StarDestroyer.Net BBS

drachefly wrote:To recapitulate:

I think you meant reiterate unless you've already surrendered in this debate once and were going to do it again...

brianeyci wrote:

You said "scare Beverly" in the context that you wanted "variables" like this properly represented in that phaser databank you gents are collecting. That indicates to me you want to explain the scene away when it comes to power.

The phaser databank is totally Jason Miles work. I just made a suggestion to account for accuracy. I believe the majority of his work concerns phazorizations and hit-misses.

The original idea behind the databank was to create a table of reactions to phaser hits on humanoids, and the setting of the phaser that caused the reaction. This was in the context of a thread on ASVS about whether phasers had kinetic energy. That is why the chart is structured the way it is. After watching all 7 seasons of TNG, I got the idea to include a listing for every time a hand weapon is fired, so that if someone wanted to do some other kind of statistics on hand weapons, they would not have to watch every episode, but would have an easy reference of the episodes which contain hand weapon use, and when in the episode they occur. In the entry for each event I noted whether the shot hit or not. My hit/miss tables are just a tabulation of those numbers.

The current version of the TNG one only includes hits on humanoids. The DS9 one has every time a hand phaser was fired in the current time and main universe.

On further reflection, I should probably have included the mirror universe episodes, as there is no evidence that the technology is different. After finishing season 7, I'll probably go back and add the ones from before Season 5, and I'll include them from now on. I'd have to skip the first one, though, because my DVD got scratched when I loaned it to a friend.

If anyone who has seaason 2 would like to help me with that episode, I'd be very grateful.

Batman wrote:I'm not BASING the entire theory on it. Unless and until somebody shows that phasers CANNOT behave like this, I maintain that the theory needs to explain this incident.

Very well what is your explaination of it?

I could argue that the TNG phasers went a radical change and didn't incorporate this technobabble effect. We never see a TNG or DS9 or later movie phaser throw someone like that (unless the Reman in Nemesis is thrown like this, I'm still waiting for the movie section at Section31.com to come back online).

No shit Sherlock. Planets are usually not created by the Genesis torpedo either, so normal panetary behavior is not exactly the ideal matchstick for Genesis.
That the planet was unstable is not under dispute. That the laws of physics didn't apply on it/changed rapidly is.

Fine, have it your way. To explain the Klingon being thrown back as if he was hooked up like a marionette and pulled up in the air like in an old kung-fu movie, you need technobabble. However, I counter with the point that we haven't seen people being thrown this way with TNG+ phasers.

And if you bother to check, he explicitely states that them doing so in mid-flight would be odd at the very least.

Of course, but he doesn't rule it out as an explaination. The "explosion" idea isn't so great either because we don't see some sort of explosive effect.

There is no explaination of how there would be a violation of Newton's Laws with the technobabble mechanism. Either at some point the phaser particles gain KE and impact on the target

For which you have no evidence, and even Drachefly agrees that that would be stange at the very least,

Strange, but not violating conservation of momentum or conservation of energy principles. The "technobabble" idea, the idea that the technobabble "sprouts" force to act on a person, is ridiculous and should only be used when there is no other explaination possible.

I like it how you assume that since the beam doesn't have noticeable KE there will be none applied to the target. How about the KE is provided by something that happens to the target?
Your 'phaser particles gain KE in mid-flight' idea has no more validity than Silence's (I think Mike mentions it on the main site, too) neutrino eruption theory. Add to that the STIII incident which CANNOT be explained by simple KE transfer, the fact that we KNOW phasers violate the laws of physics as we know them, the fact that your supposed KE gain is inconsistent as hell...

Just so you are clear, I am more concerned about pulse phaser rifles than Type-II's, because IMO the electrical shock idea can work for hand phasers but not pulse phaser rifles. I have a feeling that the Reman being pushed back didn't just experience a little nudge.

Fine. I couldn't find the "neutrino eurption theory" on Wong's site under the phasers or the NDF section, so if you have a linky I would appreciate it.

The less violations of physical laws, the better. KE "gain" or "transfer" is a far better theory than "technobabble" because the technobabble isn't defined in any way. Might as well say the Death Star kills planets by some sort of undefined chain reaction . Conservation of momentum isn't something that we should go about violating with technobabble every chance we get -- we should bend over backwards not to violate it. However strange gaining KE or an explosion transferring momentum might sound, it is better than saying "technobabble" causes the phaser to push people back. At the very least you have to define this technobabble mechanism before you start using it.

