Could the Doomsphere destroy an unmanned ISD?

[SirNitram]

Uhh...question: How exactly did the Borg tech blow up the planet? Are you suggesting that they have the power generation sufficient to disrupt a planet violently? If so, then why have they never demonstrated these capabilities?

A Borg cube couldn't do it with its weapons, if that's what you mean. But if you fill a planet with M/AM reactors and AM containers, and they all go off the way Borg ships do, there you have it.

And your proof the planet was in this state? Right, none. You're now just making stuff up, desperately trying to keep away from what's been shown.

[Metrion Cascade]

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.

Borg have NEVER demonstrated this level of power production. If they could generate this kind of energy, then they wouldn't have had any problems conquering the Federation or destroying Voyager. Sorry, but this theory doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

[SirNitram]

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.

Borg have NEVER demonstrated this level of power production. If they could generate this kind of energy, then they wouldn't have had any problems conquering the Federation or destroying Voyager. Sorry, but this theory doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

Except your theory has no evidence backing it up at all, and adds in additional unknowns. The Chain Reaction theory has the least unsupported unknowns, and wins via Parsimony. I know, you and those who debate like you hate Parsimony, but.

[The Kernel]

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

Metrion, what exactly would they do with a planet full of M/AM reactors and how would they disapate the heat generated by said reactors?

[Metrion Cascade]

You will of course provide the proof that Borg technology exploded on that planet. If you have any, which, having seen Scorpion myself, I know doesn't exist.

Two possibilities for Scorpion:

1.) Borg tech (reactors, power systems, etc.) exploded due to damage from initial (small-assed) hit. Is consistent with behavior of other badly damaged Borg installations and other ships that use M/AM power, and the fact that Borg evenly distribute most systems throughout their constructs. Violates no laws of physics.
2.) Chain reaction that violates conservation of energy and then uses magically created energy to overcome planet's GB energy without vaping it. Cannot happen, and would not happen the way it did in "Scorpion" even if present. Would have spread through planet gradually instead of enveloping entire mass and then magically actuating outward on cue. Would not have chunked planet but instead would move more evenly through its mass vaping or liquefying it as it went.

The burden of proof is on your self-contradictory stance and the proof does not exist.

And the proof for Borg technology that well-exceeds planetary destruction does exist? Don't be so stupid, Metrion. Parsimony doesn't work the way you want it. The event we saw did not line up with Direct Energy Transfer. Deal with this fact, it's been demonstrated sufficiently for everyone else with a working brain.

If you want to play appeal to popularity, then ask yourself why hardly anyone here considers ENT and Trek to be the same canon.

We are not restricted to only DET, as much as you desperately, desperately wish we were. Phasers are just one of many funky chain reactions seen, over and over, in Trek. That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Not only that, but it's not a valid motive. I have no vested interest in demonstrating that the Borg have the amazing ability to blow themselves up when looked at funny. If I'm right, this means that Species 8472's weapon was LESS powerful than everyone thinks.

Here's an analogy. A GCS, when damaged the right way, explodes violently. Does that therefore mean a GCS has the firepower to vape another GCS with one shot? No.

And phaser chain reactions don't cause explosions. They cause disintegration. Rock shattering is caused by a sudden temperature increase. And if it were a chain reaction that made rocks explode, that wouldn't explain Earth exploding because Earth is liquid inside, not solid rock.

[SirNitram]

And the proof for Borg technology that well-exceeds planetary destruction does exist? Don't be so stupid, Metrion. Parsimony doesn't work the way you want it. The event we saw did not line up with Direct Energy Transfer. Deal with this fact, it's been demonstrated sufficiently for everyone else with a working brain.

If you want to play appeal to popularity, then ask yourself why hardly anyone here considers ENT and Trek to be the same canon.

Wow, what an argument.. No, wait, lack of one. You have not shown any of the reasons why it can't be DET to be false. Come back when you can.

We are not restricted to only DET, as much as you desperately, desperately wish we were. Phasers are just one of many funky chain reactions seen, over and over, in Trek. That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Not only that, but it's not a valid motive. I have no vested interest in demonstrating that the Borg have the amazing ability to blow themselves up when looked at funny. If I'm right, this means that Species 8472's weapon was LESS powerful than everyone thinks.

Your motive is painfully simple for all to see: You want the weapons to be DET. It's only a fallacy, of course, if I wasn't pointing out the reasons why it's false as well(CLUE FOR THE CLUELESS: If I was committing appeal to motive I'd be saying 'you're trying to acheive X, therefore you're wrong').

Here's an analogy. A GCS, when damaged the right way, explodes violently. Does that therefore mean a GCS has the firepower to vape another GCS with one shot? No.

False analogy. A planet is not a powder-keg GCS.

And phaser chain reactions don't cause explosions. They cause disintegration. Rock shattering is caused by a sudden temperature increase. And if it were a chain reaction that made rocks explode, that wouldn't explain Earth exploding because Earth is liquid inside, not solid rock.

It establishes clearly that there are chain reactions we don't fully understand, therefore we cannot arbitrarily throw out the option because it doesn't make your happy.


Final time asking: Show proof for your erroneous claims.

[Phantasee]

Um, excuse me for my idiocy, but care to define a few things for me?
DET: ?
What's a Doomsphere?
GB energy?
And can someone point out a link to the episode guide that lists these episoded you refer to? like Twilight?
NDF: ?
Parsimony?
And how much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?(jk)

[SirNitram]

Um, excuse me for my idiocy, but care to define a few things for me?
DET: ?

Direct Energy Transfer, like heat moving around, or kinetics.

What's a Doomsphere?

Name given to some super-duper weapon from the villains of Star Trek: Enterprise. It's one of the more blatant ripoffs of the Death Star.

GB energy?

Gravitational Binding Energy. The energy that holds a planet together, basically.

And can someone point out a link to the episode guide that lists these episoded you refer to? like Twilight?

That I can't offer. Though try the links under SDNet's link section under 'Trek'.

NDF: ?

Theoretical effect which explains how a Phaser makes a person go twinkle twinkle vanish. Chain reaction that could never happen in reality.

Parsimony?

