The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > So about that Black Hole...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-26-2009, 08:23 AM
therichieboy therichieboy is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 117
Default

Yes, that's true. It's just the ANTIscience I hate.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-26-2009, 03:59 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therichieboy View Post
Another bit of STXI crap physics.
Anything that goes through a black hole would be turned into vermicelli, no matter where the black hole was formed.
So you have evidence of what happens to a borg-tech ship that passes through a red matter black hole made in a supersupernova?
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2009, 04:47 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
So you have evidence of what happens to a borg-tech ship that passes through a red matter black hole made in a supersupernova?
*Sings* "Black hole sun..."
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2009, 05:36 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromEarth View Post
um, If the first black hole created by the red matter sent the Narada back in time, why didn't the second black hole created by red matter do the same thing at the end of the movie?
I think somebody answered that earlier. But this brings up another question I had. If one tiny bean sized drop of red matter can create a black hole strong enough to consume an entire planet in a matter of minutes, then wouldn't that gigantic beach ball sized glob of it on the jellyfish be enough to basically consume most of the milky way galaxy??? Just a thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thestartrekker View Post
I didn't know black holes just collapsed in on themselves and disappeared.
They don't. At least not in the real world of actual physics. However, I have a feeling the black holes created by the red matter weren't actually "real" black holes as defined by "real world" physics. The one that Spock emerged from when Nero captured him appeared just long enough for the jellyfish to emerge and then it disappeared. Same with the one that consumed Vulcan. It ate the planet and then it was gone. I think that instead of calling them black holes, they should have called them quantum wormholes or something like that, since they don't act like "real" black holes.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-28-2009, 06:47 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I like quantum wormhole, but the target audience would not have understood the word.
Exactly!
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-28-2009, 07:42 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
I think that instead of calling them black holes, they should have called them quantum wormholes or something like that, since they don't act like "real" black holes.
Yeah!

"Real black holes" in Trek suck in things like Voyager 6 and throw them somewhere else (Same galaxy? Different galaxy? Back in time?) and create things like V'ger. But we're not talking about "real black holes" anymore... are we?
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-28-2009, 07:55 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I like quantum wormhole, but the target audience would not have understood the word.
Which audience would that be?

The audience from TOS that was used to watertight plausible plots with hard infallible science as a foundation?

or

The audience from late era TNG that had gotten used to 'extensions' of real science and were more comfortable with made up technobabble as a substitute for actual dialogue?

Answers on a postcard?


__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-28-2009, 08:11 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The semi-retarded popcorn crowd.
Seriously, the black hole thing is no big issue for me as I am not into hard sci-fi. But adding an adjective like Zim did would have been a little improvement and distinguished the typical Trekkish made-up science from something real like a black hole.

Nice new Dr. Beverly picture by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-28-2009, 08:12 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I like quantum wormhole, but the target audience would not have understood the word.
Yeah. You've got a point there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Which audience would that be?

The audience from TOS that was used to watertight plausible plots with hard infallible science as a foundation?

or

The audience from late era TNG that had gotten used to 'extensions' of real science and were more comfortable with made up technobabble as a substitute for actual dialogue?

Answers on a postcard?

Nah. The audience from the modern era of sk8rbois who just like to see things go boom and watch a babe take her shirt off. They don't care very much about story, plot, or scientific theory. That's the target audience I think JJA was going for with this version of Star Trek. But that's just my opinion of course, based upon examination of the subject matter at hand.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.