Fully Built Borg Assimilated Death Star II vs Star Wars

[HMS Sophia]

It's not really a figure of speech to call a phaser rifle a rifle if we use the definition of a rifle to be a shoulder weapon. The appeal to authority comes from assuming your definition is more accurate than the others in order to prove your point.

Oy, Fuckface, stop cherry-picking, especially when you do it FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCES
your definition says a rifle is a:

a shoulder firearm with a long barrel and a rifled bore;

See where it says 'with'? That's a joining word. It means that not only is a rifle a shoulder weapon, but it also has a long barrel, and a RIFLED BORE! Did you miss that bit? Are you going to claim that a phaser rifle has a rifled bore? Because I would be surprised.

[Vympel]

I've just about had enough of this.

You guys say there is no vaporization and canon dialogue is incorrect, yet have no strong theories about what is really happening. I say there is vaporization and canon dialogue is correct but may not have a strong theory either. My ideas conform more with star trek canon so mine are superior. You'll never convince a real star trek fan that phasers don't vaporize

Your 'theories' conform with nothing. You want to have your cake and eat it too - you want literal vaporization to actually be occurring and at the same time make up pseudoscientific excuses out of thin air for why no literal vaporization can be observed. In essence, you are walking backwards from your preferred conclusion. Worse, you base that asinine conclusion solely on the basis of "well the characters say its happening" - even though character testimony is inferior to direct observation - which flies in the face of your bullshit - and the word 'vaporise' need not be taken literally, as any random google search of articles using the word, in any context, will tell you.

I won't even start of how you distort "no vapor is observed, therefore vaporization did not take place" into "no vapor is observed, therefore vapor does not exist." The sheer idiocy of that distortion should be apparent to all.

I suggest you shape up. You are on thin ice. And I note you still haven't responded to my previous post:-

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3489196

[darthy]

Your 'theories' conform with nothing. You want to have your cake and eat it too - you want literal vaporization to actually be occurring and at the same time make up pseudoscientific excuses out of thin air for why no literal vaporization can be observed. In essence, you are walking backwards from your preferred conclusion. Worse, you base that asinine conclusion solely on the basis of "well the characters say its happening" - even though character testimony is inferior to direct observation - which flies in the face of your bullshit - and the word 'vaporise' need not be taken literally, as any random google search of articles using the word, in any context, will tell you.

Thin ice or not, I can't concede that phasers don't vaporize when it's common knowledge to a treky that they do. I could post pages and pages of dialogue which state they do. Also, whether someone wishes to use the model that dialogue trumps visuals is another debate entirely and their own prerogative. Memory alpha for example uses the policy that the dialogue outranks the visuals. This is no different than coming up with an hypothesis about how a ship can go faster than light when going faster than light is supposed to be impossible according to spatial relativity.

I've seen star wars canon make some insane unfounded rationalizations before in order to make canon fit together. The point being that if a rationalization can be conceived of then that's probably the rationalization that will be taken before throwing it out of canon. You also, "can't have your cake and eat it too" when I use the same methodology.

According to http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wik ... .php/Canon

Canon refers to all admissible evidence. If two canon "facts" disagree with each other and no rationalization can be found, then only one of the two canon facts would be considered a part of continuity.

I won't even start of how you distort "no vapor is observed, therefore vaporization did not take place" into "no vapor is observed, therefore vapor does not exist." The sheer idiocy of that distortion should be apparent to all.

a very minor distinction man. She meant "50kg of vapor is not observed, therefore vaporization is not occuring". The same fallacy is committed regardless. You don't have to play mr. hero for her when you didn't do it for me after I was dogpiled earlier.

I suggest you shape up. You are on thin ice. And I note you still haven't responded to my previous post:-

^I can't see this image right now because I'm using a computer that has image hosting services blocked. But if I remember correctly an answer to your question is on this page about holding the energy or something.

I know where you're going with this too. You're going to claim its a chain-reaction weapon therefore it doesn't output as much power because the target is doing most of the work or something to that effect. I disagree. Dialogue also says phasers are directed energy weapons as do the tech manuals. I'm not capable of concedeing a lie in my mind until someone convinces me which no one's come close to doing yet.

[Serafina]

It's a hole in your logic which leaves open to the possibility that you could be wrong. You're assuming there isn't some kind of exotic phenomena taking place to prevent all the vapor from being seen. If star trek has produced technology like holodecks, replicators, and transporters I wouldn't be so quick to rule out an exotic effect like that.

An "exotic effect" for which you have absolutely no evidence and which does not provide any explanatory utility compared to the NDF-model. Sorry kiddo, Occams Razor just cut your dick off - no more wanking for you.

good, you can give the name calling a rest then I heard you the first few dozen times.

Nah, it's too much fun, and you really ARE an idiot.

a shoulder firearm with a long barrel and a rifled bore;

It's not really a figure of speech to call a phaser rifle a rifle if we use the definition of a rifle to be a shoulder weapon. The appeal to authority comes from assuming your definition is more accurate than the others in order to prove your point.