Or are you violating Newton's first law along with Newton's third law with the technobabble? Holy shit.

I am doing nothing of that kind. There are obviously KE/momentum effects applied to phaser targets. That does not mean that phaser particles carry said KE/momentum.

Holy shit. Momentum is mass times velocity. Since phaser particles travel at sublight speeds and have mass, they have momentum. Similarly, since Kinetic energy is equal to one half times mass times velocity squared, phaser particles carry kinetic energy. The big question is, whether or not there is enough kinetic energy to push someone around. According to Newton's First Law, an external force has to be applied to an object to push it. There has to be a force to push someone back, and I'm not talking about Mace Windu.

Brian

I'll be damned, fully automatic fire in a Star Trek weapon.

In the episode "Blase of Glory," in chapter 7 at 0:36:49, Sisko lets loose an 15 shot burst from a Dominion rifle. He sweeps the room ahead of him, and hits two Jem'Hadar.

How should I count this? One unaimed shot with a notation? If so, should I count the two Jem'Hadar's seperatly reactions seperately?

Also, it just proves the Jem'Hadar are bigger idiots than I thought, they have the capability, but don't use it.

Edit: Sorry, second viewing gave me a better count, and the third confirmed it. Changed 11 to 15.

Jason L. Miles wrote:I'll be damned, fully automatic fire in a Star Trek weapon.

As I see it, if Star Trek were a little more consistent with it's technology usage, it wouldn't come across so pathetic to some.

Unfortunately, the goodies they introduce are usually so useful and problem solving they convienently forget about them or introduce so many vulnerabilities in said technology it can be written off as useless anyhow (ie: transporters)

OK, guys. Let's calm down and get back to the physics:

An abrupt gain in momentum in an isolated system does not happen. Even the weak force which breaks just about every other symmetry in the universe doesn't break that. Similarly, an abrupt gain in total energy in an isolated system does not happen.

However, an abrupt gain in kinetic energy can happen in an isolated system, if some of the internal energy is converted into kinetic energy. So we don't need to worry about energy conservation -- the upper limit on the internal energy of the phaser beam is very high.
OK, let's just conserve momentum then: upon impact, something is hurled backward along the trajectory. Neutrinos are one possibility; whatever cold dark matter is made of is another. Whatever it is, it needs to be pretty close to noninteracting with matter when it's not in a phaser beam, since we don't see it. Any other explanation violates conservation of momentum.

Period.


And for the last time, the EM-shock theory was a joke!

SCVN 2812 wrote:

drachefly wrote:To recapitulate:

I think you meant reiterate unless you've already surrendered in this debate once and were going to do it again...

...or not.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/recapitulate

drachefly wrote:And for the last time, the EM-shock theory was a joke!

I think someone else mentioned it besides you. Why doesn't the shock theory work with hand phasers? Pulse-phasers consistently push people back, but with hand phasers people seem to kind of go backwards and twitch.

SCVN 2812 wrote:

drachefly wrote:To recapitulate:

I think you meant reiterate unless you've already surrendered in this debate once and were going to do it again...

...or not.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/recapitulate

Funny that, even though the dictionary says recapitulate is to restate something, the prefix seems to suggest that you mean to surrender again. Damn English. Too bad its the only language I know.

Brian

Well, it means to 'return to the head', as in 'da capo' from music, to go back to the beginning. On the other hand, 'capitulate' means to give the enemy your head, in the hopes that they let you keep it.


As for phasers and twitching -- I'm quite sure that it would be an adequate explanation for certain cases, but in general I can't see why the twitch would always hurl one AWAY. Why not force one to twitch TOWARD the beam source, much like someone who is shocked in the arm while holding something can't let go?
So, even though that is out out-of-world explanation, we can't use it in-world.

brianeyci wrote:

Batman wrote:I'm not BASING the entire theory on it. Unless and until somebody shows that phasers CANNOT behave like this, I maintain that the theory needs to explain this incident.

Very well what is your explaination of it?

