Could the Doomsphere destroy an unmanned ISD?

[Metrion Cascade]

Now, I'm not going to make this an ordinary battle. That's pretty obvious - the Doomsphere probably doesn't even have shields. One turbolaser hit would Cuisinart the whole damn thing. My question - let's assume the Empire has its hands on the Doomsphere and for shits and giggles wants to test it against an ISD with its shields up. No crew onboard, no fighting back, just a test of the weapon's ability to penetrate the shields and damage the ship if any. The ISD is carrying all of its normal munitions, fuel, and supplies. The Doomsphere opens fire from the same distance it was from Earth in "Twilight."

My stance: The Doomsphere is DET, but just barely overcame Earth's gravitational binding energy. The debris from Earth's destruction was only moving at about a third of a planetary diameter per second. This as opposed to, say, the Death Star, which overcame 10,000 times Alderaan's GB energy (the shield) and then popped the planet itself like a soap bubble. I don't know that an ISD can take more than Earth's destruction required, or less. So I'm not taking a stance on what happens here.

[Elheru Aran]

What is this Doomsphere, where does it come from, and what are its capabilities? Need to know this before we can say anything-- we already know the ISD, but Doomsphere???? Please elucidate...

[Tribun]

I think he means the device that the Xindi used in "Enterprise" to destroy earth.

[Metrion Cascade]

I have a 6 Mb Quicktime file depicting it, if you want.

And here's what Einy said about the weapon in a prior thread:

Okay, let's assume it is a DET. About how many planetary diameters per second was the fastest debris travelling? What was the nature of the actual detonation phase? Did it blow apart into several huge pieces, fragment into millions of pieces, or vaporize completely into an incandescent cloud? In fact, I'll use Wong's Asteroid Destruction Calculator to calculate all three eventualities:

Earth is 12,756km in diameter (reference here), so that means its gravitational binding energy is between about 9.580E+12gigatons (for solid hard granite) and 1.090E+14gigatons (solid nickel/iron alloy). We all know the
Earth has roughly a 70-30 ratio of silicate to iron composition with some lighter compounds at its surface (reference here).

Assuming it got chunked: 3.760E+8gigatons to 9.800E+9gigatons
Assuming it was shattered: 2.080E+9gigatons (lower limit)
Assuming it was vaped: 7.980E+12gigatons to 1.550E+13gigatons

By your description of the explosion, I'll say it got more than chunked but not quite shattered. I highly doubt the vaporization scenario.

I say it was chunked. Barely.

[Isolder74]

Well it look like enough to kill an ISD. IT blew up a planet with a safe to say DET capability but It barely shattered the planet. It might not be able to take out say the Death Star and perhaps the shielded world of Alderaan I think it might have problems.

[Metrion Cascade]

Well it look like enough to kill an ISD. IT blew up a planet with a safe to say DET capability but It barely shattered the planet. It might not be able to take out say the Death Star and perhaps the shielded world of Alderaan I think it might have problems.

It wouldn't have a chance in hell against Alderaan. The shield is likely thousands of times stronger than the Doomsphere. But I don't know what kind of shielding the Death Star has.

[Isolder74]

Well it look like enough to kill an ISD. IT blew up a planet with a safe to say DET capability but It barely shattered the planet. It might not be able to take out say the Death Star and perhaps the shielded world of Alderaan I think it might have problems.

It wouldn't have a chance in hell against Alderaan. The shield is likely thousands of times stronger than the Doomsphere. But I don't know what kind of shielding the Death Star has.

That's what I was saying but I got my grammer messed up. I think the Death Star has at least a planetary shield grid. Though i don't think it could prevent its own weapon from destroying it.

[The Kernel]

That's what I was saying but I got my grammer messed up. I think the Death Star has at least a planetary shield grid. Though i don't think it could prevent its own weapon from destroying it.

Probably not, since the combat parameters of the Death Star would not include the threat of an opposing Death Star-sized superlaser. It is probably built to withstand anything that a large fleet and planetary static defenses could throw at it (since that would be the only concievable threat it would encounter) which would give it planetary shield level capability, but probably not any higher.

[The Kernel]

Question: Are we sure that the Xindi weapon was DET? I had thought that we already discussed this when the episode in question was aired and had decided that it was likely a chain reaction weapon (the fact that Kemocite, a substance that creates a chain reaction when exposed to high levels of radiation, was used heavily in the construction of the weapon would seem to support this).

[Metrion Cascade]

Question: Are we sure that the Xindi weapon was DET? I had thought that we already discussed this when the episode in question was aired and had decided that it was likely a chain reaction weapon (the fact that Kemocite, a substance that creates a chain reaction when exposed to high levels of radiation, was used heavily in the construction of the weapon would seem to support this).

It was stated in that thread that the weapon was NDF, but it wasn't backed up. The statement that it was NDF was based on two assumptions:

1.) The beam shut off before the planet exploded (unproven and unlikely).
2.) The weapon could not have increased in power output as it fired, accounting for the abrupt explosion (false).

