Your opinions: Minimum phaser setting to affect a stormtrooper?

[darthy2]

Calculations, please. You're the one claiming that being hit in the head by a trained soldier wearing armor of uncertain capabilities is not a serious threat.

Precise calculations are not necessary. You can just eyeball this one. We see stormtroopers get knocked out with little physical contact.

0.5 • m • v2

You can go ahead and try to guess the velocity and mass of everything based on the velocity of the moving bodies in star trek 6 and how easy it is to mess up a stormtrooper with physical contact. Sure I can do the calculations but why? I'm arguing with people who are skeptical that phasers are really phasers when it contradicts arguments.

[Batman]

This is not an argument. You are begging the question, a formal logical fallacy; you assume that no extra power is required to bypass stormtrooper armor.

No your question is flawed. More power makes it less of a stun setting. How much power do you want to pump into someone and call it stun?

Enough power to actually stun them, which as everybody but you understands is NOT a fixed value.

Asking me to prove which stun weapon is more powerful is idiotic. Stun settings are adjustable and then it's no longer considered stun in someone's judgement.

And that is perfectly logical. What would be 'stun' in one set of circumstances may turn into 'seriously hurt/kill' in another. In fact we KNOW stun can be used to kill thanks to TUC.

[Batman]

Calculations, please. You're the one claiming that being hit in the head by a trained soldier wearing armor of uncertain capabilities is not a serious threat.

Precise calculations are not necessary. You can just eyeball this one. We see stormtroopers get knocked out with little physical contact.
0.5 • m • v2
You can go ahead and try to guess the velocity and mass of everything based on the velocity of the moving bodies in star trek 6 and how easy it is to mess up a stormtrooper with physical contact. Sure I can do the calculations but why?

To prove you actually are capable of doing it, which I find more and more dubious as you continue to post.

I'm arguing with people who are skeptical that phasers are really phasers when it contradicts arguments.

All you have to do to shut us up is prove those WERE phasers.

[darthy2]

This is not an argument. You are begging the question, a formal logical fallacy; you assume that no extra power is required to bypass stormtrooper armor.

No your question is flawed. More power makes it less of a stun setting. How much power do you want to pump into someone and call it stun?

Enough power to actually stun them, which as everybody but you understands is NOT a fixed value.

Asking me to prove which stun weapon is more powerful is idiotic. Stun settings are adjustable and then it's no longer considered stun in someone's judgement.

And that is perfectly logical. What would be 'stun' in one set of circumstances may turn into 'seriously hurt/kill' in another. In fact we KNOW stun can be used to kill thanks to TUC.

Yup stun is a fluid term. Which stun weapon is more powerful makes no sense to ask if the weapon is adjustable. It depends on the definition of stun.

Simple enough question; a goldshirt from the Enterprise D is attempting to shoot a stormtrooper, based on your opinion, what do you think the minimum setting he should use to be certain of affecting the target is?

Definition of affecting too. Even the slingshot device affected the stormtroopers. The lowest stun setting should have some affect on a stormtrooper. Is it possible to argue that it can't to no end though? Of course. You're demonstrating that. I can argue the world is flat to no end too. That means nothing.

[Batman]

No your question is flawed. More power makes it less of a stun setting. How much power do you want to pump into someone and call it stun?

Enough power to actually stun them, which as everybody but you understands is NOT a fixed value.

Asking me to prove which stun weapon is more powerful is idiotic. Stun settings are adjustable and then it's no longer considered stun in someone's judgement.

And that is perfectly logical. What would be 'stun' in one set of circumstances may turn into 'seriously hurt/kill' in another. In fact we KNOW stun can be used to kill thanks to TUC.

Yup stun is a fluid term.

Yes and no. It's not a stun if your target ignores your fire no matter what your weapon was set for.

Which stun weapon is more powerful makes no sense to ask if the weapon is adjustable. It depends on the definition of stun.

The definition of stun is stun. If your weapon FAILS to stun the target, it failed to work. Stormtrooper armour in the way means they may be (and likely are) more resistant to stun phasers than goldshirts in PJs.

Simple enough question; a goldshirt from the Enterprise D is attempting to shoot a stormtrooper, based on your opinion, what do you think the minimum setting he should use to be certain of affecting the target is?

Definition of affecting too. Even the slingshot device affected the stormtroopers. The lowest stun setting should have some affect on a stormtrooper. Is it possible to argue that it can't to no end though? Of course. You're demonstrating that. I can argue the world is flat to no end too. That means nothing.