A RIFLED BORE. Why should a weapon that does NOT fire a projectile have a rifled barrel? Even your own definitions contradict you.

sad girl... does it occur even occur to you to even google before setting yourself up like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Which...is not the same thing, moron. I do not assert absolute truth of my position just because no one has proven it wrong. I do assert it's truth because it has superior explanatory value to your made-up-shit.
You, on the other hand, are giving us a textbook example of that very fallacy. You are saying "oh you can't prove there is no exotic effect, therefore i am right".
Again YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!

you SURE like TO capitalize YOUR words ALOT don't YOU? Makes you look a little dense, no offense.

Yes. It's called emphasis. By the way, you are doing it all wrong.

- vaporized while being pushed into subspace. Where the material would no longer be visible and the heat would not pose a threat. It's been proven on star trek that large amounts of energy can cut into subspace.

If it get's "pushed into subspace", then why vaporize it in the first place? You are just adding an unnecessary term here.

- vaporized while being turned into neutrinos. Like how this site theorizes a person disappears when shot, I add onto it by saying they are vaporized while being turned into neutrinos.

Again, why add vaporization first?

- vaporized before being dematerialized by technology similar to a transporter. Transporters have been shown to give the illusion of someone being vaporized by a phaser like in episode "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" and "gambit pt 1".

Why add vaporization? Why do we never see this transporter mechanism fail, when transporters fail all the time in Star Trek?

This allows the dialogue to become accurate with the visuals. A lot more reasonable than assuming the target is not vaporized just because you don't want them to be.

I do not believe that they are vaporized because there is no evidence for vaporization. I just assume that people in Star Trek use "vaporized" as a colloquial term, just like they use "rifle" or "cannon" or "battery" as a colloquial term. This is much more reasonable than adding an effect which we never observe.

Perhaps but the dialogue isn't saying that they are being teleported to a place like that, they're saying that they're being vaporized.

Yes, we have ZERO evidence of any transportation whatsover. Yet you are seriously proposing that they are just transportet away. Can you spot the contradiciton?

You're right, you technically can't disprove there is no Santa Clause. And yes you could learn a lot from a good lecture on fallacies. Maybe you should take a logic course or something.

Therefore, we should act as if there was a Santa Clause?
Look, kiddo - in science, we do not assume something is true merely because we can not disprove it. In fact science never proves or disproves anything, it just attempts to create accurate models. My model is accurate, because it describes what we see on screen. Your model is accurate, because it describes what we see on screen. So which one is better? Cue Occams razor - my model requires one unknown term (turned into neutrinos) while yours requires the same term, but adds an unnecessary vaporization-process in front of it. Therefore, my model has superior accuracy because it does not require that unevidenced vaporization.

You guys say there is no vaporization and canon dialogue is incorrect, yet have no strong theories about what is really happening

Yes, we DO. The phaser induces a chain reaction in the target which turns it into neutrinos.This is perfectly consistent with visual evidence, and is therefore a strong model.

I say there is vaporization and canon dialogue is correct but may not have a strong theory either. My ideas conform more with star trek canon so mine are superior. You'll never convince a real star trek fan that phasers don't vaporize

Oh, look - you have just admitted that you are a close-minded fucktard.
Look, you can easily convince me that they are vaporized. Just show me the vapor.
You, however, are just a wanking fanboy without any capabiltiy to change his mind.



Okay, you want everything to be consistent with dialogue?
Great - then phaser rifles are not firing physical projectiles from a rifled barrel, and the phaser cannons of the definant are in fact using chemical projectiles in order to fire cannon balls. They just use *random technobabble* in order to make it look different. Happy now?

[Eleas]

You told me to fuck off and never posted since. When you tell someone to fuck off it's usually a dismissal. We can go back to your posts since you're easy pickings.

Aw, that's cute in a vaguely cloying way. I told you to fuck off until you grew a spine -- i.e. honesty and integrity. You clearly demurred because you see no value in that and because you grabbed an excuse, any excuse, to wiggle away. That is not my problem.

Or maybe, now that you've presented yet another example of something other than a neural pattern containing the memories of a person, you'll finally stop undermining your own argument?

If you want to go down that route, episode "Similitude" would also prove that DNA can contain the memories of anyone. The borg have access to the DNA of a person after they are assimilated. That's just one more avenue to their memories.

...which means that a neural pattern is not, once again, the sole repository of memories. Your other arguments are specious, as is the notion that the Borg would understand how to extract the "memory" in a DNA extraction case that never happened again. So again, you bolster my argument. I find myself wondering why.

What's this debate fallacy, I wonder? Argumentum ad websitum? "It's on a web page, therefore it's true?"

Strange no one's brought this up this fallacy when they've given me links to prove their points. I didn't say it was true because of the link. I said it shouldn't be considered such an unreasonable conclusion to reach if memory alpha reached the same conclusion.

Except they didn't and you didn't. You drew a conclusion from a page that actually didn't itself claim this was true. It said "is often considered to be". From a fanon page, that's completely worthless, and no amount of vague "but you're doing it too" hand-waving can change that.

Actually I don't want to claim a perfect process since I don't need to.

Then you should not have engaged in no-limits speculation without backing it up with facts.

This was all brought up while you were questioning a borgs ability to take over the death star.

Well, I didn't, of course (other than in a statement showing the effects of applying your non-logic consistently). But other than that, I'm willing to hear you out.

They already have the death star in this scenario, it's hasn't been much of a point of contention for a while now.

