What are the current Trek numbers?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

that would, with their assumptions, prove a high yield photorp.

For instance, Pegasus is used to prove how WEAK ST photorps are now, but used to be, Trekkies would assume that asteroid was ultra-dense, and precise scaling wasn't done on that thing back then. I think they got to claim at least 10GT, if not more.

TDiC used to claim about a teraton or more.

As for the 64MT, it came from the TM which everybody thought was official (I think that assumption was based in fact on the mirror imaging fallacy rather than because it really used to be official and suddenly Paramount changed policies.) Since we could absolutely disprove them, and they soon got low enough for the pro-SW side's purposes as the average consensus of SW firepower kept going up, we didn't push very hard on it. After all, agreeing to it keeps us from having to fight Trekkie TDiC posts before getting anything worthwhile done.

Only after the AOTC:ICS came out, giving a good anchor for SW firepower (frees us from having to fight Trekkies on it for the greater part) and the TMs were proven worthless was great effort spent to further kill ST

[SPOOFE]

I think Alyeska might have a point. I mean if you're going to use low end, use them. Its rather condescending to be given the "benefit of the doubt" in a debate that may very well be already lost

On the other hand, there are times when you can run into a rabid Trekkie debator who is A: absolutely convinced that photon torpedoes do huge levels of damage (much greater than 64 megatons), and B: can't accept the notion that SW weapons are of such high yields.

Nobody here, of course, but c'mon... it seems to be a fad these days to post links to other message boards where the really rabid Trekkies congregate.

In any case, oftentimes the 64 megaton numbers are used NOT as a means of giving the "benefit of the doubt", but because, frankly, it's just another stupid side-issue to debate about, and usually dilutes the whole process. It's usually a matter of not even wanting to bother with the whole issue, especially since it doesn't change anything.

[Connor MacLeod]

On the other hand, there are times when you can run into a rabid Trekkie debator who is A: absolutely convinced that photon torpedoes do huge levels of damage (much greater than 64 megatons), and B: can't accept the notion that SW weapons are of such high yields.

Different situation. Eye for an eye, if it can be plausibly done. Otherwise just knocking their petty arguments down works well. (I've done it enough on SB regarding B5).

Nobody here, of course, but c'mon... it seems to be a fad these days to post links to other message boards where the really rabid Trekkies congregate.

I had enough of dealing with rabid morons on SB. I'm not interested in actually going OUT of my way to engage them. If I run across one in the course of things, I will crush them. But thats all.

In any case, oftentimes the 64 megaton numbers are used NOT as a means of giving the "benefit of the doubt", but because, frankly, it's just another stupid side-issue to debate about, and usually dilutes the whole process. It's usually a matter of not even wanting to bother with the whole issue, especially since it doesn't change anything.

I suppose.

[Alyeska]

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

[Ender]

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

don't forget that if you use cratering instead of burrowing you get MT range for Pegesus

[Alyeska]

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

don't forget that if you use cratering instead of burrowing you get MT range for Pegesus

Didn't know that, thanks.

[SirNitram]

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

Wasn't SoE a shuttle es'ploding?

[Alyeska]

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

Wasn't SoE a shuttle es'ploding?

Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't know how much anti-matter the shuttle had (if any) to take part in the explossion.

[Darth Wong]

Skin of Evil shows something far more powerful then a mere KT level explossion. TDiC clearly indicates the ability to remove the crust of a planet with 20 ships in an hour. Broken Link eludes to the ability to smash part of a planet in a handful of shots. The Omega Directive says that certain torpedoes can pop small moons (less then 100 KM likely).

Point 1: A 1 megaton explosion creates a nuclear fireball that lasts for 20 seconds. The fireball in SoE lasted for roughly 1 second. Try again.

Point 2: TDiC would clearly indicate the ability you describe if we saw roughly 140,000 square kilometres of glowing mantle being exposed per second. We did not. In fact, we didn't see any glowing mantle at all (never mind the over-optimistic energy figures which are easily disproven through lack of atmospheric effects and ejecta production). The argument that we would see this effect given an hour to wait fails due to simple math: divide the 510 million square km surface area of an Earth-like planet by 3600 seconds for yourself if you don't believe me.

Point 3: Broken Link is nothing but verbal hyperbole.

Point 4: The use of non-literal dialogue like "What's she planning to do, blow up a small moon?" as concrete evidence is beneath you, Alyeska.

Sorry, but that's 0/4.

[Lord Poe]

Brian Young put that "Skin of Evil" crap to bed a year ago.

When Trinity was detonated, the light was so bright, that it could blind you
from 10 miles away. Trinity was about 20 kilotons.
In 1909, when an asteroid crashed into the Tunguska River in Siberia, it
levels trees for hundreds of square miles, and it lit up the sky in
*England*. The impact has been estimated at about 2 megatons.
What you see in "Skin of Evil" is the intense light produced, not the blast
radius.

Picard destroyed the shuttle so that no one would notice it and go to the
planet. He said nothing about killing the creature. He was not concerned
with injuring the creature. We know that if Picard was worried about
injuring the creature, he would not have launched a torpedo.

All the images from the show are good for is telling us that the blast was
orders of magnitude less intense than the Tunguska impact, which lit up the
sky a quarter of a planet away.

Brian

Of course, TDiC has been sucessfully countered since it aired too...

[Connor MacLeod]

Brian Young put that "Skin of Evil" crap to bed a year ago.

When Trinity was detonated, the light was so bright, that it could blind you
from 10 miles away. Trinity was about 20 kilotons.
In 1909, when an asteroid crashed into the Tunguska River in Siberia, it
levels trees for hundreds of square miles, and it lit up the sky in
*England*. The impact has been estimated at about 2 megatons.
What you see in "Skin of Evil" is the intense light produced, not the blast
radius.

Picard destroyed the shuttle so that no one would notice it and go to the
planet. He said nothing about killing the creature. He was not concerned
with injuring the creature. We know that if Picard was worried about
injuring the creature, he would not have launched a torpedo.

All the images from the show are good for is telling us that the blast was
orders of magnitude less intense than the Tunguska impact, which lit up the
sky a quarter of a planet away.

Brian

Of course, TDiC has been sucessfully countered since it aired too...

IIRC the Tunguska Asteroid was in the 10-15 megaton range

[Vympel]

Does this debate never end? Why do people keep trotting out TDiC and Skin of Evil?! Guess it'll just keep getting smacked down.

[Darth Wong]

Does this debate never end? Why do people keep trotting out TDiC and Skin of Evil?! Guess it'll just keep getting smacked down.

There is something about fanaticism which causes this kind of behaviour (I'm talking specifically of the way some people endlessly repeat arguments even after they've been shredded).

Of course, we all know creationists have been trotting out idiotic bullshit like the "second law of thermodynamics" argument for more than 100 years, even though it's been refuted more times than anyone can count. Similarly, there's a depressing sense of deja vu when you go into any Trek thread and you start hearing the same arguments you've heard a million times before, so you have to trot out the same rebuttals. The "wall of ignorance" debating technique seems to be an inevitable outcome of people who are on the losing side of an argument but who have a strong emotional desire to deny this reality.