Logical concept that the theory which invents the least number of unobserved unknowns is superior(To rule out the 'The pink invisible unicorn did it' theories).

And how much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?(jk)

w^5/wc*c

[Metrion Cascade]

And the proof for Borg technology that well-exceeds planetary destruction does exist? Don't be so stupid, Metrion. Parsimony doesn't work the way you want it. The event we saw did not line up with Direct Energy Transfer. Deal with this fact, it's been demonstrated sufficiently for everyone else with a working brain.

If you want to play appeal to popularity, then ask yourself why hardly anyone here considers ENT and Trek to be the same canon.

Wow, what an argument.. No, wait, lack of one. You have not shown any of the reasons why it can't be DET to be false. Come back when you can.

We are not restricted to only DET, as much as you desperately, desperately wish we were. Phasers are just one of many funky chain reactions seen, over and over, in Trek. That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Not only that, but it's not a valid motive. I have no vested interest in demonstrating that the Borg have the amazing ability to blow themselves up when looked at funny. If I'm right, this means that Species 8472's weapon was LESS powerful than everyone thinks.

Your motive is painfully simple for all to see: You want the weapons to be DET. It's only a fallacy, of course, if I wasn't pointing out the reasons why it's false as well(CLUE FOR THE CLUELESS: If I was committing appeal to motive I'd be saying 'you're trying to acheive X, therefore you're wrong').

You didn't say the motive was for the weapons to be DET. That's the stance. The motive you stated was that I wanted to boost my power calcs (you are inarguably lying if you ascribe opinions to me that I've never stated, even after I - the sole authority on my opinions - tell you otherwise). Nor does any of this serve that purpose. The Doomsphere being DET increases Xindi power calcs and not ENT Starfleet's since they never beat it. And it's useless if I want to say TNG or TOS era Starfleet is more powerful since I've repeatedly stated that I consider them separate canons. Neither does my theory about "Scorpion" make Trek more powerful. You're saying S8472's weapon destroyed a planet via chain reaction. I'm saying it didn't destroy the planet at all. That makes S8472 WEAKER. It also makes the Borg dumber since they don't have to network things they way they do. To quote your lying one more time:

That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Or are you saying I want the Xindi to be more powerful in spite of the fact that I'm not a Xindi apologist?

Here's an analogy. A GCS, when damaged the right way, explodes violently. Does that therefore mean a GCS has the firepower to vape another GCS with one shot? No.

False analogy. A planet is not a powder-keg GCS.

No. A false analogy would be if I said this was the planet itself "going off." I didn't. I said this was Borg antimatter exploding. That is a valid analogy.

And phaser chain reactions don't cause explosions. They cause disintegration. Rock shattering is caused by a sudden temperature increase. And if it were a chain reaction that made rocks explode, that wouldn't explain Earth exploding because Earth is liquid inside, not solid rock.

It establishes clearly that there are chain reactions we don't fully understand, therefore we cannot arbitrarily throw out the option because it doesn't make your happy.

Final time asking: Show proof for your erroneous claims.

Established physics don't bear the burden of proof. Exceptions to them do.

[SirNitram]

If you want to play appeal to popularity, then ask yourself why hardly anyone here considers ENT and Trek to be the same canon.

Wow, what an argument.. No, wait, lack of one. You have not shown any of the reasons why it can't be DET to be false. Come back when you can.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Not only that, but it's not a valid motive. I have no vested interest in demonstrating that the Borg have the amazing ability to blow themselves up when looked at funny. If I'm right, this means that Species 8472's weapon was LESS powerful than everyone thinks.

Your motive is painfully simple for all to see: You want the weapons to be DET. It's only a fallacy, of course, if I wasn't pointing out the reasons why it's false as well(CLUE FOR THE CLUELESS: If I was committing appeal to motive I'd be saying 'you're trying to acheive X, therefore you're wrong').

You didn't say the motive was for the weapons to be DET. That's the stance. The motive you stated was that I wanted to boost my power calcs (you are inarguably lying if you ascribe opinions to me that I've never stated, even after I - the sole authority on my opinions - tell you otherwise). Nor does any of this serve that purpose. The Doomsphere being DET increases Xindi power calcs and not ENT Starfleet's since they never beat it. And it's useless if I want to say TNG or TOS era Starfleet is more powerful since I've repeatedly stated that I consider them separate canons. Neither does my theory about "Scorpion" make Trek more powerful. You're saying S8472's weapon destroyed a planet via chain reaction. I'm saying it didn't destroy the planet at all. That makes S8472 WEAKER. It also makes the Borg dumber since they don't have to network things they way they do. To quote your lying one more time:

That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Or are you saying I want the Xindi to be more powerful in spite of the fact that I'm not a Xindi apologist?

Yes, you are. There is no other reason to continue to argue their weapon is DET when it has been conclusively shown to not be.

Here's an analogy. A GCS, when damaged the right way, explodes violently. Does that therefore mean a GCS has the firepower to vape another GCS with one shot? No.

False analogy. A planet is not a powder-keg GCS.

No. A false analogy would be if I said this was the planet itself "going off." I didn't. I said this was Borg antimatter exploding. That is a valid analogy.

Yep, you just lack that vital proof it's there.

And phaser chain reactions don't cause explosions. They cause disintegration. Rock shattering is caused by a sudden temperature increase. And if it were a chain reaction that made rocks explode, that wouldn't explain Earth exploding because Earth is liquid inside, not solid rock.

It establishes clearly that there are chain reactions we don't fully understand, therefore we cannot arbitrarily throw out the option because it doesn't make your happy.

Final time asking: Show proof for your erroneous claims.

Established physics don't bear the burden of proof. Exceptions to them do.

You have no concept of physics, do you, Metrion? Either start showing proof for your claims or fuck off. I've shown claiming it's DET is false.

[Metrion Cascade]

Wow, what an argument.. No, wait, lack of one. You have not shown any of the reasons why it can't be DET to be false. Come back when you can.
Your motive is painfully simple for all to see: You want the weapons to be DET. It's only a fallacy, of course, if I wasn't pointing out the reasons why it's false as well(CLUE FOR THE CLUELESS: If I was committing appeal to motive I'd be saying 'you're trying to acheive X, therefore you're wrong').

