to think about the consequences of such a relationship. According to her, an object must start zipping along if you apply enough heat to it. Better watch out next time you put those leftovers in the microwave; they might achieve escape velocity.

Ooh. Nice strawman. I never said heat or microwaves would suddenly change into omnidirectional mechanical energy. I said something fictional would.

[Metrion Cascade]

But we've seen that many weapons fire beams that don't have a set duration - Sovereign class phasers, Lt. Reed's 10 MJ phase pistol, etc. If I were TPTB, I might use joules for pulse weapons, but not for beam weapons. If there's no set timeframe within which certain weapons deliver their stated energy output, how do we determine their power and demonstrate that the energy isn't being delivered at a nice leisurely pace? I'm not sure the 2.1 MJ weapon is an example of this (maybe it was a pulse weapon, I don't recall), but what about the phase pistol or Sovereign class phasers?

This is still no justification for your ludicrous claim that it delivers its energy in a nanosecond. A reasonable figure for power output would be 2.1 Watts, or Joules per second.

It wasn't a claim. I never said I actually considered that the case. I said that no specific timeframe was stated for the delivery of this energy. I mentioned the nanosecond delivery time as an example of why I wanted to know the actual delivery time.

[Durandal]

Ooh. Nice strawman. I never said heat or microwaves would suddenly change into omnidirectional mechanical energy. I said something fictional would.

You equated mechanical kinetic energy with thermal kinetic energy, which is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics. My example was regarding that claim, not your fictional whatever claim.

And energy is a scalar quantity and hence has no direction.

EDIT: Removed some flames.

[Durandal]

It wasn't a claim. I never said I actually considered that the case. I said that no specific timeframe was stated for the delivery of this energy. I mentioned the nanosecond delivery time as an example of why I wanted to know the actual delivery time.

Fair enough. But in the absence of such a timeframe, it's generally safer to use 1 second than 1 nanosecond.

[Metrion Cascade]

Really? I was taught in my thermodynamics class that it was the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance. That exact definition too.

Try figuring out the temperature of a black hole with that definition.

The proper thermodynamics definition of temperature is the point at which thermal equilibrium is achieved, as determined by maximizing entropy with respect to energy. T=1/(dS/dU) where S is entropy and U is total internal energy.

What units are these variables in (curious as to the unit for entropy)? Im trying to clarify how the equation works, because at first glance it looks like 1/(dS/dU) is the same as dU/dS. Shit...don't remember much about derivatives, if that's what dU and dS are...

[Metrion Cascade]

It wasn't a claim. I never said I actually considered that the case. I said that no specific timeframe was stated for the delivery of this energy. I mentioned the nanosecond delivery time as an example of why I wanted to know the actual delivery time.

Fair enough. But in the absence of such a timeframe, it's generally safer to use 1 second than 1 nanosecond.

I'm saying we weren't concretely given either. If it's a pulse weapon, I'll assume that the energy is delivered in however long it takes the pulse to be absorbed into the shields. With a beam weapon, that delivery time varies and really could be a nanosecond or a second or a minute per stated energy output.

[Metrion Cascade]

Ooh. Nice strawman. I never said heat or microwaves would suddenly change into omnidirectional mechanical energy. I said something fictional would.

You equated mechanical kinetic energy with thermal kinetic energy, which is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics. My example was regarding that claim, not your fictional whatever claim.

And energy is a scalar quantity and hence has no direction.

EDIT: Removed some flames.

Photons don't move in any direction? They don't hit objects at a particular angle? Waves (or energy quanta that move like them) don't have angles of incidence and reflection?
(fumbling around blindly as all light in the universe stops moving)

I suppose I should also mention solar windmills again, which do receive mechanical kinetic energy from light. Again, I am NOT SAYING that light can do the same thing on a larger scale. But it is an example of radiant energy being converted to mechanical kinetic energy. I'm saying that while light can't do this on a larger scale, some fictional massless particle in phasers can.

[Cyborg Stan]

She's probably assuming that an extremely short timeframe would jack up the power, without recognizing that the limits of the work it can do are always set by its energy level. Even a staggering amount of power won't accomplish jack shit if there's not enough energy.

Dammit, I didn't want to respond. I brought up timeframe because I figure that if it's 2.1MJ per nanosecond instead of per shot or per second (not specified), then a two-second discharge delivers 4.2 billion gigajoules.

