The Deflectors are immune b.s.

[Typhonis 1]

More like balsa wood torpedo boats Without torpedoes being rowed vs a steam turbine battleship

[Kuja]

More like balsa wood torpedo boats Without torpedoes being rowed vs a steam turbine battleship

More like Rubber Ducky and his water gun against a Los Angeles-class.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The navigation shields also posses another intriguing property; they are immune to attack from laser weaponry. This is due to the trans-static flux effect which occurs as a by-product of the deflection process; when laser light impinges on a deflector field, the effect creates a small portal into subspace, causing the laser beam to pass harmlessly into this domain. As the beam is not subspace encased, it will re-emerge into normal space within a few milliseconds, putting it several hundred light seconds away. Since the beam never actually impacts on either the deflector shield or hull the power of the attack is irrelevant to the effect. This process is not regarded as a serious defensive measure, since laser weapons are considered obsolete by most major powers.

??? Why the hell would the laser re-emerge "several hundred lightseconds away" when it re-appeared in a few milliseconds?! Shouldn't it come back from subspace a few light milliseconds away? Or is the speed limit of the light higher in subspace? Or is he just full of shit?

He'd probably explain that mistake with even more meaningless technobabble. After all, meaningless technobabble makes up 95% of his arguments.

[Joe Momma]

The navigation shields also posses another intriguing property; they are immune to attack from laser weaponry.

And he states this despite the fact that the Enterprise crew has expressed concerns about laser weaponry being used against the ship in at least three other episodes ("Loud as a Whisper, "Suddenly Human", and "Conundrum")? What an idiot.

BTW, I have a question for someone who knows more about physics than me. Would an immunity to lasers imply an immunity to EM radiation in general, as he states in his asshat fanfic?

Also, has GK made rebuttals to this specific point? I know he made a general rebuttal to MW's criticism of his logic, as featured on the SD.N hate pages, but I was wondering if he addressed counterarguments to this specific contention and if so, does anyone know where I can find them? I'm easily amused, I guess.

-- Joe Momma

[Isolder74]

The original Intent of the script was that the ships were so weak that their weapons wouldn't scratch the Enterprise. It's like comparion a boat armeded with a 20mm machine gun to a Iowa-class Battleship.

Hands up! This is a thread hijack!

Accurately aimed 20mm at close range will hurt--but certainly not sink--an Iowa. Raking the bridge windows with cannon fire will get rid of several senior officers and possibly start a fire. Assuming the 1980s refit Iowas, hitting the Tomahawk launchers could set off the TLAM warheads or fuel, in either case creating a major above-decks fire. Hitting the CWIS mounts would hurt the Iowa in as much that it would lose virtually all of its air-defense abilities and be even more vulnerable to subsequent air attacks. Granted, getting more than a handfull of cannon bursts off before the gunboat is dismantled by the Iowa's 5" mounts or .50 cals will require an act of god but it's an overstatement to assert that the Iowas are immune to 20mm fire.

If it could even hit those things on the Iowa anyway. Come on those things are several stories in the air, they are designed to take major hits from larger weapons how is a 20mm going to hurt them?

[Joe Momma]

Also, has GK made rebuttals to this specific point? I know he made a general rebuttal to MW's criticism of his logic, as featured on the SD.N hate pages, but I was wondering if he addressed counterarguments to this specific contention and if so, does anyone know where I can find them?

Never mind, I took my own advice from another thread and searched for them myself. I found the following on alt.startrek.vs.starwars, God help me:

> In "Conundrum", it is proven conclusively that the Enterprise is NOT
> immune to any type of laser:
>
> DATA: "The pods are equipped with fusion generated pulse lasers and
> mimimal shielding."
>
> RIKER: "Not much power there."
>
> PICARD: "Forward shields to maximum."

I don't understand how you leap from here to the conclusion
that the ship is vulnerable to lasers. If you refer to the
fact that the shields were raised, then it doesn't follow
that he was worried about the lasers. He could equally
have been worried about possible other (undetected) weapons,
or he could have worried that the pods were going to ram the
ship when their lasers failed to work. Whatever the truth,
the statement certainly says nothing about vulnerability
one way or the other.

Re: Borg cutting lasers:

So it's pretty clear that lasers can and do damage the hulls
of Federation Starships.