Now we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you lack a significant amount of IQ points before you'd qualify as a complete and utter moron.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about you ablating the first nanometre of the armour or heating it up by .00000000000000000000000000001 centigrade.
In this context 'affecting' obviously means 'defeating'. In a combat situation nobody worries about making their opponent mildy incomfortable or taking 15 seconds off their gear's service life.

[darthy2]

Yes and no. It's not a stun if your target ignores your fire no matter what your weapon was set for.

See

ARCHER: This doesn't look very residential. Set your phase pistol to kill. When the Reptilians boarded Enterprise, stun had no effect. See what you can find out. I'll look over there.

They still call it stun even if it does not stun. How high must a phaser setting go before it can be considered non-stun? With star wars blasters it's easy. When the blaster shoots rings instead of beams.

The definition of stun is stun. If your weapon FAILS to stun the target, it failed to work. Stormtrooper armour in the way means they may be (and likely are) more resistant to stun phasers than goldshirts in PJs.

That's a circular definition of the word "stun". In the scene where ezra stunned the two wearing stormtrooper armor, some people said that was not considered "stun". This is one definition:

knock unconscious or into a dazed or semiconscious state.

Just like Quark may not have been knocked unconscious he was still stunned.

Now we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you lack a significant amount of IQ points before you'd qualify as a complete and utter moron.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about you ablating the first nanometre of the armour or heating it up by .00000000000000000000000000001 centigrade.
In this context 'affecting' obviously means 'defeating'. In a combat situation nobody worries about making their opponent mildy incomfortable or taking 15 seconds off their gear's service life.

That's how I read it. I take it by your tone that you would concede that under a broad interpretation of the question, the lowest phaser setting would be the answer to the question.

To prove you actually are capable of doing it, which I find more and more dubious as you continue to post.

We've been through it before, you should know that I know how to do it. The kinetic energy used to knock out a stormtrooper is low from the scenes I picked out. The amount of kinetic energy from a phaser may be low too, but high enough to affect a stormtrooper. If it weren't so easy to knock out a stormtrooper this wouldn't be an issue.

All you have to do to shut us up is prove those WERE phasers.

At any given time is Data really Data? or is it secretly Lore who took his place? Was it really a phaser? The answer is in the question. If it fits the definition of phaser it is, otherwise it is not. What would make it a non-phaser? It's definitely a phaser as I define the term. It's true by axiom.

[Khaat]

We've been through it before, you should know that I know how to do it. The kinetic energy used to knock out a stormtrooper is low from the scenes I picked out. The amount of kinetic energy from a phaser may be low too, but high enough to affect a stormtrooper. If it weren't so easy to knock out a stormtrooper this wouldn't be an issue.

Kinetic energy is not radiant energy (or whatever phaser shots are). Kinetic energy from all Trek phasers we have seen (except for your one example where the weapon performs unlike a phaser) is zero or near enough to be excluded from their primary effectiveness as weapons.

If it fits the definition of phaser it is, otherwise it is not. What would make it a non-phaser? It's definitely a phaser as I define the term. It's true by axiom.

Your example weapon's performance does not conform to the rest of Trek "phaser" performance, therefore by observable performance (I know, that pesky "science and logic" thing again!) it isn't a phaser. Your duck doesn't even look like a duck, darthy2! [Just in case you don't understand, by "duck" I mean "phaser".] After you denied two entire franchises worth of "humans are humans" evidence (regardless of "how" tangents), you want others to just accept that this example is a phaser despite observable performance incongruities.

[edit: fixed a quote tag]

[Lord Revan]

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't belive Watch-man could pretend to be someone else (his ego wouldn't let him get away with it), I'd say Darthy was a sock-puppet. That doesn't exclude the possibility that Darth is Watch-man's minion or accolyte meant to make the master seem more rational, either way their quite a lot of similarities in their posting styles though Darthy's is less refined and even more obvious that he's totally out of his depth with these matters and fails the moment people don't get so impressed with is pseudo intellectlism that they submit without questions (aka the moment he's debating someone not in their mid to late teens).

[darthy2]

We've been through it before, you should know that I know how to do it. The kinetic energy used to knock out a stormtrooper is low from the scenes I picked out. The amount of kinetic energy from a phaser may be low too, but high enough to affect a stormtrooper. If it weren't so easy to knock out a stormtrooper this wouldn't be an issue.