I haven't got a clue. And I don't need one. We've seen a hand phaser do it, therefore phaser theory needs to explain it.

I could argue that the TNG phasers went a radical change and didn't incorporate this technobabble effect.

In the face of 20+ seasons' worth of them behaving just like TOS ones? I'd like to see you try.

Fine, have it your way. To explain the Klingon being thrown back as if he was hooked up like a marionette and pulled up in the air like in an old kung-fu movie, you need technobabble.

Uh-huh. You need technobabble for phasers to work in the first place. So?

However, I counter with the point that we haven't seen people being thrown this way with TNG+ phasers.

Which proves nothing until you can either show that
a) that TNG phasers operate on different principles than TOS ones, or
b) that the STIII feat is due to wonky physics on Genesis.

And if you bother to check, he explicitely states that them doing so in mid-flight would be odd at the very least.

Of course, but he doesn't rule it out as an explaination. The "explosion" idea isn't so great either because we don't see some sort of explosive effect.

You can see neutrinos? What are you, Clark's long lost twin brother?

Strange, but not violating conservation of momentum or conservation of energy principles

Neither is the neutrino surge idea.

. The "technobabble" idea, the idea that the technobabble "sprouts" force to act on a person, is ridiculous and should only be used when there is no other explaination possible.

Your 'phaser particles magically gain KE/momentum' theory is just as technobabblish. Why should we prefer it?

Just so you are clear, I am more concerned about pulse phaser rifles than Type-II's, because IMO the electrical shock idea can work for hand phasers but not pulse phaser rifles. I have a feeling that the Reman being pushed back didn't just experience a little nudge.

Just as long as you are aware that there is no evidence for pulse phasers working on a different mechanism than beam ones do. But let's not go there again.

Fine. I couldn't find the "neutrino eurption theory" on Wong's site under the phasers or the NDF section, so if you have a linky I would appreciate it.

Right idea, wrong page It's here, point #7-Apparent failure to observe Conservation of Momentum.

The less violations of physical laws, the better. KE "gain" or "transfer" is a far better theory than "technobabble" because the technobabble isn't defined in any way.

Neither is your KE/momentum gain.

Might as well say the Death Star kills planets by some sort of undefined chain reaction

IF we had reason to assume it were anything but DET, which we don't. That there is SOMETHING technobablish about phaser KE effects is a known fact. The question is where to put the technobabble. There's no reason to prefer your theory over any other.
Actually, the neutrino surge one is better than yours because it only requires one application of technobabble, in a place where we already KNOW something technobabblish is happening-the phaser effect on the target.

Conservation of momentum isn't something that we should go about violating with technobabble every chance we get -- we should bend over backwards not to violate it.

Good. Where do the phaser particles GET there momentum, then?

However strange gaining KE or an explosion transferring momentum might sound, it is better than saying "technobabble" causes the phaser to push people back.

Gaining KE is just as technobabblish. You're merely putting the technobabble in a different position. What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

At the very least you have to define this technobabble mechanism before you start using it.

Great. Define the mechanism by which the phaser particles gain KE/momentum.

While I'm here, I'm not a native speaker but I have never seen recapitulate used in any other sense then the one Drachefly used.
The idea that it could mean re-capitulate in the sense of 'surrender again' is complete news to me.

Batman, gaining KE is NOT technobabble, since it can simply come from the internal energy. It's momentum that's a much stronger restriction, so let's focus on that.

Furthermore, I do not think Brian is as focused on in-flight gain as you think he is.

Batman wrote:

brianeyci wrote: Very well what is your explaination of it?

I haven't got a clue. And I don't need one. We've seen a hand phaser do it, therefore phaser theory needs to explain it.

Translation -- technobabble theory is shit because you can't define it.

I could argue that the TNG phasers went a radical change and didn't incorporate this technobabble effect.

In the face of 20+ seasons' worth of them behaving just like TOS ones? I'd like to see you try.

TOS type phasers have fired on axis. TOS type phasers are a different shape, and are ergonomical while TNG+ phasers are banana-shaped. TOS phasers do not slowly vaporize, while TNG+ phasers have been demonstrated to have an ultra-slow vaporization setting that Lore would use to torture Crusher.

Radical enough?

Uh-huh. You need technobabble for phasers to work in the first place. So?