Of course, Data, the sensors, or the console he was reading could have been wrong about the number to start with.

Out of curiosity, wouldn't taking a perfectly good figure for the situation, then assuming it could've been divided by an unknown followed by multiplying it by another unknown, getting a figure that might completely contradict the first.... doesn't this negate the entire concept of units? Or for that matter, mathematics?

[Durandal]

Photons don't move in any direction? They don't hit objects at a particular angle? Waves (or energy quanta that move like them) don't have angles of incidence and reflection?
(fumbling around blindly as all light in the universe stops moving)

Photons and energy are not the same thing. Work is a dot product, which means that it yields a quantity with no direction associated with it. You learn this in first-year university physics, which any student can take as a general education course.

You strike me as one of those people who've spent large amounts of time reading websites and coffee table books on quantum mechanics but couldn't solve a simple mechanics problem if your life depended on it.

I suppose I should also mention solar windmills again, which do receive mechanical kinetic energy from light. Again, I am NOT SAYING that light can do the same thing on a larger scale. But it is an example of radiant energy being converted to mechanical kinetic energy. I'm saying that while light can't do this on a larger scale, some fictional massless particle in phasers can.

Photons carry momentum, but if a photon strikes an object, it does not deliver a kinetic energy equal to its total mechanical energy to an object. It delivers a momentum equal to its energy divided by c. It's not impossible to get mechanical energy from light, but that doesn't mean that mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing! This is basic thermodynamics! You throw around term like "quanta" and "incidence" and "reflection" like you know what you're talking about, but you're bumbling some of the most elementary concepts in all of physics rather badly.

This is why physicists go to universities to learn, rather than coffee-table books.

[Durandal]

Fair enough. But in the absence of such a timeframe, it's generally safer to use 1 second than 1 nanosecond.

I'm saying we weren't concretely given either. If it's a pulse weapon, I'll assume that the energy is delivered in however long it takes the pulse to be absorbed into the shields. With a beam weapon, that delivery time varies and really could be a nanosecond or a second or a minute per stated energy output.

That's a reduction to absurdity. In any case, it's a red herring. The weapon delivered 2.1 MJ of energy (we can assume all in the form of work) to the Enterprise, and we observed the effects on the Enterprise as a consequence of this energy delivery. Since Trek shields are more like walls rather than vector fields, the time it took for the energy to be delivered is basically inconsequential.

[Metrion Cascade]

Photons don't move in any direction? They don't hit objects at a particular angle? Waves (or energy quanta that move like them) don't have angles of incidence and reflection?
(fumbling around blindly as all light in the universe stops moving)

Photons and energy are not the same thing. Work is a dot product, which means that it yields a quantity with no direction associated with it. You learn this in first-year university physics, which any student can take as a general education course.

You strike me as one of those people who've spent large amounts of time reading websites and coffee table books on quantum mechanics but couldn't solve a simple mechanics problem if your life depended on it.

I suppose I should also mention solar windmills again, which do receive mechanical kinetic energy from light. Again, I am NOT SAYING that light can do the same thing on a larger scale. But it is an example of radiant energy being converted to mechanical kinetic energy. I'm saying that while light can't do this on a larger scale, some fictional massless particle in phasers can.

Photons carry momentum, but if a photon strikes an object, it does not deliver a kinetic energy equal to its total mechanical energy to an object. It delivers a momentum equal to its energy divided by c. It's not impossible to get mechanical energy from light, but that doesn't mean that mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing! This is basic thermodynamics! You throw around term like "quanta" and "incidence" and "reflection" like you know what you're talking about, but you're bumbling some of the most elementary concepts in all of physics rather badly.

This is why physicists go to universities to learn, rather than coffee-table books.

I never said mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing. Apparently I should never have mentioned the latter at all (even as an analogy), because you think I'm saying that heat from phasers is somehow becoming mechanical force. That's not what I mean. I mean that there is some massless particle in phasers that (while not itself heating the target) does impart mechanical energy to targets.

[Metrion Cascade]

Fair enough. But in the absence of such a timeframe, it's generally safer to use 1 second than 1 nanosecond.