Kinetic energy is not radiant energy (or whatever phaser shots are). Kinetic energy from all Trek phasers we have seen (except for your one example where the weapon performs unlike a phaser) is zero or near enough to be excluded from their primary effectiveness as weapons.

If it fits the definition of phaser it is, otherwise it is not. What would make it a non-phaser? It's definitely a phaser as I define the term. It's true by axiom.

Your example weapon's performance does not conform to the rest of Trek "phaser" performance, therefore by observable performance (I know, that pesky "science and logic" thing again!) it isn't a phaser. Your duck doesn't even look like a duck, darthy2! [Just in case you don't understand, by "duck" I mean "phaser".] After you denied two entire franchises worth of "humans are humans" evidence (regardless of "how" tangents), you want others to just accept that this example is a phaser despite observable performance incongruities.

[edit: fixed a quote tag]

Kinetic energy is not radiant energy (or whatever phaser shots are). Kinetic energy from all Trek phasers we have seen (except for your one example where the weapon performs unlike a phaser) is zero or near enough to be excluded from their primary effectiveness as weapons.

There is kenetic energy from a phaser. We see it in zero gravity and quotes like this:

JANEWAY: Come on, Chakotay, there must be some talent you have that people would enjoy. Maybe I could stand with an apple on my head and you could phaser it off.

Your example weapon's performance does not conform to the rest of Trek "phaser" performance, therefore by observable performance (I know, that pesky "science and logic" thing again!) it isn't a phaser. Your duck doesn't even look like a duck, darthy2! [Just in case you don't understand, by "duck" I mean "phaser".] After you denied two entire franchises worth of "humans are humans" evidence (regardless of "how" tangents), you want others to just accept that this example is a phaser despite observable performance incongruities.

Just because you see a phaser do something in one scene only and nowhere else, does not mean that it is not a phaser. It could be a different type of phaser or a phaser setting that's not normally used. Here's the logic:

1) Only a low amount of motion transfer is necessary to affect a stormtrooper
2) Phasers transfer a some amount of motion transfer on the objects it hits
3) Therefor phasers can affect a stormtrooper

Maybe you should have said it's not a "standard phaser that you see in other episodes". People are being pretty sloppy with their words here.

[Esquire]

Just because you see a phaser do something in one scene only and nowhere else, does not mean that it is not a phaser. It could be a different type of phaser or a phaser setting that's not normally used. Here's the logic:

1) Only a low amount of motion transfer is necessary to affect a stormtrooper
2) Phasers transfer a some amount of motion transfer on the objects it hits
3) Therefor phasers can affect a stormtrooper

That's... like six different logical fallacies all wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument. Precisely how much kinetic energy is needed to knock out a stormtrooper? Precisely how much does a standard phaser impart? If you use the one-off not-really-a-phaser from STVI, why should we accept that it's representative of general Starfleet capabilities?

Maybe you should have said it's not a "standard phaser that you see in other episodes". People are being pretty sloppy with their words here.

Well, that's one option. Personally, I prefer "you're an insufferable pedant."

[WATCH-MAN]

Just because you see a phaser do something in one scene only and nowhere else, does not mean that it is not a phaser. It could be a different type of phaser or a phaser setting that's not normally used. Here's the logic:

1) Only a low amount of motion transfer is necessary to affect a stormtrooper
2) Phasers transfer a some amount of motion transfer on the objects it hits
3) Therefor phasers can affect a stormtrooper

That's... like six different logical fallacies all wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument. Precisely how much kinetic energy is needed to knock out a stormtrooper? Precisely how much does a standard phaser impart? If you use the one-off not-really-a-phaser from STVI, why should we accept that it's representative of general Starfleet capabilities?

Name them.

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...

Somehow I doubt that you know six logical fallacies by name - let alone really understand them.

Show that I am wrong by naming and explaining the "six logical fallacies" darthy2 has allegedly "wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument".

[Khaat]

There is kenetic energy from a phaser. We see it in zero gravity and quotes like this:

JANEWAY: Come on, Chakotay, there must be some talent you have that people would enjoy. Maybe I could stand with an apple on my head and you could phaser it off.

You presume that by "phaser it off" she meant "knock it off", but she didn't actually say that, so it isn't what you need it to mean, except in your interpretation. Also, hyperbole. (Look it up, I'll wait.) But, hey, feed the trolls! Sure, I'll let you knock a 70-gram apple off another near-spherical object! I'll do that because...
You failed in reading comprehension, too:

... is zero or near enough to be excluded from their effectiveness as weapons.

