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.
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?