StarDestroyer Avenger 0 Posted May 25, 2010 In pratice each photon toropode being fire UFP Space Station is equel to 3 Quantum torpedos. Are you fucking retarded, wait dont strain yourself by answering Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InvaderSkooj 1 Posted May 25, 2010 Well he has a point Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ado Mortumee 500 Posted May 25, 2010 RELEASE THE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!BEES!!!! AGAIN!!!! *Goes back to watching the Scary Monkey Show* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StarDestroyer Avenger 0 Posted May 25, 2010 What a load of shit. Everyone who's ever watched the abomination that is Voyager knows borg ships blow up when you look at them funny. Somebody needs to remove his head from his ass and actually watch star trek instead of fapping to kirk-spock porn Why did you come back? Does anything that's going on around here make you think I need your help with this moron? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 Having put in the DVD to get slightly better contrast than you picture, I've discovered that the light does support the "bowed out" statement. Amazingly I have discovered something else! The area was phasorized! Rendering any calculation of yield meaningless, and conveniently providing evidence that shipboard phasers DO operate based on NDF. WTF is the "bowed out" statement. Who said they did not have a NDF effect?. Are you sure you are arguing with the right person cos you keep claiming i have said things i have not. Borg wankery ignored/ Wankery?, i was agreeing with you.... Are you claiming that there wasn't a single example of NDF in the delta quadrant? Disrupters cause NDF as well. Can you bloody read, i am saying what im saying why are you claiming or thinking that im claiming summat else or more?. WTF is wrong with you and why are you arguing things i have not said?. being a dumbass, I'm sure you don't. The calcs are based off of the torpedo penetration in STVI, and use the fireball radius of a nuclear explosion as a starting point. I get 10 tons straight, so I threw in a radiation shielding/armor factor of 1000 and got 10KT (Which is generous) Where did I say they couldn't adapt to phasers, dumbass? You claimed others said it and tried parceling me up with them, i was replying to that it, try reading your own bloody writing. Are you telling me that you think First Contact was the first time somebody shot a bullet at them? And a .45 isn't a particularly energetic form of bullet either. Who knows, we can bet that they did not expect to be shot at by projectiles as they were going after the federation and the borg being efficient would not waste time with shielding for it. And I find your lack of understanding disturbing. I claimed that we saw no evidence of shields, which means that the laws of thermodynamics will be acting on the original body, not the absorption effect of the shields. ST shields can be thought of - from a thermodynamic viewpoint - as a device that stores energy and reemits it slowly (hence the shields down to 30% type comments). I understand that just fine as my comments below show. Assuming a 10 meter detonation distance (likely to be rather conservative) a 10KT explosion will vaporize a crater that is neither wide, nor deep - less than 2 meters directly under the detonation point, dropping to about 70mm at 49 meters from the detonation point. A 50 meter distance reduces that even farther. So to put it simply your so called science idea is a worthless pile of crap because the torps have NO EFFECT AT ALL not even scorching or marking of any kind let alone damage however small. You preach about your science just like that twat on SB but when it comes down to it the fact is that the damage your so called science MUST SHOW from the torps no matter the yield is not there. So please explain how if this is accurate:- "we saw no evidence of shields, which means that the laws of thermodynamics will be acting on the original body, not the absorption effect of the shields." Why we see 0 damage nada, zero, ZIP or even scorching on the hull of the cube from the torps, the laws of thermodynamics you wave about like you invented them say there MUST BE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 Anyway to make it short "thermodynamic boy" needs to show how even though he claims there is no evidence of shields on the cube when the photons hit why they do 0 dmg to the hull of the cube, not slight, not even scorching or a tiny dent ZERO EFFECT. We certainly do dot see this:- Assuming a 10 meter detonation distance (likely to be rather conservative) a 10KT explosion will vaporize a crater that is neither wide, nor deep - less than 2 meters directly under the detonation point, dropping to about 70mm at 49 meters from the detonation point. A 50 meter distance reduces that even farther. Mocking moderators, while perfectly allowable, is not generally the wisest course when you can't seem to make any argument other than: "WHAAAAAAAAAA I'm a fucktard who believes in magic and everyone must agree with me. SDN was mean to me. SB was mean to me. I'm a Crack Smoking Donkey Fucker!