Whether they damage the shields - or at least navigational
shields - is open to question. The evidence there is points
to no, but that evidence is about as thin as evidence can
get. My money says that however thin, you go with that
evidence until something crops up to contradict it.

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> > > You don't want to face up to the FACT that that comment was made in ONE
> > > TNG episode, with ships having laughably unpowered lasers. Picard didn't
> > > even bother RAISING shields. In Connumdrums, the FACT is, the Lysian
> > > lasers poised enough of a threat that Picard raised FULL FORWARD shields.
> > If shields are raised, does that automatically make the laser a threat?
>
> Yup, especially, when Data tells Picard that the ships have
> "fusion powered pulse lasers" and that they are 2.1MJ in ppower.
> Picard THEN orders full forward shields. Now if these lasers were the
> same as the one presented in "The Outrageous Okona," Picard would have
> chuckled along with Riker again. Try as you might, Graham, you can't
> escape this VERY simple point.

Of course I can, it's so trivial it's hardly worth the bother.
Picard was simply being over-cautious - given the situation they
were in (or thought they were in) at the time it's hardly
surprising that he raised the shields

> > > In "Q Who?" and very other time the E-D has encountered the Borg, the
> > > FACTS are that they RAISED SHIELDS. This disprovesd your statement above
> > > completely, that "..navigational shields are IMMUNE to lasers. Lasers
> > > of ANY power." Now I ask you, if this were true, WHY were the defensive
> > > shields of the E-D raised if the NAVIGATIONAL SHIELDS could render "LASERS
> > > OF ANY POWER" harmless?
> > And you say I harp on about things long ago settled!
>
> You're the one that kkeeps bringing up the SW lasers won't penetrate the
> nav shields crap.
>
> > The Borg use tractor beams and other weapons to drop shields.
>
> Kennedy evade. Why raise the defensive shields if the NAV SHIELDS can
> deflect lasers of ANY POWER???

Because the cutting laser is not their _only_ weapon. You only
need to worry about the cutting laser once the shields are down.

> If true, the Borg would be pulling down
> their NAV SHIELDS, since Picard thinks it laughable to put up any other
> kind of shield. It can't get any simpler without pictures.

But they DID pull down the nav shields. The Borg tractor beam
dropped the E-D's navigational and combat shields together.
Really, I thought this was simple enough that even the average
warsie could understand it.

> > Then they attack with lasers etc to cut the hull up. At no time
> > have the Borg EVER damaged a Startrek shield system with a laser.
>
> What does this prove? The Borg's M.O. is to drain shields, then attack.
> They NEVER, EVER fired their laser at a GCS's shields, saw no damage
> result, then say, "Fuck! We gotta bring down those shields first I guess."

They didn't need to. The Borg scouts likely got the information
they needed to realise that their lasers would not penetrate the
nav deflectors. After all, a tractor beam is a rather unusual
thing to use as a weapon! They didn't bother with their lasers
because they knew they wouldn't work.

> Only to Trekkie zealots. SW lasers do NOT travel at c. They VAPORIZE
> asteroids, not drill holes in them, they detonate at ranges they're
> targeted at, and don't go on to infinity.

You base this on FX, which is unreliable at best. It
also brings in a whole lot of problems for you when you
do this, such as having to explain the atmosphere in the
Starwars galaxy and why a large orchestra seems to follow
everybody around everywhere.

> > The facts in this argument have never changed. You use the
> > classic Wars tactic of waiting until the argument is
> > long settled in Treks favour and then claiming victory.
> > Not a good tactic, but I can see that it's all you have
> > left - so feel free.
>
> LOL! My "tactic" doesn't come up until some Trekkie brings up his little
> pet arguement AGAIN, even though it has so thoughly been trampled in the
> past.

Not by you it hasn't.

In summary (each paragraph from a different post):

But this is irrelevant. Startrek ships are thousands of times more
powerful than Starwars ships, thousands of times faster, and totally
invulnerable to the primitive Starwars weaponary!

Not to mention that since it takes dozens/hundreds of Starfleet ships
to destroy a cube, and Starfleet ships outgun Starwars ships by
hundreds of thousands to one (at least!), then a Borg cube should
easily be able to defeat the entire Imperial Navy without too much
trouble.

