1. You claim the Franz Joseph mass was derived from Matt Jefferies, then say ...
This is countered by a bunch of guys who think the 'event horizon' of a black hole is like a giant sheet of glass, and that going 'infinite speed' turns you into fish.
Fuck canon.
Seems to me you just said "fuck Star Trek". After all, the same brains involved in the 60's TV show are the ones who gave us episodes like "The Alternative Factor" and the like.
You have this peculiar idea that canonicity is based somehow on scientific accuracy, a contradiction for any sci-fi fan which Timo
has already commented on.
It makes sense that you would say "fuck Star Trek", though, given your loathing of many of its details and preference for details from things that simply are not Star Trek and never will be.
2. Shaw continues this hatred of Trek:
I do love that
Volumetrics mass for the TOS Enterprise... 914,000 tons for 211,248 m^3. That is great! that is how much it would weigh if carved out of a solid block of
titanium.
That's the canon mass (give or take a little fudge for "nearly a million"). If anything, then on a Trek tech board we ought to be discussing different opinions on how far from 1,000,000 that figure ought to be. But instead, you guys would rather discuss what isn't Star Trek at all.
Incidentally, I've always loved to see people who are themselves ignorant of science try to make fun of sci-fi. Consider that since we are discussing a show set 300 years hence, we do not know what materials will be used. (I think the fact they called it metal was possibly a mistake, but we can get past that.) The use of imaginary materials is a good plan by the writers. Were Trek written today by people of lesser planning, they might look to the news and decide to make the ship from carbon nanotubes. Then geeks on the internet circa 2050 could make fun of that choice.
I have had much experience with people with a certain amount of scientific knowledge who attempt to lock the universe to their narrow vision. One fellow in particular works with polymer molding and fancies himself an expert on all aspects of materials science. This was funniest when he rejected the concept of nanotechnology or nanomaterials bringing new capabilities or enhanced materials. "It's just carbon" he would say, denying that carbon nanotubes can be made stronger than forged steel.
I think you guys are in the same basic boat. You want the sci-fi but you want it to conform to your narrow vision of scientific accuracy. Well, no sci-fi is going to do that, because you probably couldn't even get a consensus in this thread of how it ought to be written, and without a little gee-whiz technology like warp drive and transporters and Mr. Spock's half-and-half nature then it would be somewhat boring as a television show anyway.
Something drew you to like Star Trek . . . what was it, and why do you abhor it now?
3. Humans picking up pieces of ship metal tells us nothing. For instance,
here we see two guys picking up what ought to be duranium. But that follows with my view that duranium ought to be light, with tritanium as heavy.
Can you provide any evidence of people picking up big pieces of tritanium without assistance?
It means this is my thread and to discuss the non-canon mass you should perhaps start a thread explicitly about it. 