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 Anyway to make it short "thermodynamic boy" needs to show how even though he claims there is no evidence of shields on the cube when the photons hit why they do 0 dmg to the hull of the cube, not slight, not even scorching or a tiny dent ZERO EFFECT. We certainly do dot see this:- Actually, since that would be essentially invisible at the scale we are talking about, Moron Boy, Part the Second, needs to show A: Why he thinks this is not a case of the yield being low; B: Why he thinks that his obviously inadequate educational accomplishment and logical faculties qualify him for anything other than the title "Jason's Poolboy;" and C: Exactly how he thinks shields work - if not in the storage/release model. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 Actually, since that would be essentially invisible at the scale we are talking about, A: Why he thinks this is not a case of the yield being low. Ok so this is what i have managed to piece together of your theory so far. 1. High energy weapons/discharges leave large black scorch marks. 2. The borg cubes outer area consists of large gaps of empty space and interwoven pipes ect and no armour. 3. The borg had no shields when the torps hit. 4.The laws of thermodynamics will be acting on the hull when the torps hit. 5. You claim the photons hit for 10kt. So if the photons are hitting the hull 1. Why do we not see more "scorch marks" from the explosions, especially since the explosions seem to be roughly 1500m in diameter. 2. If the hull is unarmoured and just interwoven pipes and empty space the damage would be visible and noticeable but it is not and in fact it is directly mentioned that the photons have no effect..."the borg ship was not damaged". I know you think you are making sense but from my perspective you are contradicting yourself, first you say there are scorch marks and that borg cubes are mostly open space and pipework ect without armour. Then you start raving about "the laws of thermodynamics" and how the cube is also unshielded and in doing so all that you are saying that the torps should hit hull (no shield), they should do noticable damage (no armour and mostly empty space and pipes ect) that contradicts what we see and hear on screen and to cap it all we see some of the photon torps explode in a 1500m diameter blast that should have left nasty sooty black "scorch marks" over a large amount of the hull of the cube. Maybe you suck at explaining or maybe you just have not looked at your theory as a whole and only in pieces but from my perspective it is a mass of contradiction. B: Why he thinks that his obviously inadequate educational accomplishment and logical faculties qualify him for anything other than the title "Jason's Poolboy;" "Inadequate educational accomplishment"...?, Try virtually 0 education as i did not even finish high school in the UK and hardly turned up for the 3 years before i finally got booted out. I am however now 39 years old and own a established and very successful landscaping and groundwork company, oh and i sometimes go to debate forums like this one while im calculating quotes for customers as a form of chillax therapy. Pointing out the rather large flaws in your theory (or explanation) and serving you up what you dish out in regards to insults and name calling so you had to make a threat as a moderator rather than find a way out like a good debater is a points victory or even a TKO in my book pal. Firstly I consider getting booted from the retard fest that is SDN as a mark of honor, secondly i mostly liked SB apart from the biased moderation, and lastly if you cannot take the same "mocking" you dish out by all means abuse your power as a moderator, as i mentioned above you would not be the first to do so after i made a theory of theirs look stupid and its still a win just like when you moved away from suspension of disbelief. You could try the rather extreme idea and either explain your theory better, modify it if you cannot explain the flaws or just have the balls to say you were wrong (if you are wrong) and research another one that makes sense. C: Exactly how he thinks shields work - if not in the storage/release model. I am still researching that topic and have made no decision or comment on how they work at all yet, i may consider doing so after i have finished my research. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted May 25, 2010 Technically Kor, what Questor did wasn't mod abuse. In the Rules For Moderators thread, I mention that adding snide editorial comments to someone's post is allowed, as long as it's in a different color from the original post. Such as Questor and his giant "red pen". However, it WOULD be abuse if he did what certain previous moderators (who will remain nameless) did and completely sodomize a person's post. Deleting everything they said and replacing it with something along the lines of "I fuck goats". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 Technically Kor, what Questor did wasn't mod abuse. In the Rules For Moderators thread, I mention that adding snide editorial comments to someone's post is allowed, as long as it's in a different color from the original post. Such as Questor and his giant "red pen". However, it WOULD be abuse if he did what certain previous moderators (who will remain nameless) did and completely sodomize a person's post. Deleting everything they said and replacing it with something along the lines of "I fuck goats". His silly insults in red are irrelavant and the desperate bleating of a boy drowning in his own crap, the threats for replying in kind are another matter. I am refering to giving me a insulting title ("Jason's Poolboy" and "Jason the Second" or whatever) and avatar (i removed the avatar) just because i questioned his craply worded explanation of his theory or shot down his crappy theory (depending on if it was his explanation that sucked or the theory itself) and then making threats as a MOD because i gave him a insulting nickname back ("thermodynamic boy"). I would not worry about it pal im not and i know that when a person in authority is challenged on a debate topic that he can some times EXPECT his words or beliefs to be law and can react poorly and with ad hom and even threats instead of actually addressing the issue like a regular member would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted May 25, 2010 His silly insults in red are irrelavant and the desperate bleating of a boy drowning in his own crap, the threats for replying in kind are another matter. I am refering to giving me a insulting title ("Jason's Poolboy" or whatever) and avatar (i removed the avatar) just because i questioned his craply worded explanation of his theory or shot down his crappy theory (depending on if it was his explanation that sucked or the theory itself) and then making threats as a MOD because i gave him a insulting nickname back ("thermodynamic boy"). You're welcome to vandalize his avatar/title and profile using the FU store. I gave you the customary 100 rep points for new users. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 You're welcome to vandalize his avatar/title and profile using the FU store. I gave you the customary 100 rep points for new users. I actually didn't change either his title or his avatar. Ok so this is what i have managed to piece together of your theory so far. 1. High energy weapons/discharges leave large black scorch marks. If you had actually read what I wrote, you'd realize that that was modified on watching the episode on something other than youtube, dumbass. 2. The borg cubes outer area consists of large gaps of empty space and interwoven pipes ect and no armour. Yeah, and I'm not wavering on that since I have - you know - watched the episode. 3. The borg had no shields when the torps hit. Yup 4.The laws of thermodynamics will be acting on the hull when the torps hit. This much would be obvious even to Jason. 5. You claim the photons hit for 10kt. No, I claim one calculation shows yields consistent with the low ton to low kiloton range. there are others that show numbers in the mid-gigaton ranges. So if the photons are hitting the hull 1. Why do we not see more "scorch marks" from the explosions, especially since the explosions seem to be roughly 1500m in diameter. Your guess is as good as mine, especially as those "explosions" look an awful lot like the kind of explosions you get out of low energy pyrotechnics, and nothing close to even the yields I'm discussing, much less the ones you are suggesting. 2. If the hull is unarmoured and just interwoven pipes and empty space the damage would be visible and noticeable but it is not and in fact it is directly mentioned that the photons have no effect..."the borg ship was not damaged". Vaporizing a little under 10 m3 of material is no damage on a ship the size of a borg cube, or even the U.S.S. Enterprise. I know you think you are making sense but from my perspective you are contradicting yourself, first you say there are scorch marks and that borg cubes are mostly open space and pipework ect without armour. ITT, you can't read. Then you start raving about "the laws of thermodynamics" and how the cube is also unshielded and in doing so all that you are saying that the torps should hit hull (no shield), they should do noticable damage (no armour and mostly empty space and pipes ect) that contradicts what we see and hear on screen and to cap it all we see some of the photon torps explode in a 1500m