You didn't say the motive was for the weapons to be DET. That's the stance. The motive you stated was that I wanted to boost my power calcs (you are inarguably lying if you ascribe opinions to me that I've never stated, even after I - the sole authority on my opinions - tell you otherwise). Nor does any of this serve that purpose. The Doomsphere being DET increases Xindi power calcs and not ENT Starfleet's since they never beat it. And it's useless if I want to say TNG or TOS era Starfleet is more powerful since I've repeatedly stated that I consider them separate canons. Neither does my theory about "Scorpion" make Trek more powerful. You're saying S8472's weapon destroyed a planet via chain reaction. I'm saying it didn't destroy the planet at all. That makes S8472 WEAKER. It also makes the Borg dumber since they don't have to network things they way they do. To quote your lying one more time:

That you refuse to deal with this because it puts your power calc's down is simply showing your childishness.

Or are you saying I want the Xindi to be more powerful in spite of the fact that I'm not a Xindi apologist?

Yes, you are. There is no other reason to continue to argue their weapon is DET when it has been conclusively shown to not be.

No, I'm not. Says me, the Goddess of Metrion's Opinions, and you aren't entitled to an alternate opinion, you little pissant bitch. Don't go off telling me my favorite color or what kind of food I like either.

False analogy. A planet is not a powder-keg GCS.

No. A false analogy would be if I said this was the planet itself "going off." I didn't. I said this was Borg antimatter exploding. That is a valid analogy.

Yep, you just lack that vital proof it's there.

It establishes clearly that there are chain reactions we don't fully understand, therefore we cannot arbitrarily throw out the option because it doesn't make your happy.

Final time asking: Show proof for your erroneous claims.

Established physics don't bear the burden of proof. Exceptions to them do.

You have no concept of physics, do you, Metrion? Either start showing proof for your claims or fuck off. I've shown claiming it's DET is false.

I'll care what proof you want after you explain why established physics bear the burden of proof. Simply saying they do does little more than amuse me.

[SirNitram]

I'll care what proof you want after you explain why established physics bear the burden of proof. Simply saying they do does little more than amuse me.

Yes, the stupid are easily amused, aren't you? Of course, I'm not asking for proof for established physics, I'm asking for it from your assumptions.

As it is your assumption that the Borg planet was essentially a bomb.

Your assumption that the Xindi weapon is thermal or kinetic when it is clearly neither.

Your assumption that there can be no reaction which perfectly fits the observed phenomenon.

Oh, you didn't know? Science isn't complete, especially in sci-fi. There can be things we don't fully understand yet, like chain reactions. Of course you wouldn't know that. You didn't even know light has momentum until I pointed it out and you feverently strawmanned.

I'm sure you'll again pull a Darkstar, but until you grow up enough to actually support your nonsense, I take my leave of this thread.

[The Kernel]

Metrion, perhaps you can explain how, assuming the DoomSphere is DET, the Xindi are roughly parity with the Federation, which we know don't have weapons anywhere CLOSE to this. We saw a prime example of the best that the NX-01's phase canons can do in their initial test fire, and it wasn't impressive.

So unless the Xindi are more advanced then even the 24th Century Federation, how do you explain the firepower discrepancy here if it is indeed DET?

[Kuja]

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

*snorts Coca-Cola out my nose*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you HONESTLY suggesting this? You DO remember the borg status report of '8 planets destroyed' prompting Seven to take over Voyager, don't you? Are you honestly suggesting that every one of those planets was so full of MAM reactors that it was, in effect, a bomb waiting to be set off by 8472? And, in addition, that S8472 was coincidentally running around with an extra-bulky bioship and its attending fighters setting these planets off?

Thank you Metrion, I needed that laugh.

[Metrion Cascade]

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

*snorts Coca-Cola out my nose*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you HONESTLY suggesting this? You DO remember the borg status report of '8 planets destroyed' prompting Seven to take over Voyager, don't you? Are you honestly suggesting that every one of those planets was so full of MAM reactors that it was, in effect, a bomb waiting to be set off by 8472? And, in addition, that S8472 was coincidentally running around with an extra-bulky bioship and its attending fighters setting these planets off?

Thank you Metrion, I needed that laugh.

Nice strawman, but no. There was only one planetbuster formation in "Scorpion." Other engagements could have featured multiple firings from multiple formations.

[Metrion Cascade]

Metrion, perhaps you can explain how, assuming the DoomSphere is DET, the Xindi are roughly parity with the Federation, which we know don't have weapons anywhere CLOSE to this. We saw a prime example of the best that the NX-01's phase canons can do in their initial test fire, and it wasn't impressive.

So unless the Xindi are more advanced then even the 24th Century Federation, how do you explain the firepower discrepancy here if it is indeed DET?

I don't consider the Xindi part of the TNG/TOS canon timeline, so the conclusions I draw here don't constitute me pumping up the Federation. As far as I'm concerned the Xindi have as much relevance in canon Trek history as Luke Skywalker or the Vorlons. And the Xindi are considerably more powerful than ENT Starfleet. Not only in terms of industrial capacity but technologically. Remember, Starfleet has ONE NX class ship that's not really a match for anything more powerful than an insectoid scout ship and Degra's research platform. Remember the battle towards the end of "Twilight?" IIRC, ENT had the following advantages in that battle:

- they went up against fewer ships than the number in "Azati Prime"
- they had Andorian shields donated by Shran
- they had other Starfleet ships helping them

And they were destroyed anyway. Add the subspace vortex technology (unlike anything seen until Lore's Borg ship in TNG "Descent") to that, and NX-01 vs. most Xindi ships is like the Space Shuttle vs. the Delta Flyer. We also don't know that the Xindi are actually inventing and building everything they've got. They could and probably do have help from Future Guy, and presumably Future Guy is from the sphere-building race (who we KNOW aren't part of the TNG/TOS timeline) or at least allied with them. Anyway. Yes, the Xindi are more advanced than the TNG-era Federation in some ways nobody even disputes. And even if I'm wrong and it's a chain reaction, the Doomsphere is still more powerful than anything the TNG-era Federation has.

[Metrion Cascade]

I'll care what proof you want after you explain why established physics bear the burden of proof. Simply saying they do does little more than amuse me.

