www.ditl.org

Picard, unless you can actually put some figures on this board, you might as well stop. You've been asked, repeatedly, by several different people, to provide proof of your so called "calculations" and have side-stepped, ignored, and out right failed to do so every time.

As every math teacher I've ever has said, show your work or you'll get no credit.

Picard wrote:It was Elba II, not Eminiar.

So fucking what?

They expected to be able to mostly vaporize what they thought to be nickel-iron asteroid, but it was not, so it wasn't vaporized.

No, they didn't, they expected to be able to fragment a nickel-iron asteroid.

Except you can determine yield of torpedoes from that - torpedoes would account for at least 50% of destruction.

Prove it then dipshit.

I'm also still waiting for you to provide the evidence I've previously demanded.

http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/08/u ... yield.html

First 1/3rd of page is nothing but speculation, but after that I have some calculations done.

Sure I can. You're the one who keeps claiming that the small size of the resultant fragments necessitates vaporization. This is a false claim. What they expected to do, and subsequently failed to do, has absolutely no bearing.

They were talking about vaporizing damn thing, what you think I will assume?

Picard wrote:http://picard578.blogspot.com/2010/08/u ... yield.html

First 1/3rd of page is nothing but speculation, but after that I have some calculations done.

Quote the relevant sections, and explain their relevance to the following questions:

Why do you think the Rise asteroid was 400 m long?
Why do you think fragmenting said asteroid requires vaporisation?

They were talking about vaporizing damn thing, what you think I will assume?

No, they weren't, they were talking about fragmenting it, as demonstrated by the fact that Kim described how big he expected said fragments to be.

Picard wrote:

Torpedo yields are all over the place; you'd probably get a different number from every single example of one exploding in the whole of Trek.

I know. Yields go from few kilograms of TNT to few hundred megatons / few gigatons of TNT, but we have relatively few instances where they specifically stated torpedoes are on full yield, or it can be concluded torpedoes are full-yield. And some of these instances can be explained in several possible ways (like "Pegasus" - can be interpreted to give few kilotons to 500 megatons as high end for torpedoes). But Manuals are not canon anymore, and trying to fit Manuals in overall picture only unnecesarily complicates things.

Manuals have NEVER been canon. I've certainly never felt that they HAD to be incorporated, and have only done so when I felt that they added something, rather than caused problems.

IMO its too bad they're NOT cannon, but I can understand the franchise not wanting to be restricted by something most writers likely wouldn't ever read.

Canon or not I love the Tech Manuals... well most of them. DS9s was kind of a clusterfuck.

Mark wrote:IMO its too bad they're NOT cannon, but I can understand the franchise not wanting to be restricted by something most writers likely wouldn't ever read.

Unfortunately, the reasoning is more banal than that. Publications such as those were made non-canon specifically by Gene Roddenberry in order to discomfit Franz Joseph.

Picard wrote:They were talking about vaporizing damn thing, what you think I will assume?

Who gives a skinny rat's ass about what they were saying? Here it is, plain and simple:

You said fragments of a small enough size necessitate some vaporization. This is untrue. Nothing to do with any dialogue, visual evidence, supposition, or any-frigging-thing else.

Mikey wrote:

Mark wrote:IMO its too bad they're NOT cannon, but I can understand the franchise not wanting to be restricted by something most writers likely wouldn't ever read.

Unfortunately, the reasoning is more banal than that. Publications such as those were made non-canon specifically by Gene Roddenberry in order to discomfit Franz Joseph.

Ever wonder why.....after Gene left us, certain publications weren't RE-canonized? I mean, AFAIK Trek is one of the few franchises out there where nothing seen off screen is cannon. B5, Stargate, Star Wars, all of those incorp their written materials (books, manuals, and so forth)

You've answered your own question - no publications were "re-canonized" because no publications are canon at all.

Mark wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Mark wrote:IMO its too bad they're NOT cannon, but I can understand the franchise not wanting to be restricted by something most writers likely wouldn't ever read.

Unfortunately, the reasoning is more banal than that. Publications such as those were made non-canon specifically by Gene Roddenberry in order to discomfit Franz Joseph.

Ever wonder why.....after Gene left us, certain publications weren't RE-canonized? I mean, AFAIK Trek is one of the few franchises out there where nothing seen off screen is cannon. B5, Stargate, Star Wars, all of those incorp their written materials (books, manuals, and so forth)

I rather like Trek's policy. It's just about believable that a ship would be involved in as many strange or extreme events as the Enterprise or Voyager is - 26 eps a year means they average an oddity every two weeks. Make the novels canon and you'd have the ship involved in weirdness on a daily basis, It strains credulity. Plus it's just more to keep track of; Trek already has a canon burden that far outstrips most sci fi with over 700 episodes and eleven movies around. Imagine having to stick another couple of hundred books worth into the mix, let alone comics, games, all that stuff.
I'm eternally thankful that I can do DITL and NOT have to go out and buy hundreds of novels, comics, magazines, etc. Saves me a fortune.

Even worse, we could end up with the nonsense that 'Wars has going on, what with the different "levels" of canon, and whether something is "more or less" canon than another... who needs all that michigas?

Mikey wrote:...michigas

Okay, you got me with that one. Hebrew for "bullsh*t"?

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...michigas

Okay, you got me with that one. Hebrew for "bullsh*t"?

Close enough. Yiddish for "annoying craziness."