I used to argue very strongly that Trek would easily defeat
Wars in a war between them. I don't bother with those sorts of
arguments any more - too repetetive - but it's still very obvious
to me that this is true.

And the hits just keep on coming. I noticed that he has bailed out of ASVS, which is understandable given that he's already gotten the answers he needs.

As a special bonus, here's the quote that me laughing so hard I almost coughed up blood (italics mine):

I find Trek films in general to be more engaging on an intellectual level than Wars,

Though to be fair, I find the idiocy of the producers of the later Star Trek movies to be much more mind-boggling than the ham-fisted storytelling of George Lucas, which I guess counts as a sort of intellectual engagement.

-- Joe Momma

[Sr.mal]

Wow never knew this thread would tur into a Gk flamefest. Not that thats a bad thing, but I had no idea someone could link what I wrote to GK. Its amazing how small the world is.

[Enlightenment]

If it could even hit those things on the Iowa anyway. Come on those things are several stories in the air, they are designed to take major hits from larger weapons how is a 20mm going to hurt them?

The bridge windows are most certainly not intended to take 'major hits' from larger weapons. Nor, for that matter, are the TLAM box launchers or the CWIS mounts on the 1980s refit Iowas.

[The Enterpriser]

That brings up a good point, is the glass on the ships transparent aluminum? We've seen it time and again burst under pressure which only normal glass displays (almost as though as if it was real glass ). Seriously, we've seen it in Generations and else but how is that possible? I thought glass couldn't stand warp stresses

Perhaps the glass is just brittle, but good for warp?

[XaLEv]

BTW, I have a question for someone who knows more about physics than me. Would an immunity to lasers imply an immunity to EM radiation in general, as he states in his asshat fanfic?

Most likely. There is no fundamental difference between laser light and non-laser light.

[Joe Momma]

Would an immunity to lasers imply an immunity to EM radiation in general, as he states in his asshat fanfic?

Most likely. There is no fundamental difference between laser light and non-laser light.

That's what I suspected (based on dim memories of high school physics), which makes his argument even stupider given all the times the Enterprise is endangered by high levels of radiation.

I don't even have the heart to look up his responses to that, though I can imagine what it would look like:

"Well, you see, there is a minimal threshold to allow harmless amounts of EM radiation in so that they can see, use sensors, etc. However, that radiation can sometimes polarize the warp field around the vessel causing incidental emissions of the ship's own subspace communications coil. So you see, it's not the radiation that's harming the ship but the ship's own limitless energy being inefficiently channelled due to subspace harmonic interference. This only proves that the only thing in the universe powerful enough to damage an ST ship is an ST ship. Really, I thought this was simple enough that even the average warsie could understand it. This is why I don't engage in these debates anymore, since the answer is patently obvious to anyone with the vision to see what's happeneing and properly interpret it."

-- Joe Momma

[Vympel]

"Well, you see, there is a minimal threshold to allow harmless amounts of EM radiation in so that they can see, use sensors, etc. However, that radiation can sometimes polarize the warp field around the vessel causing incidental emissions of the ship's own subspace communications coil. So you see, it's not the radiation that's harming the ship but the ship's own limitless energy being inefficiently channelled due to subspace harmonic interference. This only proves that the only thing in the universe powerful enough to damage an ST ship is an ST ship. Really, I thought this was simple enough that even the average warsie could understand it. This is why I don't engage in these debates anymore, since the answer is patently obvious to anyone with the vision to see what's happeneing and properly interpret it."

Fucking LOL! If I could fit that in my sig I would!

[Sir Sirius]

Are Guardian 2000, GK, Graham Kennedy, Robert Scott Anderson and Darkstar all the same person?
If not who is who and so on?

[XaLEv]

Are Guardian 2000, GK, Graham Kennedy, Robert Scott Anderson and Darkstar all the same person?
If not who is who and so on?

GK = Graham Kennedy


Darkstar = Guardian 2000/G2K = Robert Scott Anderson

[Lord Edam]

BTW, I have a question for someone who knows more about physics than me. Would an immunity to lasers imply an immunity to EM radiation in general, as he states in his asshat fanfic?

Most likely. There is no fundamental difference between laser light and non-laser light.

