Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Darth Tedious]

But still you have shown no physical basis on how the death star is supposed to work.

So right, we do know a bit more about the death stars reactor. But still not so much about the "Laser".

Try this on for size.

The two men were standing in a small nexus chamber overlooking the eight radiating particle accelerator tubes designed to feed the super-laser beam.

If the primary beam focusing magnet was off a nanometer, the tributary beams would not coalesce, and there was a good chance of imbalance explosions in the beam shaft if the tributaries weren't pulsed in at exactly the proper time and in the proper sequence.

Particle acceleration drives the tributary beams to full power, which are combined by the primary beam focusing magnet. The tributaries are harmoniously pulsed to create a synergistic effect.

There is a metric fuckton more information on the Death Star than there is on S8472.

So yes, there is more information about the death star. (I was actually just making a bit of an elaporated statement to show what I was trying to point out. But I guess it failed, because we got caught up in this debate)

Concession of the point accepted. What exactly were you trying to point out?

Also, you earlier postulated that Voyager would be able to shrug off a direct hit from the Death Star's superlaser because... you say so. Care to back that up with some reasoning?

[Darth Tedious]

There definitely is a habit of SW writers to try and stitch everything together, no matter how crazily it must be done. And I agree, it gets pretty zany. Personally, I enjoy some of the results it produces.

Silliness aside, that's how it (the DS reactor) works. I don't write the stuff, I just read it...
Picture me shrugging my shoulders as I say that.

[Norade]

So back to the fusion thing. I definitely remember some older source saying "hypermatter fusion". Now, there's a new source that says it just magically does it's thing... then there's a third newer source that combines the two and sounds really silly.

How do fusion reactions contain anything? They want to lose containment themselves all the time! (this is why building a fusion plant is so hard; the reaction really really just wants to stop itself)

I doubt a tech base that gets things to repulse against gravity without using energy needs to worry about containing fusion. Also, for all we know they somehow make the fusion reaction specifically to interact with tachyons. Fuck if I have any idea how it works, but it's already trying to use science more correctly than anytime a character in Trek opens their mouth to explain something.

[Mercenario]

@Darth Tedious

Concession of the point accepted. What exactly were you trying to point out?

That most off the "high end effects" do lack explaination or try to explain it into a manner which has nothing to do with real physics.

Thats why you mostly do not try to elaborate such things, because real physics will bite you in the end.
Does the book you quoted from "Death Star" not state, that the beam somehow transfers normal matter in the hyperspace?

Also, you earlier postulated that Voyager would be able to shrug off a direct hit from the Death Star's superlaser because... you say so. Care to back that up with some reasoning?

I gave that earlyer.
If you just go the same way for both you end up with one planet leaving behind an astorid field and the other leaving behind no asteroids.
So you will come up with a differance in energy values. (Which can be, extreamly high)
Now you just follow through with the easy assumption like every ship of S8472 contributing the same amount of energy (maybe the big ship double). So it depends on what way of calculation you may want to go, but I guess it would leave one single ships of S8472 with about the firepower of the death star. Maybe more, maybe less.
(Which is silly, I assume. But I started from the position, that all those calculations are silly to begin with.)
My hole argument boils down to this:
It is most likely that any feat provided in the 6 StarWars movies is shown in similar manner in one of the StarTrek series. (Here I mostly trust in writers beeing copy cats and their limited creativity.)
So calculations done for one will be hold valid for the other too. Leading to the same silly numbers on both sides.
And since TV series mostly use "sillyness" quite feely...
(I mean yestarday I was watching Andromeda and what where those guys doing? Yeah, blowing up a planet.)

I mean, hell. The special effects were sometimes even done by the same guys. (I think there is a falcon to be found in a ST episode, can't remember which)

[Whiskey144]

Now you just follow through with the easy assumption like every ship of S8472 contributing the same amount of energy (maybe the big ship double). So it depends on what way of calculation you may want to go, but I guess it would leave one single ships of S8472 with about the firepower of the death star. Maybe more, maybe less.

*facepalm*

Main Site S8472 Notes

Main Site Death Star Notes

You realize that you're an idiot, right?

(I mean yestarday I was watching Andromeda and what where those guys doing? Yeah, blowing up a planet.)

Planetary demolition a la DS1 has been a staple of science fiction for decades. Blowing up planets isn't being a copycat anymore, it's a trope. However, S8472-style demolition is emulation, as it's remarkably similar to the visual style of the Death Stars.

I mean, hell. The special effects were sometimes even done by the same guys. (I think there is a falcon to be found in a ST episode, can't remember which)

One of the Borg-related episodes or movies. Can't remember offhand which one, though I think it's First Contact. However, your point is relatively moot; it doesn't matter that the same guys are occasionally doing the special effects for both SW and ST. They use different effects that fit the stylistic approach of each. Hence why ILM's work on a couple of Trek films doesn't have the Enterprise firing red-tailed, conical proton torpedoes a la the X-Wings in ANH instead of the usual orange-ish, spherical starburst photorps.

[Norade]

I doubt a tech base that gets things to repulse against gravity without using energy needs to worry about containing fusion.

Those things are completely unrelated, and doesn't really address the main point anyway - that the explanation is fairly silly.

So is an android calling a fish an amphibian, the creating of a new standard unit like isotons, or there being cracks in event horizons. You have no leg to stand on when calling out science in any other series.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144
What are your two links saying? Nothing. Right.
(And as a matter of fact, they are both scaled the same in your link)
The formula used is a very, very large approximation.
To even get close to something precise you would need to run a simulation.


The calcualtion would be correct for one planet in the middle of the void, exploding in a giant nebula.

[Whiskey144]

What are your two links saying? Nothing. Right.

WUT?

(And as a matter of fact, they are both scaled the same in your link)

Did you even bother to actually read them both? It clearly said that the DS1 would require around 1E22 megatons to get the results we saw on-screen. In contrast, '8472's bioship-cluster-thing would require around 5E16 megatons (that's seven orders of magnitude LESS you dimwit) to blow up a planet, and we as we never saw the aftermath of the explosion, a la DS1 and Alderaan in ANH, that's all we can give it.

To even get close to something precise you would need to run a simulation.

*fistpalm, because facepalm does not express the level of FAIL*

You do realize that using something as basic as thermodynamics, such things were calc'd?

The calcualtion would be correct for one planet in the middle of the void, exploding in a giant nebula.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Because if you're attempting to say that the calcs are correct only if the planet is in deep space, not in orbit of a star (how the hell did it get there in the first place?), and being destroyed in a nebula, then.......
Well quite frankly, I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. I'm pretty sure that even D-XIII, who has been non-supportive of the 'pro-SW' side (no offense intended to Destructionator), would say that you're being an idiot.

[Norade]

#1: Units are created all the time. BTW there's no such standard unit as a "gigaton" but that doesn't stop people from using it! The whole point of shorthand units is convenience. If 4e18 kg * m^2/s^2 is a mouthful, someone will shorten it.

We have units for yield of large weapons and has been used by many official real world nations. There would be no reason to change to a new unit when the current system, as shown by both real life and this board, works just fine.

#2: tu quoque is a fallacy, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Except that tu quoque is commonly used in debates and in courts of law so I'm perfectly justified in pointing out your hypocrisy.

#3: The fish/amphibian thing never happened. It's a common myth. What he actually was talking about was a briefcase that looked like a fish, in the context of learning. He's not saying "a fish is an amphibian". He's told something that looks like a fish is funny. Some amphibians look like fish. So, are they funny too?

Alternatively, he's simply using the other valid definition of amphibian from the dictionary: a generic word meaning it works with both land and water. Land in that a person is carrying it, and water in that it has fish imagery.

Sorry, but that really is reaching there.

BTW, this tangent is doubly hilarious. On one hand, I bitch about writers bending over backward to keep all the Holy Canon from being wrong, but on the other hand, I'm ok with explaining what a simile is to explain a Data statement. Oh lol.

Yes, we all know how you love trying to make sure that Starfleet officers look like they know what they're doing in spite of many gaffs. Kilowatts per second anybody?

[Norade]

We have units for yield of large weapons and has been used by many official real world nations. There would be no reason to change to a new unit when the current system, as shown by both real life and this board, works just fine.

Energy is measured in joules, calories, BTUs, watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, electron volts, foot-pounds, and I'm sure many many others I'm forgetting.

That's just the kind of things you might see around the house in America. Well, maybe not electron volts around the house, but it's common enough.


Then, on top of all that shit, some asshole added grams of TNT and etc. Which I very, very rarely hear in the real world. I've heard people say "five hundred pound bomb" though, yay, another measure.


So that's seven different ways to talk about the same shit in use today, but it's omfg bad science to think there might be another one in the future and in a different country.


Of all the shit you could bitch about... this is like saying TOS is unrealistic because Captain Kirk's uniform has two solids and a dashed braid rather than four solids like many of us Anglophones are used too.

