StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shouldn't there also be Trek calcs threads the same way there are Wars calcs threads on this board? And maybe do a comparitive series of calcs threads on the SW vs ST board. Just an idea to make it more convenient for debates, questions, and such.

The problem is that Trek is self-contradicting to the extreme, and there are no official source materials that we can definitely say are universally acceptable.

Aha...oh well.

You can still do calcs if you're so inclined, but there will be a very large range. Mind you, that is also true of SW. One of the reasons for the absence of Trek calcs is probably the smaller number of Trekkies, although we do have several. Another reason is that the numbers will come out looking small relative to SW, so not everyone will want to do it

I have taken stabs at it, the problem is, as Wong said, there is just such a range. This range doesn't matter as much with SW, as GT or TT, their weapons will still trash many other Sci-fies. But ST has too much range. I've seen calcs for as little as isotons ('same as a ton,' not ST version) per torpedo to GT for the Romulan plasma torp. I feel torps are low (5-20) MT range, but there is next to no way to prove any of these figures.

Smaller number of Trekkies? I would have to see some statistics to believe that. You are probaly correct, however, since we are in the middle of the Episodes 1, 2 and 3 hype. I think that, overall, I have met about the same number of Trek and Wars fanatics.

Even if someone does like Trek better, it doesn't really matter anymore. Voyager drove the final nail in Gene's vision anyhow.

I wonder if the Trekkies would trust calcs done by SD.net anyway. My friend refuses to come to this site because he claims it's biased. Yeah, physics calculations that go by the actual films (asteroid scenes) that ignore facts that would favor Star Wars (like asteroids aren't solid iron) are biased against Star Trek? Please. He also claims that all EU isn't canon. He will only trust the movies and that's it. But then again, can we derive the gigaton estimates without ANY information outside of the movies at all? I really want to know this in my next debate with him. If not, then I guess I could try convincing him starwars.com is official since it is directly from LEC. But I haven't been able to find any useful information regarding HTLs being many thousands of times as powerful as regular turbolasers. I remember seeing that quote somewhere on that site before. I can't find it now.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I wonder if the Trekkies would trust calcs done by SD.net anyway. My friend refuses to come to this site because he claims it's biased. Yeah, physics calculations that go by the actual films (asteroid scenes) that ignore facts that would favor Star Wars (like asteroids aren't solid iron) are biased against Star Trek? Please. He also claims that all EU isn't canon. He will only trust the movies and that's it. But then again, can we derive the gigaton estimates without ANY information outside of the movies at all? I really want to know this in my next debate with him. If not, then I guess I could try convincing him starwars.com is official since it is directly from LEC. But I haven't been able to find any useful information regarding HTLs being many thousands of times as powerful as regular turbolasers. I remember seeing that quote somewhere on that site before. I can't find it now.

Then tell your friend to do some calcs of his own and back them up.

That would be hypocritical. I can't make calcs either.
(Looks down at keyboard in shame.)
lol

People who dismiss an argument by saying it's biased are only revealing that they haven't got any better criticisms to lob at it. The most common creationism feedback I get (after people thanking me for making the site) is people who say that they would prefer a middle ground between the two sides; can you say "Golden Mean fallacy?"

Yep. I constantly try to lure him here, but he always refuses to go. But I think he's lying and just doesn't want to admit that he's reading the horrible truth. And if he's reading this, he can't get pissed off at me, for that would be evidence that he's been reading the site.

strange how a photon torp doesn't even vaporize a 30 meter asteriod and then 20 rom/card ships are able to destroy most of a planet in a few hours. Seems that trek has the power only when the occasion calls for it.

Galaxy wrote:strange how a photon torp doesn't even vaporize a 30 meter asteriod and then 20 rom/card ships are able to destroy most of a planet in a few hours.

??? No such event has occured in the history of trek. The planet in TDiC was certainly not mostly destroyed, by any standards.

Heck, a page detailing all the wide variations in the quoted power ratings for weapons and reactors would be nice.

I think there should be SOME attempt to measure the most damage ever seen on-screen for each weapon and the lowest damage ever seen on-screen for each weapon in order to satisfy us all. Hell, I really doubt we need a lowest damage page.

Trek weapon ranges are absurd to say the least. In some episodes they would have trouble taking out a KJ level forcefield, or being damaged by a MJ level blast. Where others will tell us they have taken or used megaton level weaponry.

The reason for this ofcourse, is just plain ignorance.

Trek Writer #1: "Hey what would sound cool to the masses? But make sure I don't have to do ANY WORK AT ALL."

Trek Writer #2:"Hmmmm....Heres a phrase I just pulled outta my ass, ermmm 5.7 Mega...what was it...jewels, jowels, jumbles...something like that... I think its spelled like that, but I sure as hell aint gonna look it up to see if I'm right! Sound good?"

Trek Writer #1:"hey hey! I don't know what it means, but I like it!"

End writing sequence. Try as you might, youwillfind it impossible to derive calcs from this sloppy mess.

Darth Wong wrote:People who dismiss an argument by saying it's biased are only revealing that they haven't got any better criticisms to lob at it. The most common creationism feedback I get (after people thanking me for making the site) is people who say that they would prefer a middle ground between the two sides; can you say "Golden Mean fallacy?"

Just a point, if you did restructure the site to promote learning of prinicple like you said you were considering, it would remove the ability to make claims of bias.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Trek weapon ranges are absurd to say the least. In some episodes they would have trouble taking out a KJ level forcefield, or being damaged by a MJ level blast. Where others will tell us they have taken or used megaton level weaponry.

The reason for this ofcourse, is just plain ignorance.

Trek Writer #1: "Hey what would sound cool to the masses? But make sure I don't have to do ANY WORK AT ALL."

Trek Writer #2:"Hmmmm....Heres a phrase I just pulled outta my ass, ermmm 5.7 Mega...what was it...jewels, jowels, jumbles...something like that... I think its spelled like that, but I sure as hell aint gonna look it up to see if I'm right! Sound good?"

Trek Writer #1:"hey hey! I don't know what it means, but I like it!"

End writing sequence. Try as you might, youwillfind it impossible to derive calcs from this sloppy mess.

The real problem, as it were, is the lackadaisical approach to continuity, i.e. only when it suits the purposes of their story to do so. While some fudging is acceptable (although you'd have to wonder why they couldn't hire a lifeless Trekkie who's memorized every episode to be a "continuity consultant" for minimum wage) it's really bad when the attitude is "don't let continuity get in the way of the story". The universe has to be self-consistent, and if it gets obvious that the Enterprise is as strong or as weak as it needs to be depending on what the story calls for, then you toss the dramatic tension out of the window. Suddenly it's all blatantly made up, you know that despite what they said they could or couldn't do last week, they'll do it (or not) this week to solve the problem.

Oh, you can get away with big errors for awhile. But eventually that "screw continuity, write whatever seems good" (which, ironically, isn't even good, and when it is those bastards want it toned down) attitude bites you in the ass and it bites hard, because you can't go back and magically erase away all the mistakes.

Sure they can.
(Gene Roddenbury wakes up, shocked.)
"What was that horrible nightmare??? It seemed to last for an eternity! Ah, well, it's over now."