No. I like Drachefly's explaination,

Drachefly wrote: However, an abrupt gain in kinetic energy can happen in an isolated system, if some of the internal energy is converted into kinetic energy. So we don't need to worry about energy conservation -- the upper limit on the internal energy of the phaser beam is very high.
OK, let's just conserve momentum then: upon impact, something is hurled backward along the trajectory. Neutrinos are one possibility; whatever cold dark matter is made of is another. Whatever it is, it needs to be pretty close to noninteracting with matter when it's not in a phaser beam, since we don't see it. Any other explanation violates conservation of momentum.

Or the other explaination of phaser particles losing mass in trasit to oppositely oriented reaction force.

I can't debate you when you use technobabble and don't decide to define it.

You can see neutrinos? What are you, Clark's long lost twin brother?

Point conceded, no explosion would be visible if we use Drachefly's theory.

Neither is the neutrino surge idea.

When I say phaser particles "gain" KE and momentum, I do not mean that they magically gain them. The explosion idea is good enough for me, or the jet of neutrinos idea, or the phaser particles gaining KE midflight. Either one of those three means the phaser particles gain KE and transfer it to the target.

Your 'phaser particles magically gain KE/momentum' theory is just as technobabblish. Why should we prefer it?

I don't say that they magically gain it. Either the explosion idea, or the oppositely-oriented reaction mass with the phaser ditching some of its energy mid-transit into oppositely oriented force, or the neutrino stream idea.

Just as long as you are aware that there is no evidence for pulse phasers working on a different mechanism than beam ones do. But let's not go there again.

According to Jason Miles research, pulse phasers are the only consistent application of KE transfer. So they are different, in a way.

The less violations of physical laws, the better. KE "gain" or "transfer" is a far better theory than "technobabble" because the technobabble isn't defined in any way.

Neither is your KE/momentum gain.

DW wrote:he simple answer is that the phaser cannot possibly carry that much momentum, because conservation of momentum is a fundamental law. Therefore, the Klingon's movement through the air must not have been due to simple impact physics. Perhaps the chain reaction propagated in such a manner that the stream of neutrinos coming out of his body was largely aimed in one direction (remember that neutrinos do have momentum)

Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum!
Neutrinos have momentum! There must be KE transfer! KE/momentum gain is explained by Drachefly's explosion theory, or the suggestion that the phaser particles lose mass to oppositely oriented reaction force. Technobabble is undefined by definition! (Its fucking called technobabble because we don't know how the mechanisms behind it) Wong's theory is not fucking technobabble!

IF we had reason to assume it were anything but DET, which we don't. That there is SOMETHING technobablish about phaser KE effects is a known fact. The question is where to put the technobabble. There's no reason to prefer your theory over any other. Actually, the neutrino surge one is better than yours because it only requires one application of technobabble, in a place where we already KNOW something technobabblish is happening-the phaser effect on the target.

I say again -- Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum!

Conservation of momentum isn't something that we should go about violating with technobabble every chance we get -- we should bend over backwards not to violate it.

Good. Where do the phaser particles GET there momentum, then?
Gaining KE is just as technobabblish. You're merely putting the technobabble in a different position. What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

I say for a third time -- Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum! Neutrinos have momentum! There must be KE transfer! Wong's theory is not technobabble! Holy fucking shit. He defines the neutrinos as oppositely oriented reaction force pushing the guy back! If that's not KE I don't know what is!

At the very least you have to define this technobabble mechanism before you start using it.

Great. Define the mechanism by which the phaser particles gain KE/momentum.

You already have three definitions -- the phaser particles ditching some of their mass and converting it to oppositely oriented raction force, Drachefly's neutrino explosion theory, and Wong's Neutrino Eurption theory (I think is similar to Drachefly's, except Wong proposes a beam of neutrinos while Drachefly proposes an explosion of neutrinos). By the way, all of these events conserve momentum and make the phaser particles gain KE to tranfer to the target! Holy shit!