HOW DARE OTHER COUNTRIES NOT CONFORM TO MY EXPECTATIONS

Except that all real militaries use kilo and megatons to refer to nuclear yields numbnuts. If the didn't the terms wouldn't be used in international treaties on nuclear arms. Not to mention that most nations also refer to chemical explosive bombs by weight so when we have two perfectly good systems that have been in use since WWI in some cases why the fuck would that suddenly change to describing things in isotons? Care to explain

Except that tu quoque is commonly used in debates and in courts of law so I'm perfectly justified in pointing out your hypocrisy.

#1: Appeal to popularity is another fallacy

#2: What hypocrisy? My statement applied to Star Trek just as well as anything else.

1) This site is less strict than a court of law, thus anything that flies there and in professional debate can and will fly here regardless of if you like it.

2) Yes, you bend over backwards to defend stupid shit in Trek, but the moment Wars does it you point a finger in its direction.

Sorry, but that really is reaching there.

The real reach is taking someone saying essentially "an amphibian looks like a fish" and concluding that he thinks amphibians and fish are the same thing.

Given the stupid shit they say all the time it's easier to believe that he's as functionally handicapped as the rest of the crew.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144

Did you even bother to actually read them both? It clearly said that the DS1 would require around 1E22 megatons to get the results we saw on-screen. In contrast, '8472's bioship-cluster-thing would require around 5E16 megatons (that's seven orders of magnitude LESS you dimwit) to blow up a planet, and we as we never saw the aftermath of the explosion, a la DS1 and Alderaan in ANH, that's all we can give it.

Yeah, because it was just claimed, that it was several magnitutes higher.
The 1E16 is the lower limit for both.

You do realize that using something as basic as thermodynamics, such things were calc'd?

Yes, I do. I gave you the cirumstances under which such calculations would be correct.
Do you really think it would be so fucking easy to do such a thing in solar System?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Thats what I did suspect.

Well quite frankly, I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.

This are the assumption under which the calculations are made! Overcoming gravitational energy...
Lets but it like that, there is more than one possibility where a nuclear blast would be more than enough to rip a planet apart.
Just put him barly stable in the force nihilation point of several black holes.

[Norade]

why the fuck would that suddenly change to describing things in isotons? Care to explain

I don't have to explain. The fact is that it isn't bad science to use different units. The very fact that some people use kilotons (or kilowatt hours or electron volts or even calories and BTUs) instead of the proper Système international d'unités value of joules proves this.

But nobody in an official capacity uses anything but kilotons or megatons for high yield weapons... Funny how that works.

[Norade]

And in Star Trek, nobody in an official capacity uses anything but isotons.

Do you bitch about Galactica having centons and yahren too?

If I knew, then yeah. It's just being lazy and it sounds stupider than most made up words used in scifi.

[Darth Tedious]

That most off the "high end effects" do lack explaination or try to explain it into a manner which has nothing to do with real physics.

Most everyday stuff in both franchises has nothing to do with RL physics.
Blasters use !Tibanna gas!
Phasers use !Nadion particles!
FTL using !Hyperspace!
FTL using !Warp fields!
Amazing shit because !Midichlorians can do it!
Amazing shit because !*Quantum* can do anything!

I could go on. Why are you in a debate on soft sci-fi?

"It isn't real" is not a valid argument when you are debating about something which is imaginary.

Thats why you mostly do not try to elaborate such things, because real physics will bite you in the end.

The imaginary physics which power both SW and ST have been elaborated on to some length. Apparently you refuse to be aware of that, in spite of my quoting Death Star every time you repeat the bullshit claim that there has never been an explanation given.

Does the book you quoted from "Death Star" not state, that the beam somehow transfers normal matter in the hyperspace?

No. No it does not. Please learn to read.

Now you just follow through with the easy assumption like every ship of S8472 contributing the same amount of energy (maybe the big ship double). So it depends on what way of calculation you may want to go, but I guess it would leave one single ships of S8472 with about the firepower of the death star. Maybe more, maybe less.

That assumption has one huge logical flaw- if every ship has DS-level firepower, they could have destroyed the planet with a single ship.
It also runs into massive problems when we compare it with other examples of firepowr we've seen in ST.
If single ships can one-shot planets, why did it take 30 ships to perform a BDZ in DS9:'The Die Is Cast'?
If ship shields can withstand DS-level firepower, how did the Enterprise-D lose its shields to a 400 gigawatt particle beam in TNG:'The Survivors'?

I could go on, but there would be little point. You have already proven the effectiveness of your wall of ignorance.