True. Posters here are humouring you, probably because you're taking a break from st-v-sw.net and it's nice with a change of pace. The only one you're fooling is yourself, though, but I imagine that brings the comfort of familiarity.

A non sequitur, in which you claim the Borg wouldn't be able to defeat enemies if they were dumb. We could just as easily point to Malaria, whose ability to kill humans and spread itself is unmatched by any one human country. Thus, by your logic, Malaria would be your intellectual superior.

Also a non sequitur. Malaria don't consider humans enemies since malaria don't possess consciousness they have no sense of what an enemy even is nor do they know how to assimilate with nano technology.

Irrelevant. Your criterion for being intelligent made no mention of actual consciousness or self-awareness, and that's what I'm mocking. Try to keep up. Possibly displaying those aforementioned qualities, if you can.

<snip>

An appeal to the authority of the perpetually lowest-ranked and most gullible (and often punished) officer in Star Trek, who for an encore also appears sexually maladjusted. This part of your defence not only rests on his infallibility, but on his opinion of a physically striking woman who walks around in a skin-tight suit and who has, more than once, appeared in his dreams.

Appeal to authority to elements in star trek canon doesn't apply as a fallacy in this case but more as a rule to determine what's true or not. It's like appealing to law to determine what's legal or not.

No proof = admission of defeat. Thank-you.

Think tank also showed interest in seven of nine because of her intelligence.

Irrelevant. Nobody's questioning a single drone's intelligence.

An ad hominem whose sole merit lies in being so clearly a case of projection. You have demonstrated no bias in my statements; you just very much want it to exist, because you can't yourself understand any other motivation. I simply point toward Janeway's own sales pitch, which managed to convince the Borg without even mentioning the Doctor. Well, that, and the little conversation in the episode you refer to which you, oh, failed to mention. What was it? Oh yes.

Not really, I just concluded that you're bias against all the evidence because "we know the borg are dumb". I was refuted your own ad hominem against the borg there.

Except, Scooter, a statement followed by evidence isn't an ad hominem. You know the difference, troll child.

Just because the borg have all the knowledge of someone assimilated doesn't mean they would choose to apply it. How does that prove the borg don't transfer all knowledge from assimilation someone? Judging from Janeway's statement, the borg use a collective instinct which doesn't include much investigating.

Thank you for, once again, making my point for me.

Possibly I should stop at this point. Seems you're on a roll knocking down your own arguments, and don't really need my assistance.

[Vympel]

Thin ice or not, I can't concede that phasers don't vaporize when it's common knowledge to a treky that they do.

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

I could post pages and pages of dialogue which state they do. Also, whether someone wishes to use the model that dialogue trumps visuals is another debate entirely and their own prerogative. Memory alpha for example uses the policy that the dialogue outranks the visuals. This is no different than coming up with an hypothesis about how a ship can go faster than light when going faster than light is supposed to be impossible according to spatial relativity.

This isn't a subject for debate in this forum. Dialogue is inferior to visuals here. Either shape up, or ship out.

I've seen star wars canon make some insane unfounded rationalizations before in order to make canon fit together. The point being that if a rationalization can be conceived of then that's probably the rationalization that will be taken before throwing it out of canon. You also, "can't have your cake and eat it too" when I use the same methodology.

Your "rationalization" unnecessary. "Vaporize" does not need to be taken literally - again - as any idiot with access to google could tell you in about two seconds.

a very minor distinction man. She meant "50kg of vapor is not observed, therefore vaporization is not occuring". The same fallacy is committed regardless. You don't have to play mr. hero for her when you didn't do it for me after I was dogpiled earlier.

Its not a fallacy, its an objective observation.

^I can't see this image right now because I'm using a computer that has image hosting services blocked. But if I remember correctly an answer to your question is on this page about holding the energy or something.

What is this supposed to prove? How is this a response to what I said? What the fuck is it? Where is it from?

I know where you're going with this too. You're going to claim its a chain-reaction weapon therefore it doesn't output as much power because the target is doing most of the work or something to that effect. I disagree. Dialogue also says phasers are directed energy weapons as do the tech manuals. I'm not capable of concedeing a lie in my mind until someone convinces me which no one's come close to doing yet.

LOL. A weapon which utilises an obvious exotic chain reaction that is dependent on the target and 'directed energy weapon' are not two mutually exclusive concepts.

At no point in your rambling, pseudoscientific bullshit have you come anywhere close to anything resembling a legitimate response to anything anyone has told you. Instead, you post irrelevant nonsense without explanation, make up non-existent fallacies, make dubious appeals to popularity about what "trekkies" think (as if that matters) and simply ignoring everything you can't answer.

You now officially have one last chance to provide an actual response to my post that I asked you to respond to, and some scan from some (non-canon, by definition) book which you don't even attempt to explain doesn't count. So I'm waiting.

[Darth Tedious]

What is this supposed to prove? How is this a response to what I said? What the fuck is it? Where is it from?

It's from the TNG TM, and actually states (sadly for darthy) that phasers are a DET weapon at low settings, and chain-reaction based at higher settings (the very settings that are claimed to vapourise). The SEM:NDF ratios are indicative of this. It seems odd that he would try to use this as evidence while he's trying to argue against the NDF theory.
If you examine the text for 'Setting 8', it is in almost complete contradction to his hypothesis.