Yes, the stupid are easily amused, aren't you? Of course, I'm not asking for proof for established physics, I'm asking for it from your assumptions.

As it is your assumption that the Borg planet was essentially a bomb.

M/AM reactors may as well be bombs if you hit them badly enough that they lose containment.

Your assumption that the Xindi weapon is thermal or kinetic when it is clearly neither.

Ooh, more strawman bullshit. I'll wait for a quote where I said the Doomsphere was or could be a kinetic weapon. Nice circular logic fallacy on the "it's clearly not thermal" bit too.

Your assumption that there can be no reaction which perfectly fits the observed phenomenon.

Oh, you didn't know? Science isn't complete, especially in sci-fi. There can be things we don't fully understand yet, like chain reactions.

To quote you:

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

Of course you wouldn't know that. You didn't even know light has momentum until I pointed it out and you feverently strawmanned.

I'm sure you'll again pull a Darkstar, but until you grow up enough to actually support your nonsense, I take my leave of this thread.

Bullshit on toast, dear. In the phaser momentum thread I brought up light momentum. My statement about the Doomsphere's beam was badly worded, but a look at the phaser momentum thread will show that I do know about light momentum. As will the fact that I recognized U/c as light momentum when you didn't say "light momentum."

Assumptions underpinning your argument:

1.) ENT physics are the same as Trek physics. As supported by the statement that the E-E interacted with it. False, since a separate canon that starts with a canon timeline (as all fanfics do) is still a separate canon. Also false because the laws of physics are not constant even within Trek or ENT, and certain technologies operating in a given space don't mean all of the laws of physics are the same as the tech's native space. The E-D visited a galaxy where thought became reality and its systems still worked. Voyager visted chaotic space and some systems still worked. ENT entered the Delphic Expanse and its tech worked fine.

2.) "Scorpion" was an example of an explosive chain reaction in spite of the fact that there is a DET explanation which works. Irrelevant regardless of whether it's true, because assumption 1 is required for it to be a factor. Fortunately it's false even if assumption 1 is true. Until the actual laws of physics CANNOT explain the event, they are the default explanation. The DET explanation that is superior to your interpretation is that the bioships did not have the firepower (DET, NDF or otherwise) to destroy the entire planet with a single shot, and that after the fact the Borg installations on the planet exploded. This raises the question of Borg industrial capacity, but that can be answered without creating new laws of physics. Both theories raise questions, but yours assumes a chain reaction you refuse to describe because you can't.

3.) The Xindi weapon could not have punched a hole in the crust without evenly heating all of it at once. Patently false, as there are energy beams today that do just that with a variety of materials.

4.) The Xindi weapon could not have increased in power after punching a hole in the crust. This in contradiction to the fact that the second prototype did increase in power as it fired.

5.) The prototypes were not DET. This supported by the "lack of evidence" that the second prototype was DET. Never mind that DET doesn't bear the burden of proof. What lacked evidence was a chain reaction occuring in the target. There was no glowing of the sort seen in ALL chain reaction weapons in both Trek and ENT, and there was no debris movement that didn't start while the weapon was firing.

6.) The same type of NDF worked on the planet in "Scorpion," the target destroyed by the second Xindi prototype, and Earth, in spite of their differing explosions and compositions. The planet in "Scorpion" was solid, as was the moon destroyed by the second Xindi prototype (a target chosen by the weapon's engineer, who would have chosen a target more like Earth if the weapon depended on a chain reaction in a certain type of target material). Earth, on the other hand, is liquid inside.

7.) The weapon could not have been putting sufficient energy into the planet to boil its mantle because there was no fireball where it hit. Never mind that there was. And never mind that you haven't shown that the energy couldn't have been delivered at a slow enough rate to prevent such fireballs. And never mind that the beam (which clearly had a structure more complex than a straight line) could have had a mechanism such as a forcefield isolating most of its energy from the atmosphere. Such a mechanism could easily be strong enough to hold back air without being strong enough to hold back magma beyond a certain pressure.

8.) The weapon could not have broken Earth up by heating it because Earth's GB energy is more than that required to vape the whole thing. Never mind that we don't know the GB energy was overcome at all. The planet barely came apart, with the few remaining solids moving at less than a third of a planetary diameter per second.

Questions raised by my stance:

1.) How the Xindi came up with a weapon that produces that amount of energy. This question is also raised by the chain reaction explanation, since we don't know how much energy would have to be incident to spread the chain reaction through the planet.

2.) Why the Federation doesn't have planetkilling DET in the 24th century if they beat the Xindi. But by my own admission the Federation didn't beat the Xindi because it never encountered them. And we don't know that Enterprise wound up beating them. The situation may be resolved diplomatically, or somebody else may kill them off.

3.) Why the crust didn't melt faster. Possibly answered by the beam having a mechanism to isolate itself from its surroundings down to a certain magma pressure. Heating the core and mantle enough to expand could push the planet apart before enough heat from the core and mantle made it up to the surface to melt all of the crust.

Questions raised by your stance:

1.) How the Xindi generated enough power to start the explosive NDF. Requires a sense of how much power is needed. Unanswerable.

2.) Why the powers of the AQ in the 24th century cannot duplicate what happened in "Twilight" by any means despite one of their powers being able to do it 300 years before. Not with a sphere a kilometer in diameter, not with a fleet of ships. Not by DET, not by NDF, not at all. Unanswerable.

3.) What type of chain reaction could, by any means, cause a variety of materials to explode without heating them enough to vaporize. And what such reactions say about the physics of Trek overall. Unanswerable.

4.) How you intend to reconcile all of the continuity errors between ENT and Trek. Unanswerable.

5.) When you intend to pull the stick out of your ass. Unanswerable.

Nitram, owned. *puts Nitram on her keychain and rubs his head for good luck*

[SirNitram]

I'll care what proof you want after you explain why established physics bear the burden of proof. Simply saying they do does little more than amuse me.

Yes, the stupid are easily amused, aren't you? Of course, I'm not asking for proof for established physics, I'm asking for it from your assumptions.

As it is your assumption that the Borg planet was essentially a bomb.