[Darth Ruinus]

As to that tidbit about fusion reactos containing hypermatter reactions, I was under the impression that a hypermatter reactor had to somehow drag/slow down hypermatter to real splace. So a fusion reactor powers the mechanism that brings hypermatter in, if the fusion reactor is turned off then the hypermatter fuel in the main reactor just sits there as useless junk.

[Whiskey144]

Yeah, because it was just claimed, that it was several magnitutes higher.

DS1's blast is "claimed" as several magnitudes higher because of the fact that the planet was blasted apart at a very appreciable velocity, and reduced to an extremely dense asteroid field.

We saw no such aftermath in the case of the S8472 blast.......in fact, we didn't see any aftermath at all. Hence, we can only assume that the minimum firepower of the S8472 bioship cluster is 5E16 megatons, while the lone DS1 had a superlaser blast of 1E22 megatons.

Keep in mind that the DS1 also has heaps of turbolasers and PD guns and heavy armor and shielding that allow it to still take on enemy fleets and win.

The 1E16 is the lower limit for both.

First of, it's 5E16 megatons. Secondly, do you not understand what a lower limit is? It's the absolute minimum amount of energy required to accomplish something. Like blow up a planet, in this case. The estimate of 1E22 megatons for the DS1 is because of the fact that it appreciably scattered Alderaan's mass in a very short amount of time. It overcame the gravitational binding energy of the planet rapidly enough that it required six orders of magnitude more than the base estimate.

Yes, I do. I gave you the cirumstances under which such calculations would be correct.

Do you have proof that only under those circumstances those calcs would be correct? If so, I'd really like to see it.

Do you really think it would be so fucking easy to do such a thing in solar System?

*fistpalm* We're looking at a civilization that can build tens of thousands of mile long warships at a rate of several per day, and by a single manufacturer. They have ships which putter around at several thousand Gs. I think it's safe to say that they easily wield that much energy on a routine basis.

Thats what I did suspect.

You don't understand; I didn't say that because what you were saying was so "above my head and understanding". It was because it didn't make a bloody lick of sense!

This are the assumption under which the calculations are made! Overcoming gravitational energy...

Is what we saw. In this method of VS debating, WYSIWYG applies. What You See Is What You Get; we saw the DS1 zap a planet, and have said planet explode with enough violence that gravitational binding energy was overcome. It happened in a very simple way.

They shot the planet, immediately after which the planet went boom. Not so much with the S8472 bioships.

Lets but it like that, there is more than one possibility where a nuclear blast would be more than enough to rip a planet apart.

Assuming said nuclear blast is caused by a device with sufficient yield, then I see no reason to suspect that it couldn't be done. That it's likely to occur with any foreseeable technology humans might create at this point, probably not.

Just put him barly stable in the force nihilation point of several black holes.

WUT?

Seriously, this is why I asked what you were saying. You post in gibberish. Also, see Darth Tedious above elaborating on the logical flaw in S8472 bioship firepower.

[Lord Helmet]

Did you read what you quoted me as saying? Kim was the one who scanned the asteroid, and he expected fragmentation (into much smaller pieces than were observed). Chakotay eyeballed it, and thought it would be vapourised.

They/Kim scanned the roid, they/he would have then reported/sent the findings ect to Tuvok and Tuvok would have set the yield of the torp appropriately. Chakotay's comment is pretty typical for most of the situations it is used in accross all sci-fi and even non-sci-fi considering that "vapourised" virtually never means vapourised in as factual sense.

The fact is that we cannot say for sure and it is actually very unlikely considering how things are done that the torp was set to max.

Bullshit. We've seen torpedo hits in other cases that were nowhere near that powerful and the maximum yield they could fit by volume and known warhead material isn't all that high.

1. It is not bullshit it is fact we cannot use that scene to determine the max yield of a torpedo.

2. We are not discussing other torpedo hits of lesser or greater magnitude we are discussing that one.

3. Considering we know that firstly trek uses mass lightening and secondly even nowadays we can create Deuterium with a density of 140 kg/cm3 (ultra-dense deuterium) the volume of the warhead is not really a issue.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144

We saw no such aftermath in the case of the S8472 blast.......in fact, we didn't see any aftermath at all. Hence, we can only assume that the minimum firepower of the S8472 bioship cluster is 5E16 megatons, while the lone DS1 had a superlaser blast of 1E22 megatons.

As you could easy claim, that the blast caused by S8472 is around E30 megatons. (I do not care about the 5, because there is no reason to do so, if you are wiedling around the 10^X factors)

Do you have proof that only under those circumstances those calcs would be correct?

You mean: Do I have any proof that only the planet is factored in besidethe calculation itself?

Just freaking LOOK AT IT. Do you see anything about the solar system? No.

