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

STXI getting a bum wrap?

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Apr. 21 2010, 10:18 pm

Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:13 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:08 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:00 pm)
I also immediately caught the "SUPERDUPERNOVA" thing when I first watched the movie. I think this was probably the biggest "oops" in the movie. I'm sure they meant "Solar System" :)

What exactly fo you consider a mistake about it???

Spock said the supernova that destroyed Romulus "threatened the galaxy". The Milky Way is pretty darn big. You need to be within about 50 light-years to feel the effects.

Ahh, well I saw that 2 ways.

A] that the shockwave might continue to grow with intensity with each eruption from the dieing sun.

B] that the "threat" in question might result in further damage to other Romulan systems.....forcing the Romulans out of their space and into conflict with the rest of the galaxy.

Keep in mind thats just my opinion.......however since they really didnt explain it much I think either option works.

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Apr. 21 2010, 10:31 pm

Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:22 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:18 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:13 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:08 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:00 pm)
I also immediately caught the "SUPERDUPERNOVA" thing when I first watched the movie. I think this was probably the biggest "oops" in the movie. I'm sure they meant "Solar System" :)

What exactly fo you consider a mistake about it???

Spock said the supernova that destroyed Romulus "threatened the galaxy". The Milky Way is pretty darn big. You need to be within about 50 light-years to feel the effects.

Ahh, well I saw that 2 ways.

A] that the shockwave might continue to grow with intensity with each eruption from the dieing sun.

B] that the "threat" in question might result in further damage to other Romulan systems.....forcing the Romulans out of their space and into conflict with the rest of the galaxy.

Keep in mind thats just my opinion.......however since they really didnt explain it much I think either option works.

Actually your "B" is they way that I justified in my mind that Spock was correct. (can't have Spock in error can we? :laugh: )

Spock was already incorrect.

Think about it.

He thought he had enough time to save Romulos.

Ignatz13

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 2:04 am

Quote
Has the "science" of STXI been unfairly criticized?



I personally think it has been unfairly criticized.

Now, I'm not saying that the science in the film is actually based on factually proven real world science. After all, Star trek is Science Fiction.

However, I believe the true measure of good science fiction relies on how well the "Science" in the film is supported by current real world science theory.
It doesn't have to actually be real science fact, but it does have to have a foundation rooted in a respectable and supported real world theory.

And I believe that Star Trek XI did just that.



BLACK HOLE -
The use of a black hole in the film seems to be getting a lot of complaints, due to the fact that black holes aren't really regarded as a method of time travel in real world science theory.
However, when we watch the film, we clearly see that the black hole has an entry point and an exit point.
This suggests that it is not a black hole , but a wormhole.
The definition of a wormhole is basically two black holes that are connected, and have an entry point and an exit point.
(Actually, the exit point is considered a "White Hole")

This theoretically may create a bridge between two locations in time/space, and is actually considered by many physicists (Including Einstein), to be the ONLY plausible (although improbable) way of traveling through time.

A black hole may not be considered a valid method of time travel in real world science theory...But a wormhole is.

You could argue that the film makers erroneously called a wormhole a "black hole"....But then again, if someone looks at a wormhole from one side, they are going to assume it's just a black hole. Until that person actually exits through the other side of the black hole, they will not know it's a wormhole.




SURVIVING A TRIP THROUGH A WORMHOLE -

Even though a wormhole is considered a plausible method of time travel, there is still a problem.
Many believe that the crushing force of the singularity may not allow matter to pass through without being crushed.

However, there are two types of black holes.

-Theres a Schwarzchild Black Hole - A black hole which does not rotate.

-And a Kerr Black hole - A black hole that rotates.

So far, all of the black holes that we have been able to observe , have all been Kerr (Rotating) black holes.
They are considered the most common type of black hole.

Another important feature regarding the Kerr black hole is that it's rotating angular momentum allows for a ring singularity, rather than a point singularity.
THis means that it's donut shaped singularity may theoretically allow matter to pass through without being crushed. If this type of black hole happens to have another white hole attached to it, then becomes a traversable Wormhole.




STABILITY OF THE WORMHOLE -

Another problem is that wormholes are extremely unstable. Physicists theorize that any matter which may try to pass through the throat of the wormhole could further compromise the stability of the wormhole and cause it to undo itself before matter passes through the ring singularity.

However, physicist Kip THorne came up with a theory to stabilize a traversable wormhole by using exotic matter consisting of negative energy/mass (Sound familiar? = RED matter)
The use of this exotic matter on a traversable wormhole may theoretically allow passage through it's ring singularity without compromising it's stability. This would be known as a Morris-Thorne wormhole.