Did you get it that time? Do you think phasers are kinetic projectile weapons? Is that your disconnect? I think the hole in the ST:tUC target (which wasn't hydro-static shock damage from a projectile passing through, but a disintegration of critically-necessary-for-life volume - the clue is that the mass is missing entirely) killed him more than any (minor) push (kinetic effect).

Just because you see a phaser do something in one scene only and nowhere else, does not mean that it is not a phaser. It could be a different type of phaser or a phaser setting that's not normally used. Here's the logic:
1) Only a low amount of motion transfer is necessary to affect a stormtrooper

Do you have the math or an example of the "drive-by fruiting" being comparable to this one Trek weapon's minor kinetic effect? (Why has this weapon's kinetic effect not been displayed by any other phaser weapon in the hundreds of examples of phaser fire? Well, it doesn't matter: it's never seen again, so certainly not the standard by which the audience knows the term "phaser", so likely not likely (as a useless outlier) to be used in the OP's question.)

2) Phasers transfer a some amount of motion transfer on the objects it hits

One weapon in ST:tUC transfers observable (i.e. "noticeable"), minor (non-weaponized) kinetic energy in zero gravity (possibly by secondary effect.) Care to quantify that minor kinetic effect? Even a rough estimate: the body moves on the screen, right? Over a sustained fired beam effect? Work out the actual magnitude, but do it quickly (I know you can! I believe in you!)

3) Therefor phasers can affect a stormtrooper

You skipped all the work (and math) on this conclusion. Where did you quantify stormtrooper armor resistance to energy weapons? Where did you quantify the radiant energy effect (the weapon effect) of Trek phasers?

Maybe you should have said it's not a "standard phaser that you see in other episodes". People are being pretty sloppy with their words here.

And you spectacularly failed to understand "performance" instead of "name". I'll give you an example and it's about toys, so you'll probably just love it: I had a plastic model of a phaser when i was a kid (and a tricorder and a shuttle Galileo, too!) I called it a phaser. Does that mean it performed like one?

[Esquire]

EDIT: Ninja'd; this is for WATCH-MAN, in case it wasn't clear from context.

Really? That's your takeaway?

Fine. I make it an anecdotal fallacy, argument from ignorance, continuum fallacy, equivocation fallacy, at least two false equivalencies, and at least two counts of begging the question. Darthy2:

1) uses an isolated particular to draw a general conclusion,

2) asserts that because it's all fictional anyway we can't prove him wrong,

3) ignores rational objections because he objects to our dispute of the word 'phaser',

4) has a personal definition of 'phaser' different from everybody elses', which he has not explained or justified,

5) claims that the aforementioned particular is equivalent to all other recorded uses of a phaser although it has none of the effectual characteristics of one, and that one (unquantified) kinetic impact is exactly the same as another (unquantified) kinetic impact, and

6) refuses to provide any kind of proof for his arguments besides his own unsupported claims, either that a low amount of kinetic energy (compared to what?) can affect an armored stormtrooper or that a phaser can exceed this amount.

Concession accepted.

[darthy2]

That's... like six different logical fallacies all wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument. Precisely how much kinetic energy is needed to knock out a stormtrooper? Precisely how much does a standard phaser impart? If you use the one-off not-really-a-phaser from STVI, why should we accept that it's representative of general Starfleet capabilities?

How about false dichotomy on your part with "it's either representative of general starfleet capabilities" or it's not. As noted in the technical manual link of the original post, there are many types of phasers. It is a hasty generalization to assume all stun settings of all phasers fall into a single category.

As someone already said, there is no fixed amount of kinetic energy to knock out a stormtrooper. The scene from Star Trek 6 shows kinetic energy. I provided the scene because I was asked to. Then you committed a moving the goalpost fallacy and wanted more evidence. Kinetic energy implies motion. Every phaser beam moves, does it not? The beam can carry matter, such as when 7 of 9 configured phasers to fire borg nanoprobes. There needs to be kinetic energy in there.

When people fall back after being hit with a phaser and it's the phaser's force did that much of the time. It may look like it's the character doing it though. This is because you failed to apply suspension of disbelief there. We know the actors are the ones doing the moving most of the time and not the implied motion transfer. This is a false equivalence fallacy on your part. This thread is littered with ad hominem fallacies too obviously.