We're looking at a civilization that can build tens of thousands of mile long warships at a rate of several per day, and by a single manufacturer. They have ships which putter around at several thousand Gs. I think it's safe to say that they easily wield that much energy on a routine basis.

We are looking at a formular which could be handled by a 10 year old boy.

Assuming said nuclear blast is caused by a device with sufficient yield

Depending on the situation 20 megatons is more than enough.

WUT?

Jesus. One extream example where the rest of the solar system factors in quite extream.
In a normal solar system the gravitation between earth and sun is enough to keep us in orbit. Factored in? No.
The rotation energy (earth) is around 10^29 J. Faktored in?
All the kinetic energy of earth: 10^33 J.

You might want to look up how the gravitational binding energy is defined. It is the energy released if a nebula is becoming a planet.
(At least in the formula used)

@Darth Tedious

That assumption has one huge logical flaw- if every ship has DS-level firepower, they could have destroyed the planet with a single ship.

You will end up with this problem anyway. The only way to explain it away is giving the borg planetary shields which are quite able to absorb this much power.
It does not matter, if they have death star powerlevel, double death star power level, half death star power level, 1/1000 death star power level.
It quite leads to the same flaws. So hell, you do not blow it up with one shot, you shoot several times. You do not reduce it to dust but to some big rocks.Still, it is not done.

It also runs into massive problems when we compare it with other examples of firepowr we've seen in ST.

Well, what a surprise. And true for so many Movies, Series etc.

If single ships can one-shot planets, why did it take 30 ships to perform a BDZ in DS9:'The Die Is Cast'?

Why don't the borg use airborne nanobots?
(As always you may explain it away with the founders using some kind of shilds or forcefields to keep the planet stable)
(Not that it was my point, that in several hundred episodes one writer would break the barrier of sillyness)

If ship shields can withstand DS-level firepower, how did the Enterprise-D lose its shields to a 400 gigawatt particle beam in TNG:'The Survivors'?

The Enterprise D is quite older than the Voyager. And it was still able to withstand photon torpedos. (Which have under any assumption a quite higher yield) So there was something about this beam interacting with the shields. (I guess thats why the E-E got multiphase shields.)
(It gets even stranger, if you consider 7of9 is able to survive beeing hit by this amount of energy.)
So surprise: The technology in ST hase more than increase by the factor of 1000+++ between TNG and Voyager.
Darn it, there are several of similar problems within any movie, serie, PnP, computer game etc. (And that this is what I was saying all the freaking time)
You just try to hold on to the sillyness in StarWars while condeming the sillyness in StarTrek.
This is all I am saying.
Was the hole blow up Planet in Voyager silly? Yes, of course.
Was it silly in StarWars? Yes, of course.
Something like this is always silly.
If both StarTrek and StarWars would been written by Astrophysics, would they look different? Yes they would.
Would they be better as Movies? I doubt it.
Because silly, if it comes to physics is not silly if it comes to the story.

(I mean in StarWars it was a big problem to hit a hole with 1m radius (first death star).
Quote:"Not even a computer could do it."
Well, laser guided missiles from around 2000 had twice the precision.

Same thing with energy sources. The time StarWars was made it was all about fusion and fission. (The hyper matter was introduced later)
The time TNG was made it was about M/AM. (Which started to behave unlike anything in physics very soon)
The time SG was made it was about vacuum energy.
Well, if StarWars would be written today, I guess they would use ZPMs or something around this line.
@Norade

But nobody in an official capacity uses anything but kilotons or megatons for high yield weapons

Well, for now. I would not be so sure about that. Consider that TNT has not the importance it used to have.

[Darth Tedious]

That assumption has one huge logical flaw- if every ship has DS-level firepower, they could have destroyed the planet with a single ship.

You will end up with this problem anyway. The only way to explain it away is giving the borg planetary shields which are quite able to absorb this much power.

Like all your other explanations, it is a complete fabrication. We see the beam immediately interact with the planet itself.

Have another look (as if we haven't seen it enough times ).

The beam is fired from 0:31 to 0:37. If there was a planetary shield in place capable of absorbing over 10% of the beam's power (as you claim), it would have been observed.

Also note the visible asteroids from 0:52.
But feel free to keep claiming that the planet was entirely vapourised, and not blown into asteroids as Alderaan was. Apparently you are so obsessed with claiming that S8472's planet-killer was more powerful than the Death Star that you are willing to ignore the bleedingly fucking obvious.

It does not matter, if they have death star powerlevel, double death star power level, half death star power level, 1/1000 death star power level.
It quite leads to the same flaws.