M/AM reactors may as well be bombs if you hit them badly enough that they lose containment.

Lack of evidence that the planet contained sufficient AM for this reaction noted.

Your assumption that the Xindi weapon is thermal or kinetic when it is clearly neither.

Ooh, more strawman bullshit. I'll wait for a quote where I said the Doomsphere was or could be a kinetic weapon. Nice circular logic fallacy on the "it's clearly not thermal" bit too.

Funny, you certainly started ranting about how it could be kinetic after I reminded you about U/c.

And there is no circular logic, Metrion, in my showing it's not thermal. The lack of atmospheric fireballs the size of states, melted continental plates, and mantle material in the form of vapour prove my point(Clue for the clueless: The ejecta from beneath the crust we saw was not acting as a gas).

Your assumption that there can be no reaction which perfectly fits the observed phenomenon.

Oh, you didn't know? Science isn't complete, especially in sci-fi. There can be things we don't fully understand yet, like chain reactions.

To quote you:

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

Pitiful and desperate. I have shown it can't be DET. You have failed to rebutt any of my shows of proof, instead endlessly driving the conversasion away from the utter lack of the things required to be there for DET and not being there.

Of course you wouldn't know that. You didn't even know light has momentum until I pointed it out and you feverently strawmanned.

I'm sure you'll again pull a Darkstar, but until you grow up enough to actually support your nonsense, I take my leave of this thread.

Bullshit on toast, dear. In the phaser momentum thread I brought up light momentum. My statement about the Doomsphere's beam was badly worded, but a look at the phaser momentum thread will show that I do know about light momentum. As will the fact that I recognized U/c as light momentum when you didn't say "light momentum."

Nope. You said an energy beam will have no momentum. Sorry.

Assumptions underpinning your argument:

1.) ENT physics are the same as Trek physics. As supported by the statement that the E-E interacted with it. False, since a separate canon that starts with a canon timeline (as all fanfics do) is still a separate canon. Also false because the laws of physics are not constant even within Trek or ENT, and certain technologies operating in a given space don't mean all of the laws of physics are the same as the tech's native space. The E-D visited a galaxy where thought became reality and its systems still worked. Voyager visted chaotic space and some systems still worked. ENT entered the Delphic Expanse and its tech worked fine.

Very good, you can cite other regions within the Trek megaverse that supported it's science or didn't. Only, get this.. The Ent-E and the Borg encountered no problems! It was their own past, albeit a divergent one once the Borg arrived. There was no magic change in physics to suddenly disregard all chain reactions.

2.) "Scorpion" was an example of an explosive chain reaction in spite of the fact that there is a DET explanation which works. Irrelevant regardless of whether it's true, because assumption 1 is required for it to be a factor. Fortunately it's false even if assumption 1 is true. Until the actual laws of physics CANNOT explain the event, they are the default explanation. The DET explanation that is superior to your interpretation is that the bioships did not have the firepower (DET, NDF or otherwise) to destroy the entire planet with a single shot, and that after the fact the Borg installations on the planet exploded. This raises the question of Borg industrial capacity, but that can be answered without creating new laws of physics. Both theories raise questions, but yours assumes a chain reaction you refuse to describe because you can't.

And yours requires an unobserved unknown. Mine requires only a funky beam, which is exactly what we saw. Guess which wins under Parsimony? Mine.

3.) The Xindi weapon could not have punched a hole in the crust without evenly heating all of it at once. Patently false, as there are energy beams today that do just that with a variety of materials.

No, idiot. The ramping up to the energy required would produce sufficient waste heat to at least make one continental plate(The one it was hitting) glow. This did not occour. Do not strawman me further, even though I know you can't debate without doing so.

4.) The Xindi weapon could not have increased in power after punching a hole in the crust. This in contradiction to the fact that the second prototype did increase in power as it fired.

Outright lie. I pointed out that such an increase should make the things that are lacking(Atmospheric fireballs, crust superheating, mantle gases) even more pronounced. They are not present either way.

5.) The prototypes were not DET. This supported by the "lack of evidence" that the second prototype was DET. Never mind that DET doesn't bear the burden of proof. What lacked evidence was a chain reaction occuring in the target. There was no glowing of the sort seen in ALL chain reaction weapons in both Trek and ENT, and there was no debris movement that didn't start while the weapon was firing.

Strawman. The first prototype can't be DET because it produced no waste heat, even from the destroyed material(Which should be vapour if it's DET, right? Where's the vapour?).

6.) The same type of NDF worked on the planet in "Scorpion," the target destroyed by the second Xindi prototype, and Earth, in spite of their differing explosions and compositions. The planet in "Scorpion" was solid, as was the moon destroyed by the second Xindi prototype (a target chosen by the weapon's engineer, who would have chosen a target more like Earth if the weapon depended on a chain reaction in a certain type of target material). Earth, on the other hand, is liquid inside.

This will not effect a element-specific reaction like NDF, which depends more on the bonds and less on the phase of the matter. In addition, I did not define the chain reaction as NDF, as neither event is consistant with NDF.

7.) The weapon could not have been putting sufficient energy into the planet to boil its mantle because there was no fireball where it hit. Never mind that there was. And never mind that you haven't shown that the energy couldn't have been delivered at a slow enough rate to prevent such fireballs. And never mind that the beam (which clearly had a structure more complex than a straight line) could have had a mechanism such as a forcefield isolating most of its energy from the atmosphere. Such a mechanism could easily be strong enough to hold back air without being strong enough to hold back magma beyond a certain pressure.

The fireball was not the size of a state, which is the size from a large nuclear weapon, nevermind an energy beam designed to vapourize the mantle as you claim it would be doing. And now you are inventing more unknown unobserved to try and bolster your sick and dying theory against the harsh realities of thermodynamics.

8.) The weapon could not have broken Earth up by heating it because Earth's GB energy is more than that required to vape the whole thing. Never mind that we don't know the GB energy was overcome at all. The planet barely came apart, with the few remaining solids moving at less than a third of a planetary diameter per second.

Wow, you're an idiot. I specifically pointed out, that at the minimum for destruction by overcoming GBE, it would take an Earth sized planet ten minutes to expand a planetary diameter. Moving at the speeds you quote, it more than overcame the requirement.