[Esquire]

How about false dichotomy on your part with "it's either representative of general starfleet capabilities" or it's not. As noted in the technical manual link of the original post, there are many types of phasers. It is a hasty generalization to assume all stun settings of all phasers fall into a single category.

This is an example of a true dichotomy, actually; what's the third option between 'is representative of general Starfleet capabilities' and 'is not representative of general Starfleet capabilities,' exactly? But fair enough: name a generally-issued type of phaser which causes bleeding open wounds. Show evidence that they're common enough to be reasonably available to the average Starfleet officer.

As someone already said, there is no fixed amount of kinetic energy to knock out a stormtrooper. The scene from Star Trek 6 shows kinetic energy. I provided the scene because I was asked to. Then you committed a moving the goalpost fallacy and wanted more evidence. Kinetic energy implies motion. Every phaser beam moves, does it not? The beam can carry matter, such as when 7 of 9 configured phasers to fire borg nanoprobes. There needs to be kinetic energy in there.

This is dishonest and irrelevant. My goalposts have always been the same: show how much kinetic energy is imparted by a phaser beam, then show that it exceeds any minimum-KE requirement for knocking out a stormtrooper you choose. A falling feather also carries kinetic energy, do you want to claim that one of those could knock out a stormtrooper?

When people fall back after being hit with a phaser and it's the phaser's force did that much of the time. It may look like it's the character doing it though. This is because you failed to apply suspension of disbelief there. We know the actors are the ones doing the moving most of the time and not the implied motion transfer. This is a false equivalence fallacy on your part.

...How? You have yet to show any significant imparted kinetic energy from a phaser blast under standard conditions. Moreover, you have yet to show what possible relevance this could have to the effectiveness of stun blasts through stormtrooper armor.

This thread is littered with ad hominem fallacies too obviously.

Mocking you for making poor arguments is not an ad hominem fallacy. Saying 'we know this can't possibly be true because darthy2 said it' would be an ad hominem fallacy, absent a more substantive rebuttal. Show that any such case has occurred.

EDIT: spelling

[darthy2]

This is an example of a true dichotomy, actually; what's the third option between 'is representative of general Starfleet capabilities' and 'is not representative of general Starfleet capabilities,' exactly? But fair enough: name a generally-issued type of phaser which causes bleeding open wounds. Show evidence that they're common enough to be reasonably available to the average Starfleet officer.

The one used in star trek 6. Phasers on the enterprise are generally available to the entire fleet. We've seen phasers used as cutting tools before. They should be able to cut into flesh. A sustained hit with a phaser is probably why it does that. That's why you see burns instead of punctures most of the time.

This is dishonest and irrelevant. My goalposts have always been the same: show how much kinetic energy is imparted by a phaser beam, then show that it exceeds any minimum-KE requirement for knocking out a stormtrooper you choose. A falling feather also carries kinetic energy, do you want to claim that one of those could knock out a stormtrooper?

I might estimate the mass and velocity of everything sometime. When I do estimates, I try to be as accurate as possible which takes time. But given that stormtroopers go down so easily and phasers that demonstrate motion do exist it shouldn't be that hard to come up with calculations that justify that conclusion.

I can summarize how that'll go though:

I'll say the mass is this, the velocity is that, kinetic energy is this, kinetic energy is that, force is this, force is that, therefore a phaser can knock out a stormtrooper with kinetic energy alone. Then someone will make some kind of point about armor, force distribution or the environment or something. Then we'll go back and forth about one of those things in there until I'm still left with the conclusion that stormtroopers go down with little force needed and a phaser should be able to produce that force. Can you provide evidence that this is not how it's going to go without me going through the motions of it all?

[WATCH-MAN]

That's... like six different logical fallacies all wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument. Precisely how much kinetic energy is needed to knock out a stormtrooper? Precisely how much does a standard phaser impart? If you use the one-off not-really-a-phaser from STVI, why should we accept that it's representative of general Starfleet capabilities?

Name them.

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...

Somehow I doubt that you know six logical fallacies by name - let alone really understand them.

Show that I am wrong by naming and explaining the "six logical fallacies" darthy2 has allegedly "wrapped up into one incoherent, poorly-spelled pseudoargument".

EDIT: Ninja'd; this is for WATCH-MAN, in case it wasn't clear from context.

Really? That's your takeaway?