The beam is never shown shutting off, and the fact that the Xindi ships left the scene before it fired indicates that it was expected to be destroyed in the explosion. Some people have said that the reason you can't see it in the subsequent shots of Earth coming apart is that it stopped firing and left. The real reason is that the Doomsphere is a kilometer or less in diameter and you wouldn't see it in a shot of Earth coming apart even if it was in the frame and still firing. It was also stated that the second prototype for the Doomsphere was expected to increase in power output as it fired. Now, this second prototype appeared in an episode after Twilight, so it could arguably not be part of the same timeline as the finished Doomsphere. But there is no reason to assume Archer's parasite illness would alter Degra's design process. So I'd say the second prototype operates on the same principles as the Doomsphere. It and the weapon that killed seven million in Florida were both clearly DET. The Florida weapon's damage was restricted to its line of fire. After the second prototype stopped firing, the only remaining effects were the rocks flying away on momentum imparted by the initial blast. Like the Florida weapon there were no NDF effects at all. And the second prototype was close to full scale in its effects, so there's no reason for the finished product to operate differently.

And the Kemacite wouldn't cause a chain reaction in other matter. It was used in the power system, and if there was a chain reaction in it (which I don't recall), then it was an internal one needed for the second prototype's output to build as it fired. That was the malfunction caused by the defective kemacite. But it doesn't cause actual NDF effects in the target and wouldn't even if the weapon used NDF effects. For that to be the case the target would have to be laced with kemacite.

[The Kernel]

And the Kemacite wouldn't cause a chain reaction in other matter. It was used in the power system, and if there was a chain reaction in it (which I don't recall), then it was an internal one needed for the second prototype's output to build as it fired. That was the malfunction caused by the defective kemacite. But it doesn't cause actual NDF effects in the target and wouldn't even if the weapon used NDF effects. For that to be the case the target would have to be laced with kemacite.

Actually, I got the chain-reaction property of Kemacite from the DS9 epsiode "Little Green Men". In that episode, Quark was smuggling Kemacite to Orion, and it has the strange property of causing a cascade reaction and tearing a hole in subspace (causing time travel) when exposed to high levels of radiation (in this case, the pulse from an exploding atomic bomb).

I'm not sure what exactly this means to the Doomsphere's implementation of the substance, but since Kemacite has properties that differ from that of normal matter and since they make up a critical part of the weapon, we might want to consider that the effect was more exotic then DET, especially since weapons like these were not reproduced even centuries later.

[SirNitram]

Maybe some images of the claimed DET process would be helpful.

Impact. Notice the lack of the atmosphere catching fire, or even a large scale ionization event from this beam.

Impact + 5 Seconds. Now we get atmospheric reactions, and the ocean appears to be boiling in that small point.

Impact + 12seconds. No sign of the beam being fired anymore, limited ejecta.

Impact + 14 seconds. No sign of the beam or the Doomsphere. Ejecta all over the damn place.

Impact + 15 seconds. The detonation. If we are to beleive it's DET, why didn't it fire at this level first? And where's the Doomsphere and it's beam?

Before we reach the inevitable 'It's on the other side of hte planet!!!' claim, Mr. Fibble has already shown that we see the same hemisphere..

Castro realizes there's something wrong.

New Englanders reconsider their beachfront property.

Asia laughs as it's getting a few more seconds of life.

In other words, we have no evidence the beam was still firing when the explosion happened. We have seen such chain reactions before, and they appeared almost identical. Why assume this one is DET?

[Metrion Cascade]

Maybe some images of the claimed DET process would be helpful.

<snip>Impact. Notice the lack of the atmosphere catching fire, or even a large scale ionization event from this beam.

The initial blast may not be at a high enough power.

<snip>Impact + 5 Seconds. Now we get atmospheric reactions, and the ocean appears to be boiling in that small point.

<snip>Impact + 12seconds. No sign of the beam being fired anymore, limited ejecta.

<snip>Impact + 14 seconds. No sign of the beam or the Doomsphere. Ejecta all over the damn place.

At that distance you wouldn't see the Doomsphere even if it were in the shot. I could point to any number of nondescript gray dots in the shot and they could be it (except they're all too big).

<snip> Impact + 15 seconds. The detonation. If we are to beleive it's DET, why didn't it fire at this level first? And where's the Doomsphere and it's beam?

Degra said the second prototype for the weapon would increase in power as it fired. In fact I find it likely that this would be helpful in destroying a planet that's solid on the outside and liquid on the inside. You punch a hole in the crust to get at the mantle, then amp up the power to heat the mantle.

And the Doomsphere is barely a kilometer in diameter and very close to the surface (assuming the ejecta hasn't destroyed it). Why would you see something so small at this distance? Yes, we are pointing the camera at the same hemisphere as the Doomsphere. From a distance so great you can see the entire Earth in the frame.

Before we reach the inevitable 'It's on the other side of hte planet!!!' claim, Mr. Fibble has already shown that we see the same hemisphere..

I didn't say it was. Try reading arguments before you refute them.

<snip>Castro realizes there's something wrong.
<snip>New Englanders reconsider their beachfront property.

<snip>Asia laughs as it's getting a few more seconds of life.

In other words, we have no evidence the beam was still firing when the explosion happened. We have seen such chain reactions before, and they appeared almost identical. Why assume this one is DET?

It's not an assumption. ENT is not canon Trek and does not represent normal Trek physics, so even if you have seen such chain reactions in Trek it doesn't mean they're possible in ENT. And since funky Star Trek chain reactions are actually impossible, we should default to real physics until presented with something that doesn't fit real physics.

And the burden of proof is on the position that the beam shut off. For that to be the case would require a shot of the weapon with the beam shut off, and would violate the laws of physics (which Trek does, but we don't default to such explanations).

[SirNitram]

Maybe some images of the claimed DET process would be helpful.

<snip>Impact. Notice the lack of the atmosphere catching fire, or even a large scale ionization event from this beam.

The initial blast may not be at a high enough power.

Considering a rock dropped from orbit would acheive greater destruction..

<snip>Impact + 5 Seconds. Now we get atmospheric reactions, and the ocean appears to be boiling in that small point.

<snip>Impact + 12seconds. No sign of the beam being fired anymore, limited ejecta.

<snip>Impact + 14 seconds. No sign of the beam or the Doomsphere. Ejecta all over the damn place.

At that distance you wouldn't see the Doomsphere even if it were in the shot. I could point to any number of nondescript gray dots in the shot and they could be it (except they're all too big).

So, you'll simply say it's unknown, therefore it works out in your favor?

<snip> Impact + 15 seconds. The detonation. If we are to beleive it's DET, why didn't it fire at this level first? And where's the Doomsphere and it's beam?

Degra said the second prototype for the weapon would increase in power as it fired. In fact I find it likely that this would be helpful in destroying a planet that's solid on the outside and liquid on the inside. You punch a hole in the crust to get at the mantle, then amp up the power to heat the mantle.

I see a fundamental failure to grasp some concepts, like the fact that shattering a planet exceeds the energy requirements to vaporize it's mantle, or most of it's mass. Slowly 'ramping up the energy' will result in an expanding cloud of vapour, not continent-sized chunks.

And the Doomsphere is barely a kilometer in diameter and very close to the surface (assuming the ejecta hasn't destroyed it). Why would you see something so small at this distance? Yes, we are pointing the camera at the same hemisphere as the Doomsphere. From a distance so great you can see the entire Earth in the frame.

So despite the fact this weapon behaves exactly like another chain reaction, and has several factors that strongly support a chain reaction, you're going to claim that though we can't see the Doomsphere, it must be there.

Before we reach the inevitable 'It's on the other side of hte planet!!!' claim, Mr. Fibble has already shown that we see the same hemisphere..

I didn't say it was. Try reading arguments before you refute them.

Did I say it was your refutation? Sorry, you're not the only Trekkie on the web.

<snip>Castro realizes there's something wrong.
<snip>New Englanders reconsider their beachfront property.

<snip>Asia laughs as it's getting a few more seconds of life.

In other words, we have no evidence the beam was still firing when the explosion happened. We have seen such chain reactions before, and they appeared almost identical. Why assume this one is DET?

It's not an assumption. ENT is not canon Trek and does not represent normal Trek physics, so even if you have seen such chain reactions in Trek it doesn't mean they're possible in ENT. And since funky Star Trek chain reactions are actually impossible, we should default to real physics until presented with something that doesn't fit real physics.

Meaningless tripe trying to get away from Star Trek precedent, when we have seen such precedent in action(Regeneration being the most blatant).

And the burden of proof is on the position that the beam shut off. For that to be the case would require a shot of the weapon with the beam shut off, and would violate the laws of physics (which Trek does, but we don't default to such explanations).

When it shows every sign of not working on DET(Note the lack of vaporized mantle), I'm not going to fall into silliness like this.

[Elheru Aran]

If the pictures are any indication, I would say that a shot from the Doomsphere is definitely more powerful than the bog-standard BDZ barrage, which would certainly incapitate if not outright destroy a Star Destroyer (depending upon whether or not shields were up).

And, guys, remember-- "size matters not"-- what matters is that it did its job, and did that very well...

Incidentally, I thought Star Trek didn't have any planet-killers besides the Genesis Device, V'Ger, and the worm thing in one TOS episode?

[SirNitram]

If the pictures are any indication, I would say that a shot from the Doomsphere is definitely more powerful than the bog-standard BDZ barrage, which would certainly incapitate if not outright destroy a Star Destroyer (depending upon whether or not shields were up).

Shields down, this amount of energy would fuck the ISD up, no question. Shields up it becomes a bit more iffy.

And, guys, remember-- "size matters not"-- what matters is that it did its job, and did that very well...

Here comes the bitch. Trek energy weapons have an almost-constant tendency to be great against rock and light materials, and be crap against dense metals. Which an ISD is made of. And if it's a chain reaction, it's limited to a very small ammount of energy to actually penetrate shields and get it started(If the shield was up. But the OP says without shields, so).