And yes, the first fact is true. If you were running numbers instead of inventing reasons to attack my position, you would notice this.

Questions raised by my stance:

1.) How the Xindi came up with a weapon that produces that amount of energy. This question is also raised by the chain reaction explanation, since we don't know how much energy would have to be incident to spread the chain reaction through the planet.

Ultimately an unknowable question, but if they have that level of power generation on their hands, why not get better shields?

2.) Why the Federation doesn't have planetkilling DET in the 24th century if they beat the Xindi. But by my own admission the Federation didn't beat the Xindi because it never encountered them. And we don't know that Enterprise wound up beating them. The situation may be resolved diplomatically, or somebody else may kill them off.

We do not know the fate of the Xindi and Federation, therefore this is useless fangirl speculation to further your own point and failing to do so.

3.) Why the crust didn't melt faster. Possibly answered by the beam having a mechanism to isolate itself from its surroundings down to a certain magma pressure. Heating the core and mantle enough to expand could push the planet apart before enough heat from the core and mantle made it up to the surface to melt all of the crust.

Unobserved unknown, in addition to the fact we can see ejecta from the mantle, and it's not acting like a gas like your theory requires.

Questions raised by your stance:

1.) How the Xindi generated enough power to start the explosive NDF. Requires a sense of how much power is needed. Unanswerable.

And thus answered the same way with yours: Praying B&B actually resolve it.

2.) Why the powers of the AQ in the 24th century cannot duplicate what happened in "Twilight" by any means despite one of their powers being able to do it 300 years before. Not with a sphere a kilometer in diameter, not with a fleet of ships. Not by DET, not by NDF, not at all. Unanswerable.

Again, same with yours.

3.) What type of chain reaction could, by any means, cause a variety of materials to explode without heating them enough to vaporize. And what such reactions say about the physics of Trek overall. Unanswerable.

But proven Canon by Scorpion.

4.) How you intend to reconcile all of the continuity errors between ENT and Trek. Unanswerable.

Answered again and again, but you again claim it's unanswered. ENT is the timeline created by Picard's meddling in First Contact.

5.) When you intend to pull the stick out of your ass. Unanswerable.

Precisely five seconds after you stop acting like a Trektard.

I'm owned. *bows down to his superior logic*

Fixed that typo of yours.

[SirNitram]

To drive home my point, we'll look over some of those shots again.



Less atmospheric interaction than a kiloton-range nuke. Strike one.



None of the plates are even hot, from the look of it, they aren't glowing even a dull red except where the ejecta is emerging.



If this looks like gas to you, get eyeglasses.

[Kuja]

I'm not saying the Borg can carry a whole planet full of M/AM reactors around. They can't. That they can generate that amount of power with a planetful of reactors doesn't mean they can build weapons that do the same. If my theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Borg have any new or unreasonable abilities. It just means that the planet had enough AM on it to blow up.

*snorts Coca-Cola out my nose*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you HONESTLY suggesting this? You DO remember the borg status report of '8 planets destroyed' prompting Seven to take over Voyager, don't you? Are you honestly suggesting that every one of those planets was so full of MAM reactors that it was, in effect, a bomb waiting to be set off by 8472? And, in addition, that S8472 was coincidentally running around with an extra-bulky bioship and its attending fighters setting these planets off?

Thank you Metrion, I needed that laugh.

Nice strawman, but no. There was only one planetbuster formation in "Scorpion." Other engagements could have featured multiple firings from multiple formations.

...............

Did you read my post with your eyes closed or something? Your rebuttle doesn't even address my point.

[Rogue 9]

You know, the weapon had enough power to destroy a planet, no matter what kind of reaction it used. Generally speaking, its far harder to destroy a planet than a 1.6 km ship, almost no matter what the ship's composition. So is any of this even germane to the original question?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

You know, the weapon had enough power to destroy a planet, no matter what kind of reaction it used. Generally speaking, its far harder to destroy a planet than a 1.6 km ship, almost no matter what the ship's composition. So is any of this even germane to the original question?

That depends on how much energy is borrowed from the target. If it is a matter interaction beam, when it hits a shield, there may be little or no interaction at all. The raw energy in the beam is thus the decisive factor. And it is true that planetary destruction chain reactions in Trek have ridiculous "boost" factors.

For instance, the S8472 beam is a significant contributor to the weapon (remember that formation?) that hit and destroyed a Borg planet. Yet, when the same beam is pitted against a ship, it can't even destroy Voyager. Even if we assume a tributary beam had 1% of the power of the whole, Voyager should simply have ceased to exist, but it didn't. That's the kind of disparity possible with Trek Reaction Weapons.

[The Kernel]

You know, the weapon had enough power to destroy a planet, no matter what kind of reaction it used. Generally speaking, its far harder to destroy a planet than a 1.6 km ship, almost no matter what the ship's composition. So is any of this even germane to the original question?

Not at all. Consider a classic chain-reaction weapon like the MD Device from the Ender's Game series. It is a weapon that prevents atomic nuclei from holding together through some sort of exotic cancelling of atomic force. This can easily destroy a planet, which has no natural defense against such a weapon, but if you had a shield that prevented the penetration of the weapon, and was was composed of a thin layer of particles that wouldn't allow the chain reaction to spread, then the weapon would be totally useless without any large amount of energy expended.

Here's an analogy: the chain-reaction weapon is a match and everything else is gasoline. If you had a substance that isn't flammable (ie, doesn't propogate the chain-reaction) then you are effectively immune to the weapon. Since there isn't any evidence that these weapons will work on any form of shields (especially Imperial shields), we don't assume that they will penetrate a planetary (or even ship based) deflector, so it may not even be able to damage the ship.

What makes it even worse for these weapons is that many of them (especially phasers) are material dependent. Phasers for example are increadibly effective against rock and light metals, but show remarkably decreased effectiveness against heavy metals. That means that even if they CAN penetrate the shields, the chain-reaction may not work on the sort of heavy armor that Imperial warships carry.

[Metrion Cascade]

Yes, the stupid are easily amused, aren't you? Of course, I'm not asking for proof for established physics, I'm asking for it from your assumptions.