I'm saying we weren't concretely given either. If it's a pulse weapon, I'll assume that the energy is delivered in however long it takes the pulse to be absorbed into the shields. With a beam weapon, that delivery time varies and really could be a nanosecond or a second or a minute per stated energy output.

That's a reduction to absurdity. In any case, it's a red herring. The weapon delivered 2.1 MJ of energy (we can assume all in the form of work) to the Enterprise, and we observed the effects on the Enterprise as a consequence of this energy delivery. Since Trek shields are more like walls rather than vector fields, the time it took for the energy to be delivered is basically inconsequential.

Why can we assume that it's all in the form of work, or that Data was correct about the figure itself? Do Trek shields not try to absorb what energy they can into the ship's power system?

If the figure was correct, we're talking about a 641-metre, 4960000 ton ship (with inertial dampers and shields that do NOT directly transfer all of a weapon's energy to the hull as work) being shaken by energy equivalent to 1.124 POUNDS of TNT, and barely a fifth of the output of a 22nd century Starfleet phase pistol.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Why can we assume that it's all in the form of work, or that Data was correct about the figure itself? Do Trek shields not try to absorb what energy they can into the ship's power system?

No, they don't. Why the hell would they?

[Metrion Cascade]

Why can we assume that it's all in the form of work, or that Data was correct about the figure itself? Do Trek shields not try to absorb what energy they can into the ship's power system?

No, they don't. Why the hell would they?

Because if they don't, then a weapon's energy is being transferred as work directly to the hull. That's a rather useless shield.

[Darth Wong]

Why can we assume that it's all in the form of work, or that Data was correct about the figure itself? Do Trek shields not try to absorb what energy they can into the ship's power system?

That would be stupid. They would actually want to reflect or re-radiate as much as they can.

If the figure was correct, we're talking about a 641-metre, 4960000 ton ship (with inertial dampers and shields that do NOT directly transfer all of a weapon's energy to the hull as work) being shaken by energy equivalent to 1.124 POUNDS of TNT, and barely a fifth of the output of a 22nd century Starfleet phase pistol.

Precisely, which is why it's obviously some kind of unfortunate feedback between the shield system and the ship's inertial damper system.

[Durandal]

I never said mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing. Apparently I should never have mentioned the latter at all (even as an analogy), because you think I'm saying that heat from phasers is somehow becoming mechanical force. That's not what I mean. I mean that there is some massless particle in phasers that (while not itself heating the target) does impart mechanical energy to targets.

You attempted to support your theory that photons delivered kinetic energy to a target via heating with this definition.

Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.

Perhaps you should endeavor to be clearer in the future. Furthermore, the idea that phasers fire massless particles is just indefensible. They'd have to release at least ten tons of TNT's worth of energy to throw a 60 kg man back at 1 m/s. If that was phasers' firepower, being thrown back a little would be the least of the target's concerns. He'd simply be vaporized. Even if we are generous and assume that 0.001% of that energy is released as heat (and the rest purely kinetic, which is absurd), that's over 10 MJ of energy! You could send a 1/6 kg object to escape velocity on Earth with that!

[Lord of the Farce]

If the figure was correct, we're talking about a 641-metre, 4960000 ton ship (with inertial dampers and shields that do NOT directly transfer all of a weapon's energy to the hull as work) being shaken by energy equivalent to 1.124 POUNDS of TNT, and barely a fifth of the output of a 22nd century Starfleet phase pistol.

Precisely, which is why it's obviously some kind of unfortunate feedback between the shield system and the ship's inertial damper system.

And perhaps aided by the so-called "Apparent Mass Reduction".

[Metrion Cascade]

Why can we assume that it's all in the form of work, or that Data was correct about the figure itself? Do Trek shields not try to absorb what energy they can into the ship's power system?

That would be stupid. They would actually want to reflect or re-radiate as much as they can.

If the figure was correct, we're talking about a 641-metre, 4960000 ton ship (with inertial dampers and shields that do NOT directly transfer all of a weapon's energy to the hull as work) being shaken by energy equivalent to 1.124 POUNDS of TNT, and barely a fifth of the output of a 22nd century Starfleet phase pistol.

Precisely, which is why it's obviously some kind of unfortunate feedback between the shield system and the ship's inertial damper system.