Incidentally, I thought Star Trek didn't have any planet-killers besides the Genesis Device, V'Ger, and the worm thing in one TOS episode?

Yes. It was. Then B&B decided that they need to rewrite Trek canon even further to satisfy their frantic masturbation. In case this doesn't insult you enough, there's been an appearance by the Enterprise-J in the series.

[Slartibartfast]

But the OP says without shields, so.

OP = Shields up

[Shogoki]

If it was DET, gradually increasing it's power from doing as much damage as a laser pointer to planet kiling would result in a drill like effect, with huge amounts of vaporized stuff going into orbit, coming from a huge, clearly visible glowing red hole, not a magic pop up from the core.

Either Degra was talking out of his ass or he simply ment that the effect of the chain reaction would accelerate while the beam it's applied.

[SirNitram]

But the OP says without shields, so.

OP = Shields up

I sit corrected. I'd have to really review the initial strike to get a better idea of the damage done.

[Metrion Cascade]

Maybe some images of the claimed DET process would be helpful.

<snip>Impact. Notice the lack of the atmosphere catching fire, or even a large scale ionization event from this beam.

The initial blast may not be at a high enough power.

Considering a rock dropped from orbit would acheive greater destruction..

<snip>Impact + 5 Seconds. Now we get atmospheric reactions, and the ocean appears to be boiling in that small point.

<snip>Impact + 12seconds. No sign of the beam being fired anymore, limited ejecta.

<snip>Impact + 14 seconds. No sign of the beam or the Doomsphere. Ejecta all over the damn place.

At that distance you wouldn't see the Doomsphere even if it were in the shot. I could point to any number of nondescript gray dots in the shot and they could be it (except they're all too big).

So, you'll simply say it's unknown, therefore it works out in your favor?

No, it's not unknown. The Doomsphere is too small and far away to be seen. Earth is 12,756 kilometers in diameter. The burden of proof is on you to show that a shot which shows an entire 12,756 kilometer planet will also show a sphere that's less than a kilometer in diameter and maybe ten kilometers from the surface. Oh, wait. That's impossible.

<snip> Impact + 15 seconds. The detonation. If we are to beleive it's DET, why didn't it fire at this level first? And where's the Doomsphere and it's beam?

Degra said the second prototype for the weapon would increase in power as it fired. In fact I find it likely that this would be helpful in destroying a planet that's solid on the outside and liquid on the inside. You punch a hole in the crust to get at the mantle, then amp up the power to heat the mantle.

I see a fundamental failure to grasp some concepts, like the fact that shattering a planet exceeds the energy requirements to vaporize it's mantle, or most of it's mass. Slowly 'ramping up the energy' will result in an expanding cloud of vapour, not continent-sized chunks.

Why? Why can't the mantle simply expand enough to break the crust apart? And why the assumption that the energy would be delivered evenly? It would have to travel through the planet, so the initial point of impact would be hotter. If the energy is enough, it could partially vaporize while the rest of the mantle is just expanding.

And the Doomsphere is barely a kilometer in diameter and very close to the surface (assuming the ejecta hasn't destroyed it). Why would you see something so small at this distance? Yes, we are pointing the camera at the same hemisphere as the Doomsphere. From a distance so great you can see the entire Earth in the frame.

So despite the fact this weapon behaves exactly like another chain reaction, and has several factors that strongly support a chain reaction, you're going to claim that though we can't see the Doomsphere, it must be there.

What other chain reaction? There are no other planetkilling chain reactions in Enterprise. And you are completely full of shit if you say we should be able to see a sphere that at the resolution of the screen caps in question would be smaller than a single pixel. IT'S TOO SMALL.

Before we reach the inevitable 'It's on the other side of hte planet!!!' claim, Mr. Fibble has already shown that we see the same hemisphere..

I didn't say it was. Try reading arguments before you refute them.

Did I say it was your refutation? Sorry, you're not the only Trekkie on the web.

Then whose DET claim in this thread were you refuting? Nobody said anything about it being on the other side of the planet. And I'm the only one in this thread to take a concrete stance that it's DET. You didn't read the argument, you just set up a strawman.

<snip>Castro realizes there's something wrong.
<snip>New Englanders reconsider their beachfront property.

<snip>Asia laughs as it's getting a few more seconds of life.

In other words, we have no evidence the beam was still firing when the explosion happened. We have seen such chain reactions before, and they appeared almost identical. Why assume this one is DET?

It's not an assumption. ENT is not canon Trek and does not represent normal Trek physics, so even if you have seen such chain reactions in Trek it doesn't mean they're possible in ENT. And since funky Star Trek chain reactions are actually impossible, we should default to real physics until presented with something that doesn't fit real physics.

Meaningless tripe trying to get away from Star Trek precedent, when we have seen such precedent in action(Regeneration being the most blatant).

What planet-size NDF was there in "Regeneration?"

And the burden of proof is on the position that the beam shut off. For that to be the case would require a shot of the weapon with the beam shut off, and would violate the laws of physics (which Trek does, but we don't default to such explanations).