As it is your assumption that the Borg planet was essentially a bomb.

M/AM reactors may as well be bombs if you hit them badly enough that they lose containment.

Lack of evidence that the planet contained sufficient AM for this reaction noted.

Things don't have to be canon to make logical deductions. Nor do we know the planet's size (assuming anyone actually called it a planet onscreen rather than a moon). It could easily have been the size of Io or Pluto. We know the planet blew up. That is evidence of *something* that could cause an explosion. Antimatter is routinely used by many Trek powers and requires no further explanation. Chain reactions do. Wanna talk parsimony again?

And (psst)...guess what? It drops S8472 power calcs on their brainbug "bioships" even more if I'm right.

Your assumption that the Xindi weapon is thermal or kinetic when it is clearly neither.

Ooh, more strawman bullshit. I'll wait for a quote where I said the Doomsphere was or could be a kinetic weapon. Nice circular logic fallacy on the "it's clearly not thermal" bit too.

Funny, you certainly started ranting about how it could be kinetic after I reminded you about U/c.

Quote me on that.

And there is no circular logic, Metrion, in my showing it's not thermal. The lack of atmospheric fireballs the size of states, melted continental plates, and mantle material in the form of vapour prove my point(Clue for the clueless: The ejecta from beneath the crust we saw was not acting as a gas).

Ever read about how an oil rig works? Most of the pressure that drives the oil upward is actually caused by natural gas production. If the magma in the mantle is partially vaporized, not all of the ejecta will be vapor. The vapor will escape (as we saw) and push up some liquid as well.

Your assumption that there can be no reaction which perfectly fits the observed phenomenon.

To quote you:

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

Pitiful and desperate. I have shown it can't be DET. You have failed to rebutt any of my shows of proof, instead endlessly driving the conversasion away from the utter lack of the things required to be there for DET and not being there.

All of them are there and you simply ignore them.

Of course you wouldn't know that. You didn't even know light has momentum until I pointed it out and you feverently strawmanned.

I'm sure you'll again pull a Darkstar, but until you grow up enough to actually support your nonsense, I take my leave of this thread.

Bullshit on toast, dear. In the phaser momentum thread I brought up light momentum. My statement about the Doomsphere's beam was badly worded, but a look at the phaser momentum thread will show that I do know about light momentum. As will the fact that I recognized U/c as light momentum when you didn't say "light momentum."

Nope. You said an energy beam will have no momentum. Sorry.

Nice play at semantics, but you are inarguably lying if you state that I could not have known about light momentum simply because I ignored it on such a macroscopic scale.

Assumptions underpinning your argument:

1.) ENT physics are the same as Trek physics. As supported by the statement that the E-E interacted with it. False, since a separate canon that starts with a canon timeline (as all fanfics do) is still a separate canon. Also false because the laws of physics are not constant even within Trek or ENT, and certain technologies operating in a given space don't mean all of the laws of physics are the same as the tech's native space. The E-D visited a galaxy where thought became reality and its systems still worked. Voyager visted chaotic space and some systems still worked. ENT entered the Delphic Expanse and its tech worked fine.

Very good, you can cite other regions within the Trek megaverse that supported it's science or didn't. Only, get this.. The Ent-E and the Borg encountered no problems! It was their own past, albeit a divergent one once the Borg arrived. There was no magic change in physics to suddenly disregard all chain reactions.

2.) "Scorpion" was an example of an explosive chain reaction in spite of the fact that there is a DET explanation which works. Irrelevant regardless of whether it's true, because assumption 1 is required for it to be a factor. Fortunately it's false even if assumption 1 is true. Until the actual laws of physics CANNOT explain the event, they are the default explanation. The DET explanation that is superior to your interpretation is that the bioships did not have the firepower (DET, NDF or otherwise) to destroy the entire planet with a single shot, and that after the fact the Borg installations on the planet exploded. This raises the question of Borg industrial capacity, but that can be answered without creating new laws of physics. Both theories raise questions, but yours assumes a chain reaction you refuse to describe because you can't.

And yours requires an unobserved unknown. Mine requires only a funky beam, which is exactly what we saw. Guess which wins under Parsimony? Mine.

Antimatter is an unknown and inexplicable chain reactions aren't? You're funny.

3.) The Xindi weapon could not have punched a hole in the crust without evenly heating all of it at once. Patently false, as there are energy beams today that do just that with a variety of materials.

No, idiot. The ramping up to the energy required would produce sufficient waste heat to at least make one continental plate(The one it was hitting) glow. This did not occour. Do not strawman me further, even though I know you can't debate without doing so.

You haven't demonstrated that the increasing energy could not be nearly as focused as the initial beam, or that the beam couldn't have an isolating mechanism (hmm...wonder what those barbs in the beam are).

4.) The Xindi weapon could not have increased in power after punching a hole in the crust. This in contradiction to the fact that the second prototype did increase in power as it fired.

Outright lie. I pointed out that such an increase should make the things that are lacking(Atmospheric fireballs, crust superheating, mantle gases) even more pronounced. They are not present either way.

5.) The prototypes were not DET. This supported by the "lack of evidence" that the second prototype was DET. Never mind that DET doesn't bear the burden of proof. What lacked evidence was a chain reaction occuring in the target. There was no glowing of the sort seen in ALL chain reaction weapons in both Trek and ENT, and there was no debris movement that didn't start while the weapon was firing.

Strawman. The first prototype can't be DET because it produced no waste heat, even from the destroyed material(Which should be vapour if it's DET, right? Where's the vapour?).

Why the hell would it have to vaporise anything? That you are using direct energy transfer doesn't therefore mean you are using enough to vaporize the target. Phasers, for example, make rock explode by suddenly heating it. Most of the debris is not vaporized.

6.) The same type of NDF worked on the planet in "Scorpion," the target destroyed by the second Xindi prototype, and Earth, in spite of their differing explosions and compositions. The planet in "Scorpion" was solid, as was the moon destroyed by the second Xindi prototype (a target chosen by the weapon's engineer, who would have chosen a target more like Earth if the weapon depended on a chain reaction in a certain type of target material). Earth, on the other hand, is liquid inside.