diameter blast that should have left nasty sooty black "scorch marks" over a large amount of the hull of the cube. Maybe you suck at explaining or maybe you just have not looked at your theory as a whole and only in pieces but from my perspective it is a mass of contradiction. Wow, you're a dumbass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 "Inadequate educational accomplishment"...?, Try virtually 0 education as i did not even finish high school in the UK and hardly turned up for the 3 years before i finally got booted out. I am however now 39 years old and own a established and very successful landscaping and groundwork company, oh and i sometimes go to debate forums like this one while im calculating quotes for customers as a form of chillax therapy. No comment Pointing out the rather large flaws in your theory (or explanation) and serving you up what you dish out in regards to insults and name calling so you had to make a threat as a moderator rather than find a way out like a good debater is a points victory or even a TKO in my book pal. We are beginning to see why you had such problems with the moderators at SDN and SB. Firstly I consider getting booted from the retard fest that is SDN as a mark of honor, secondly i mostly liked SB apart from the biased moderation, and lastly if you cannot take the same "mocking" you dish out by all means abuse your power as a moderator, as i mentioned above you would not be the first to do so after i made a theory of theirs look stupid and its still a win just like when you moved away from suspension of disbelief. You know, blatantly violating a boards rules when they're posted for everyone to see is generally grounds for banning. Even here, although we don't have many rules here. You could try the rather extreme idea and either explain your theory better, modify it if you cannot explain the flaws or just have the balls to say you were wrong (if you are wrong) and research another one that makes sense. If you've spent any time around this debate, you'd know that I'm one of the more polite and reasonable participants. I am still researching that topic and have made no decision or comment on how they work at all yet, i may consider doing so after i have finished my research. What's there to research? There is only one possible mechanism that behaves in a manner close to the one we see onscreen. It's not perfect, but then again it does work better than sticking my hands in my ears, whining like a baby, and screaming, "IT'S MAGIC!!!!!!!" BLAH BLAH BLAH IM HELPING DERAIL THIS TOPIC MORE! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 If you had actually read what I wrote, you'd realize that that was modified on watching the episode on something other than youtube, dumbass. I do recall a comment you made regarding "bowed out" but when i asked what that was you did not reply, so i did read it, i did reply and you ignored (post #31 right at the top). Yeah, and I'm not wavering on that since I have - you know - watched the episode. So have i and it is clear that they do not have a traditional outer armoured hull and it is obvious that the cube is covered in conduits amoung other things. I actually think it is unreasonable to assume that they are totally unarmoured due a cubes primary purpose but i also find it amusing that you say it IS totally unarmoured and the weaker the hull is the more your theory looks poor due to the laws of thermodynamics you preach about. No, I claim one calculation shows yields consistent with the low ton to low kiloton range. there are others that show numbers in the mid-gigaton ranges. Actually you said your calculations showed "10 tons straight" and you had to add radiation shielding/armor factor of 1000 to get your chosen figure. Did the "10 tons straight" honest figure you initially got not give you a inkling that you were calculating from a false premise?, the very fact you had to fluff it up by "adding radiation shielding/armor factor of 1000" to get your chosen figure should have been a less than subtle indication. Your guess is as good as mine, especially as those "explosions" look an awful lot like the kind of explosions you get out of low energy pyrotechnics, and nothing close to even the yields I'm discussing, much less the ones you are suggesting. I have never seen any M/AM explosions in the sky above my house let alone in space while traveling at high warp so i am unable to say with any degree of exactitude how they "should" look. Maybe you have a link to such visual evidence that happened where you live and if so can i see it?. Oh and where do i suggest a yield of any sort?. Vaporizing a little under 10 m3 of material is no damage on a ship the size of a borg cube, or even the U.S.S. Enterprise. Actually i would say it is a little under 10 m3 of vaporisation damage AND what ever heat and kinetic damage that the unarmoured/unshielded/pipe/conduit