When it shows every sign of not working on DET(Note the lack of vaporized mantle), I'm not going to fall into silliness like this.

You haven't demonstrated that none of the mantle was vaporized. Never mind that funky chain reactions are impossible and you're defaulting to them in spite of that.

[Metrion Cascade]

If the pictures are any indication, I would say that a shot from the Doomsphere is definitely more powerful than the bog-standard BDZ barrage, which would certainly incapitate if not outright destroy a Star Destroyer (depending upon whether or not shields were up).

Shields down, this amount of energy would fuck the ISD up, no question. Shields up it becomes a bit more iffy.

There's a post farther up where I quote Einhander Sn0m4n's calculations for how much energy it would take to chunk/shatter/vaporize Earth. What numerical info is there on ISD shields?

[SirNitram]

If the pictures are any indication, I would say that a shot from the Doomsphere is definitely more powerful than the bog-standard BDZ barrage, which would certainly incapitate if not outright destroy a Star Destroyer (depending upon whether or not shields were up).

Shields down, this amount of energy would fuck the ISD up, no question. Shields up it becomes a bit more iffy.

There's a post farther up where I quote Einhander Sn0m4n's calculations for how much energy it would take to chunk/shatter/vaporize Earth. What numerical info is there on ISD shields?

None. However, it's ancestor, the Acclamator Troop Transport, has a shield threshold of 16 teratons per second. Beyond this, damage will acrete until the shields drop. Realistic estimates range from five times to ten times that amount for an Imperator, and their hull armor can withstand a fusion bomb without a dent.

[SirNitram]

The initial blast may not be at a high enough power.

Considering a rock dropped from orbit would acheive greater destruction..

At that distance you wouldn't see the Doomsphere even if it were in the shot. I could point to any number of nondescript gray dots in the shot and they could be it (except they're all too big).

So, you'll simply say it's unknown, therefore it works out in your favor?

No, it's not unknown. The Doomsphere is too small and far away to be seen. Earth is 12,756 kilometers in diameter. The burden of proof is on you to show that a shot which shows an entire 12,756 kilometer planet will also show a sphere that's less than a kilometer in diameter and maybe ten kilometers from the surface. Oh, wait. That's impossible.

'We could not see the Doomsphere either way. Therefore, my way is right.' There's a name for this fallacy. Do you know it?

Degra said the second prototype for the weapon would increase in power as it fired. In fact I find it likely that this would be helpful in destroying a planet that's solid on the outside and liquid on the inside. You punch a hole in the crust to get at the mantle, then amp up the power to heat the mantle.

I see a fundamental failure to grasp some concepts, like the fact that shattering a planet exceeds the energy requirements to vaporize it's mantle, or most of it's mass. Slowly 'ramping up the energy' will result in an expanding cloud of vapour, not continent-sized chunks.

Why? Why can't the mantle simply expand enough to break the crust apart? And why the assumption that the energy would be delivered evenly? It would have to travel through the planet, so the initial point of impact would be hotter. If the energy is enough, it could partially vaporize while the rest of the mantle is just expanding.

A magic thing called Thermodynamics, which you apparently don't understand. It requires far, far more energy per pound of material to vaporize the mantle than to propel it outwards. Heat transfer means that if it was DET, it would be vaporizing from this 'slow ramp up' you claim happened. This did not occour, therefore it cannot be DET.

[qutoe[

And the Doomsphere is barely a kilometer in diameter and very close to the surface (assuming the ejecta hasn't destroyed it). Why would you see something so small at this distance? Yes, we are pointing the camera at the same hemisphere as the Doomsphere. From a distance so great you can see the entire Earth in the frame.

So despite the fact this weapon behaves exactly like another chain reaction, and has several factors that strongly support a chain reaction, you're going to claim that though we can't see the Doomsphere, it must be there.

What other chain reaction? There are no other planetkilling chain reactions in Enterprise. And you are completely full of shit if you say we should be able to see a sphere that at the resolution of the screen caps in question would be smaller than a single pixel. IT'S TOO SMALL.[/quote]

So we ignore the question of whether the beam was still firing and focus on the effects of your entirely asspulled 'it's beam was ramping up the whole time' claim. It produces the prediction that the mantle will be vapourizing, along with the surface. This did not happen; the surface was still noticably solid when it burst.

I didn't say it was. Try reading arguments before you refute them.

Did I say it was your refutation? Sorry, you're not the only Trekkie on the web.

Then whose DET claim in this thread were you refuting? Nobody said anything about it being on the other side of the planet. And I'm the only one in this thread to take a concrete stance that it's DET. You didn't read the argument, you just set up a strawman.

Perhaps if you had full reading comprehension, it was to head off someone's rebuttal before that idiocy was made.

It's not an assumption. ENT is not canon Trek and does not represent normal Trek physics, so even if you have seen such chain reactions in Trek it doesn't mean they're possible in ENT. And since funky Star Trek chain reactions are actually impossible, we should default to real physics until presented with something that doesn't fit real physics.