If we assume the weapon must have been DET, then it does lead to those same flaws. If we consider that it was a chain reaction, it is reasonably consistant with everything else we've seen in Star Trek.
Of course, that would fuck up your claim that Voyager could lolpwn the Death Star...

It also runs into massive problems when we compare it with other examples of firepower we've seen in ST.

Well, what a surprise. And true for so many Movies, Series etc.

No. There are no demonstrations of firepower in the various series and films of the ST franchise that are as staggeringly inconsistant as your claim.

If single ships can one-shot planets, why did it take 30 ships to perform a BDZ in DS9:'The Die Is Cast'?

Why don't the borg use airborne nanobots?

Irrelevant.

(As always you may explain it away with the founders using some kind of shilds or forcefields to keep the planet stable)

No. We may not.

2:18 onwards.
There was no planetary shield.
Again, you are making fucking ridiculous assumptions to try and support your bullshit claims.
You might as well claim that the forces of Star Trek are on par with The Culture or the Xeelee.

(Not that it was my point, that in several hundred episodes one writer would break the barrier of sillyness)

Perhaps you should stop making bullshit side statements that don't relate to your point. Then you won't have to keep backpedalling from them.

If ship shields can withstand DS-level firepower, how did the Enterprise-D lose its shields to a 400 gigawatt particle beam in TNG:'The Survivors'?

The Enterprise D is quite older than the Voyager.

Really? You think technology got that much better in 7 years?

So surprise: The technology in ST hase more than increase by the factor of 1000+++ between TNG and Voyager.

Wow! You do.Strange that we did not see that technological increase in increments throughout TNG. Or did it all happen between Stardates 47988.0 and 48315.6?
Again, this is another bullshit claim in support of your "Voyager can lol at the DS" theory.

You just try to hold on to the sillyness in StarWars while condeming the sillyness in StarTrek.
This is all I am saying.

I don't condemn the planet-killing and BDZ's in Star Trek. I am against your claims about them which fly in the face of not just everything else we've seen in the series, but contradict what we see of the events themselves (i.e. there were asteroids when S8472 destroyed the planet, there were no planetary shields in TDiC).

Was the hole blow up Planet in Voyager silly? Yes, of course.
Was it silly in StarWars? Yes, of course.
Something like this is always silly.

Translation: "I can't win a versus debate, I'm just going to say it's all silly and made up!"
Suck it up, princess. Nobody's forcing you to participate in this 'silly' debate. You are free to fuck off whenever you like.

(I mean in StarWars it was a big problem to hit a hole with 1m radius (first death star).
Quote:"Not even a computer could do it."
Well, laser guided missiles from around 2000 had twice the precision.

1: The hole was 2m wide. Thanks for showing your ignorance.
2: The quote was: "That's impossible, even for a computer." Can you get anything right?
3: Feel free to back up your claim that any missile (even today) can turn 90° in the space of a meter.

[Mercenario]

Like all your other explanations, it is a complete fabrication. We see the beam immediately interact with the planet itself.

No, we do not. The first part is not shown. So there is still everything possible.

Also note the visible asteroids from 0:52.

Alright. I missed those in the last shot. Does not change a lot really.

There was no planetary shield.

Yeah, did not know this episode. They are also not firing big time. How long was it? 5 seconds? I counted 13 torpedos. Does not seem like they intended to blow up the planet...

Really? You think technology got that much better in 7 years?

Why not? Development is everything but linear.
Well, you do not get around it. I mean one freaking ship could stand up against an enemy in its own ground, while one of his ships used to be a major threat to the federation a while ago.

Wow! You do.Strange that we did not see that technological increase in increments throughout TNG.

How could we? You can't upgrade a ship every month. In a lot of companys today you will find mashines construcet in the 70s or even 60s. Not because there are no new ones, but the old ones still do the job.
It always begs the question, if you really have to upgrade or replace.

1: The hole was 2m wide. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

Radius=/= diameter.. So radius 1m = diameter 2m. There the two was hiding.

2: The quote was: "That's impossible, even for a computer." Can you get anything right?

Right, I was to lazy to look up the quote. Not that I changed the meaning in any way.

3: Feel free to back up your claim that any missile (even today) can turn 90° in the space of a meter.

Well, try another angle. (It still begs the question why they were flying in this rift in the first place. Anyway.)

[Darth Tedious]

No, we do not. The first part is not shown. So there is still everything possible.