This is hilarious. I'm talking to Darth Seinfeld. So any weapons fire at all causes an IDF malfunction that somehow results in spontaneous motion that wasn't caused by the weapon, and isn't coming from the engines? (I know it's not from the engines, because in some cases the ship is stationary, and if it's moving then the IDF already synchronized all internal motion with the ship's velocity.) Every single time the ship is hit by any weapon? With such relatively tiny amounts of energy? And why the hell are the two even connected? Why wouldn't the feedback go into a less essential system or one purpose-designed to prevent this? Why doesn't the malfunction last more than a second, and why doesn't it ever seem to get anyone's attention? We hardly ever (if at all) hear, "the inertial dampers took a beating, so let's look at them before we go to warp or change course or speed." If what you're saying is true, any weapons fire at all is reason to hold one's velocity - no course changes, no changes in speed - until the problem is investigated and repaired. I do consider the rocking an effect of how the shields work (they absorb what they can into the ship's EPS and the rest is transferred to the hull as work), but not an IDF malfunction that occurs at the drop of a hat. A design mistake that bad would be akin to wiring the antimatter containment straight to the shields. It would actually make the shields such a liability that I'd rather have the bad guys hit the ship itself. At least then the IDF won't be the very first system damaged every single time we're hit. It also bears repeating that this is assuming the figure was correct, which I don't assume even though this is very amusing.

[Metrion Cascade]

If the figure was correct, we're talking about a 641-metre, 4960000 ton ship (with inertial dampers and shields that do NOT directly transfer all of a weapon's energy to the hull as work) being shaken by energy equivalent to 1.124 POUNDS of TNT, and barely a fifth of the output of a 22nd century Starfleet phase pistol.

Precisely, which is why it's obviously some kind of unfortunate feedback between the shield system and the ship's inertial damper system.

And perhaps aided by the so-called "Apparent Mass Reduction".

I've only heard that in reference to impulse and warp drive, which makes me wonder why it happens even when the ship is stationary. And if the ship is "mass-reduced" at all times, it still takes some work to move that reduced mass. DW is saying that beam weapons don't do work, so they shouldn't be able to move a 5 million ton ship a metre or a hundred kilogram dude half a metre regardless of their energy.

[Kuja]

This is hilarious. I'm talking to Darth Seinfeld. So any weapons fire at all causes an IDF malfunction that somehow results in spontaneous motion that wasn't caused by the weapon, and isn't coming from the engines? (I know it's not from the engines, because in some cases the ship is stationary, and if it's moving then the IDF already synchronized all internal motion with the ship's velocity.) Every single time the ship is hit by any weapon? With such relatively tiny amounts of energy?

Not necessarily. The IDF simply fails to compensate quickly enough for the ship being jerked by weapons fire. That's a design flaw, not a malfunction.

And why the hell are the two even connected? Why wouldn't the feedback go into a less essential system or one purpose-designed to prevent this?

Because it's the IDFs job to keep the ship steady. Any shaking at all is because the IDF is failing to compensate quickly enough.

Why doesn't the malfunction last more than a second, and why doesn't it ever seem to get anyone's attention?

1. Becasue the ship is no longer being hit with weapons fire.

2. Because other than jerking, it doesn't do anything. Substantial damage is only cause by direct hits to the hull.

We hardly ever (if at all) hear, "the inertial dampers took a beating, so let's look at them before we go to warp or change course or speed."

Because it's a case of them being unable to compensate in time, rather than taking a beating.

If what you're saying is true, any weapons fire at all is reason to hold one's velocity - no course changes, no changes in speed - until the problem is investigated and repaired.

That would make the ship even easier to hit.

I do consider the rocking an effect of how the shields work (they absorb what they can into the ship's EPS and the rest is transferred to the hull as work), but not an IDF malfunction that occurs at the drop of a hat.

It's a failure of technology, not a malfunction.

A design mistake that bad would be akin to wiring the antimatter containment straight to the shields. It would actually make the shields such a liability that I'd rather have the bad guys hit the ship itself.

That would case much more damage much more quickly, especially if enemies were to aim for the vulnerable nacelles.

At least then the IDF won't be the very first system damaged every single time we're hit. It also bears repeating that this is assuming the figure was correct, which I don't assume even though this is very amusing.

The IDF is not necessarily being damaged, it's simply failing to compensate for the weapons fire quickly enough.