Meaningless tripe trying to get away from Star Trek precedent, when we have seen such precedent in action(Regeneration being the most blatant).

What planet-size NDF was there in "Regeneration?"

None. However, magic Borg tech worked, which shows it is not a vastly different set of physical laws like you wish it was. Indeed, the existance of warp drives and shields show this, not that you recignize pesky things like facts.

And the burden of proof is on the position that the beam shut off. For that to be the case would require a shot of the weapon with the beam shut off, and would violate the laws of physics (which Trek does, but we don't default to such explanations).

When it shows every sign of not working on DET(Note the lack of vaporized mantle), I'm not going to fall into silliness like this.

You haven't demonstrated that none of the mantle was vaporized. Never mind that funky chain reactions are impossible and you're defaulting to them in spite of that.

Perhaps you simply don't understand any of what was said in my last post. Perhaps I need to make it simpler.

Energy for vaporisation of 1 kg of iron: 7.6 megajoules
Energy to overcome GBE for 1 kg of iron: 60 megajoules

That's right, Metrion! Via DET and your claimed 'increase in power' theory, the mantle will vapourize around the 1/10th power mark!

To drive home the point you're ignoring, the amount of power being thrown around here would create unrivaled cloud cover and ionization, neither of which was observed.

You can screech and cry that ENT isn't part of Trek, but it is. The same technologies work, which requires a damn near identical set of physical laws. It's the timeline where First Contact happened(Proven by Regeneration), where Phasers, Photon Torpedos, Warp Drives, Shields, Hand Phasers, Borg Reactive Shielding, Assimilation Nanoprobes, Regeneration Alcoves, and Temporal Wake Jumps are all possible. Sorry, you don't get to scream 'you're assuming a chain reaction and they don't exist!', even though I've clearly shown it's no assumption.

[Metrion Cascade]

Considering a rock dropped from orbit would acheive greater destruction..
So, you'll simply say it's unknown, therefore it works out in your favor?

No, it's not unknown. The Doomsphere is too small and far away to be seen. Earth is 12,756 kilometers in diameter. The burden of proof is on you to show that a shot which shows an entire 12,756 kilometer planet will also show a sphere that's less than a kilometer in diameter and maybe ten kilometers from the surface. Oh, wait. That's impossible.

'We could not see the Doomsphere either way. Therefore, my way is right.' There's a name for this fallacy. Do you know it?

Therefore you cannot automatically assume that the beam shut off before Earth popped.

I see a fundamental failure to grasp some concepts, like the fact that shattering a planet exceeds the energy requirements to vaporize it's mantle, or most of it's mass. Slowly 'ramping up the energy' will result in an expanding cloud of vapour, not continent-sized chunks.

Why? Why can't the mantle simply expand enough to break the crust apart? And why the assumption that the energy would be delivered evenly? It would have to travel through the planet, so the initial point of impact would be hotter. If the energy is enough, it could partially vaporize while the rest of the mantle is just expanding.

A magic thing called Thermodynamics, which you apparently don't understand. It requires far, far more energy per pound of material to vaporize the mantle than to propel it outwards. Heat transfer means that if it was DET, it would be vaporizing from this 'slow ramp up' you claim happened. This did not occour, therefore it cannot be DET.

How do you know it didn't? When Earth exploded there wasn't much liquid behind the crust fragments. And how the hell can the mantle (or anything) vaporize without increasing in volume?

[qutoe[

So despite the fact this weapon behaves exactly like another chain reaction, and has several factors that strongly support a chain reaction, you're going to claim that though we can't see the Doomsphere, it must be there.

What other chain reaction? There are no other planetkilling chain reactions in Enterprise. And you are completely full of shit if you say we should be able to see a sphere that at the resolution of the screen caps in question would be smaller than a single pixel. IT'S TOO SMALL.

So we ignore the question of whether the beam was still firing and focus on the effects of your entirely asspulled 'it's beam was ramping up the whole time' claim. It produces the prediction that the mantle will be vapourizing, along with the surface. This did not happen; the surface was still noticably solid when it burst.

The weapon's power increasing is consistent with its designer's statements about a prototype that did nearly the same damage and was clearly DET.

And just how would the heat from the weapon move evenly through the entire planet when it's introduced at a single point? It wouldn't. That it takes more energy to overcome the planet's binding energy than to vape it doesn't therefore mean the entire planet will be evenly vaped. The heat can't move that uniformly.

Did I say it was your refutation? Sorry, you're not the only Trekkie on the web.

Then whose DET claim in this thread were you refuting? Nobody said anything about it being on the other side of the planet. And I'm the only one in this thread to take a concrete stance that it's DET. You didn't read the argument, you just set up a strawman.

Perhaps if you had full reading comprehension, it was to head off someone's rebuttal before that idiocy was made.

So you just came in and rebutted an argument nobody was making. Okay...

Meaningless tripe trying to get away from Star Trek precedent, when we have seen such precedent in action(Regeneration being the most blatant).

What planet-size NDF was there in "Regeneration?"