Fine. I make it an anecdotal fallacy, argument from ignorance, continuum fallacy, equivocation fallacy, at least two false equivalencies, and at least two counts of begging the question. Darthy2:

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 made

1. an anecdotal fallacy
2. an argument from ignorance
3. a continuum fallacy
4. an equivocation fallacy
5. a false equivalencies fallacy
6. a begging the question fallacy

1) uses an isolated particular to draw a general conclusion,

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 used an isolated particular to draw a general conclusion?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

2) asserts that because it's all fictional anyway we can't prove him wrong,

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 asserted that because it's all fictional anyway you can't prove him wrong?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

3) ignores rational objections because he objects to our dispute of the word 'phaser',

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 ignored rational objections because he objects to your dispute of the word 'phaser'?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

And please show that your objection, darthy2 ignored, was indeed rational.

4) has a personal definition of 'phaser' different from everybody elses', which he has not explained or justified,

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 explained that he has a personal definition of 'phaser' different from everybody elses', which he has not explained or justified?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

And please explain the definition of 'phaser' from everybody else.

5) claims that the aforementioned particular is equivalent to all other recorded uses of a phaser although it has none of the effectual characteristics of one, and that one (unquantified) kinetic impact is exactly the same as another (unquantified) kinetic impact,

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 claimed that aforementioned particular is equivalent to all other recorded uses of a phaser?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

6) refuses to provide any kind of proof for his arguments besides his own unsupported claims, either that a low amount of kinetic energy (compared to what?) can affect an armored stormtrooper or that a phaser can exceed this amount.

Please elaborate.

Where and how has darthy2 refused to provide any kind of proof for his arguments?

And what fallacy is this?

Please show that darthy2 argumentation does fall under the definition of this fallacy.

Concession accepted.

I haven't offered a concession and I do not know what I could concede at all.

[Esquire]

I'll say the mass is this, the velocity is that, kinetic energy is this, kinetic energy is that, force is this, force is that, therefore a phaser can knock out a stormtrooper with kinetic energy alone. Then someone will make some kind of point about armor, force distribution or the environment or something. Then we'll go back and forth about one of those things in there until I'm still left with the conclusion that stormtroopers go down with little force needed and a phaser should be able to produce that force. Can you provide evidence that this is not how it's going to go without me going through the motions of it all?

Since it's quite obvious that your beliefs aren't subject to rational argument, I'm unable to disagree with the last bit. You are assuming that the calculations would actually support your beliefs, though, which is far from a given.

<snip bullshit>

Within the last page and a half of this thread. I'll elaborate when you phrase an intelligent question instead of just engaging in goalpost-shifting and nitpicking.

Both of you: if you think you can prove that low-level phaser stun blasts will work against armored stormtroopers, provide some figures to back up the claim. If you have any, I'd be very interested to see them; if they're correct, I'll cheerfully admit you were right all along - but not bloody well until. This is at least the third explicit request for genuine, scientifically-useful proof on the last two pages alone, none of which have ever been satisfied. You're clearly convinced of this, show us why.

[darthy2]

Okay here's the proof. We see a phaser knock a door open in TNG episode "Encounter at Farpoint":



in episode "First Contact" we see a phaser shoot a medical device over:

[Esquire]

...Neither of those pictures either A) shows what you say they do, B) can't be explained by other means (disintegration, either in whole or in part), or C) establishes any equivalence between average phaser-imparted kinetic energy, phaser stun-blast-imparted kinetic energy, and/or the amount of kinetic energy required to knock out a stormtrooper. Try again.

[Khaat]

How about false dichotomy on your part with "it's either representative of general starfleet capabilities" or it's not. As noted in the technical manual link of the original post, there are many types of phasers. It is a hasty generalization to assume all stun settings of all phasers fall into a single category.

I'm pointing out your ST:tUC weapon on "kill" performs unlike any other Trek phaser. The sauce for that particular goose is that the exhibited kinetic effect of that weapon is to center-mass (not an "unquantified fruiting to the head"), and a secondary effect, of a killing/partial disintegration shot, to boot. Do you think turning the power-level down from "kill/partial-disintegrate" would add to the kinetic effect?

As someone already said, there is no fixed amount of kinetic energy to knock out a stormtrooper. The scene from Star Trek 6 shows kinetic energy. I provided the scene because I was asked to. Then you committed a moving the goalpost fallacy and wanted more evidence. Kinetic energy implies motion. Every phaser beam moves, does it not? The beam can carry matter, such as when 7 of 9 configured phasers to fire borg nanoprobes. There needs to be kinetic energy in there.

