Brian Young

I haven't seen that episode in a while, but I don't recall any medical personnel or droids close by. Just Ahsoka and some clone troopers. There are lots of droids aboard, which would be unaffected, and stormtroopers until they removed their helmets to eat or drink. Anyway, the logistics of delivering the weapon is the main problem. In open warfare, for instance, the Death Star is one ship, albeit a very powerful one. The most important point I've been trying to make with my videos is that logistics is the most important factor, not individual ship strength, but how they can be deployed. A thousand star destroyers would be smaller and less powerful than the Death Star, but harder to defend your territory against. They could attack a theoretical 1,000 planets each day. The Death Star can hit one a day. The Death Star is a weapon of terror, and in open warfare, would be only as useful as any other really powerful starship.

Good point. We also see the concussion inside the base at times. From a beam weapon, gosh...

Biological warfare is certainly a way to take out lots of humanoids. There are three problems though. 1. Catching a hyperdrive equipped ship with a warp drive equipped ship, intercepting it, penetrating its defenses, and delivering such a weapon with shields down while taking fire from thousands of turbolasers would be difficult. 2. Biological agents generally take time to work. People get sick and die, but this doesn't happen instantly. While they are waiting to get sick, they are still flying around blowing up planets. So, on balance, they lose more people than they kill. 3. An advanced galactic scale civilization, with considerable experience with a galaxy full of germs, and impressive medical technology, may be able to deal with such a threat. It is certainly a possibility, but a bit of a long shot, as most attempts would be. I agree, T, the Federation would never do such a thing. But they would never resort to planetary bombardment either. These discussions can't really be held back by what they would do, but rather comparing what they could do. If we restrained our comparisons to "being the nice guy," the Federation would lose nearly every conflict. In my system at least, the only objective comparison is the tools available vs the tools available.

Excellent topic, Khas. In case I've never told you, you are a pretty cool dude to have around. Anyway, we know the distance was 17.28 kilometers, because that is what the gunner told General Veers, and it jives with the height of an AT-AT, assuming Hoth is the size of Earth. As far as weapons in Star Wars, most of the time they use beam weapons, which have a completely different effect than explosives. Explosives spread their energy in all directions, beam weapons cause thermal damage (melting, vaporizing) to a single point. So any lateral effects from these beams prove extremely high yield. Of course, you are right about the missiles used by gunships and wheel droids. They obviously are conventional explosives, shaped charge or no. The only counterpoint I can offer is when they also took down a starship (aim right above the fuel cells) with two of them, blowing the ship in half. It is likely that took a higher yield and was a shaped charge. But most of the shots, yes, you make a valid point.

Yeah, Khas brings up a valid point to discuss. But most of these things regarding Star Wars have been addressed recently. *There is visual support for the firepower, every time they blast a 60 meter hole in stuff other folks can't even penetrate, including the Borg. *General Dodonna's statement about half the fleet would require 10 quadrillion Acclamators, suggesting the firepower figures are conservative, or otherwise other ships are many times more powerful than this troop transport. *The ship is not destroyed by its own power generation because it is doing that much work. Nothing is 100% efficient, and even 1% waste heat has to be dispersed. This heat dispersion capability supports the firepower figures as well, and in fact, is in excess. *Asteroid impacts involve momentum, which is a different quantity. Shields and armor are hardened against beam weapon attack, not physical impact. Have you seen the videos??? Yes, there are contradictions on the surface in all these shows, but logical solutions can be derived without going overboard with making things up. Just look at the data and try to come up with a simple solution that fits all the facts. In this case, that is what is going on with the NDF thing. *We are given specific capacities, constant firepower, and even ship vs ship examples with SI units stated onscreen. *We see visual effects where people are completely disintegrated. *When they do, sometimes the carpet has a minor burn underneath, but absolutely no other collateral damage. *We see other times when the same weapon cannot shoot through a mundane metal door. *These statements and events don't jive. However, we also hear them discuss "disintegration," and even describe these effects as being different from other weapons. Both Spock and Tuvok discuss their phasers being unable to affect "the molecular structure" of a target, and therefore unable to damage them. Yes, dense materials would, in a general sense, be more difficult for most beam weapons to damage, but the disparity with phasers is extremely wide. Making an entire Human disappear and not blasting through a metal door that a plasma torch can cut through are impossible to reconcile, given normal thermal effects (DS9, The Forsaken). But this "disintegration" thing is how they affect their targets, not with thermal effects, making calculation impossible when taking an event by itself. We don't have a good understanding of disintegration with modern science. However, given the energy capacities (which, in another thread are demonstrated to be consistent with the energy release when a phaser overloads and explodes), the power level given in a test, and given limitations imposed by events involving runabouts or starships (by default greater than small arms), we can conclude that these levels of energy are needed to disintegrate the targets they can. Since they have more difficulty with metals and other more dense materials consistently, it is logical to conclude they simply involve more molecules than this "disintegration of the molecular structure" can affect sufficiently with those energy levels. This is consistent with all the facts. Now, the TM gives a buzzword of "Nuclear Disruption Force" or NDF. This is as good a word as any, so that is the title slapped on it, rather than invent something out of thin air. As I recall, this hypothesis was proposed by Mike Wong. Some dispute anything he says, because he is a bit fanatical (Ad Hominem). Some dispute this, because they prefer higher levels of firepower, as if these were thermal effects (disputed by almost every example in the history of Star Trek). Some dispute it because they think it is a way to make Star Wars tech superior (made up BS). It is the most consistent hypothesis I've seen to date that explains all the effects and statements from televised episodes and theatrical films. It was derived in a scientific way by a scientific mind. But the problem with acceptance is not with evidence, but rather most people involved in any way with these debates (even indirectly) don't think scientifically. Curtis Saxton is a scientist, but he is only interested in Star Wars. Mike Wong is an Engineer, but he debates in favor of Star Wars. Most other folk prefer to fling buzzwords and insults, without really knowing what they are talking about, or bothering to compile evidence and look at it objectively. So ask yourself: what is your specific problem with the NDF hypothesis? What part of the reasoning do you feel is flawed, and can you back it up with onscreen evidence? Otherwise, can you present a superior hypothesis, complete with all the examples, explaining them more effectively?