None. However, magic Borg tech worked, which shows it is not a vastly different set of physical laws like you wish it was. Indeed, the existance of warp drives and shields show this, not that you recignize pesky things like facts.

ENT is not canon Trek. Therefore its events, which are as canon as any fanfic, do not reflect Trek physics even if the names for the tech are the same. Hopefully for B&B's sake they will be similar, but two standards make ENT a separate canon:

1.) Roddenberry: "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek."
2.) There is no way to reconcile ENT history and the rest of Trek. It couldn't be treated as one canon because you'd be contradicting yourself.

When it shows every sign of not working on DET(Note the lack of vaporized mantle), I'm not going to fall into silliness like this.

You haven't demonstrated that none of the mantle was vaporized. Never mind that funky chain reactions are impossible and you're defaulting to them in spite of that.

Perhaps you simply don't understand any of what was said in my last post. Perhaps I need to make it simpler.

Energy for vaporisation of 1 kg of iron: 7.6 megajoules
Energy to overcome GBE for 1 kg of iron: 60 megajoules

That's right, Metrion! Via DET and your claimed 'increase in power' theory, the mantle will vapourize around the 1/10th power mark!

And we're so sure there was no mantle vaporization because...?

You're saying that the mantle would vaporize first. But how can the mantle vaporize without the planet expanding or cracking at all?

To drive home the point you're ignoring, the amount of power being thrown around here would create unrivaled cloud cover and ionization, neither of which was observed.

You can screech and cry that ENT isn't part of Trek, but it is. The same technologies work, which requires a damn near identical set of physical laws. It's the timeline where First Contact happened(Proven by Regeneration), where Phasers, Photon Torpedos, Warp Drives, Shields, Hand Phasers, Borg Reactive Shielding, Assimilation Nanoprobes, Regeneration Alcoves, and Temporal Wake Jumps are all possible. Sorry, you don't get to scream 'you're assuming a chain reaction and they don't exist!', even though I've clearly shown it's no assumption.

If ENT events are not canon (Roddenberry didn't say it's Trek, and there is no way to reconcile all the continuity errors so it can't be considered canon no matter who at Paramount says it is), then the physics behind them are not canon either.

Okay. Focusing on the weapon again for a moment. I really am trying to see what you're saying here. I understand that the energy to overcome the planet's GB energy is more than that needed to vape it. But assuming you vape it first, how can you possibly vape anything without it increasing in volume (not necessarily coming apart, just expanding)? If the mantle starts boiling, I expect precisely what you see in "Twilight" at least up to the chunking. The crust is solid and can't liquefy/vape as quickly because of that. Unlike the mantle, it has heat of fusion, then the heat to get it up to its boiling point, then heat of vaporization. So while the mantle is boiling, the crust is still mostly solid and cracks open from the mantle's expansion before it melts and then vapes with the mantle. The way I read your stance, you're saying the mantle could boil without expanding, which is impossible. What are you really saying? It seems to me that the planet must expand first due to vaporization. It's still in one place with the same center of mass, just mostly vaporized so it's bigger. Now - assuming it's vaped, its GB energy is lower because it's less dense. If it's lowered enough, the remaining solids in the crust don't weigh enough to stay together. Are we even sure that Earth's GB energy was overcome? It was chunked, but the chunks were moving very slowly. Maybe the chunks fell back together later?

[SirNitram]

'We could not see the Doomsphere either way. Therefore, my way is right.' There's a name for this fallacy. Do you know it?

Therefore you cannot automatically assume that the beam shut off before Earth popped.

Duh. That's why I've been focusing on the beams observed effects vs. the predictions of your theory. Try to keep up.

A magic thing called Thermodynamics, which you apparently don't understand. It requires far, far more energy per pound of material to vaporize the mantle than to propel it outwards. Heat transfer means that if it was DET, it would be vaporizing from this 'slow ramp up' you claim happened. This did not occour, therefore it cannot be DET.

How do you know it didn't? When Earth exploded there wasn't much liquid behind the crust fragments. And how the hell can the mantle (or anything) vaporize without increasing in volume?

Of course it would increase in volume, and rush out of every hole in the ground, and generally do alot of incredibly-visible things. The mantle in the pictures at around 12 seconds shows the mantle is not behaving as a gas, but as a liquid(Note the appearance of ejecta, not brilliant gas or plasma).

So we ignore the question of whether the beam was still firing and focus on the effects of your entirely asspulled 'it's beam was ramping up the whole time' claim. It produces the prediction that the mantle will be vapourizing, along with the surface. This did not happen; the surface was still noticably solid when it burst.

The weapon's power increasing is consistent with its designer's statements about a prototype that did nearly the same damage and was clearly DET.

No it wasn't. There was no atmospheric reaction in line with a large scale energy release.

And just how would the heat from the weapon move evenly through the entire planet when it's introduced at a single point? It wouldn't. That it takes more energy to overcome the planet's binding energy than to vape it doesn't therefore mean the entire planet will be evenly vaped. The heat can't move that uniformly.