A further thought occurred to me about the vapourisation theory-
If vapourisation is occurring, the phaser would have to be projecting some sort of containment field to stop the vapour escaping (or the target exploding, for that matter) in addition to all the other amazing shit it's being claimed to do. This whole theory turns phasers from an amazingly efficient weapon to a retardedly inefficient one.

The most confusing thing of all is that phasers, while being chain reaction based, cause more destruction in their target than blasters do. And they do it while expending less power. Which would make them a superior weapon. Yet darthy insists they must be DET. I'm not sure whether this is so he can wank about "TEHY HAS MOOOORE POWAH!!!1!", or whether he is simply unable to grasp that a weapon could be more efficient, and thus cause greater destruction while imparting less energy. The latter seems likely, as he earlier claimed that the Death Star is vastly superior to the Galaxy Gun, because it imparts greater energy (even though it only produces the same result).

[Serafina]

Doing something via DET does have an advantage: It is more likely to work on all targets, for example against shields or heavy metals.
However, it also has an disadvantage: you need more energy in order to do so. This will strain your supply chain, reduce the amount of ammo you can carry around and so on.

Of course, Trektards don't grasp logistics, so the second point is typically ignored.
Chain reacions do however have another advantage, as demonstrated here: They can do all sorts of funky stuff, while DET-weapons are limited much more by thermodynamics. If you had a DET hand weapon that would vaporize a human completely, you would most likely kill yourself due to all those explosives effects and boiling steam. It's much more practical to do so via a technobabble chain reaction.
darthy knows this (as far as he knows anything, he is probably more working based on reflexes) - he is constantly using technobabble as a justification for phasers not doing that. Ironically, he is using the exact same explanation as the NDF-model (turned into neutrinos), yet is still incapable of discarding that they are vaporized first, like any rational person would.


It basically boils down to this:
NDF-theory: The target get's turned into neutrions, thereby explaining why it does not affect it's surroundings. "Vaporize" is simply a term for that process - either the language has changed or it's a colloquial term like it's often used today.
darthy: The target must be vaporized because they use that word, and they always use words in their 100% technical meaning. Random technobabble handwaves all problems with this away and ignores that we never see all that vapor.

[Formless]

NDF-theory: The target get's turned into neutrions,

NEUTRINOS. Jesus Christ, Serafina, I don't usually correct your spelling but a) this isn't a case where the word is spelled differently between English and German and b) that sounds entirely too goddamn much like the word "neutron" and you do not want to give trektards the impression that phasers split atoms.

[Azron_Stoma]

Serafina has spelled it properly numerous times, don't get bent out of shape over a typo,

[Formless]

I think there is every reason to believe that this particular trektard can and will twist people's words if there is even the slightest ambiguity. In one of these other threads you can see him try and feign forgetfulness about an argument I made just one page earlier in a three page thread. If I were getting "bent out of shape" I'd probably be ranting about how her grammar/spelling in general is just plain bad, but since I know why she has trouble with it I don't do that.

[Connor MacLeod]

One simply has to google definitions of "vaporize" to notice that it can be interpreted multiple ways (one of which involves, I believe, simply killing and/or making things vanish.) Indeed, considering how often I get critized for taking "vaporize" too literally (IT'S JUST LIKE TNT! INJECT X ENERGY INTO TARGET AND ITS JUST LIKE A BOMB) most people would assume the complete opposite ("vaporize" just means the target blows up, disintegrates, etc.) Hell, its happened to SW (and Trek) often enough (BDZ anyone?)

What it amounts to is that darthy's theory is ludicrously over-complicated: it relies on so many assumptions occuring in one particular manner (note how the thermodynamics implications of his theories are completely glossed over, not only in what happens to the target but with the weapon itself.) that the only way it could possibly have any merit is if it was the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation. Since it has yet to be shown that is the case, it dies simply on the basis of Occam's Razor.

[darthy]

hmm.. ok

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Sure I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, just that people haven't made much headway in convincing me otherwise. It's an extraordinary claim to st canon to say phasers don't vaporize when its stated in tech manuals, episodes, and by star trek writers that they do. We even see some vapor. Let me ask you this: if it's so obvious that phasers don't vaporize, why hasn't anyone provided me some dialogue which says that? Surely there must be something.

This isn't a subject for debate in this forum. Dialogue is inferior to visuals here. Either shape up, or ship out.

Don't remember seeing that posted anywhere. I've seen the issue of dialogue vs visuals posted before on this forum by even wong himself though. Even if I concede that visuals trump dialogue in general, that doesn't necessarily mean the visuals are in contradiction with dialogue. Our understanding of physical laws has been shown that it cannot be reliably applied to what a phaser can or can't do in every situation. In Star Trek III Kirk sent a Klingon firing with a phaser hit without any kind of recoil violating the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

Theoretically, the effects we see of slow disintegration can be explained by some kind of phenomia that stores energy, possibly with a statis field, in or around its target as potential energy before vaporizing its target after that energy is released slowly. Star trek has demonstrated the technological ability to make matter hold its form like with the quantum stasis field which kept Odo from turning into a liquid or gas in episode "die is cast". The slow disintegration effect could be the result of a stasis field analogous to the kind the Tal Shi'ar used and what we're actually seeing is not the energy from the phaser traveling through the body but the stasis field that's holding the body together wearing off.