How much energy do you use to move something called "nanoprobes" such that they aren't destroyed upon launching and upon reaching the target? I'm betting it's very little (microscopic mass x significantly sub-c velocity = little kinetic energy), considering the delivery system is a beam (allowing significantly sub-c delivery time), not a "bullet". Again, I allowed for "zero or near enough (kinetic energy) to be excluded from their effectiveness as weapons." Phasers emit quasi-electrical and disintegrating-light-beams.
You leapt to the conclusion that the kinetic effect exhibited by a one-off Federation weapon (set to "kill" power levels) was sufficient to stun a stormtrooper by kinetic effect alone. Fail. You also failed in that kinetic energy transfer is not how phasers affect targets.

Here:

Stun setting was the term used for non-lethal low yield settings on directed energy weapons, powerful enough to cause disorientation, unconsciousness and minor skin burns to a humanoid lifeform. (TOS: "The Man Trap"; TNG: "Samaritan Snare"; VOY: "Distant Origin")

Just in case you needed it explained how phasers do their job, "set on stun". Notice what was left out of the compiled (and verified) efforts of obsessive Trek fans? That's right: the weapon-grade kinetic effects you want to prove believe in. (You don't want to prove them, or you would have, you said you could!)

When people fall back after being hit with a phaser and it's the phaser's force did that much of the time.

Emphasis mine.
Unsubstantiated. I know you want it to be "and", but it really isn't. Disprove other common explanations, at least.

It may look like it's the character doing it though. This is because you failed to apply suspension of disbelief there.

Emphasis mine.
You have concluded that your hypothesis is the only possibility?

I have an alternate hypothesis: phasers, as directed energy weapons, have brief seizure-inducing properties (a "shock") on humans and humanoids (with a central nervous system, electrically-stimulated musculature, and a dynamic - that means "unstable without constant muscular adjustments" - upright skeleton), hence humans/humanoids often fly or fall about in an uncontrolled, involuntary spasm, under their own muscle-power, when hit. (Disclaimer: don't try this at home!) Ever touch an alternating current lead? Same principle. It fits the stun effects as described (and observed!) better than a kinetic effect we haven't seen (except once, with a weapon never shown again.)

My hypothesis: 1) it doesn't invent necessary components not in evidence (massive, or at least harmful, kinetic effect for all phasers), 2) it supplies actual canon evidence for the phenomenon in question (described and observed performance of phasers on stunned humans), and 3) applies those effects to humans (and their nervous systems) in a manner logically consistent with other energy (alternating current) and human biology. In fact, "phaser hit acting" events resemble when an actor is pretending to have been hit by an electric arc, elsewhere in the show.

[darthy2]

...Neither of those pictures either A) shows what you say they do, B) can't be explained by other means (disintegration, either in whole or in part), or C) establishes any equivalence between average phaser-imparted kinetic energy, phaser stun-blast-imparted kinetic energy, and/or the amount of kinetic energy required to knock out a stormtrooper. Try again.

Phasers can shoot a repelling force, it's conclusive in those scenes. That's 3 examples total that you've handwaved which show this. There is no visible disintegration. Objects move when a force acts on them. I accept your concession that phasers can shoot a repelling force

[Esquire]

What, the one where Quark falls over, the one on the artificial planet with uncertain gravity and other physical characteristics using an uncertain phaser setting, and the one that's unlike any other phaser ever shown? The question isn't 'do they have some KE component,' it's 'how much of one?' You think it's enough to knock out a stormtrooper on low stun settings, demonstrate this. For at least the fourth time.

[Esquire]

<snip hypothesis>

I like this very much; we might have to explain the NDF-field effect on higher settings differently, though. The effects of electricity on humans are well-known and don't typically include disintegration.

[darthy2]

What, the one where Quark falls over, the one on the artificial planet with uncertain gravity and other physical characteristics using an uncertain phaser setting, and the one that's unlike any other phaser ever shown? The question isn't 'do they have some KE component,' it's 'how much of one?' You think it's enough to knock out a stormtrooper on low stun settings, demonstrate this. For at least the fourth time.

How about in DS9 "captive pursuit" when the aliens were shot that were wearing armor and would fall over. But then would get back up. No kinetic energy demonstrated there either?