stuff in area surrounding the vaporisation point suffered. ITT, you can't read. As i pointed out above i replied to your "bowed out" comment with a question, you ignored or could not read. Wow, you're a dumbass. Actually it is you in the fact that you support such a stupid theory that is the dumbass, your faulty premise gave you such absurdly low stats that you had to "fluff" them and not only that but when you developed the theory it was counter to your "the laws of thermodynamics" and "scorch marks" components. We are beginning to see why you had such problems with the moderators at SDN and SB. Does it rhyme with....Arrogant mods that are convinced they are right and can never be wrong and as such any who disagree must either change positions or be banned because "not seeing the truth" is obviously trolling and not debating properly/logically?. Yea i am familiar with the attitude amoung certain individuals. You know, blatantly violating a boards rules when they're posted for everyone to see is generally grounds for banning. Even here, although we don't have many rules here. I have read the rules and unless im mistaken i have not broken any. I have nothing against the President in rule 1 nor have a broken rules 2-5, the 1-4 frowned upon stuff i have not done. You may wanna read this part before you make any more threats just cos you dislike the taste of your own medicine:- Just as ASVS has always been, this board is built on free and open debate. Heavy handed moderation is NOT allowed here. Just because someone is a mod/admin doesn't make them immune from flaming or debate. If you've spent any time around this debate, you'd know that I'm one of the more polite and reasonable participants. I have had dealings with much more abusive individuals than you, i shut them down then depending on the level of abuse i ignore them. You main problem is that you expect me to accept what you say and call me stupid when i do not, however so far it is you who has had to concede/revise your scorch marks idea due to my arguments against them so i do have considerably more respect for you than others who just bellow insults when they are shown a closing argument on a part of their theory. What's there to research? There is only one possible mechanism that behaves in a manner close to the one we see onscreen. It's not perfect, but then again it does work better than sticking my hands in my ears, whining like a baby, and screaming, "IT'S MAGIC!!!!!!!" It should not take me long then i suppose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 Appologies, this post seems to have been eaten. WTF is the "bowed out" statement. Who said they did not have a NDF effect?. Actually, as I elaborated to Tyralak, I was amazed to see the "effect" on that scale. Normally its just a fake-ass explosion. Are you sure you are arguing with the right person cos you keep claiming i have said things i have not. Not really, I was making a comment on the scene. Wankery?, i was agreeing with you.... The whole "adapt" part. There are limits to the borg's vaunted adaptation capability. Can you bloody read, i am saying what im saying why are you claiming or thinking that im claiming summat else or more?. WTF is wrong with you and why are you arguing things i have not said?. You said that the borg could have adapted to an explosion, but not to phasers. I was saying that we see that effect all over the delta quadrant and that if we assume they adapt to everything, then they would have already adapted to the NDF in phasers. You claimed others said it and tried parceling me up with them, i was replying to that it, try reading your own bloody writing. Nice strawman, jackass. Where did I claim they couldn't adapt to phasers. I said they couldn't adapt to nuclear/anti-matter weapons and other forms of DET weapons. Who knows, we can bet that they did not expect to be shot at by projectiles as they were going after the federation and the borg being efficient would not waste time with shielding for it. Yeah, shrapnel's not a projectile at all. If they could shield for that (and any idiot would shield for that) they can shield against a .45. I understand that just fine as my comments below show. So to put it simply your so called science idea is a worthless pile of crap because the torps have NO EFFECT AT ALL not even scorching or marking of any kind let alone damage however small. You preach about your science just like that twat on SB but when it comes down to it the fact is that the damage your so called science MUST SHOW from the torps no matter the yield is not there. So please explain how if this is accurate:- "we saw no evidence of shields, which means that the laws of thermodynamics will be acting on the original body, not the absorption effect of the shields." Why we see 0 damage nada, zero, ZIP or even scorching on the hull of the cube from the torps, the laws of thermodynamics you wave about like you invented them say there MUST BE. Do the fucking math yourself then. We see no discernible damage. Shields are not mentioned in the entire episode. We did not see the shield effect. Why do you assume that there must have been shields? Because you want there to have been? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted May 25, 2010 Yeah, shrapnel's not a projectile at all. If they could shield for that (and any idiot would shield for that) they can shield against a .45. One thing, however. We see Borg DRONES having difficulties adapting to projectiles, but we've never seen Borg SHIPS have any difficulty with projectiles. If they did, they would be menaced by micrometeorites and such. Simple deflector shield technologies deal with those, so it would be ludicrous to believe that the Borg have no standard deflector technology. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 I do recall a comment you made regarding "bowed out" but when i asked what that was you did not reply, so i did read it, i did reply and you ignored (post #31 right at the top). See above So have i and it is clear that they do not have a traditional outer armoured hull and it is obvious that the cube is covered in conduits amoung other things. I actually think it is unreasonable to assume that they are totally unarmoured due a cubes primary purpose but i also find it amusing that you say it IS totally unarmoured and the weaker the hull is the more your theory looks poor due to the laws of thermodynamics you preach about. Really? I used fucking carbon to do the math, if you want to assume armor, the effects are even more negligible. Actually you said your calculations showed "10 tons straight" and you had to add radiation shielding/armor factor of 1000 to get your chosen figure. Did the "10 tons straight" honest figure you initially got not give you a inkling that you were calculating from a false premise?, the very fact you had to fluff it up by "adding radiation shielding/armor factor of 1000" to get your chosen figure should have been a less than subtle indication. The problem is that the math works, and unless you have a reason for the torpedo to massively underperform a nuclear weapon, it has to be acknowledged. A nuclear fireball form from radiation heating of the air. The fireball created a 10m hole in Enterprise. Frankly, at the yields most people assume for photon torpedos, that shot should have killed everyone in the saucer section. You cannot change the laws of physics, and conventional explosives don't get even the yields I calculated. I have never seen any M/AM explosions in the sky above my house let alone in space while traveling at high warp so i am unable to say with any degree of exactitude how they "should" look. Maybe you have a link to such visual evidence that happened where you live and if so can i see it?. Having actually looked at the physics, and understanding what a nuclear initiation is (M/AM isn't functionally different) I can tell you that it would essentially be like a flashbulb going off. Oh and where do i suggest a yield of any sort?. Those explosions don't make sense unless the yield of the photon torpedo is CONVENTIONAL. Are you claiming that you believe photons are the equivalent of conventional explosives? Because if so, I need to stop arguing down and start arguing up. Those are actually different arguments. Actually i would say it is a little under 10 m3 of vaporisation damage AND what ever heat and kinetic damage that the unarmoured/unshielded/pipe/conduit stuff in area surrounding the vaporisation point suffered. What kinetic damage? The vaporization IS the heat damage. There is no atmosphere to transmit kinetic shock, and there is no atmosphere to create it. As i pointed out above i replied to your "bowed out" comment with a question, you ignored or could not read. See above. The bowed out was me saying that they were not just scorch marks. Of course, the whole lighting situation raises other questions about the composition of the cube. Actually it is you in the fact that you support such a stupid theory that is the dumbass, your faulty premise gave you such absurdly low stats that you had to "fluff" them and not only that but when you developed the theory it was counter to your "the laws of thermodynamics" and "scorch marks" components. I "fluffed" them to account for variables whose values we cannot know. Something that has to be done. I'm happy to stand by the 10-ton calculation though, if it makes you happy. Does it rhyme with....Arrogant mods that are convinced they are right and can never be wrong and as such any who disagree must either change positions or be banned because "not seeing the truth" is obviously trolling and not debating properly/logically?. Yea i am familiar with the attitude amoung certain individuals. Nope, it rhymes with "Can't read the fucking rules." I have read the rules and