RED MATTER -

WHile RED MATTER doesn't actually exist in the real world, much of it's properties sound very similar to the exotic matter that Kip Thorne suggested when suggesting to stabilize a wormhole.
THis would explain how the wormhole in the film was able to allow Spock and Nero to pass through it.

How did the Red matter create an artificial wormhole?
THis isn't really touched upon in the film (And is probably the only real element which isn't supported by real world science theory.)
However, we are currently in the process of creating an artificial black hole by using the Hadron Particle Collider in Cern Switzerland.  



TIME TRAVEL THEORY -

The time travel element used in this film is also based on real world physics theory. Knwon as the Many Worlds Interpretation.

ESCAPING A WORMHOLE-

In the film we see that the Enterprise is caught in the gravitational tide of the wormhole, and manages to escape by dumping it's warp cores.
Some people complain that this is kind of a stupid way of escaping the the wormhole.
However, in real world physics there's one theory which would allow something to escape the gravitational tide of a wormhole / black hole. This is called the Penrose Process.
Basically a wormhole/black hole has two regions -
The Event Horizon and the Ergosphere.

The ergosphere sits just on the edge of the event horizon.
Within the ergosphere, spacetime is dragged along in the direction of the rotation of the black hole at a speed greater than the speed of light in relation to the rest of the universe.

In order to escape this region a method known as the Penrose Process would be employed.
The object which is caught in the ergosphere must dump a certain amount of matter into the ergospehere. By releasing this matter into the ergosphere (and with the use of the wormhole's own energy) the object is split into two and thus allowing one object to escape the ergosphere, while the dumped matter falls into the event horizon.

-------


To me it seems that, not only did the writers of the new film employ real world physics theories explain the method of time travel, but they also used other real world theories to solve any problems associated with the prior theories.

They pretty much covered most of the aspects.

KALEL

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1512

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 6:41 am

Quote (Vger23 @ April 21 2010, 10:51 am)
For example...the ability of the Genesis Wave to detonate and "create" a planet from almost nothing, even though it was specifically designed to detonate on a "pre-selected area of a lifeless space body...a moon or other dead form." The idea of detonating it on a "pre-selected area" would lead one to believe that the process should be a delicate one. And, even if someone says "the matter in the Mutara Nebula is what became the planet," someone would need to show me the physics equation that shows how an EXPANDING wave then reverses direction to allow a planet to coalese!

A good point, Vger. I have two takes on it:
The resulting expolsion could have magnetized matter within the nebula, causing it to come together and create a gravity well, thus creating the planet. Of course, this dosen't explain how the expanding energy wave collapsed back upon itself. Of that, I offer this: (and this is of course, speculation)
The initial expolsion of the Genesis device could have acted on the fabric of space like an atom bomb does when it's detonated in the atmosphere. When a nuclear device is detonated, it creates a vaccum at the point of detonation (ground zero). Air rushes out at incredible speeds, and then is sucked back in at greater speed. This is why the Army changed their training doctrine in reacting to a nuclear blast from what we used to call the "ass to blast" method to what they currrently use. Is it possible that the Genesis explosion could have been so violent that it created a rip in space fabric, and since nature abhorrs a vaccum, that energy wave could have been drawn back to it's point of origin? Of course, I couldn't BEGIN to show you a physic equation to validate any of that.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 8:46 am

Quote (KALEL @ April 22 2010, 6:41 am)
Quote (Vger23 @ April 21 2010, 10:51 am)
For example...the ability of the Genesis Wave to detonate and "create" a planet from almost nothing, even though it was specifically designed to detonate on a "pre-selected area of a lifeless space body...a moon or other dead form." The idea of detonating it on a "pre-selected area" would lead one to believe that the process should be a delicate one. And, even if someone says "the matter in the Mutara Nebula is what became the planet," someone would need to show me the physics equation that shows how an EXPANDING wave then reverses direction to allow a planet to coalese!