What is the definition of the technobabble? Technobabble pushes the person back without exerting any momentum or force? Because if I understand clearly, that is what "the phaser pushes people magically push people back" implies (you said that Batman, scroll up!). Holy shit! There must be a force exerted on the person to push him back, fucking Newton's First Law! HOOOOOOOLYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTT I'm going to quote it again,

Batman wrote:What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

HOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT. Conservation of fucking momentum is the difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, Wong's neutrino stream theory is clearly defined and is not technobabble. So I don't know what you are trying to get at with technobabble. The way I understand it now, you think that the "phaser particles magically push people back"!

Brian

drachefly wrote:Batman, gaining KE is NOT technobabble, since it can simply come from the internal energy. It's momentum that's a much stronger restriction, so let's focus on that.

EXACTLY.

Furthermore, I do not think Brian is as focused on in-flight gain as you think he is.

YES READ THAT BATMAN Like I posted above I don't care if they gain KE midflight or during an explosion.

<edit> By the way Batman, I was in the middle of typing my post when Drachefly said the above, so I didn't say it in reaction to what Drachefly said! It took me twenty minutes to type up my reply because I couldn't get around the idea that you are proposing "the phaser particles magically pushing somebody back" without force! Hooooooolllllllllyyyyyyyy shiiiiiiiiiiiit </edit>

Brian

Brianeyci wrote:Either the explosion idea, or the oppositely-oriented reaction mass with the phaser ditching some of its energy mid-transit into oppositely oriented force, or the neutrino stream idea.

They're all the same idea. In all cases, it's reaction mass going one way, taking internal energy to fuel the KE. There are only six variations -- three options for reaction mass type, and two options for timing (3x2, not 3+2).

Just for conserving momentum, it doesn't particularly matter which one is used, though I think the 'on impact' option is much more sensible than the in transit one.

You referred to my neutrino explosion theory and DW's neutrino beam theory -- they're basically the same too, except I don't suspect we could get such a good collimation of neutrinos, and I'm more willing to suppose that the subspace field or stable supersymmetry particles or whatever dark matter is could be doing the job.

brianeyci wrote:

Batman wrote:

brianeyci wrote: Very well what is your explaination of it?

I haven't got a clue. And I don't need one. We've seen a hand phaser do it, therefore phaser theory needs to explain it.

Translation -- technobabble theory is shit because you can't define it.

Come again? We've seen it happen. Either you an show that it was a Genesis-related fluke, or phaser theory has to explain it.

I could argue that the TNG phasers went a radical change and didn't incorporate this technobabble effect.

In the face of 20+ seasons' worth of them behaving just like TOS ones? I'd like to see you try.

TOS type phasers have fired on axis.

So have TNG phasers.

TOS type phasers are a different shape, and are ergonomical while TNG+ phasers are banana-shaped.

*sigh* By that logic it is entirely possible for different kinds of real-world firearms to work on different principles. Oh please.

TOS phasers do not slowly vaporize, while TNG+ phasers have been demonstrated to have an ultra-slow vaporization setting

Where?

that Lore would use to torture Crusher.

Proof.

Radical enough?

Not by a long shot. Different shape and a hypothetical super-slow desintegration setting that we somehow never see do not suffice to counter 20+ seasons of TNG phasers behaving like TOS ones.

Uh-huh. You need technobabble for phasers to work in the first place. So?

No. I like Drachefly's explaination,

Which counters the need for technobabble how? By all means explain NDF without it.

When I say phaser particles "gain" KE and momentum, I do not mean that they magically gain them.

Well, how DO they? KE is possible thanks to Drachefly's explanation, but how do they gain momentum?

The explosion idea is good enough for me, or the jet of neutrinos idea, or the phaser particles gaining KE midflight. Either one of those three means the phaser particles gain KE and transfer it to the target.

Um-no. The explosion/neutrino ideas use the target matter to transfer KE to it. The phaser particles itself maintain whatever little KE they had from the word go.
By your reasoning, if I shoot a bomb and it goes off the KE of the explosion was 'transferred' from the bullet.

Your 'phaser particles magically gain KE/momentum' theory is just as technobabblish. Why should we prefer it?

I don't say that they magically gain it. Either the explosion idea, or the oppositely-oriented reaction mass with the phaser ditching some of its energy mid-transit into oppositely oriented force, or the neutrino stream idea.

Neither of which has the phaser particles gaining KE in any way shape or form.

Just as long as you are aware that there is no evidence for pulse phasers working on a different mechanism than beam ones do. But let's not go there again.

