Talk:Silicon-based virus

Removed
This assumes that the Organians didn't round the figure, which I see no reason to believe is the case. It's also seems unlikely (they would have to observe exactly 100 infections or a multiple of 100, unless my math is a bit fuzzy, but you get my point). It's quite possible to have approximately 37% out of a smaller sample. Maybe 29 out of 78 species identified the pathogen, for example.–Cleanse ( talk 13:08, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

biology
One thing I noticed while watching the episode. It is quite true that a human immune system can't do anything to destroy silicon based objects. However, a human body doesn't contain enough silicon for a silicon based lifeform to replicate while inside a human body. It'd be like a human trying to live off of glass.--Marhawkman 19:51, June 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this was a very poorly thought out episode. Why would a silicon based life form even interact with a carbon based life form at all?  And how would the silicon life infect the carbon life?  They don't even share basic chemistry; the silicon life would derive no nourishment from the carbon life, and the body of the carbon life form would probably be a hostile environment for the silicon life form (way too hot, full of oxygen that could dissolve it, etc) giving it a damn good reason to stay as far away as it possibly could.  It makes about as much sense as a human being infected by a computer virus (which I'm frankly surprised they didn't try at some point... it actually sounds like one of the lame plot ideas they used on Voyager.) RyokoMocha 18:25, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that article talk pages are meant to discuss changing the article only, and are not intended for general discussion. --31dot 21:04, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

My original thought when posting that, was pointing out the realism issue, in the context of wondering whether it might be worthwhile for inclusion in the page.--Marhawkman 00:39, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine- I was more referring to the reply to your comment- but the realism issue you speak of would be a nitpick unless it was discussed by Trek staff and documented somewhere. --31dot 00:46, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay then.--Marhawkman 01:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, how many of us here are actually qualified to make the statements that would go into the article? I'm not defending this episode, but to say that carbon and silicon "don't even share basic chemistry" is just not true. They are both group 4A elements, both sharing the same common oxidation state (4), the same basic valence configuration (2s2 2p2 vs. 3s2 3p2), the hydrocarbon alkanes are mirrored by silanes, etc. There are of course some differences, such as bond polarity on the silanes due to different electronegativities, but it is false to say that carbon and silicon "do not even share basic chemistry." They do, and that is why silicon-based life has been a hallmark of science fiction for decades. There are, obviously, some tremendous differences. Certainly a silicon-based virus is not going to be able to reproduce in the human body. Viruses aren't doing nuclear chemistry, and that's the only way you are getting much silicon out of us! --OuroborosCobra talk 05:23, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Silanes may mirror Hydrocarbon alkanes but they have different properties. :p anyways I suppose it is too much opf a nitpick to be worth adding.--Marhawkman 03:18, January 31, 2012 (UTC)