A good point, Vger. I have two takes on it:
The resulting expolsion could have magnetized matter within the nebula, causing it to come together and create a gravity well, thus creating the planet. Of course, this dosen't explain how the expanding energy wave collapsed back upon itself. Of that, I offer this: (and this is of course, speculation)
The initial expolsion of the Genesis device could have acted on the fabric of space like an atom bomb does when it's detonated in the atmosphere. When a nuclear device is detonated, it creates a vaccum at the point of detonation (ground zero). Air rushes out at incredible speeds, and then is sucked back in at greater speed. This is why the Army changed their training doctrine in reacting to a nuclear blast from what we used to call the "ass to blast" method to what they currrently use. Is it possible that the Genesis explosion could have been so violent that it created a rip in space fabric, and since nature abhorrs a vaccum, that energy wave could have been drawn back to it's point of origin? Of course, I couldn't BEGIN to show you a physic equation to validate any of that.

I like it!

To me, it's always been much more fun to provide bogus fan-made excuses for inconsistencies and inaccuracies in "Star Trek" than it is to simply nit-pick, cry, and complain about them...!

:cool:

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 1:45 pm

Quote (Yanks @ April 22 2010, 6:49 am)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:31 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:22 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:18 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:13 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:08 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:00 pm)
I also immediately caught the "SUPERDUPERNOVA" thing when I first watched the movie. I think this was probably the biggest "oops" in the movie. I'm sure they meant "Solar System" :)

What exactly fo you consider a mistake about it???

Spock said the supernova that destroyed Romulus "threatened the galaxy". The Milky Way is pretty darn big. You need to be within about 50 light-years to feel the effects.

Ahh, well I saw that 2 ways.

A] that the shockwave might continue to grow with intensity with each eruption from the dieing sun.

B] that the "threat" in question might result in further damage to other Romulan systems.....forcing the Romulans out of their space and into conflict with the rest of the galaxy.

Keep in mind thats just my opinion.......however since they really didnt explain it much I think either option works.

Actually your "B" is they way that I justified in my mind that Spock was correct. (can't have Spock in error can we? :laugh: )

Spock was already incorrect.

Think about it.

He thought he had enough time to save Romulos.

He just didn't get there in time.

Because he mis-calculated how much time he thought he had.

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 1:50 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ April 22 2010, 10:52 am)
This is highly unlikely and is not supported by current observational findings.

But it is supported by the script/back story.

And we both know that "real science" doesnt always apply to trek stories.

Ignatz13

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 8:18 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ April 22 2010, 11:45 am)

Um... Then they should have called it a wormhole.


Not necessarily...All wormholes ARE black holes, but not all black holes are wormholes.
Calling it a black hole wouldn't be incorrect.

Either way, it seems your main gripe is with the terminology, not with the actual science.

Quote
Once again folks are forced to make excuses for poor writing and lack of technical and/or scientific advice in a Trek production.


Im not making excuses for the science in the film. The film itself visually and factually shows the characteristics match that of a wormhole (Which are black holes as well).
THat wasn't my doing....That was done by the film makers.

If you want to claim that they used the improper terminology, then that wouldn't be a science problem, that would be a dialog problem. ¿

Quote
Making excuses by saying it's only science fiction merely allows for future Trek to continue the decline from where it began - using real science and imagination by extrapolation from real science for what could be possible in the future.


Well, if that's the case, then you might as well toss out all the older episodes and films out the window as well.

I seem to remember that the previous TREK films/shows employed methods which completely contradict science.

You just stated that - "using real science and imagination by extrapolation from real science for what could be possible in the future."

In reply to that -Quantum physics flat out rejects the possibility of matter ever being able to move faster than light. Einstein even stated that achieving lightspeed is an impossibility (Let alone using this method to travel back in time.)
And yet, in past episodes of Star trek, the Enterprise would use lightspeed breakaway as a method to travel back in time.
Since science completely rejects this concept, this breaks the very rule you just stated.


We also have the previous episodes which employ the use of a single timeline in regards to time travel (Whatever you do in the past, effects the future from the original timeline, and may cause a paradox).
For years, this theory of time travel has been rejected due to the paradox problem.

In the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the Enterprise is thrown into the past after being caught in the gravity field of a "Black Star"...Really?

The Enemy Within - Sulu and a few crew members are stranded on a planet for hours ¿with a temperature of more than 20 below 0, and they survive with little ill effect.
¿
THen we come to the dozens of planets that the Enterprise happens to land on...And nearly every alien species on these planet just happens to speak English.

The Genesis device creates a livable planet and a SUN, even though it wasn't detonated on a core source planet?

Sounds and explosions in space - Nearly every sci-fi film employs this element.

Visible lasers that shoot like bullets.


Im not saying the new film is ¿science FACT, but then again, neither are the previous films or TV shows.
It seems that you personally require science fact for Star Trek XI, while at the same time forgiving the previous films/shows for the same flaws.