You're right that if someone were vaporized by conventional means the gases released would be deadly to everyone around it. If they are being vaporized, isn't it reasonable to assume that they would design to weapon to keep that gas away from the shooter? That's all we would see happening here.

Even if we assume it is a chain reaction in the slow disintegration examples you had in mind, that doesn't inherently mean that phasers are not capable of the power output to vaporize a person using directed energy. We see in the original series that phasers vaporized targets without a slow disintegration effect. In episode "The Galileo Seven", a few phasers were drained in order to launch a shuttlecraft into orbit. It is estimated that these phasers have a power capacity of 15 to 60 GJ. It has also been estimated that a phasers output is between 58 to 145 MW. Calculations for all that and other examples debunking chain reaction claims were already done here http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-phasers.html

Let me know if there are any more old ass arguments you want me to google for.

Does that really sound like a figure of speech? If it is a figure of speech, we see this same figure of speech used by Jem'Hardar, Cardassians, EMH, to name a few.

Which, incidentially, all use the same language (thanks to the universal translator).

Good point that also occurred to me before you mentioned it. Here:

episode "You Are Cordially Invited"

JAKE: Not always. I sold my first book today.
QUARK: Really? How much did you get for it?
JAKE: It's just a figure of speech. The Federation News Service is going to publish a book of my stories about life on the station under Dominion rule.

episode "The Q and the Grey"

JANEWAY: Who brought the champagne?
NEELIX: Champagne? Captain, if I thought you wanted champagne.
JANEWAY: Relax, Neelix. It's a figure of speech.

episode "Angel One"

BEATA: Exactly. I knew you were bright enough to understand. You see, women, by our very nature, want only what is best for their men.
RIKER: Men are not objects to be possessed, Mistress Beata.
BEATA: Of course they're not. It was merely a figure of speech.

episode "Deadlock"

EMH 2: Good news, Ensign. Our baby is perfectly healthy. There's no sign of any interspecies abnormalities.
WILDMAN 2: Our baby?
EMH 2: A figure of speech. I am, in part, responsible for bringing her into the world. You may hold her now.

episode "Visionary"

QUARK: (bringing drinks) Here you are, gentlemen. And how is DS Nine's most famous fortune teller?
O'BRIEN: Don't call me that. I haven't told anyone's fortune.
QUARK: Just a figure of speech. On the other hand, if you should find yourself in the future again and you find yourself passing by the dabo table, would it really hurt to take a look at the numbers coming up on the wheel? I could make it worth your while.

episode "Too Short A Season"

JAMESON: Neglected to mention I began some new therapy before I left. Seems to be working. I haven't felt this good since the last time I was in space. The Gettysburg. All I needed to get me out of that chair was the thought of walking the decks in command of a starship again.
PICARD: Admiral, you only have the conn temporarily.
JAMESON: A figure of speech. Of course she's your ship. I'll just keep an eye on her for a while.

episode "Unification Part 2"

DATA: Using conventional means, that would be true. However, I suggest we piggy-back our signal on Romulan subspace transmissions.
K'VADA: Piggy-back?
DATA: A human metaphor, pardon me. We would use a Romulan signal as a carrier for own one, thus disguising its origin.

episode "Accession"

BASHIR: Quark, did you hear? Chief O'Brien is having a baby.
QUARK: I thought your females carried your young.
O'BRIEN: My wife. My wife is having the baby.

the universal translator doesn't seem translate figures of speech or defined english words too well. That's odd no one's challenged the vaporization claim if you're right, especially data you'd think he'd be all over that.

[Darth Tedious]

Theoretically, the effects we see of slow disintegration can be explained by some kind of phenomia that stores energy, possibly with a statis field, in or around its target as potential energy before vaporizing its target after that energy is released slowly. Star trek has demonstrated the technological ability to make matter hold its form like with the quantum stasis field which kept Odo from turning into a liquid or gas in episode "die is cast". The slow disintegration effect could be the result of a stasis field analogous to the kind the Tal Shi'ar used and what we're actually seeing is not the energy from the phaser traveling through the body but the stasis field that's holding the body together wearing off.

Now phasers project stasis and containment fields, too! The wonders never cease!

Calculations for all that and other examples debunking chain reaction claims were already done here http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-phasers.html

You're appealing to picard578's authority? You might want to search the HoS before you go thinking his arguments hold water.

the universal translator doesn't seem translate figures of speech or defined english words too well.

1) How many of the examples given were even using UT?
2) Almost all of your examples involve phrases, not single words.
3) Are you suggesting that Picard and Admiral Jameson weren't both speaking English?

[Eternal_Freedom]

In Star Trek III Kirk sent a Klingon firing with a phaser hit without any kind of recoil violating the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

You're a fucking idiot. I am going to assume you meant Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, not the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics (which roughly put means you can't cool something to absolute zero).

How about you get basic physics right before trying to speculate on ST stuff?

EDIT: Also, it should be "flying" not "firing." THAT I can ignore as a typo because you're just thick, but getting laws of motion and thermodynamics mixed up shows you know sweet fuck all about what you are saying.