[Darth Wong]

This is hilarious. I'm talking to Darth Seinfeld. So any weapons fire at all causes an IDF malfunction that somehow results in spontaneous motion that wasn't caused by the weapon, and isn't coming from the engines? (I know it's not from the engines, because in some cases the ship is stationary, and if it's moving then the IDF already synchronized all internal motion with the ship's velocity.)

And this compares poorly to your alternate theory of "I'm just going to ignore the figures" how?

Every single time the ship is hit by any weapon? With such relatively tiny amounts of energy? And why the hell are the two even connected?

Everything on the E-D is connected. It's a shitty design.

Why wouldn't the feedback go into a less essential system or one purpose-designed to prevent this? Why doesn't the malfunction last more than a second, and why doesn't it ever seem to get anyone's attention?

Because I didn't design the fucking thing. A bunch of idiots did.

We hardly ever (if at all) hear, "the inertial dampers took a beating, so let's look at them before we go to warp or change course or speed." If what you're saying is true, any weapons fire at all is reason to hold one's velocity - no course changes, no changes in speed - until the problem is investigated and repaired. I do consider the rocking an effect of how the shields work (they absorb what they can into the ship's EPS and the rest is transferred to the hull as work), but not an IDF malfunction that occurs at the drop of a hat.

Then you obviously can't do math. 2.1MJ of kinetic energy in a 4.5 million ton ship is precisely dick. Do the fucking math before you spout off your simple-minded smart-ass remarks. The only workable explanation comes from the ship's systems themselves screwing up.

A design mistake that bad would be akin to wiring the antimatter containment straight to the shields.

Yes, and the designers are morons who did interconnect every goddamned system on the ship.

It would actually make the shields such a liability that I'd rather have the bad guys hit the ship itself. At least then the IDF won't be the very first system damaged every single time we're hit.

Who said the ID system had to be damaged? I'm just talking about power system feedback which makes it hiccup.

It also bears repeating that this is assuming the figure was correct, which I don't assume even though this is very amusing.

Yet your alternate theory is that the shield is deliberately designed to handle incoming energy in the most damaging conceivable way

[Metrion Cascade]

I never said mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing. Apparently I should never have mentioned the latter at all (even as an analogy), because you think I'm saying that heat from phasers is somehow becoming mechanical force. That's not what I mean. I mean that there is some massless particle in phasers that (while not itself heating the target) does impart mechanical energy to targets.

You attempted to support your theory that photons delivered kinetic energy to a target via heating with this definition.

No, I didn't. I never said that heat was somehow becoming mechanical force (light---->heat---->mechanical force). I said that in SOME cases, light was becoming mechanical force instead of heat (light---->mechanical force). And before you accuse me of saying that light can do the same thing on a larger scale, I'm not. I'm saying that some fictional particle in phasers can.

Temperature (noun): the measure of the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. A microscopic phenomenon with macroscopic effects.

Perhaps you should endeavor to be clearer in the future. Furthermore, the idea that phasers fire massless particles is just indefensible. They'd have to release at least ten tons of TNT's worth of energy to throw a 60 kg man back at 1 m/s. If that was phasers' firepower, being thrown back a little would be the least of the target's concerns. He'd simply be vaporized. Even if we are generous and assume that 0.001% of that energy is released as heat (and the rest purely kinetic, which is absurd), that's over 10 MJ of energy! You could send a 1/6 kg object to escape velocity on Earth with that!

If phasers are firing matter, then Borg drone shields are a hell of a lot better than I thought they were, because they can't stop knives or rifle stocks or Data's hands. Of course, you could mean the sort of mass a photon might be said to have (no, I'm not saying phaser energy is light). And why can't phaser beams with no rest mass generate force when tractor beams and forcefields (some strong enough to walk on!) can? Hell, maybe phasers have a bit of reversed artificial gravity in them, either intentionally or as a by-product of how the beam is formed.

And we have seen 10 MJ phase pistols hit people and knock them back instead of vaporizing them, by some means or another. Take it up with Lt. Reed. It doesn't make sense to me that these same weapons that get hot enough to explode rocks and ignite fuel oil, never cause people to literally vaporize or catch fire, but they don't. So obviously something in these weapons (and God knows how many other sci-fi weapons) causes their effects to operate far differently than those of sunlight or lasers.

