ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Placing Red Matter in Center of Vulcan

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Aug. 22 2009, 12:45 pm

So was checking out IMDB and someone asked a question about why Nero needed to put the red matter in the core of the planet instead of outside of Vulcan.  In a rare civil discussion I actually came across a few answers which absolutely made sense.

I want to post them here for consideration.

Quote
The event horizon of a black hole is extremely small. If our moon were to become a black hole, chances are we wouldn't even notice, except it wouldn't be there at night.

Doubly, by planting the red matter in the center of the planet, the planet's own energy would trigger the reaction (rather than an external source such as a massive starship blowing up), and the central location would allow the black hole to suck the entire mass of the planet, increasing its power as it drew in more mass.


Quote
Here are some ideas imo about why the red matter is placed into the center of a planet rather than trying to ignite it in the atmosphere of a planet.

1. Some people believe that to ignite the red matter requires heating it up to a temperature which is about the level of the core of the earth which is estimated to be between 6650.6 ¿Fahrenheit to 9800.6 ¿Fahrenheit. Putting the red matter into a planet's core automatically heats it up and ignites it. Putting the red matter into the atmosphere requires that this extreme heat be generated such as by an explosion from a ship.

2. Some people believe that red matter creates extreme artificial gravity but it is uncertain how long the Red Matter gravity effect by itself lasts. So, if the red matter creates a temporary artificial black hole for a few minutes, the powerful artificial black hole will then disappear unless enough material has been sucked in by the red matter to create a powerful black hole due to mass.

Considering this, where the red matter is placed in or near a planet is very important. If the red matter is ignited in the atmosphere of a planet, the red matter would create a huge gravity well next to the planet for a few minutes (or however long the red matter is active) which would certainly rip off pieces of the planet into the temporary artificial black hole created by the red matter. However, the planet is moving in its orbit and it would then orbit very quickly around the new center of gravity which would be the artificial black hole next to the planet. It is possible that most of the planet could swing very quickly around the gravity well of the new black hole and then this momentum could allow it to escape from the artificial black hole. (Escape from the new black hole would also be more likely over time since it's possible that the red matter could eventually be losing its gravitational power.)

So, it is possible that igniting the red matter in the atmosphere of planet would not result in the planet's destruction since the effect of the red matter will go away and a small amount of material compressed into a black hole next to a planet would have very weak gravity.

3. Placing the red matter inside of the planet is the best location to assure that the artificial gravity well from the red matter will collapse the planet in all directions and completely pull all of the material of the planet into the black hole. Then as the red matter keeps pulling in material to the center of the planet, this mass begins to create a powerful natural black hole caused by the mass of this pulled in material. This natural black hole will keep pulling in the material of the planet even after the red matter effect goes away assuring the complete destruction of the planet.


#3 in this last post has ALWAYS been the reasoning I went with as well.  When the question was first posed in a review, after thinking about it for a few seconds that was the most logical answer to me.

SaturnsRings

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 22 2009, 2:42 pm

Quote (scottguinan @ Aug. 22 2009, 12:58 pm)
I think placing Red Matter in my anal hole would hurt. Waddya ya'll think?

C'mon...I may be new here but is this what passes for a discussion on this board?

ENT567

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5267

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 6:51 am

Imo, that issue with black hole and red matter still remains one of the biggest plotholes of the movie. Those explanations above are interesting yet they don't disprove the points of those who qiestioned the real necessity of the borer and stuff. :logical:
But the fight scene on it looked exciting, of course.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 9:18 am

They should have said "black hole" instead of "red matter", which is ridiculous as a concept. With "red matter", we can only speculate about its properties, as it is a totally unknown concept.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 9:43 am

Quote (ENT567 @ Aug. 24 2009, 6:51 am)
Imo, that issue with black hole and red matter still remains one of the biggest plotholes of the movie. Those explanations above are interesting yet they don't disprove the points of those who qiestioned the real necessity of the borer and stuff.

Those who questioned it didn't give anything to the contrary to the above or really anything to prove their points.

As far as the borer.. how else will they get it to the center of Vulcan to cause the planet to collapse in on itself from all directions?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am

I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

draeden06

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1217

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 11:54 am

Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

There is matter on the surface of the planet. A black hole would consume the planet, it would just start on one side. There would be no need to drill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iMX8xzofc&NR=1

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 12:21 pm

Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

I agree.

The "Red Matter" is, as you said, Vger, no different from the use of protomatter, verdion or whatever particles on TNG, or any of those crazy anomalies on TNG, VOY, and even on ST.  

Double standards seem to be applied to XI all the time for some reason.

SaturnsRings

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 12:41 pm

Quote (rocketscientist @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

I agree.

The "Red Matter" is, as you said, Vger, no different from the use of protomatter, verdion or whatever particles on TNG, or any of those crazy anomalies on TNG, VOY, and even on ST. ¿

Double standards seem to be applied to XI all the time for some reason.

I am noticing this double standard. TNG and VOY relied heavily on technobabble BS episode after episode and it seems that it is those fans who are complaining about the science in Trek XI.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 12:50 pm

Quote (SaturnsRings @ Aug. 24 2009, 9:41 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

I agree.

The "Red Matter" is, as you said, Vger, no different from the use of protomatter, verdion or whatever particles on TNG, or any of those crazy anomalies on TNG, VOY, and even on ST. ?

Double standards seem to be applied to XI all the time for some reason.

I am noticing this double standard. TNG and VOY relied heavily on technobabble BS episode after episode and it seems that it is those fans who are complaining about the science in Trek XI.

They complain because its not being explained to them step by step like it was in TNG & VOY.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 1:19 pm

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:50 pm)
Quote (SaturnsRings @ Aug. 24 2009, 9:41 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

I agree.