This will not effect a element-specific reaction like NDF, which depends more on the bonds and less on the phase of the matter. In addition, I did not define the chain reaction as NDF, as neither event is consistant with NDF.

7.) The weapon could not have been putting sufficient energy into the planet to boil its mantle because there was no fireball where it hit. Never mind that there was. And never mind that you haven't shown that the energy couldn't have been delivered at a slow enough rate to prevent such fireballs. And never mind that the beam (which clearly had a structure more complex than a straight line) could have had a mechanism such as a forcefield isolating most of its energy from the atmosphere. Such a mechanism could easily be strong enough to hold back air without being strong enough to hold back magma beyond a certain pressure.

The fireball was not the size of a state, which is the size from a large nuclear weapon, nevermind an energy beam designed to vapourize the mantle as you claim it would be doing. And now you are inventing more unknown unobserved to try and bolster your sick and dying theory against the harsh realities of thermodynamics.

And you intend to show that you have a concrete figure for the fireball's size how? And I'll pretend not to notice you earlier saying there was none at all.

8.) The weapon could not have broken Earth up by heating it because Earth's GB energy is more than that required to vape the whole thing. Never mind that we don't know the GB energy was overcome at all. The planet barely came apart, with the few remaining solids moving at less than a third of a planetary diameter per second.

Wow, you're an idiot. I specifically pointed out, that at the minimum for destruction by overcoming GBE, it would take an Earth sized planet ten minutes to expand a planetary diameter. Moving at the speeds you quote, it more than overcame the requirement.

And yes, the first fact is true. If you were running numbers instead of inventing reasons to attack my position, you would notice this.

Numbers? When do you intend to show some numbers showing what temperature would be required to initiate these fireballs and that nothing could have isolated the beam from the atmosphere and crust down to a certain pressure?

Nor have you shown that the outward pressure to push a planet apart must magically turn back into heat and vape the planet first.

Questions raised by my stance:

1.) How the Xindi came up with a weapon that produces that amount of energy. This question is also raised by the chain reaction explanation, since we don't know how much energy would have to be incident to spread the chain reaction through the planet.

Ultimately an unknowable question, but if they have that level of power generation on their hands, why not get better shields?

It's not just a matter of making the power. It's also a matter of applying it in that fashion. Not to mention that the Doomsphere is bigger than any of their ships (presumably to make room for powering itself).

2.) Why the Federation doesn't have planetkilling DET in the 24th century if they beat the Xindi. But by my own admission the Federation didn't beat the Xindi because it never encountered them. And we don't know that Enterprise wound up beating them. The situation may be resolved diplomatically, or somebody else may kill them off.

We do not know the fate of the Xindi and Federation, therefore this is useless fangirl speculation to further your own point and failing to do so.

We do know that if you're right about ENT being canon, then by the 24th century most of the AQ should be a lot farther along than they are technologically. And there should be historical references to these events.

3.) Why the crust didn't melt faster. Possibly answered by the beam having a mechanism to isolate itself from its surroundings down to a certain magma pressure. Heating the core and mantle enough to expand could push the planet apart before enough heat from the core and mantle made it up to the surface to melt all of the crust.

Unobserved unknown, in addition to the fact we can see ejecta from the mantle, and it's not acting like a gas like your theory requires.

Some of it is. And the rest can stay liquid while being ejected due to gas pressure.

Questions raised by your stance:

1.) How the Xindi generated enough power to start the explosive NDF. Requires a sense of how much power is needed. Unanswerable.

And thus answered the same way with yours: Praying B&B actually resolve it.

2.) Why the powers of the AQ in the 24th century cannot duplicate what happened in "Twilight" by any means despite one of their powers being able to do it 300 years before. Not with a sphere a kilometer in diameter, not with a fleet of ships. Not by DET, not by NDF, not at all. Unanswerable.

Again, same with yours.

No, it's not the same with mine. My theory assumes they're different canons, so the powers of the AQ never dealt with the Xindi and their tech at all.

3.) What type of chain reaction could, by any means, cause a variety of materials to explode without heating them enough to vaporize. And what such reactions say about the physics of Trek overall. Unanswerable.

But proven Canon by Scorpion.

4.) How you intend to reconcile all of the continuity errors between ENT and Trek. Unanswerable.

Answered again and again, but you again claim it's unanswered. ENT is the timeline created by Picard's meddling in First Contact.

What canon proof do you have that the sphere in "Regeneration" was the same one Picard shot down? Hint: Picard's actions in First Contact didn't create a new timeline. They restored the TNG timeline (which contradicts ENT). Unless you're saying everything after First Contact stems from a history different than that depicted in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY. Which would be fucked up, but not too unreasonable.

5.) When you intend to pull the stick out of your ass. Unanswerable.

Precisely five seconds after you stop acting like a Trektard.

Never mind that I literally cried at how bad "Nemesis" was and want B&B's heads on a platter.

Nitram, owned. *puts Nitram on her keychain and rubs his head for good luck*

Sorry I can't read. In my infinite arrogance and dishonesty I almost thought I'd proven my point.

Fixed that typo of yours.

[Metrion Cascade]

*snorts Coca-Cola out my nose*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you HONESTLY suggesting this? You DO remember the borg status report of '8 planets destroyed' prompting Seven to take over Voyager, don't you? Are you honestly suggesting that every one of those planets was so full of MAM reactors that it was, in effect, a bomb waiting to be set off by 8472? And, in addition, that S8472 was coincidentally running around with an extra-bulky bioship and its attending fighters setting these planets off?

Thank you Metrion, I needed that laugh.

Nice strawman, but no. There was only one planetbuster formation in "Scorpion." Other engagements could have featured multiple firings from multiple formations.

...............

Did you read my post with your eyes closed or something? Your rebuttle doesn't even address my point.

First off, S8472 wouldn't attack planets without some notable Borg presence (hence M/AM reactors and storage in one concentration or another). Second, we have no reason to assume that a planetbuster slightly larger than an ordinary S8472 ship is much harder for them to fly around (especially considering they don't seem to have any trouble entering practically anywhere they want in Borg space). And even a planet with no reactors or storage on it could be destroyed by multiple hits from the weapon in "Scorpion" even if all each shot did was the initial impact damage.