unless im mistaken i have not broken any. I have nothing against the President in rule 1 nor have a broken rules 2-5, the 1-4 frowned upon stuff i have not done. You may wanna read this part before you make any more threats just cos you dislike the taste of your own medicine:- Just as ASVS has always been, this board is built on free and open debate. Heavy handed moderation is NOT allowed here. Just because someone is a mod/admin doesn't make them immune from flaming or debate. Nice strawman again, but I said that you were banned for violating the rules, just as you would be here if you violated the rules[/]. The fact that we barely have any rules here is why you would not be banned here. I have had dealings with much more abusive individuals than you, i shut them down then depending on the level of abuse i ignore them. You main problem is that you expect me to accept what you say and call me stupid when i do not, however so far it is you who has had to concede/revise your scorch marks idea due to my arguments against them so i do have considerably more respect for you than others who just bellow insults when they are shown a closing argument on a part of their theory. Right, it was your "argument." I looked at the source material in a decent format and discovered that there did seem to evidence that the dark areas were not scorch marks a la TWoK. Since you didn't seem interested in doing any work (such as capturing a decent image from a DVD) how can you possibly claim to have convinced me you arrogant ass? It should not take me long then i suppose. Not if you're honest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 25, 2010 One thing, however. We see Borg DRONES having difficulties adapting to projectiles, but we've never seen Borg SHIPS have any difficulty with projectiles. If they did, they would be menaced by micrometeorites and such. Simple deflector shield technologies deal with those, so it would be ludicrous to believe that the Borg have no standard deflector technology. You know, that's the third time I've hit edit instead of reply. This mod thing takes time to get used to. I assume they do have deflector technology, and I haven't (yet) suggested the use of KEWs against cubes. I'm using that as an example of the limitation borg adaptation has when it comes to blocking DET weapons. If they can block the DET from a nuke, blocking the DET from a bullet or shrapnel should be no problem. Same concept, different scale of application. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 The whole "adapt" part. There are limits to the borg's vaunted adaptation capability. I have never said otherwise. You said that the borg could have adapted to an explosion, but not to phasers. I was saying that we see that effect all over the delta quadrant and that if we assume they adapt to everything, then they would have already adapted to the NDF in phasers. Actually what i said was that it is far more likely that the borg would be prepared for a simple M/AM explosion than they would phaser fire. The delta quadrant may have tech that has a simular NDF effect but that is not the same as being preprepared for the exact phaser frequency the E-D was using. Nice strawman, jackass. Where did I claim they couldn't adapt to phasers. NEITHER OF US CLAIMED IT you just tried to parcel me up with the idiots that do. I said they couldn't adapt to nuclear/anti-matter weapons and other forms of DET weapons. While that is technically accurate due to the fact you can use the technicallity that DET weapons are only limited by your power supply and as such are theoretically almost limitless. HOWEVER as you are limited to a FED power supply we would need to know a "effect to power input ratio" of both before we could decide whtch is the more effective. After all pure DET is the least complicated and least adjustable option so if your DET weapon output is below the level of power a cube can tank you do no damage but as we have seen in the series a NDF weapon can be adjusted so it does some dmg at even very low levels of power. Yeah, shrapnel's not a projectile at all. If they could shield for that (and any idiot would shield for that) they can shield against a .45. Shrapnel comes from explosions and NDF weapons tendancy to well NDF stuff does not lend itself to shrapnel really. Do the fucking math yourself then. We see no discernible damage. Shields are not mentioned in the entire episode. We did not see the shield effect. Why do you assume that there must have been shields? Because you want there to have been? The laws of thermodynamics clearly say that if the cube had no shield then the torps would have hit hull and done damage so we are discussing 2 routes to take as we see no damage done by them at all: 1. Your "ten tons only" torpedo theory that you had to "fluff" by 1000 just to make it look anything but absurd, that also contradicts direct comments about their being no damage to the cube when if you include heat, kinetic and vaporisation dmg we would see a visable effect or it would have been mentioned. 