You confuse 'there must be vapourization on scales that, by your theory, will be visible' with 'the world must uniformly vapourize'. The vapourization will be mostly around the beam, and should include events like massive steamclouds over the Atlantic and things like the nearby continents liquifying. You'll notice these are not present.

Perhaps if you had full reading comprehension, it was to head off someone's rebuttal before that idiocy was made.

So you just came in and rebutted an argument nobody was making. Okay...

Pre-emptive. It keeps the debate from getting bogged down in stupidity.

None. However, magic Borg tech worked, which shows it is not a vastly different set of physical laws like you wish it was. Indeed, the existance of warp drives and shields show this, not that you recignize pesky things like facts.

ENT is not canon Trek. Therefore its events, which are as canon as any fanfic, do not reflect Trek physics even if the names for the tech are the same. Hopefully for B&B's sake they will be similar, but two standards make ENT a separate canon:

1.) Roddenberry: "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek."
2.) There is no way to reconcile ENT history and the rest of Trek. It couldn't be treated as one canon because you'd be contradicting yourself.

Paramount, the current owners of Star Trek, declare it canon. And it is easy to reconcile: It's the timeline generated during First Contact. I know, I know, you apply a slippery slope fallacy to this and then insist we assume every episode is it's own, but your fallacies painted onto a legitimate argument don't revoke it.

Perhaps you simply don't understand any of what was said in my last post. Perhaps I need to make it simpler.

Energy for vaporisation of 1 kg of iron: 7.6 megajoules
Energy to overcome GBE for 1 kg of iron: 60 megajoules

That's right, Metrion! Via DET and your claimed 'increase in power' theory, the mantle will vapourize around the 1/10th power mark!

And we're so sure there was no mantle vaporization because...?

Utter lack of, among other things, the surface being vapourized. You did know that through DET the energy would have to bore through the ocean(Vapourizing it and generating cloud cover over the entire Atlantic), before it could even get close to the Mantle, right?

You're saying that the mantle would vaporize first. But how can the mantle vaporize without the planet expanding or cracking at all?

These things called Volcanos which exist to release the pressure. In any case, you dodge the point. The observable effects of the vapourization aren't there.

To drive home the point you're ignoring, the amount of power being thrown around here would create unrivaled cloud cover and ionization, neither of which was observed.

You can screech and cry that ENT isn't part of Trek, but it is. The same technologies work, which requires a damn near identical set of physical laws. It's the timeline where First Contact happened(Proven by Regeneration), where Phasers, Photon Torpedos, Warp Drives, Shields, Hand Phasers, Borg Reactive Shielding, Assimilation Nanoprobes, Regeneration Alcoves, and Temporal Wake Jumps are all possible. Sorry, you don't get to scream 'you're assuming a chain reaction and they don't exist!', even though I've clearly shown it's no assumption.

If ENT events are not canon (Roddenberry didn't say it's Trek, and there is no way to reconcile all the continuity errors so it can't be considered canon no matter who at Paramount says it is), then the physics behind them are not canon either.

Shown for the tripe it is earlier.

Okay. Focusing on the weapon again for a moment. I really am trying to see what you're saying here. I understand that the energy to overcome the planet's GB energy is more than that needed to vape it. But assuming you vape it first, how can you possibly vape anything without it increasing in volume (not necessarily coming apart, just expanding)?

Extremely rapid energy input, like what happened when Alderaan's shield fell. Notice that after the shield glow vanished, the explosion was near instant. Compared to Twilight, where the energy input, even by your own theory, is slow.

If the mantle starts boiling, I expect precisely what you see in "Twilight" at least up to the chunking. The crust is solid and can't liquefy/vape as quickly because of that.

Problem 1: You are assuming the crust isn't being exposed to this heat. DET doesn't 'skip' anything. The atmosphere will superheat first, then the ocean, then the continental plate below, then the mantle. Since the continental plate above is seen to be solid in the explosion, it cannot have been exposed to these energies.

Unlike the mantle, it has heat of fusion, then the heat to get it up to its boiling point, then heat of vaporization. So while the mantle is boiling, the crust is still mostly solid and cracks open from the mantle's expansion before it melts and then vapes with the mantle. The way I read your stance, you're saying the mantle could boil without expanding, which is impossible. What are you really saying? It seems to me that the planet must expand first due to vaporization. It's still in one place with the same center of mass, just mostly vaporized so it's bigger. Now - assuming it's vaped, its GB energy is lower because it's less dense. If it's lowered enough, the remaining solids in the crust don't weigh enough to stay together. Are we even sure that Earth's GB energy was overcome? It was chunked, but the chunks were moving very slowly. Maybe the chunks fell back together later?

At the observed rate of speed, it appeared to be over escape velocity. Keep in mind, at the minimum energies, it'll take ten minutes to double in size.

The problem is you want it to be DET, but don't seem to understand what that means. It means that it'll set fire to the atmosphere(Observable, not present), vapourize the Atlantic(Observable, not present), melt the continental plate(Observable, not present), all just to get at the mantle!