Actually, there's quite a few differences.

non-laser light is rarely monochromatic, has random polarisation and no coherence.

Laser light is highly monochromatic, has a specific polarisation and is highly coherent.

If shields were much more effective against lasers than other EM attacks, it could be that the shields (or whatever) detect the specific frequency, phase and / or polarisation of the attacking eneryg beam and concentrate the defence on photons with those detected properties (at the expense of other defenses - hit it with a different weapon at the same time and the other weapon will be even more effective than usual)

It should be easier to protect against lasers than broader band EM weapons. For example, good quality polarised sun glasses have rotatable lenses to increase the filtering of incoming light, and often have a carefully chosen colour to protect agains the most damaging frequencies of sun light. The shields would work along similar lines

[Isolder74]

If it could even hit those things on the Iowa anyway. Come on those things are several stories in the air, they are designed to take major hits from larger weapons how is a 20mm going to hurt them?

The bridge windows are most certainly not intended to take 'major hits' from larger weapons. Nor, for that matter, are the TLAM box launchers or the CWIS mounts on the 1980s refit Iowas.

And the Flash back supressors and back armor on all of the Weapons mounts are just there for show? Yes its windows could be hit but the analogy was reffering to the main armor belt not to the weakest part of the ship. Please show some intellegence. The gun on the row boat is what 2 feet off of the ground and has a accurecy of at most of a couple of hundred yard due to its mount since when fired the boat will move backwards! The things in question are several hundreds of feet into the air. The Cruise missiles are in armored magazines, the windows are bullet proof, and they are designed to get hit. Sure the windows are not going to stop a 16-in shell but they could handle a 20mm easilly.

[Isolder74]

I first heard this argument when I was taking a tour of Egypt and witnessed the pyramids being constructed. Those pyramids are now dust and still I hear of it. Word gets around slow.

Then maybe you could tell us how old the Sphinx really is but yes this argument is real old

[Master of Ossus]

You base this on FX, which is unreliable at best. It
also brings in a whole lot of problems for you when you
do this, such as having to explain the atmosphere in the
Starwars galaxy and why a large orchestra seems to follow
everybody around everywhere.

He now dismisses visuals in favor of dialogue disproved by them, and claims that the visuals are unreliable. How typical.

[Frank LLoyd Wright]

lets just look at the given senario of a row guy on a row boat shooting even a m-16 at a battlesip

the row boat os at water level and the deck of the batle ship is many stories above the water level

the range of the m-16 is at best 600 yards on flat terain
(this is in perfect conditions and not reality)

the gun will need to be fird up at the batleship
i doubt the gunner (sniper) can even see the bridge from this perspective below the deck level of the ship

the best thing he could do is probably wound someone on deck
one the first or maybe second shot is fired
our row boat guy is dead because the crew will fire back with m-16s from the deck of the ship

it is always easier to hit a target if you are looking down on it.

the only way one person is going to harm the battleship is if they used high power c4 explosives on the hull

[Darth Servo]

BTW, I have a question for someone who knows more about physics than me. Would an immunity to lasers imply an immunity to EM radiation in general, as he states in his asshat fanfic?

Most likely. There is no fundamental difference between laser light and non-laser light.

Actually, there's quite a few differences.

non-laser light is rarely monochromatic, has random polarisation and no coherence.

Laser light is highly monochromatic, has a specific polarisation and is highly coherent.

If shields were much more effective against lasers than other EM attacks, it could be that the shields (or whatever) detect the specific frequency, phase and / or polarisation of the attacking eneryg beam and concentrate the defence on photons with those detected properties (at the expense of other defenses - hit it with a different weapon at the same time and the other weapon will be even more effective than usual)

It should be easier to protect against lasers than broader band EM weapons. For example, good quality polarised sun glasses have rotatable lenses to increase the filtering of incoming light, and often have a carefully chosen colour to protect agains the most damaging frequencies of sun light. The shields would work along similar lines

Typical Edam behavior: worry about all the tiny details of the theory without addressing the point of whether the theory itself is totally unsound.

[Frank LLoyd Wright]

If it could even hit those things on the Iowa anyway. Come on those things are several stories in the air, they are designed to take major hits from larger weapons how is a 20mm going to hurt them?