[Batman]

hmm.. ok

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Sure I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, just that people haven't made much headway in convincing me otherwise.

Which couldn't possibly have anything to do with you blithely refusing to be convinced, regardless of the fact that those people have a lot more solid case than you do (and that's assuming you have a case to begin with).

It's an extraordinary claim to st canon to say phasers don't vaporize when its stated in tech manuals,

which aren't canon and also explicitly say they don't,

episodes

every last one of which fails to show them doing so,

and by star trek writers that they do.

A pity writers intent is irrelevant, and the people saying it are routinely wrong. Not that you blithely ignore anybody mentioning that vapourize is routinely used colloquially to mean something other than actual vapourization.

We even see some vapor.

Every once in a blue moon, in amounts that would accounf for an infinitesimal fraction of the allegedly vapourized mass.

Let me ask you this: if it's so obvious that phasers don't vaporize, why hasn't anyone provided me some dialogue which says that?

[]Why would we need to when the entirety of visual evidence says there isn't any?[/i]

Surely there must be something.

There is. 40 years of Trek visual showing no vapourization whatsoever.

This isn't a subject for debate in this forum. Dialogue is inferior to visuals here. Either shape up, or ship out.

Don't remember seeing that posted anywhere.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or, as appears to be your usual modus operandi, simply ignored the parts you didn't like.

I've seen the issue of dialogue vs visuals posted before on this forum by even wong himself though. Even if I concede that visuals trump dialogue in general, that doesn't necessarily mean the visuals are in contradiction with dialogue.

When 100% of available evidence say dialogue (or at least dialogue as taken literally for no sane reason) is wrong, yes it does. Zero evidence for vapourization from phasers.

Our understanding of physical laws has been shown that it cannot be reliably applied to what a phaser can or can't do in every situation. In Star Trek III Kirk sent a Klingon firing with a phaser hit without any kind of recoil violating the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

What has the 3rd law of thermodynamics got to do with recoil? Anyway, that sequence is physically impossible regardless of recoil. Kirk could have fired a 120mm gun at the Klingon and he wouldn't have been thrown back like that.

Theoretically, the effects we see of slow disintegration can be explained by some kind of phenomia that stores energy, possibly with a statis field, in or around its target as potential energy before vaporizing its target after that energy is released slowly.

As evidenced by nothing whatsoever.

Star trek has demonstrated the technological ability to make matter hold its form like with the quantum stasis field which kept Odo from turning into a liquid or gas in episode "die is cast". The slow disintegration effect could be the result of a stasis field analogous to the kind the Tal Shi'ar used and what we're actually seeing is not the energy from the phaser traveling through the body but the stasis field that's holding the body together wearing off.

Do you actually understand the term evidence? Could, would, might is irrelevant. Show that this is actually what happens.

You're right that if someone were vaporized by conventional means the gases released would be deadly to everyone around it. If they are being vaporized, isn't it reasonable to assume that they would design to weapon to keep that gas away from the shooter? That's all we would see happening here.

Presupposes they are with no evidence of that being the case whatsoever. By that line of reasoning I can give Wars hand blasters yottaton firepower but blithely assume they use technobabble to keep the curiously absent side effects of that kind of firepower from showing. What's good for the goose...

Even if we assume it is a chain reaction in the slow disintegration examples you had in mind, that doesn't inherently mean that phasers are not capable of the power output to vaporize a person using directed energy.

Actually, explicit energy capacity quotes from the series pretty much say they don't. Single figure MJ.

We see in the original series that phasers vaporized targets without a slow disintegration effect. In episode "The Galileo Seven", a few phasers were drained in order to launch a shuttlecraft into orbit. It is estimated that these phasers have a power capacity of 15 to 60 GJ.

By whom? Especially given that the only way to get the shuttle on the trajectory it followed is technobabble so the enrgy requirements are completely up for grabs.

It has also been estimated that a phasers output is between 58 to 145 MW. Calculations for all that and other examples debunking chain reaction claims were already done here http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-phasers.html

Bwaha.Bwahaha. Bwahahaha. You're using Picard as a reference?
TNG explicitly says single figure MJ. Where's your reverence for dialogue gone suddenly?

[darthy]

You're appealing to picard578's authority? You might want to search the HoS before you go thinking his arguments hold water.

and whose authority would you expect me to to appeal to instead? Mike Wong's? He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering sure, not in physics and just a bachelor's degree as I recall.

2) Almost all of your examples involve phrases, not single words.

hmm almost all. I mentioned a single word example just so someone like you wouldn't bring up a point like this but I guess when you got nothing else to work with, almost having a point is about the best you can do huh?

episode "Little Green Men"

ROM: It was an accident. We're from the future. The warp core was sabotaged. It's all Cousin Gaila's fault. I want to go home! I want my Moogie.
WAINWRIGHT: Moogie?

episode "his way"

VIC: I know what you're thinking. He has pretty sweet pipes for a light bulb.
DAX: Light bulb?
VIC: That's what I am, right? A collection of photons and forcefields. You know, your basic heuristic, fully interactive hologram.
O'BRIEN: He knows he's a hologram?
BASHIR: Felix designed him that way. He thought it gave him the right attitude for the era.
VIC: If you're going to work Vegas in the sixties, you'd better know the score. otherwise, you're going to look like a Clyde.
KIRA: A Clyde?
VIC: A Harvey, you know.
WORF: Harvey?
VIC: A square. You know what a square is, right?
O'BRIEN: It's one side of a cube.
VIC: Well, I guess that answers my question.