JCK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 486

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 9:39 pm

I actually saw a special on the History Channel a few years back...Star Trek Tech I believe it was called. No less than 15 scientists appeared on the program, and every single one of them had done something in his or her everyday work that proved at least one of the ideas that drives Star Trek stories, particularly in TNG, DS9, and Voyager. There was even one guy who had built an antimatter container, and I kid you not, it was even more magnificent than they way they portrayed the matter/antimatter reactions on the TV shows.
As for blackholes/wormholes, most scientists interviewed shot down the idea that time travel could be achieved, although some were still looking into it anyway. One said that thinking about time travel is a waste of time, but he is of the opinion that transportation from one area of the galaxy to another is possible through wormholes, and even went on to explain sudden appearances of planets and asteroids near wormholes.
Not sure if I'm adding anything to this debate...just throwing some info out there.
Personally, I don't think any of the writers can be 100% certain on what would happen, because even the scientists who advise them aren't, but it helps to at least base the story on something that evidence suggests COULD happen. Time travel AND going to a different universe through a BLACK HOLE? Probably not the strongest basis...but the movie entertained me anyway.

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Apr. 22 2010, 11:18 pm

Quote (Yanks @ April 22 2010, 11:14 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 22 2010, 1:45 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 22 2010, 6:49 am)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:31 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:22 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:18 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:13 pm)
Quote (stovokor2000 @ April 21 2010, 10:08 pm)
Quote (Yanks @ April 21 2010, 10:00 pm)
I also immediately caught the "SUPERDUPERNOVA" thing when I first watched the movie. I think this was probably the biggest "oops" in the movie. I'm sure they meant "Solar System" :)

What exactly fo you consider a mistake about it???

Spock said the supernova that destroyed Romulus "threatened the galaxy". The Milky Way is pretty darn big. You need to be within about 50 light-years to feel the effects.

Ahh, well I saw that 2 ways.

A] that the shockwave might continue to grow with intensity with each eruption from the dieing sun.

B] that the "threat" in question might result in further damage to other Romulan systems.....forcing the Romulans out of their space and into conflict with the rest of the galaxy.

Keep in mind thats just my opinion.......however since they really didnt explain it much I think either option works.

Actually your "B" is they way that I justified in my mind that Spock was correct. (can't have Spock in error can we? :laugh: )

Spock was already incorrect.

Think about it.

He thought he had enough time to save Romulos.

He just didn't get there in time.

Because he mis-calculated how much time he thought he had.

Hard to accurately predict nature sometimes.

Weathermen have been trying forever.. :laugh:

True enough.

KALEL

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1512

Report this Apr. 23 2010, 12:39 am

Quote (Vger23 @ April 22 2010, 8:46 am)
Quote (KALEL @ April 22 2010, 6:41 am)
Quote (Vger23 @ April 21 2010, 10:51 am)
For example...the ability of the Genesis Wave to detonate and "create" a planet from almost nothing, even though it was specifically designed to detonate on a "pre-selected area of a lifeless space body...a moon or other dead form." The idea of detonating it on a "pre-selected area" would lead one to believe that the process should be a delicate one. And, even if someone says "the matter in the Mutara Nebula is what became the planet," someone would need to show me the physics equation that shows how an EXPANDING wave then reverses direction to allow a planet to coalese!

A good point, Vger. I have two takes on it:
The resulting expolsion could have magnetized matter within the nebula, causing it to come together and create a gravity well, thus creating the planet. Of course, this dosen't explain how the expanding energy wave collapsed back upon itself. Of that, I offer this: (and this is of course, speculation)
The initial expolsion of the Genesis device could have acted on the fabric of space like an atom bomb does when it's detonated in the atmosphere. When a nuclear device is detonated, it creates a vaccum at the point of detonation (ground zero). Air rushes out at incredible speeds, and then is sucked back in at greater speed. This is why the Army changed their training doctrine in reacting to a nuclear blast from what we used to call the "ass to blast" method to what they currrently use. Is it possible that the Genesis explosion could have been so violent that it created a rip in space fabric, and since nature abhorrs a vaccum, that energy wave could have been drawn back to it's point of origin? Of course, I couldn't BEGIN to show you a physic equation to validate any of that.

I like it!

To me, it's always been much more fun to provide bogus fan-made excuses for inconsistencies and inaccuracies in "Star Trek" than it is to simply nit-pick, cry, and complain about them...!

:cool:

Glad you liked it.  :laugh:   :cool:

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Dryson3

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