According to Jason Miles research, pulse phasers are the only consistent application of KE transfer. So they are different, in a way.

*sigh* Let's not go over this, or at least not here.

The less violations of physical laws, the better. KE "gain" or "transfer" is a far better theory than "technobabble" because the technobabble isn't defined in any way.

Neither is your KE/momentum gain.

Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum!

Whenever did I say he did?

Neutrinos have momentum! There must be KE transfer!

Between the neutrinos and the target, NOT the phaser particles and the target!!! The neutrinos are gnerated from the target's mass, how does the momentum of the phaser particles factor into this?

Technobabble is undefined by definition! (Its fucking called technobabble because we don't know how the mechanisms behind it) Wong's theory is not fucking technobabble!

Oh? You know a real-world physics explanation on how to
a)turn human tissue into neutrinos, and
b)eject them in a controlled way to achieve the effects displayed by phasers? By all means enlighten me.

IF we had reason to assume it were anything but DET, which we don't. That there is SOMETHING technobablish about phaser KE effects is a known fact. The question is where to put the technobabble. There's no reason to prefer your theory over any other. Actually, the neutrino surge one is better than yours because it only requires one application of technobabble, in a place where we already KNOW something technobabblish is happening-the phaser effect on the target.

I say again -- Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum!

Um-were exactly did I say he did?

Conservation of momentum isn't something that we should go about violating with technobabble every chance we get -- we should bend over backwards not to violate it.

Good. Where do the phaser particles GET there momentum, then?
Gaining KE is just as technobabblish. You're merely putting the technobabble in a different position. What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

I say for a third time -- Wong uses the neutrino eurption theory to explain how momentum is conserved, not as a way to explain violation of conservation of momentum!

And for the third time, I never said he did!!!

Neutrinos have momentum! There must be KE transfer! Wong's theory is not technobabble! Holy fucking shit. He defines the neutrinos as oppositely oriented reaction force pushing the guy back! If that's not KE I don't know what is!

And that has what exactly to do with your 'phaser particles gain KE/momentum in mid-flight' theory? I have already stated umpteen times that I prefer that theory over yours!!!!!!!
If you have ditched that theory by now FINE BY ME. Doesn't invalidate the fact that it's just as technobabble as any other.

At the very least you have to define this technobabble mechanism before you start using it.

Great. Define the mechanism by which the phaser particles gain KE/momentum.

You already have three definitions -- the phaser particles ditching some of their mass and converting it to oppositely oriented raction force, Drachefly's neutrino explosion theory, and Wong's Neutrino Eurption theory (I think is similar to Drachefly's, except Wong proposes a beam of neutrinos while Drachefly proposes an explosion of neutrinos). By the way, all of these events conserve momentum and make the phaser particles gain KE to tranfer to the target! Holy shit!

Neither neutrino theory has the phaser particles gain KE in any way shape or form, and none of them has them gaining momentum.
The neutrino theories impart KE to the target by ejecting neutrinos created from the target matter. The KE of the phaser particles doesn't factor into it.

What is the definition of the technobabble? Technobabble pushes the person back without exerting any momentum or force?

Are you being deliberately dense? Technobabble creates the neutrino stream/explosion/whatever that imparts the KE to the target!!!!.

Because if I understand clearly, that is what "the phaser pushes people magically push people back" implies (you said that Batman, scroll up!).

Batman wrote:What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

HOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT. Conservation of fucking momentum is the difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes. The phaser particles magically gaining momentum does NOT violate CoM but the phaser doing something to the target to create it does. Yes that makes so much sense.

By the way, Wong's neutrino stream theory is clearly defined and is not technobabble. So I don't know what you are trying to get at with technobabble.

The technobabble would be the process that creates the neutrinos you moron. Unless you can explain how phasers do that?

The way I understand it now, you think that the "phaser particles magically push people back"!

No you gibberling!! I happen to think they do 'something' to the target which causes it to be pushed back (like, you know, the neutrino stream theory). I call it 'magical' because we have no clue how the process works.

brianeyci wrote: ES READ THAT BATMAN Like I posted above I don't care if they gain KE midflight or during an explosion.