[Metrion Cascade]

This is hilarious. I'm talking to Darth Seinfeld. So any weapons fire at all causes an IDF malfunction that somehow results in spontaneous motion that wasn't caused by the weapon, and isn't coming from the engines? (I know it's not from the engines, because in some cases the ship is stationary, and if it's moving then the IDF already synchronized all internal motion with the ship's velocity.) Every single time the ship is hit by any weapon? With such relatively tiny amounts of energy?

Not necessarily. The IDF simply fails to compensate quickly enough for the ship being jerked by weapons fire. That's a design flaw, not a malfunction.

This is what I think too. That the weapons rock the ship, and the IDF isn't designed to compensate for that. But DW is saying the weapons don't rock the ship - that the IDF does every time the ship is hit.

And why the hell are the two even connected? Why wouldn't the feedback go into a less essential system or one purpose-designed to prevent this?

Because it's the IDFs job to keep the ship steady. Any shaking at all is because the IDF is failing to compensate quickly enough.

Precisely what I think. The weapon rocks the ship, and the IDF can't compensate because it takes its cues from the engines.

Why doesn't the malfunction last more than a second, and why doesn't it ever seem to get anyone's attention?

1. Becasue the ship is no longer being hit with weapons fire.

2. Because other than jerking, it doesn't do anything. Substantial damage is only cause by direct hits to the hull.

We hardly ever (if at all) hear, "the inertial dampers took a beating, so let's look at them before we go to warp or change course or speed."

Because it's a case of them being unable to compensate in time, rather than taking a beating.

Right. DW is saying the IDF itself malfunctions every time. I'm saying that's crazy.

If what you're saying is true, any weapons fire at all is reason to hold one's velocity - no course changes, no changes in speed - until the problem is investigated and repaired.

That would make the ship even easier to hit.

I do consider the rocking an effect of how the shields work (they absorb what they can into the ship's EPS and the rest is transferred to the hull as work), but not an IDF malfunction that occurs at the drop of a hat.

It's a failure of technology, not a malfunction.

A design mistake that bad would be akin to wiring the antimatter containment straight to the shields. It would actually make the shields such a liability that I'd rather have the bad guys hit the ship itself.

That would case much more damage much more quickly, especially if enemies were to aim for the vulnerable nacelles.

At least then the IDF won't be the very first system damaged every single time we're hit. It also bears repeating that this is assuming the figure was correct, which I don't assume even though this is very amusing.

The IDF is not necessarily being damaged, it's simply failing to compensate for the weapons fire quickly enough.

Right. (morphing into bobble head) I agree with everything you've written above.

[Darth Wong]

I never said mechanical kinetic energy and internal energy are the same thing.

Yes you did; you even tried to support your equivalence of kinetic energy and internal energy by quoting the dictionary definition of temperature.

No, I didn't. I never said that heat was somehow becoming mechanical force (light---->heat---->mechanical force). I said that in SOME cases, light was becoming mechanical force instead of heat (light---->mechanical force).

And you don't understand the mechanics of the situation, otherwise you would not say that. Light does not transform into mechanical force. It can be redirected, however, and momentum is conserved in the collision (this is how solar sails work).

And before you accuse me of saying that light can do the same thing on a larger scale, I'm not. I'm saying that some fictional particle in phasers can.

So in addition to everything else phasers do, they have a magic push-particle? You'll need some rather compelling evidence to force anyone to accept this new phenomenon.

And we have seen 10 MJ phase pistols hit people and knock them back instead of vaporizing them, by some means or another. Take it up with Lt. Reed.

The inconsistency of this phenomenon means that it cannot be an intrinsic characteristic of the phaser.

It doesn't make sense to me that these same weapons that get hot enough to explode rocks and ignite fuel oil, never cause people to literally vaporize or catch fire, but they don't.

Maybe because people are not particularly flammable. I can ignite fuel oil with a match; does that mean I can make you catch fire by putting out a match on your arm? As for shattering rocks, that hardly requires enough energy to vapourize a man. If you're going to claim that A > B, you need to provide better reasoning than "it doesn't make sense to me". Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

So obviously something in these weapons (and God knows how many other sci-fi weapons) causes their effects to operate far differently than those of sunlight or lasers.

And yet there are many, many incidents in which phasers on maximum power create no such effects.