You're a fucking idiot. I am going to assume you meant Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, not the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics (which roughly put means you can't cool something to absolute zero).

How about you get basic physics right before trying to speculate on ST stuff?

EDIT: Also, it should be "flying" not "firing." THAT I can ignore as a typo because you're just thick, but getting laws of motion and thermodynamics mixed up shows you know sweet fuck all about what you are saying.

Now that's an Ad hominem. Try attacking the argument and not the person next time. Have we been reduced to correcting spelling now to make points? Yes I meant 3rd law of motion.

In fairness Vympel, those are also the numbers you get from Mike's calculator on the scince page of the main site. Much as it pains me to back up darthy.

But you are right, the 200 gigaton quad guns are only seen firing in Republic Commando (I played that mission yesterday). And geuss what? It still takes two Acclamators worth to punch through a Lucrehulk's shield.

You misspelled "science" and "guess" in one of your earlier posts. By the way we do see the 200 gigaton quad guns firing in star wars the clone wars. When obi-wan ordered all ships to target the malevolence at maximum firepower, they show a closeup of these quad lasers firing. I checked their location and appearance in the ICS, they are the same weapons in question.



These weapons fired at the malevolence at maximum firepower while the malevolence's shields were down. After I brought this up, the warsies tried to handwave it by saying the malevolence had exotic hull armor. Needless to say I wasn't impressed by these weapons.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It is not an ad hominem. I was not addresseing any point you made. Nor was I dismissing a point you made because I don't like you. I was pointing out how terminally retarded you must be.

And there is a BIG difference between "correcting spelling" as in scince=science and getting Motion and thermodynamics mixed up.

[Batman]

You're appealing to picard578's authority? You might want to search the HoS before you go thinking his arguments hold water.

and whose authority would you expect me to to appeal to instead? Mike Wong's? He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering sure, not in physics and just a bachelor's degree as I recall.

Mike's calculations also have the advantage of not having been proven flat out wrong, or being based or erroneous assumptions, or ignoring canon. You know, like Picard routinely was.

You're a fucking idiot. I am going to assume you meant Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, not the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics (which roughly put means you can't cool something to absolute zero).
How about you get basic physics right before trying to speculate on ST stuff?
EDIT: Also, it should be "flying" not "firing." THAT I can ignore as a typo because you're just thick, but getting laws of motion and thermodynamics mixed up shows you know sweet fuck all about what you are saying.

Now that's an Ad hominem. Try attacking the argument and not the person next time. Have we been reduced to correcting spelling now to make points? Yes I meant 3rd law of motion.

That's exactly what he did, you know. Getting those laws mixed up does mean you had no clue what you were talking about. Mixing up the 3rd law of thermodynamics with the 3rd law of motion is not a spelling error, it's a clear indication you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

In fairness Vympel, those are also the numbers you get from Mike's calculator on the scince page of the main site. Much as it pains me to back up darthy.
But you are right, the 200 gigaton quad guns are only seen firing in Republic Commando (I played that mission yesterday). And geuss what? It still takes two Acclamators worth to punch through a Lucrehulk's shield.

You misspelled "science" and "guess" in one of your earlier posts. By the way we do see the 200 gigaton quad guns firing in star wars the clone wars. When obi-wan ordered all ships to target the malevolence at maximum firepower, they show a closeup of these quad lasers firing. I checked their location and appearance in the ICS, they are the same weapons in question.

And now you're flat out lying. There were no Acclamators seen engaging the Malavolence. EVER. The only ships, ever, seen to engage her were Venators. Not that you have provided any calculations whatsoever to support you firepower (or lack thereof) numbers, of course.

These weapons fired at the malevolence at maximum firepower while the malevolence's shields were down.

Which doesn't tell us anything about the Acclamator MTLs as those were Venator guns I'm afraid.

After I brought this up, the warsies tried to handwave it by saying the malevolence had exotic hull armor.

Which we know for a fact they do. Not that you ever offered any calculations on the firepower of turbolasers based on that sequence.
But then, you're too stupid to remember what kind of Republic ship was doing the shooting, despite me already having told you you were wrong.

[Darth Tedious]

and whose authority would you expect me to to appeal to instead?

You could try to make your arguments for yourself. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy, after all.

2) Almost all of your examples involve phrases, not single words.

hmm almost all. I mentioned a single word example just so someone like you wouldn't bring up a point like this...

The only 'single word' example was "piggy-bank", which is a colloquialism (and actually a hyphenation of two words, I was being generous when I said 'almost').

...but I guess when you got nothing else to work with, almost having a point is about the best you can do huh?

Which would explain why you addressed one out of three points I made, and focused on a single word out of that sentence.

As for your new single word examples, Moogie is a name and Vic is using 20th Century slang, for fuck's sake.

Have we been reduced to correcting spelling now to make points?

This from someone who chose to ignore one of my points because I made a spelling mistake in Latin. Can you spell 'hypocrite'?