The point being that THEY DO NOT GAIN KE IN THE EXPLOSION SCENARIO.
The KE imparted on the target in an explosion scenario has JACK SHIT to do with the KE of the phaser particles.

Batman wrote:

brianeyci wrote: ES READ THAT BATMAN Like I posted above I don't care if they gain KE midflight or during an explosion.

The point being that THEY DO NOT GAIN KE IN THE EXPLOSION SCENARIO.
The KE imparted on the target in an explosion scenario has JACK SHIT to do with the KE of the phaser particles.

well, ok, if the phaser particles cause an explosion but are not actually consitutents of the explosion, then what you say is correct. But it was merely a poor choice of wording for a special case, not getting the physics wrong.

This is especially so since it would be reasonable to suppose that the pahser interacts with the target in such a way that all the KE imparted to the target must first go through the phaser particles. It's far from a foregone conclusion that this is the case, but since it at first blush seems a reasonable supposition, it is quite unnecessarily abrasive to simply assert that it's wrong, in all caps.

drachefly wrote:

Batman wrote:

brianeyci wrote: ES READ THAT BATMAN Like I posted above I don't care if they gain KE midflight or during an explosion.

The point being that THEY DO NOT GAIN KE IN THE EXPLOSION SCENARIO.
The KE imparted on the target in an explosion scenario has JACK SHIT to do with the KE of the phaser particles.

well, ok, if the phaser particles cause an explosion but are not actually consitutents of the explosion, then what you say is correct. But it was merely a poor choice of wording for a special case, not getting the physics wrong.

Yes it WAS. Either the phaser particles gain KE or they do not.

This is especially so since it would be reasonable to suppose that the phaser interacts with the target in such a way that all the KE imparted to the target must first go through the phaser particles.

Why? Taking the neutrino burst theory, the KE is imparted on the target via part of the target matter being converted into neutrinos and vented in a specific direction. I fail to see how the phaser particles are involved beyond triggering the conversion reaction. Their KE quite simply doesn't factor into it.

It's far from a foregone conclusion that this is the case, but since it at first blush seems a reasonable supposition, it is quite unnecessarily abrasive to simply assert that it's wrong, in all caps.

I fail to see how this is a reasonable supposition when there's no reason for the phaser particles to be involved beyond triggering the NDF reaction.

Well, in the neutrino cascade theory, we must note that matter does not normally just turn into neutrinos willy-nilly. So, it would be highly reasonable to suppose that the phaser particles act as a mediating agent -- and that they keep bouncing back and forth emitting neutrinos and annihilating the target. So they would never get all that much KE at once, but during the course of the annihilation, all of the gained KE would pass through them.

OK, I've only got a minute, but I have a quick question for those with. In a lot of the longer phaser fights, people are hiding behind cover, thier opponents fire at them, even though there is little/no possiblility of a hit. Is this covering fire, or should I count this as a straight miss?. Given the number of shots fired in this manner, this is a very important question for my hit/miss calcs.

P.S. To anybody who wants to use "Rocks and Shoals" as evidence of phaser range: In the incident where the ranges were obscenely long, none of the characters were hit. Only later, at the end of the episode, when ranges closed were Jem'Hadar hit.

drachefly wrote:Well, in the neutrino cascade theory, we must note that matter does not normally just turn into neutrinos willy-nilly.

Indeed. That would be the reason for me calling that effect a technobabbly one, which seems to have irritated Brian to no end

So, it would be highly reasonable to suppose that the phaser particles act as a mediating agent -- and that they keep bouncing back and forth emitting neutrinos and annihilating the target. So they would never get all that much KE at once, but during the course of the annihilation, all of the gained KE would pass through them.

I still fail to see why, but since my main gripe was with Brians 'phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum in mid-flight' theory (which he seems to have backed off on) I don't particularly care.
As long as it's clear that the KE/momentum is provided by something that happens to the target matter (wether it's passed through the phaser particles or not) I'm satisfied.

Jason L. Miles wrote:OK, I've only got a minute, but I have a quick question for those with. In a lot of the longer phaser fights, people are hiding behind cover, thier opponents fire at them, even though there is little/no possiblility of a hit. Is this covering fire, or should I count this as a straight miss?. Given the number of shots fired in this manner, this is a very important question for my hit/miss calcs.