Phasers don't use thermal energy to melt or vaporize targets. They attack the molecular structure, causing it to break apart at the molecular level - disintegration. Now, this is work, and therefore requires energy input. They are just using that energy *in a different way*. But it makes sense that they have less effect on dense materials, because they don't have the energy input to affect that many molecules. They do have the energy input to affect the fewer molecules of less dense materials. They do cause dense rocks to turn red hot, like when they warm by them, because they are too dense to disintegrate, and energy input that does no work turns into heat (First Law of Thermodynamics). Therefore, dense rock turns red hot, less dense rock is disintegrated. Heavy metals would also heat up, but not enough to turn red hot, melt, or vaporize, because the energy input is insufficient. However, this is an ingenious way to use beam weapons, because without increasing the firepower, you increase the damage against the most common targets many times over.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20522425/costofliving1.mov Here is the clip in question. Interesting to note, this asteroid, a natural formation, causes so much trouble with the technobabble. Data said another photon torpedo wouldn't have any effect. The tractor beam wouldn't lock on. But a plain old particle beam from the deflector blew it up. But that is the thing about technobabble. Even The Doctor's sonic screwdriver can't do the job of a hammer. Fortunately these ships can do some of it all.

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if this has already been stated. I'm using my phone's 3G connection out of town. In Best of Both Worlds, Geordie suggested using the main deflector as a weapon. It was the most powerful component of the ship that uses "controlled frequencies." I don't have the quote, and I'm 200 miles from home. But that is the reason they used the main deflector, and it would deliver more energy "than our phasers or photon torpedoes could ever provide." And the main deflector having this effect does not mean phasers don't. Just in lower magnitude. There are quotes that indicate phasers affect the "molecular structure" of a target, which is what the whole NDF thing is about. It doesn't matter what you call it, but they simply affect matter *in a different way* than other weapons. This is their greatest advantage, IMO. Some people get caught up in the whole thisvsthat scenarios and focus on which weapon has more firepower. Don't forget that, if a phaser rifle can sustain a megawatt of firepower as stated in a test by Data, that is more than enough for small arms. There are significant differences in beam weapons and explosives, but in terms of energy, that outclasses an RPG. But it isn't enough to vaporize a person in one second. Phasers don't cause collateral damage outside the target, but they completely disintegrate the target. But they have far less effect on dense metals or rocks. These things are ubiquitous in Star Trek, and prove these weapons are not standard thermal effects weapons. They can stun on wide beam, even from orbit, fire in beams or pulses, or even erupt in flak bursts. Certainly not a standard laser. So why the opposition to technobabble?

And you are welcome here.

Remember that I told you this, if you don't remember anything else. The argument is made by the evidence, not the man. Attacking the man is a fallacy called Ad Hominem.

Does anyone know where to get the song "I hate you" from Star Trek 4? It is one of my favorite things in Star Trek.

YouTube is cool and all, but I want the song on my phone, appletv, iPad, etc.

It isn't on iTunes. You can get the CD from Amazon for $20, but it isn't available for download AFAIK. Maybe someone else knows where it is.

Yeah, but it costs $20. I don't hate you that badly.

Just introducing myself. My name is Brian. Some of you may have heard of me, but none of it was true.

Well, those are just statements. Actual shots seen onscreen tell a different tale.

Yeah, I saw lurking in another thread that you don't hear well. I'm sorry that prevents you from enjoying the videos. But I have to do what the heart wants to do. The majority of people should benefit more from seeing and hearing it all in video. People can't claim something never happened if I show it right there. I'm attempting to put away all the foolishness most use, and try to do it right. I'm trying to put together a consistent set of criteria and not have too many preconceptions before reviewing the data. My favorite TV show is Babylon 5, and the Minbari lost right out of the gate. Down goes Frasier. I'll fill you in. The Minbari have significant advantages in firepower, numbers, stealth technology, etc. But they are dependent on jumpgates to navigate through hyperspace. The whole beacon system thing. So, take out the jumpgates, and they lose FTL capability. Everyone talks about ship to ship combat, firepower, etc. But by my reckoning, you have to get your ship in position to fight first, because interstellar war involves interstellar distances. So logistics is the most important thing. In my system, logistics includes numbers, position, speed, and industrial capacity. Then ground combat, because the objective would mostly be to conquer, and always to defend, planets. The third thing is planetary bombardment, because some planets cannot be invaded. Coruscant, Narn, Founders home world, etc. After that are ship to ship combat, strategic planning or skill, etc. We've spoken before, and I am truly sorry you can't enjoy the videos. I actually think about it. But I'm gonna do what hasn't been done before, and what I really want to do.

Thanks. I'm gonna make this the official forum of my new site. You guys are pretty cool.