We miss less than the first half a second.
Your theory was that each ship has equivalent firepower to the Death Star, but that there was a planetary shield in place so powerful that it took all 9 ships combined to penetrate it. If your theory was correct, most of the time the beam was being fired for would have been spent penetrating the shield. Your theory is a steaming carcass. Occam's razor cut its throat a while back.
But feel free to invent some new and even more convoluted reason as to why everything should work the way you imagine it to.

Alright. I missed those in the last shot. Does not change a lot really.

Didn't see those asteroids, did you? You should try paying attention. Your bullshit power calcs were based on the assumption that the entire planet had been vapourised. Also note that those asteroids did not appear to be moving at high fractional c- suggesting the destruction of the planet was much less violent than that of Alderaan.
But still- "Does not change a lot really."
How many orders of magnitude would you consider to be 'a lot'?
Asteroids present - concession accepted.

Yeah, did not know this episode. They are also not firing big time. How long was it? 5 seconds? I counted 13 torpedos. Does not seem like they intended to blow up the planet...

Seems you knew enough to know it was the Founders they were bombing. Perhaps you should watch the episode and get a fucking clue.
No planetary shields - concession accepted.

Why not? Development is everything but linear.

During late season 7 of TNG, (episode 7x19, 'Genesis') the Enterprise-D gets to test out some brand-new-and-improved photon torpedos, much to Worf's excitement. They were not orders of magnitude better than the previous model. The Mark IV photon torpedo had an 11% increase in yield, according to the test performed by Worf on Stardate 47653.2. That was mere months before the Voyager started her journey. But please, continue to claim that Voyager carried weapons thousands of time more powerful. Strange we didn't see them used in DS9- surely the Defiant would have carried weapons like that, being a newer ship than Voyager, and purpose built as a warship.

Well, you do not get around it. I mean one freaking ship could stand up against an enemy in its own ground, while one of his ships used to be a major threat to the federation a while ago.

In case you haven't seen Voyager, I should explain- they were able to get through Borg territory for two main reasons:
1. The Borg were reeling after the complete fisting they'd received from S8472 (close to completely defeated).
2. They had inside information from (and the help) of 7 of 9.

Without those two factors, it is highly unlikely Voyager would have survived her trip through Borg space.

How could we? You can't upgrade a ship every month. In a lot of companys today you will find mashines construcet in the 70s or even 60s. Not because there are no new ones, but the old ones still do the job.
It always begs the question, if you really have to upgrade or replace.

See above points regarding photon torpedo upgrades.

Well, try another angle. (It still begs the question why they were flying in this rift in the first place. Anyway.)

They had to fly below the Death Star's main shield, and avoid the surface defences as much as possible. A perpendicular shot would have allowed neither of these things.
Missile turning circles - concession accepted.

[Whiskey144]

As you could easy claim, that the blast caused by S8472 is around E30 megatons. (I do not care about the 5, because there is no reason to do so, if you are wiedling around the 10^X factors)

Except that I couldn't claim the '8472 blast was E30-range megatons. Because it isn't.

And that 5? It's very important. 5E16 megatons is the minimum required to 'blow up a planet'. 1E16 megatons simply will not get the job done.

Just freaking LOOK AT IT. Do you see anything about the solar system? No.

Have you considered the possibility that said solar system wouldn't have any effect on the destruction calcs? Have you considered the possibility that when wielding energies of this magnitude such factors as a solar system cease to be relevant, especially due to the rapidity with which said energies can be delivered?

We are looking at a formular which could be handled by a 10 year old boy.

Are you sure? They don't teach Algebra to 10-year-olds, IIRC.

Depending on the situation 20 megatons is more than enough.

O_o Are you serious? Do you really believe that? I mean it, because if you do, then you're nuts. We've tested bombs that big, IIRC, and nothing bad happened on anywhere near that scale of destruction. 20 megatons is about what you need to kill a city.

I mean, just what kind of situation would there be where 20 megatons is "more than enough" to blow up a planet?! The kind where it's hyperbole and the entire enemy civilization is clustered into a single city?

Jesus. One extream example where the rest of the solar system factors in quite extream.
In a normal solar system the gravitation between earth and sun is enough to keep us in orbit. Factored in? No.
The rotation energy (earth) is around 10^29 J. Faktored in?
All the kinetic energy of earth: 10^33 J.

Well, let's see. E29 Joules is about the amount of energy needed to blow off the oceans of Earth into space. E30 Joules is just slightly less than what you'd need to blow the crust off into space.

You need E31-E32 Joules to blow up the planet. I'd say that the 'kinetic energy of Earth' and the rotational energy of the planet aren't going to be relevant. It seems to me, at least, that the gravitational binding energy is much greater than either rotational or total kinetic energy (which would include rotational, you moron). So that's all that needs to be overcome.