*scratches head*
You'd propably be served best by an answer from one of the Mess members, but personally I'd consider those covering fire (assuming you're basing the abysmal hit chances on the tactical situation and not the Fed's complete lack of marksmanship ).
A straight miss in my book is when you INTEND TO and REASONABLY EXPECT to hit a target and fail. Covering fire usually is intended to make the enemy keep their heads down and any hits that actually ensue are a nice bonus but were certainly not counted on.

Batman wrote:Indeed. That would be the reason for me calling that effect a technobabbly one, which seems to have irritated Brian to no end

Well look. If you had said "I explain the phaser particles not gaining KE by saying that the phaser particles start a chain reaction which causes neutrinos to create an oppositely oriented force thereby conserving momentum", I wouldn't have disagreed.

What did you say? I asked you define the technobabble, and you shot back and asked me to define my "technobabble", rather than saying that you think neutrinos provide the necessary momentum to push the guy backwards. And let's not forget this,

Batman wrote:What's the differece between the phaser particles magically gaining KE/momentum and the phaser magically pushing people back? It's still technobabble!!!

Holy shit it sounded like you were suggesting that there was no force acting on the target at all.

As long as it's clear that the KE/momentum is provided by something that happens to the target matter

Good, so am I.

Brian

Jason L. Miles wrote:...covering fire,

Jason, since you're already looking through the DVD's, I'm really interested in the packing crate phenomenon and whether or not it is used to the effect that it is claimed to be. Specifically,

1. How often to people take cover behind packing/cargo crates.
2. Is it a Fed phaser firing at the packing crates, or a Jem'Hadar weapon.
3. Are there examples of phaser fire penetrating packing crates
4. Are the same packing crates ever pushed around/lifted, so we can assume that it isn't exceptionally heavy, or are they moved around with anti-grav units.

Basically the motivation behind this is to see whether or not there would be reason to assume you could create armor out of phaser resistant materials. If the packing crates are light, are used a lot by people fighting in cargo bays, are effective, and are resistant against Fed phaser fire, one could argue that you could make a suit of armor out of packing crate material and be invincible to Fed phasers.

Also, it just proves the Jem'Hadar are bigger idiots than I thought, they have the capability, but don't use it.

The automatic weapons fire that Sisko used could have been extremely ammunition consuming, or perhaps that rapid of a fire damages the weapon somehow, or perhaps Sisko had a special weapon from a Jem'Hadar "first" who has a weapon different than normal Jem'Hadar. (We know that Firsts have different privileges than normal Jem'Hadar, including being able to see outside of a ship in a battle while the rest of the crew doesn't have access to a viewscreen) Stupidity is always the last resort answer, there are many reasons why Jem'Hadar might not use automatic all the time. Maybe they are trained to take good shots, one shot one kill type of philosophy, so their training frowns on wasting ammunition and bursting all the time.

Brian

brianeyci wrote:

Jason L. Miles wrote:...covering fire,

Jason, since you're already looking through the DVD's, I'm really interested in the packing crate phenomenon and whether or not it is used to the effect that it is claimed to be. Specifically,

1. How often to people take cover behind packing/cargo crates.
2. Is it a Fed phaser firing at the packing crates, or a Jem'Hadar weapon.
3. Are there examples of phaser fire penetrating packing crates
4. Are the same packing crates ever pushed around/lifted, so we can assume that it isn't exceptionally heavy, or are they moved around with anti-grav units.

Well, off hand, the episode "Blaze of Glory" includes a lot of Jem'Hadar weapons hitting packing crates, almost every round fired in that episode hits them. I'll make a not of any packing crates that come up in the episodes I have left, but I'm almost 3/4 done with DS9. Voyager will happen at a much slower pace, as I don't have the DVDs and am not going to run out to get them, (I do plan to get them, it will just take a while as I have other things to spend my money on.)

Basically the motivation behind this is to see whether or not there would be reason to assume you could create armor out of phaser resistant materials. If the packing crates are light, are used a lot by people fighting in cargo bays, are effective, and are resistant against Fed phaser fire, one could argue that you could make a suit of armor out of packing crate material and be invincible to Fed phasers.

In the episode mentioned above, dialog indicates that the crates will block the fire, because they are made of some material I can't remember the name of.