2. That the shield was there but was not mentioned due to its obvious effect and that considering the range we see the photons explode on the flat of the cube facing them at it is unlikely we would have seen a "shield effect" (bubble or otherwise) at that distance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor_Dahar_Master 0 Posted May 25, 2010 The problem is that the math works, and unless you have a reason for the torpedo to massively underperform a nuclear weapon, it has to be acknowledged. A nuclear fireball from radiation heating of the air. The fireball created a 10m hole in Enterprise. Frankly, at the yields most people assume for photon torpedos, that shot should have killed everyone in the saucer section. You cannot change the laws of physics, and conventional explosives don't get even the yields I calculated. You seem to be adding things every time you post and while im sure it is not deliberate ios there a place where you have posted all the details, facts, figures and assumptions so i can read through it imnstead of getting bite sized bits?. Having actually looked at the physics, and understanding what a nuclear initiation is (M/AM isn't functionally different) I can tell you that it would essentially be like a flashbulb going off. While i agree with you we are still constrained by the prime directive of sci-fi debating the "suspension of disbelief" and in that regard we must accept that those M/AM photon torpedos exploded with that pattern and light show in that way. Chalk it up to the photons being programmed to compensate for relativistic effects of traveling at warp 9.65 and needing to compensate for the fact as soon as the explosion starts and the torps engines are vaporised it would at least slow down if not drop out of warp as we know the propulsion is required to stay at warp and you cannot coast. What kinetic damage? The vaporization IS the heat damage. There is no atmosphere to transmit kinetic shock, and there is no atmosphere to create it. I always figured the explosion would be directly on the hull so the hull material and atmosphere in the ship would do that, and yes vaporisation is the most intense of the heats effect but after that we have melting and burning as we move out from the point of highest temperature. I "fluffed" them to account for variables whose values we cannot know. Something that has to be done. I'm happy to stand by the 10-ton calculation though, if it makes you happy. x1000 on a whim regarding what we do not know?, yet you deny shields we know exist in the SW universe just cos they are not mentioned even though the law of thermo dynamics supports them being in effect?. Right, it was your "argument." I looked at the source material in a decent format and discovered that there did seem to evidence that the dark areas were not scorch marks a la TWoK. Since you didn't seem interested in doing any work (such as capturing a decent image from a DVD) how can you possibly claim to have convinced me you arrogant ass? I saw that they were not scorch marks and pointed it out along with descriptions of what i saw, your poor eyesight or unwillingnesss to research your "scorch claims" properly is not my problem nor my responsability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InvaderSkooj 1 Posted May 26, 2010 I for the life of me, can't figure out why anyone with half a brain would use such a lackluster example as evidence for high yield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tyralak 12,068 Posted May 29, 2010 You know, that's the third time I've hit edit instead of reply. This mod thing takes time to get used to. I assume they do have deflector technology, and I haven't (yet) suggested the use of KEWs against cubes. I'm using that as an example of the limitation borg adaptation has when it comes to blocking DET weapons. If they can block the DET from a nuke, blocking the DET from a bullet or shrapnel should be no problem. Same concept, different scale of application. I was making reference to the old pro-wars argument claiming that TL bolts were KE weapons, not energy weapons, thus Borg cubes cannot adapt. A specious argument at best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Questor 501 Posted May 29, 2010 I was making reference to the old pro-wars argument claiming that TL bolts were KE weapons, not energy weapons, thus Borg cubes cannot adapt. A specious argument at best. Yeah, that was one of the dumber ones. Another of my favorites was the "the visible bolt is just an aiming tool" but "ST ECM/SENSORS SUXORS!!!!111!!11!!!1" Not saying that the latter isn't true, but claiming that you need a visual aiming device and then saying ST electronic warfare\sensors suck? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