The bridge windows are most certainly not intended to take 'major hits' from larger weapons. Nor, for that matter, are the TLAM box launchers or the CWIS mounts on the 1980s refit Iowas.

And the Flash back supressors and back armor on all of the Weapons mounts are just there for show? Yes its windows could be hit but the analogy was reffering to the main armor belt not to the weakest part of the ship. Please show some intellegence. The gun on the row boat is what 2 feet off of the ground and has a accurecy of at most of a couple of hundred yard due to its mount since when fired the boat will move backwards! The things in question are several hundreds of feet into the air. The Cruise missiles are in armored magazines, the windows are bullet proof, and they are designed to get hit. Sure the windows are not going to stop a 16-in shell but they could handle a 20mm easilly.

this is suposed to go with my previous post

[Sarevok]

I think I found a reason why federation shields are not immune to lasers
Photon torpedoes release radiation in the form visble light and gamma rays. If federation shields were immune to lasers they would also be immune to photon torpedoes. A visible light lasers fires a beam of light, if
federation shields could harmlessly absorb them they could also absorb the radiation from a photon torpedo. The question is not whether federation shields are not immune to laser but whether they are immune to any amount visible light no matter how intense.

Given the fact that photon torpedoes can are effective against federation shields lasers must also be effective.

[Lord Edam]

Typical Edam behavior: worry about all the tiny details of the theory without addressing the point of whether the theory itself is totally unsound.

Let other people worry about whether the theory is sound, I'm just here to clear up the common mistake "immune to lasers" = "immune to all EM".

the light from lasers have fundamentally different properties to light from explosions or non-laser weapons, any one of which could be used to explain the immunity.

There may be other reasons why the shields are not immune to lasers, but the fact that they are threatened by photon torpedoes , or allow everyday light through isn't one of them.

[Darth Wong]

Edam, you can't simply say that any distinction makes anything possible even if you don't bother to explain how. Yes, lasers are coherent. But individual photons are still just ordinary EM photons.

If I make a blue bullet, it will be different from all other bullets; does this mean we should assume it's possible to make armour that will block this bullet but allow all other bullets to pass through?

[Lord Edam]

Edam, you can't simply say that any distinction makes anything possible even if you don't bother to explain how. Yes, lasers are coherent. But individual photons are still just ordinary EM photons.

All the differences I listed were things that we know can be used to filter photons.

frequency - you can tailor the shields to absorb on the specific frequency of the laser, at the cost of other frequencies. Lasers are highly monochromatic, so the shields can concentrate all their defense on the frequency of the laser. this only works for protection against lasers or other highly monochromatic EM attacks, but it gives imporved protection at the cost of defense against other frequencies.


Polarisation - lasers are often highly polarised, so you can tailor the shields to absorb/reflect the light differently (particularly if the refractive index of the shields can be altered). turn the shields into the equivalent of birefringent crystals. Again, your defense would be best against a specific polarisation at the cost of other polarisations

The directionality of lasers can be used against them, as you can concentrate the shields where the attack is occuring, and engineer the shields to reflect the beam somewhere safe - you couldn't do this with an explosion or non-collimated beam, because a safe reflection for one part of the beam could be a dangerous reflection for another.

Each individual photon in the laser may be no different to any other EM photon, but the bulk properties of a laser are different to the bulk properties of other EM attacks, and give you a way to have an apparent immunity to lasers without being immune to all EM.

Of course, to prove / disprove any of these would require observations we don't have. The only time we've seen a laser used on Trek ships the shields were already down. They are just speculation as to how the laser immunity quote could make some sense (even then, you don't get actual immunity, just protection against energies so high that you might as well call it immunity)

If I make a blue bullet, it will be different from all other bullets; does this mean we should assume it's possible to make armour that will block this bullet but allow all other bullets to pass through?

I've never heard of the colour of a bullet making any difference to how it acts, so what you suggest is a little different to our discussion on lasers.

Now, if you changed the colour to magnetism, so that you had one magnetic bullet and one non magnetic bullet you might be closer to the difference between lasers and general EM (obviously you'd just turn your armour into a big magnet so the magnetic bullet never hits, but you still leave yourself open to other bullets, and particularly vulnerable to the bullets your magnet attracts)