Incidentally, gravitation between Earth and the Sun is irrelevant. It's only going to keep the debris in orbit.

You might want to look up how the gravitational binding energy is defined. It is the energy released if a nebula is becoming a planet.
(At least in the formula used)

Hmm. Let's see:

The gravitational binding energy of an object consisting of loose material, held together by gravity alone, is the amount of energy required to pull all of the material apart, to infinity. It is also the amount of energy that is liberated (usually in the form of heat) during the accretion of such an object from material falling from infinity.

Huh. Nothing about nebulae. Just stuff about the planet. Looks like you're wrong.

[Mercenario]

I did not want to do the math, but alright.

How many orders of magnitude would you consider to be 'a lot'?

If they were hit by debris, we would need to estimate the speed the depris was flying with.
We see the cubes accelerating for about a second before the planet explodes.
Even if we just assume 1000g (1/3 of federation technology) we end up with 9.810 m/s.
But the last cube is destroyed 5 seconds after the start of the acceleration.
This would lead us to around 40-50 km/s. Thats 4 times the exit velocity of earth.
(And here I made the assumption, that both cubes started with 0 speed and have a crapy acceleration compared to federation ships)
And those assumption are much too low, because the cubes would only have traveld around 100km. This does not seem to fit.
So the numbers would be quite higher.
If the cube just started one light second away from the planet and did not move at all, we would and up with debris at a speed of 500 times the exit velocity of earth.
Even if I just take 10% of the mass (earth) at the speed of 50km/s I would end up with 10^33 J.

That was mere months before the Voyager started her journey

With class 6 warheads with a yield of 200 isotons.

But please, continue to claim that Voyager carried weapons thousands of time more powerful.

Well, the voyager crew made the claims, that one 80 isoton warhead would destroy a small planet, while having 200 isoton warheads at their disposal.
It is the voyager taking hits from ships and surviving, while they rip out huge pieces of borg cubes. (Before 7 of 9)

1. The Borg were reeling after the complete fisting they'd received from S8472 (close to completely defeated).
2. They had inside information from (and the help) of 7 of 9.

And still, they picked fights with cubes, which are able to wibe out a hole fleet in TNG. Even the cube with 5 drones would still had enough punch to crush a lot of ships, even if he would fire very inefficient.
Yeah and Seven just getting their shield up by "a lot" in a few hours, in liquide space.

And not that the borgs needed a lot of time after S8472 fall back to regroup.

[Whiskey144]

Even if we just assume 1000g (1/3 of federation technology) we end up with 9.810 m/s.

Funny, because the acceleration figure given for the Enterprise-D is 1500 Gs. Admittedly it's from the Tech Manuals, the canonicity of which I simply haven't got a clue about (some sources say yes, some say no), but hey, it's something to work with.

I did not want to do the math, but alright.

I see no math. Where is it? Is it hiding behind you, perhaps?

And still, they picked fights with cubes, which are able to wibe out a hole fleet in TNG. Even the cube with 5 drones would still had enough punch to crush a lot of ships, even if he would fire very inefficient.

TNG =/= VOY. The situation in TNG is vastly different from the one in Voyager, especially considering the additional circumstances WRT the Borg/8472 conflict, and the induction of a former Borg drone into Voyager's crew.

And not that the borgs needed a lot of time after S8472 fall back to regroup.

Proof?

Well, the voyager crew made the claims, that one 80 isoton warhead would destroy a small planet, while having 200 isoton warheads at their disposal.

First off, you have to define "small planet". Secondly, that's from a bit of dialogue that is more than likely hyperbole. Try again.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144

TNG =/= VOY. The situation in TNG is vastly different from the one in Voyager, especially considering the additional circumstances WRT the Borg/8472 conflict, and the induction of a former Borg drone into Voyager's crew.

Has no impact on the firepower of a single borg ship.

I see no math. Where is it? Is it hiding behind you, perhaps?

You see the numbers? Well, they came from other numbers. Right, I did not write down the calculations, because I thought it would be obvious.

Proof?

A lot of cubes flying around doing stuff. No mentioning of the weakend borg after the 8472 episodes.

For the gravitational potential:
Yes you would normally use "infinity" but the potential of a nebula several light seconds big is quite low compared to a dense planet. So it is not that important. (Anyway it would go against your point, not mine)

Funny, because the acceleration figure given for the Enterprise-D is 1500 Gs

Well, still much faster than the number I took. The last I read was 3000 g. Does not really matter anyway.