Yea. Parsimony. Unobserved Unknowns like planets full of AM without proof. That you do not understand what Parsimony means does not impact my argument, Metrion.Metrion Cascade wrote: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?SirNitram wrote:Lack of evidence that the planet contained sufficient AM for this reaction noted.Metrion Cascade wrote: M/AM reactors may as well be bombs if you hit them badly enough that they lose containment.
And I care why? Scientific analysis shows it to be a chain reaction with current proof. Since you have no proof otherwise, your concession is accepted.And (psst)...guess what? It drops S8472 power calcs on their brainbug "bioships" even more if I'm right.
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.[/quote]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).
Except we don't see any superheated vapour. Concession accepted.
Suuuure they are. I've shown they're not there. Or are you now resorting to 'bright bands' a la some of our famous trolls?All of them are there and you simply ignore them.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.To quote you:
Yea, I=~e26 is so unnoticable on macroscopic scales. Have you actually done any of the math associated with planetary-scale destruction, Metrion? It's becoming increasingly clear you're ignorant of the forces involved.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.Nope. You said an energy beam will have no momentum. Sorry.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."
Was it observed there? Nope. You lose, as usual, and refuse to admit it.Antimatter is an unknown and inexplicable chain reactions aren't? You're funny.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.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.
And yours requires an unobserved unknown. Mine requires only a funky beam, which is exactly what we saw. Guess which wins under Parsimony? Mine.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.
A magic force field which prevents thermal transfer? That sounds suspiciously like something impossible with normal science. Isn't your entire argument based on the idea that we can't use such(Like chain reactions)? Oh yes! It is! Your blatant hypocrisy reeks, Metrion.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).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.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.
Phasers are DET?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.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.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.
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?).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.
Right, that's why people they vanish are turned into superheated vapour that kills everyone around them, with enough recoil to rip Kirk's arm off... Oh wait. That doesn't happen. You're lying, like always.Have you looked at the initial impact shot? There's no fireball at all.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.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.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.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.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.
As for the size, I'm being extra-conservative, assuming it'll be identical to a low-kiloton energy release. Hell, the cloud we see isn't even kiloton level(Or are you so ignorant of physics you don't know that any kT level event will produce a mushroom cloud?).
Kiloton level energy releases. Considering that DET planetary destruction requires exatons, I would consider looking for kT level events fairly conservative and in your favour. Yet, still none! Concession accepted.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?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.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.
And yes, the first fact is true. If you were running numbers instead of inventing reasons to attack my position, you would notice this.
You haven't shown any signs it was thermal in nature. You need to prove your theories, Metrion, not assume you are right until proven wrong, and ignore all evidence against you. That's called trolling, what you're engaged in now.Nor have you shown that the outward pressure to push a planet apart must magically turn back into heat and vape the planet first.
You don't have any clue the scale of power we're talking about here, do you? The effective mass of that amount of energy in a sub-kilometer sphere should make it a massive gravitational anom. If we are doing as you say and removing all non-real world factors like chain reactions and such, the Doomsphere should implode, or drag the sea up towards it. (Plug in 2.1e32J into E=MC^2 for E, and solve for M, then solve for the density. Compare to collapsed matter.)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).Ultimately an unknowable question, but if they have that level of power generation on their hands, why not get better shields?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.
Another blow to your blatant hypocrisy!
Except that it's a parallel timeline, a point you keep stubbornly refusing to accept because it kills your pathetic excuse for an argument. And yes, parallel timelines are Trek Canon(TNG Episode Parallels).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.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.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.
Except you have not shown any gas. Concession accepted.Some of it is. And the rest can stay liquid while being ejected due to gas pressure.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.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.
You've not 'shown' this, you've declared it true and ignored all evidence against it.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.And thus answered the same way with yours: Praying B&B actually resolve it.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.
Again, same with yours.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.
That is exactly what I am saying. It has been said many times over. Are you going to stop being purposely dense because your pet theory has been conclusively disproven?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.But proven Canon by Scorpion.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.
Answered again and again, but you again claim it's unanswered. ENT is the timeline created by Picard's meddling in First Contact.4.) How you intend to reconcile all of the continuity errors between ENT and Trek. Unanswerable.
And this proves you aren't acting like another of the endless legions of trolls I've debated before how? Yes, I sympathize with the depths of crap Trek has slumped to. This does not excuse the utter, blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of basic science you've shown here, Metrion.Never mind that I literally cried at how bad "Nemesis" was and want B&B's heads on a platter.Precisely five seconds after you stop acting like a Trektard.5.) When you intend to pull the stick out of your ass. Unanswerable.
Now, once again, do you have any proof, anywhere, for any of your shit? Or are we going to continue with you simply deploying a Wall Of Ignorance repeatedly, thinking you're clever for ignoring the plethora of evidence against this?
And for those watching at home but not wanting to do actual math, the energy density of the Doomsphere if it imparts 2.2e31J to Earth(Minimum for planetary destruction via DET, far less than it would be if it blew apart at that speed):
2e31J =MC^2
2e31J/C^2 = M
2e31J/9e12 = ~2e18kg
2e18kg/1e3m^3 = 2e15kg/m^3
Or the sort of densities involved with collapsed matter.