Really, if people were going to pick on your spelling, they would have asked if 'sabotosh' is something you do when you 'infrutrate' an enemy ship. E_F was pointing out that you had used entirely wrong words, not that you were spelling them wrong.

[Darth Tedious]

Further point: Where was the UT when Vic was speaking English in the Holodeck, fucktard?

Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with the point in question. You aren't even trying to argue. You are just attempting to waste people's time with your worthless hatfuckery, while not even addressing any of the issues that have been raised (read: trolling).

[darthy]

I didn't put a lot of thought into those arguments cus I was half asleep. Plus they were mostly copied from another site and a post I didn't want to make but the mod demanded an actual reply so I gave him one. The violation of the 3rd law of motion which I accidentally typed violation of 3rd law of thermodynamics was a freudian slip because someone else mentioned violating the laws of thermodynamics and I was thinking about it while making that post causing me to type "thermodynamics" instead of "motion". The point stands that the visual effects of a phaser do not have to conform with conventional physics as we know it today as we see in that example. No explanation should be necessary since everyone knew what I was talking about there, that's why it was an ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of the argument.

The only 'single word' example was "piggy-bank", which is a colloquialism (and actually a hyphenation of two words, I was being generous when I said 'almost').

never gave "piggy-bank" as a single word example.

episode "nemesis"

RAFIN: And who but a Krady beast would leave the nullified bodies of mine and ours upturned so they'll never descend to the gloried way after?
CHAKOTAY: What do you mean by upturned?

episode "caretaker"

JANEWAY: Good. We'll beam you over and tow your ship into our shuttle bay. Mister Tuvok, go to Transporter Room two and meet our guest.
NEELIX [on viewscreen]: Beam?
JANEWAY: We have a technology which can take you instantly from your ship to ours. It's quite harmless. May we?

episode "Let He Who Is Without Sin"

QUARK: I have seen drier days on Ferenginar, and we have a hundred and seventy eight different words for rain. Right now it's glebbening out there. And that's bad.

I think the point being that using vaporization as a figure of speech single word or not, doesn't work too well. You'd think we would have seen someone question it by now. Like with this:

episode "the naked now"

RIKER: You were right. Somebody blew the hatch. They were all sucked out into space.
DATA: Correction, sir, that's blown out.
RIKER: Thank you, Data.
DATA: A common mistake, sir,

or this

episode "all good things"

O'BRIEN: We have to realign the entire power grid. We'll all be burning the midnight oil on this one.
DATA: That would be inadvisable.
O'BRIEN: Excuse me?
DATA: If you attempt to ignite a petroleum product on this ship at zero hundred hours, it will activate the fire suppression system, which would seal off this entire compartment.
O'BRIEN: That was just an expression.
DATA: Expression of what?
O'BRIEN: A figure of speech. I was trying to tell him that we'd be working late.
DATA: Ah. Then to burn the midnight oil implies late work?

never corrected the use of the word vaporization in the show.

Further point: Where was the UT when Vic was speaking English in the Holodeck, fucktard?

simple fucktard. Only one person is needed to have UT in order to have 2 way communication evidenced by episode "little green men". I doubt worf, dax, and kira understand english too well moron stupid idiot shitface.

Anyway...

the death star had some 7,000 TIE fighters, 4 strike cruisers, 20,000 military and transport vessels, and more than 11,000 combat vehicles. With the use of these ships and their hyperdrives, the borg would have access to virtually every planet in the galaxy. So what's going to be done to prevent them from spreading all over?

[Azron_Stoma]

never corrected the use of the word vaporization in the show.

He also thinks a fish is an amphibian.

Further point: Where was the UT when Vic was speaking English in the Holodeck, fucktard?

simple fucktard. Only one person is needed to have UT in order to have 2 way communication evidenced by episode "little green men". I doubt worf, dax, and kira understand english too well moron stupid idiot shitface.

Except both O'brien and Vic have english as their first language...

Also I don't think trying to change the subject, even if it is back to the OP, is a good idea given your current situation.

[darthy]

Except both O'brien and Vic have english as their first language...

That just shows that even if they speak the same language, there's still confusion with words between a figurative meaning and literal meaning. In general, just because two people are human and appear to be speaking english, does not mean they are. We see that here:

episode "37's"

JANEWAY: Please, if you'll just listen for a moment, I'll try to explain.
NOGAMI: You are all speaking Japanese.
HAYES: Sounds to me like you are speaking English.
JANEWAY: It's because of a device we have, a universal translator. It allows us to talk to each other even though our languages aren't the same.

Also I don't think trying to change the subject, even if it is back to the OP, is a good idea given your current situation.

why not? No unnecessary tangents is rule number 1 in debating here in case you forgot. You guys use the visuals to interpret the dialogue and I use the dialogue to interpret the visuals. That's all I got out of the ramblings. If you could convince me phasers couldn't vaporize then you would have done it by now.

[Connor MacLeod]

I rathre like how the idea of language has to be twisted around so that vaporization can only mean ONE SPECIFIC THING EVER. I mean, it's not like language changes over time, or can take on different meanings, is it?

Basically at this point he's just trying to force the circumstances so his conclusion is the ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER to the situation, because that's the only way it will get off the ground at all. Oh yes, and amazing how pages and pages have gone off on one insignificant detail. A definite trolling win.