The "Red Matter" is, as you said, Vger, no different from the use of protomatter, verdion or whatever particles on TNG, or any of those crazy anomalies on TNG, VOY, and even on ST. ?

Double standards seem to be applied to XI all the time for some reason.

I am noticing this double standard. TNG and VOY relied heavily on technobabble BS episode after episode and it seems that it is those fans who are complaining about the science in Trek XI.

They complain because its not being explained to them step by step like it was in TNG & VOY.

By "step by step" do you mean it's not being explained with a stream of fake, nonsensical technobabble?  I'm glad they didn't do that in ST XI.  It would've seriously dragged things down.  I believe in a previous interview that Orci and Kurtzmann said they wanted to avoid too much technobabble, as they thought it was distracting to the film.  In that sense, they stuck more with the style of the original ST, on which XI was based, and, for that, I am glad.  I'm not a big fan of the excessive nonsensical technobabble of TNG, the TNG films, and VOY.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 1:23 pm

Quote (SaturnsRings @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:41 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ Aug. 24 2009, 12:21 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

I agree.

The "Red Matter" is, as you said, Vger, no different from the use of protomatter, verdion or whatever particles on TNG, or any of those crazy anomalies on TNG, VOY, and even on ST. ?

Double standards seem to be applied to XI all the time for some reason.

I am noticing this double standard. TNG and VOY relied heavily on technobabble BS episode after episode and it seems that it is those fans who are complaining about the science in Trek XI.

Which is ironic since much of the "science" on TNG and VOY was nonsensical.  Some people seem to think that technobabble makes for good science fiction.  I just don't think that's the case.  If the technobabble actually meant something, actually had some real science behind it, I'd be for it, but if it's just BS, I think it often leads to distraction from the plot and characters and/or a deux ex machina ending that, imo, is lazy storytelling.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 1:32 pm

Quote (draeden06 @ Aug. 24 2009, 11:54 am)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

There is matter on the surface of the planet. A black hole would consume the planet, it would just start on one side. There would be no need to drill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iMX8xzofc&NR=1

I would say the simplest answer would be that obviously drilling to the planet's core and depositing the red matter there are essential to the process.

Why we need further information for this not to be considered "bogus" or a "huge plot hole" is beyond me.

How much information was there in "2001" about why HAL behaved the way he did? How much explanation was there about how the "suspended animation" chambers (now a cliche in sci-fi films) worked for the hibernating astronauts? Is it ever explaned how HAL is given an artificial intelligence?

What about "Blade Runner?" There's no explanation as to how the world got to be the way it is. There's no information at all about how the "hover cars" work.

In "Alien," there's no reason given for why the crashed ship has a cargo hold filled with dangerous eggs. There's no information given on what "The Company" is all about or what their motives are for wanting the creature.

In "Star Trek II," other than some high-level "on the surface" explanations, there's no solid explanation of how the Genesis Device works. There's no explanation as to how letting a little creature crawl into your ear puts you under mind control.

Are those also "bogus" or "plothole-filled" movies due to their lack of narrative explanations of every little point?

Double

Standards

If you don't like Star Trek XI, that's fine. I'm sure it will never appeal to everyone. Just don't try to prove that you "not liking it" is justified by pointing out a bunch of stuff that would be forgiven and forgotten in other movies.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 1:55 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:18 am)

;)

I supose the mass or the Narada and the additional energy input from the Artificial Quantum singularity the romulans use to power their warp drive could be enough to fuel the creation of a black hole in the absence of the required mass since the A.Q.S. is a small black hole itself. It would intensify the effect....


But then again what do I know........  ;)

draeden06

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1217

Report this Aug. 24 2009, 3:10 pm

Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 1:32 pm)
Quote (draeden06 @ Aug. 24 2009, 11:54 am)
Quote (Vger23 @ Aug. 24 2009, 10:30 am)
I had said several times that it seemed clear that the "red matter" needed mass to consume in order to form the reaction and create the gravity singularity.

"Red matter" is no more bogus than "protomatter," "trilithium," "The Genesis Wave" or or any other made-up substance with questionable or unknown properties in the Trek universe.

There is matter on the surface of the planet. A black hole would consume the planet, it would just start on one side. There would be no need to drill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iMX8xzofc&NR=1

I would say the simplest answer would be that obviously drilling to the planet's core and depositing the red matter there are essential to the process.

Why we need further information for this not to be considered "bogus" or a "huge plot hole" is beyond me.

How much information was there in "2001" about why HAL behaved the way he did? How much explanation was there about how the "suspended animation" chambers (now a cliche in sci-fi films) worked for the hibernating astronauts? Is it ever explaned how HAL is given an artificial intelligence?

What about "Blade Runner?" There's no explanation as to how the world got to be the way it is. There's no information at all about how the "hover cars" work.

In "Alien," there's no reason given for why the crashed ship has a cargo hold filled with dangerous eggs. There's no information given on what "The Company" is all about or what their motives are for wanting the creature.

In "Star Trek II," other than some high-level "on the surface" explanations, there's no solid explanation of how the Genesis Device works. There's no explanation as to how letting a little creature crawl into your ear puts you under mind control.

Are those also "bogus" or "plothole-filled" movies due to their lack of narrative explanations of every little point?

Double

Standards

If you don't like Star Trek XI, that's fine. I'm sure it will never appeal to everyone. Just don't try to prove that you "not liking it" is justified by pointing out a bunch of stuff that would be forgiven and forgotten in other movies.

I didn't say anything about not liking the movie. I haven't seen it. The science teacher in me just had a problem with the idea that a black hole had to be at the center of a planet to eat it.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum