StarTrek physics problem(s) in new movie - seeking well informed thoughts
Isaac
Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek movie?
I just saw it on DVD yesterday. I had an intellectual/physics problem with
the scene towards the end where the Enterprise got caught in the black hole
singularity they created with "red matter" to destroy the rogue Romulan war
ship. In the
movie, the Enterprise got stuck in a stalemate between the (implied) forward
thrust of their warp drive and the gravitational attraction of the newly
formed black hole. The problem(s) I have with it (intuitively) are two
fold, as follows (please provide or speculate on some well reasoned
input or explanations):
1. Warp Drive overcomes the speed of light limits, which would otherwise
require infinite energy and result in infinite mass. I've always understood
that warp drive overcomes this physics of space-time by locally warping the
fabric of space-time around
the spaceship so that it changes the space-time inertial properties within
the warped bubble such that the effective speed of light if much
higher than that in normal space. I figure that is just like how the speed
of light
in glass is slower than in a vacuum; i.e., just changing the properties of
the
medium ("empty" space), but in the reverse. Now, a black hole has a strong
enough gravitational field to bend light, and if within the event horizon it
"sucks" the light in. So, if you were within the event horizon it
would similarly take infinite energy to escape the gravitational field,
which makes it seem like you have infinite mass. Intuitively, it would seem
to me that if the warp drive can change the local properties of space-time
to avoid infinite energy and infinite mass, then why would the same/similar
issues induced by the black hole not be similarly overcome? That is,
instead of resulting in a stalemate, the warping of space-time that allows
faster than light travel should allow steady forward motion away from the
black hole, and progressively speed up as the ship moves down the gradient
of the gravity well. BTW, if you argue that the reason for the stalemate is
because the black hole was still growing in strength, which counteracts the
small forward momentum gains I expected, then I would reply that is not
logical because the Enterprise was maxing out its warp drive forward thrust
so given the black hole was still gaining strength that should have resulted
in being at least slowly getting pulled towards the black how as it
strengthened (this think this is another logical error their science
writers/consultants messed up on).
2. The way that they escaped the stalemate of the growing black hole was to
dump some core material from the warp drive system behind them and have them
ignite into a blast wave, which wave supposedly gave the Enterprise just
enough forward momentum to break free of the black holes grasp. My problem
with the physics on this is that the blast way should have also been trapped
by the black hole and not be able to apply any forward pressure on the ship.
I say this because presumably the explosion was some kind of
matter/anti-matter explosion, given that the warp drive is powered by
dilithium crystal, which I assume provides a way to generate antimatter. In
any case, the explosion was either matter or pure energy release by the
annihilation of matter with anti-matter. Either way, the black hole should
equally suck those in at the same rate as the ship since the warp drive acts
to move faster than light, which the matter/energy of the blast cannot
benefit from. So, the ship should actually have better forward momentum
advantages than anything created by the blast wave. Thus, it seems
illogical for the blast wave to be able to save them in any way. Am I
missing something here, or did there physics consultants screw this up too?
Having said the above, I propose a physically plausible and coherent way to
save the Enterprise in that situation, and my solution could be a new kind
of weapon for the Federation to gain military superiority over red matter
situations. OK, here is my solution and back up. It goes like this: given
that a black hole is a gravity field and electromagnetic waves cannot effect
the gradient of the gravity well we need something that can disturb the
gravity filed holding the ship in the stalemate (let's assume we believe
that warp drive is defeated by black hole gravity) just enough for the ship
to gain forward movement out of the gravity well to a point where it forward
thrust is greater than the gravitational pull. My solution is to use dark
energy because it is the only thing we know of that can push matter away and
easily beats the force of gravity, which is why our universe is not only
expanding, but acceleratingly so. I would invent a dark energy bomb that is
contained (like an antimatter bomb) until detonation and then the huge
release of dark energy would at least generate a gravity wave disturbance in
between the black hole and the Enterprise and during the lull of the gravity
wave the ship could instantly gain forward momentum and break free.
Moreover, if the anti-gravity force of the dark energy is not effected
gravitational fields then that would also give the ship a push. I think it
is very plausible to believe that in a few hundred years we will have
discovered the grand unification theory, which would be a road map to how to
locate, harness, contain, and manipulate dark energy. A dark energy bomb
might work the same way as a black hole shreds matter, just for the opposite
reason- massive push instead of massive pull.
Can anyone provide and intelligent and physics informed response to my
issues and solutions above?
I look forward to good replies. I do not check this news group often so
please also email your posts/replies to gro...@sonic.net.
Thanks!
Ariel S. Bentolila
Owen Jacobson
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek movie?
> I just saw it on DVD yesterday. I had an intellectual/physics problem with
> the scene towards the end where the Enterprise got caught in the black hole
> singularity they created with "red matter" to destroy the rogue Romulan war
> ship. In the
> movie, the Enterprise got stuck in a stalemate between the (implied) forward
> thrust of their warp drive and the gravitational attraction of the newly
> formed black hole. The problem(s) I have with it (intuitively) are two
> fold, as follows (please provide or speculate on some well reasoned
> input or explanations):
Absolutely nothing about that scene (or much of the rest of the movie)
is physically plausible. The events of the movie work out the way they
do because the writers decided it made a compelling story; attempting
to apply convention (or even mathematicall-plausible but unconventional
;) physics to the movie is pretty futile.
For further reading, try
<http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BellisariosMaxim> and
<http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool>, which explain
Star Trek events much more effectively than physics can.
-o
eric gisse
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek
> movie?
Star Trek is not a documentary.
Star Trek is science fiction. Emphasis on "fiction".
[...]
dlzc
You have responses in-group, and you should check there for those
responses
On Jan 4, 12:16 am, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
...
> I look forward to good replies. I do not check this
> news group often so please also email your
> posts/replies to gro...@sonic.net.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek movie?
> I just saw it on DVD yesterday. I had an intellectual/physics problem with
> the scene towards the end where the Enterprise got caught in the black hole
> singularity they created with "red matter" to destroy the rogue Romulan war
> ship. In the
> movie, the Enterprise got stuck in a stalemate between the (implied) forward
> thrust of their warp drive and the gravitational attraction of the newly
> formed black hole. The problem(s) I have with it (intuitively) are two
> fold, as follows (please provide or speculate on some well reasoned
> input or explanations):
Let me give a little advice about trying to decipher Star Trek: DON'T. I
went through my debating phase with all of the inconsistencies between
the original series and the subsequent Next Generation and later series.
They even came out with books about Star Trek physics, one by Lawrence
Krause who is a respected theoretical physicist and Trekkie. During the
Next Generation phase they tried pretty hard to stay consistent with
cutting-edge physics of the time. In the end, the series was just about
what the latest super-sentient computer virus of the week was, because
they were so limited in the number of physical menaces that could harm
them. Warp drive lets them outrace light, so a ray made of light
wouldn't be able to harm them. Etc.
Nowadays, they're not even trying to get physics right.
Yousuf Khan
Isaac
the past 5 years, or so. Definitely did not follow the latest incarnation of
the series- thought it was boring and maybe even dumb. However, I see your
point about the physics trends there. My last recollection is during the
"Next Generation Phase", which I guess is why I expect that they continued
that trend of at least trying to keep the physics in the loosely plausible
zone. Given the recent (bad) trend, then, why do you suspect that they
continue to hire physics/science consultants? For example, the newer "red
matter" weapon is at least (loosely) rooted in some modern physics concepts,
but then, of course, they take (huge) artistic license. That said, I'm sure
CERN's Large Hadron Collider is hoping to not create or discover any "Red
Matter" when trying to create nano black holes! LOL!
In any case, I think it is fun (maybe even useful) to speculate on this
particular problem/solution scenario, which I think is at least in the "ball
park" of something worth thinking about. I took a stab at it, and think I
came up with a solution that has some better Sci-Fi legs than what they did.
For example, when I try to think of propose how to use Dark Energy as a
weapon and problem solution, that opens the door for current theory and
observations to support or shoot down my thought scenario. I'm sure you do
know that is how all new theories proposed are handled. Most serious new
theories are in sci-fi dream land as well and are shot down quickly by the
scientific peer review process, but my thought experiment is meant for fun
from the start.
Do you care to venture your own (very hypothetical) problem/solution
scenario for this one based on the limits of your physics knowledge and
creative thinking?
Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply,
Ariel-
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b421f90$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
Isaac
about are even proposing any new theories is by definition science fiction.
Einstein was hardcore, wacked out, science fiction until a solar eclipse
proved him right many years after the science community deemed him a quack.
String theory will almost certainly be science fiction for many decades to
come until we can do repeatable and accurate experiments and measure results
at less than Plank's constant- not even in our technical imagination right
now.
Any how, my thought experiment, was just for fun, though, so maybe people in
the know can get less anal, and be more creative. I think there is enough
meat on this one to be worth some fun speculation.
Eric, thanks for trying loosen the strait jackets on colleagues to take
themselves a bit less seriously and realize that "tomorrow" is always a
fictional dream based on our flawed understandings of "today".
cheers,
Ariel
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:yGi0n.9959$SK6...@newsfe28.ams2...
>
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hhs73d$lpq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
> who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
> another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and
> any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves
> along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
>
> Special Relativity is science fiction. Emphasis on "fiction".
>
> We assume little Eric doesn't know what an assumption is.
>
> 1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in
> respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
> 2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
> contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
> 3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
> 4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
> two operations are precisely equal
> 5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
> when t=0.
> 6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
> moving system and as to the zero point of tau
> 7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
> system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
> the case in the stationary system
> 8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
> for a continuously curved line,
> 9) and our equations ASSUME the form
> 10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
> 11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
> 12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
> 13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give
> it our attention
> 14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
> relativity
>
>
>
Androcles
that knows the difference between hire and higher, rent and rant.
"Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b42319d$0$2016$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Isaac
responding to your SR ranting diatribes. You are certainly a professional
time waster at best. You should find better ways to apply what ever
intellect you do have. I'm done with you.
cheers,
Ariel-
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:Yrq0n.13215$qq6....@newsfe08.ams2...
Androcles
> You really are an obstructionist twit.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf, thanks for your reply. I stopped watching Star Trek for at least
> the past 5 years, or so. Definitely did not follow the latest incarnation of
> the series- thought it was boring and maybe even dumb. However, I see your
> point about the physics trends there. My last recollection is during the
> "Next Generation Phase", which I guess is why I expect that they continued
> that trend of at least trying to keep the physics in the loosely plausible
> zone. Given the recent (bad) trend, then, why do you suspect that they
> continue to hire physics/science consultants? For example, the newer "red
> matter" weapon is at least (loosely) rooted in some modern physics concepts,
> but then, of course, they take (huge) artistic license. That said, I'm sure
> CERN's Large Hadron Collider is hoping to not create or discover any "Red
> Matter" when trying to create nano black holes! LOL!
During the original series, their only link with science fact was
whatever Gene Roddenberry and the writers decided was believable. During
the Next Generation, they elevated science fact into a writing tool
requiring its own consultant position, manned by a real scientist of
some kind. They slowly started ignoring the consultant after awhile.
The only reason they came up with "red matter" was because it sounds
ominous like "dark matter", and they needed an alternative form of
matter to dark matter. So they assumed that dark matter must look black,
while red matter would look red.
> In any case, I think it is fun (maybe even useful) to speculate on this
> particular problem/solution scenario, which I think is at least in the "ball
> park" of something worth thinking about. I took a stab at it, and think I
> came up with a solution that has some better Sci-Fi legs than what they did.
> For example, when I try to think of propose how to use Dark Energy as a
> weapon and problem solution, that opens the door for current theory and
> observations to support or shoot down my thought scenario. I'm sure you do
> know that is how all new theories proposed are handled. Most serious new
> theories are in sci-fi dream land as well and are shot down quickly by the
> scientific peer review process, but my thought experiment is meant for fun
> from the start.
>
> Do you care to venture your own (very hypothetical) problem/solution
> scenario for this one based on the limits of your physics knowledge and
> creative thinking?
Sorry, my days of debating Star Trek science are over. I don't sweat the
details anymore.
Yousuf Khan
Mahipal7638
> Isaac wrote:
> > Yousuf, thanks for your reply. I stopped watching Star Trek for at least
> > the past 5 years, or so. Definitely did not follow the latest incarnation of
> > the series- thought it was boring and maybe even dumb. However, I see your
> > point about the physics trends there. My last recollection is during the
> > "Next Generation Phase", which I guess is why I expect that they continued
> > that trend of at least trying to keep the physics in the loosely plausible
> > zone. Given the recent (bad) trend, then, why do you suspect that they
> > continue to hire physics/science consultants? For example, the newer "red
> > matter" weapon is at least (loosely) rooted in some modern physics concepts,
> > but then, of course, they take (huge) artistic license. That said, I'm sure
> > CERN's Large Hadron Collider is hoping to not create or discover any "Red
> > Matter" when trying to create nano black holes! LOL!
>
> During the original series, their only link with science fact was
> whatever Gene Roddenberry and the writers decided was believable. During
> the Next Generation, they elevated science fact into a writing tool
> requiring its own consultant position, manned by a real scientist of
> some kind. They slowly started ignoring the consultant after awhile.
When back in my University Days, not Daze, I went to a seminar given
by Gene. It was nice and social but no new or extra physics were
offered. This was at UMCP. I do not recall the year but likely
1987ish.
> The only reason they came up with "red matter" was because it sounds
> ominous like "dark matter", and they needed an alternative form of
> matter to dark matter. So they assumed that dark matter must look black,
> while red matter would look red.
I saw the Star Trek movie in the IMAX, Lockheed Martin, theatre at the
Smithsonian NASM last week. My teenage kids enjoyed the experience. I
tried to swallow my pride and put up with the red matter and the time-
travel dis-functionalities as patiently as I could. I realize no one
knows me, but please bear, not bare, nor bore or boar, with me, Learn
to write Isaac. Newton may be impressed.
Being an avid Star Trek fan, and just loving Captain Kirk, Spock, and
Scotty... I simply couldn't relate to the idea that the younger Spock
was more Physicscally Challenged than the younger transporter engineer
Irish Scotty. I had to close my eyes and hide when Spock was
technically confused.
Spock, however untrue to history, does lay the hot communications
officer Uhura that Kirk merely kissed. It's like the new young punk
Writers are going out of their way to hurt the true original still
living fans.
> > In any case, I think it is fun (maybe even useful) to speculate on this
> > particular problem/solution scenario, which I think is at least in the "ball
> > park" of something worth thinking about. I took a stab at it, and think I
> > came up with a solution that has some better Sci-Fi legs than what they did.
> > For example, when I try to think of propose how to use Dark Energy as a
> > weapon and problem solution, that opens the door for current theory and
> > observations to support or shoot down my thought scenario. I'm sure you do
> > know that is how all new theories proposed are handled. Most serious new
> > theories are in sci-fi dream land as well and are shot down quickly by the
> > scientific peer review process, but my thought experiment is meant for fun
> > from the start.
Better sci-fi than ...?! Too funny, and ridiculously easy. The real,
time or space, matter or energy, hard part is having the required
Social Network that would buy your script.
> > Do you care to venture your own (very hypothetical) problem/solution
> > scenario for this one based on the limits of your physics knowledge and
> > creative thinking?
>
> Sorry, my days of debating Star Trek science are over. I don't sweat the
> details anymore.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Sure, I sympathize with you. Why debate the Science in Science
Fiction, when you can nail the Fiction in Science.
Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
XODDI
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek
> movie?
(snip)
I can solve all your questions about Star Trek and physics quickly and
simply.
You do realize that all that Star Trek stuff is just made up, don't you?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek movie?
> I just saw it on DVD yesterday. I had an intellectual/physics problem with
> the scene towards the end where the Enterprise got caught in the black hole
> singularity they created with "red matter" to destroy the rogue Romulan war
> ship. In the
> movie, the Enterprise got stuck in a stalemate between the (implied) forward
> thrust of their warp drive and the gravitational attraction of the newly
> formed black hole. The problem(s) I have with it (intuitively) are two
> fold, as follows (please provide or speculate on some well reasoned
> input or explanations):
Well, what's wrong is that Star Trek presumes that particles
are also black holes. Which is why the tranporters work.
But, that's also why the people who understand information theory
invented Digital Books, Optical Computers, CD, DVD, HDTV, Desktop
Publishing, USB,
and Atomic Clock Watches rather than Universal Studios.
YKhan
Good point. :-)
Yousuf Khan
Isaac
connection between assuming particles are black holes, and information
theory wrt conceptually making transporters work. Is not the reason why
transporters likely could not work is because current quantum physics says
it is impossible to know the full quantum state of all quantum particles
with enough certainty and accuracy to make a faithful copy even if you could
teleport the quantum information via spooky action at a distance
entanglement or such?
Also, how does anything in Star Trek presume particles are black holes.
Maybe you meant to say that they assume that a particle can be used to
create a black hole. The thought experiment question I proposed, though,
was on how our best concept of how warp drive would work and interact with
our understanding of black holes so as to form a (loosely) reasoned
speculation on whether, based on those assumptions, the black hole would
preclude warp drive from working and how one would break free from the
gravity well if it did.
Of course, it is all fiction, but I find it fun to apply our physics and
cutting edge observations to create plausible scenarios that can make sci-fi
situations more realistic. Everyone with a physics background always
complains about sci-fi being so unrealistic- well, instead of just
complaining about it, would it not be nice if we could offer up more
sensible problem/solutions and have some fun at the same time?
of course, they did the whole problem/solution in a goofy way, as usual, but
I found the situation an interesting one to think about how it might work
based on our best guesses at distant future physics and technology.
So, contributing my part, that is why I proposed that it maybe logically the
case that if you can warp space to alter the speed of light in that warped
reference frame, then intuitively it seems that this would also lessen the
gravitational force exerted on the ship in that warped space (maybe, for
example, because the local fabric of space-time has to be bent in the
reverse direction of what gravity does to make the warp drive work). So, my
solution to the stalemate (shown in the movie) was to use dark energy, in
some way, as a tool to counteract the gravity well of the black hole just
enough to break free of the even horizon. It seems to me that what we know
about dark energy is that it strongly pushes space and/or matter apart,
which might be a nice tool (or even new weapon) in sci-fi situations like
the one I questioned in the movie.
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9f123677-e7fa-4dfc...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Isaac
know my point is to have a fun thought experiment. Saying "it is just
sci-fi" is also serious lack of imagination wrt to the problem/solution
scenario I structured and speculated on, which independent of how the movie
(or any sci-fi) goofs it up.
"XODDI" <byb...@spurtlings.com> wrote in message
news:i9WdnVVQfelwct_W...@giganews.com...
XODDI
> that is too intellectually dull a response. If you read my set up you
> would know my point is to have a fun thought experiment. Saying "it is
> just sci-fi" is also serious lack of imagination wrt to the
> problem/solution scenario I structured and speculated on, which
> independent of how the movie (or any sci-fi) goofs it up.
The irony of someone who calls Star Trek "science fiction" calling the
LOGICAL answer to his vapid, UNfun thought experiment "intellectually dull"
is monumental.
Let me guess - you've never actually READ any real science fiction, have
you? Or real science, for that matter.
Isaac
debate the science in the fiction, but have fun thinking of what science
theory could explain or solve an otherwise possible problem like the one I
mentioned. Such theoretical thought experiments are fun, imaginative thing
to work out even at a basic level, but debating the fiction in science is
less fun, and more focused, heated thought and exchanges against dogma. If
you don't have spare thought time for fun thinking, then I agree it is not
worth diverting from more serious endeavors.
cheers,
Ariel-
"Mahipal7638" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa7a3afc-9d85-422d...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
zzbu...@netscape.net
> I appreciate your reply, but I don't get your point about making a
> connection between assuming particles are black holes, and information
> theory wrt conceptually making transporters work.
Well there is no conection in the traditional information sense.
Conceptually, the star trek transporters make a whole bunch
of assumptions about molecular interaction.
Is not the reason why
> transporters likely could not work is because current quantum physics says
> it is impossible to know the full quantum state of all quantum particles
> with enough certainty and accuracy to make a faithful copy even if you could
> teleport the quantum information via spooky action at a distance
> entanglement or such?
That's most likely the Qunatum Mechanics reason, but in real
life exact copies of particles are seldom required, which is why
the 21st Century people work more on self-replicating machines
and digital books, than they do on vacuum tubes
Amd work much more on holographic computing than they
do on transitors. and much more on atomic clock wristwatches,
digital terrain mapping, and data fusion than photons.
And much more on self-assembling robots, than FTP.
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9f123677-e7fa-4dfc...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 2:16 am, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek
> > movie?
> > I just saw it on DVD yesterday. I had an intellectual/physics problem with
> > the scene towards the end where the Enterprise got caught in the black
> > hole
> > singularity they created with "red matter" to destroy the rogue Romulan
> > war
> > ship. In the
> > movie, the Enterprise got stuck in a stalemate between the (implied)
> > forward
> > thrust of their warp drive and the gravitational attraction of the newly
> > formed black hole. The problem(s) I have with it (intuitively) are two
> > fold, as follows (please provide or speculate on some well reasoned
> > input or explanations):
>
> Well, what's wrong is that Star Trek presumes that particles
> are also black holes. Which is why the tranporters work.
> But, that's also why the people who understand information theory
> invented Digital Books, Optical Computers, CD, DVD, HDTV, Desktop
> Publishing, USB,
> and Atomic Clock Watches rather than Universal Studios.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
alie...@gmail.com
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek movie?
Wrong groups. Try rec.arts.sf.science (where the science in science
fiction is discussed) and/or rec.arts.startrek.tech (where the
technology of Star Trek is discussed). The former gets more traffic
than the latter but is more likely to produce focused discussion if
you're patient.
Mark L. Fergerson
Isaac
certainly seems like a better avenue to find interested intellectual
discussing on the topic. I'll give it a go. Hope I get a better welcome
and response.
Thanks again,
Ariel-
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1d79668-6c99-4251...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Zapanaz
>that is too intellectually dull a response. If you read my set up you would
>know my point is to have a fun thought experiment. Saying "it is just
>sci-fi" is also serious lack of imagination wrt to the problem/solution
>scenario I structured and speculated on, which independent of how the movie
>(or any sci-fi) goofs it up.
>
While we're working on it, how does Santa Claus get back UP the
chimney?
I mean I figure he gets -down- by altering his molecular structure so
that he can extend his body lengthwise, probably by reducing the
orbits of electrons.
But going UP, he's working against gravity!
I think he must set up a rotating magnetic field with a reverse
polarity, which could make an anti-gravity field.
What do you think?
>"XODDI" <byb...@spurtlings.com> wrote in message
>news:i9WdnVVQfelwct_W...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b4195e5$0$1979$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek
>>> movie?
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> I can solve all your questions about Star Trek and physics quickly and
>> simply.
>>
>> You do realize that all that Star Trek stuff is just made up, don't you?
>
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
ANARCHY IS GOVERNING THROUGH A PARLIAMENT
AND AN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
- Baghdad graffito
:: Currently listening to Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress, 1971, by The Hollies, from "The Hollies Greatest Hits"
John Cook
Can't be right - didn't use 'Quantum' or 'Uncertainty'
--
John Cook
Reality is not Democratic
Androcles
"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mai...@foo.com> wrote in message
news:b398k5dvbiqvjr4r2...@4ax.com...
> While we're working on it, how does Santa Claus get back UP the
> chimney?
He carries two matter transporters with him (they are the size of a cell
phone).
One he drops down the chimney, the other he leaves on his sled for
Rudolph to operate.
Then he jumps down the chimney to deliver toys and get his milk and
cookies and his matter transporter back.
Next he calls "Beam me up, Rudolf!" on his cell phone and Rudolph
uses his nose to flash an infra-red beam (like a remote control for TV)
at the upper matter transporter, which synchronizes with the lower one,
vaporizes Santa and his molecules rush back up the chimney and he
reassembles on the rooftop. Rudolph's nose isn't really red, it
is infra-red, but "Rudolph the infra-red nosed reindeer" doesn't
have the correct metre for the song and so "infra" was dropped.
> I mean I figure he gets -down- by altering his molecular structure so
> that he can extend his body lengthwise, probably by reducing the
> orbits of electrons.
>
> But going UP, he's working against gravity!
Yes, but he also delivers in Australia and South America which
are upside down. The matter transporters gradually lose their gravity
charge if he makes too many deliveries in Europe, Canada and the
USA (he doesn't deliver in Florida, no chimneys there) so at midnight
he nips over to the other side of the world and delivers UP the
chimneys, falling DOWN to the roof tops. This recharges the gravity
in the matter transporters. At about 2:00 am he goes back and finishes
his deliveries in the Northern hemisphere, and at 4:00 am he returns
to the elves and Mrs. Santa at the North Pole. It's all very logical.
alie...@gmail.com
> On 6/01/10 3:51 PM, Zapanaz wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:07:10 -0800, "Isaac"<gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> that is too intellectually dull a response. If you read my set up you would
> >> know my point is to have a fun thought experiment. Saying "it is just
> >> sci-fi" is also serious lack of imagination wrt to the problem/solution
> >> scenario I structured and speculated on, which independent of how the movie
> >> (or any sci-fi) goofs it up.
>
> > While we're working on it, how does Santa Claus get back UP the
> > chimney?
>
> > I mean I figure he gets -down- by altering his molecular structure so
> > that he can extend his body lengthwise, probably by reducing the
> > orbits of electrons.
>
> > But going UP, he's working against gravity!
>
> > I think he must set up a rotating magnetic field with a reverse
> > polarity, which could make an anti-gravity field.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> >>news:i9WdnVVQfelwct_W...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> "Isaac"<gro...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:4b4195e5$0$1979$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>>> Hi All,
>
> >>>> Has anyone notice something odd in the physics of the latest StarTrek
> >>>> movie?
>
> >>> (snip)
>
> >>> I can solve all your questions about Star Trek and physics quickly and
> >>> simply.
>
> >>> You do realize that all that Star Trek stuff is just made up, don't you?
>
> Can't be right - didn't use 'Quantum' or 'Uncertainty'
Or "nano".
Mark L. Fergerson
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Sjouke Burry
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:07:10 -0800, "Isaac" <gro...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> that is too intellectually dull a response. If you read my set up you would
>> know my point is to have a fun thought experiment. Saying "it is just
>> sci-fi" is also serious lack of imagination wrt to the problem/solution
>> scenario I structured and speculated on, which independent of how the movie
>> (or any sci-fi) goofs it up.
>>
>
> While we're working on it, how does Santa Claus get back UP the
> chimney?
>
> I mean I figure he gets -down- by altering his molecular structure so
> that he can extend his body lengthwise, probably by reducing the
> orbits of electrons.
>
> But going UP, he's working against gravity!
>
> I think he must set up a rotating magnetic field with a reverse
> polarity, which could make an anti-gravity field.
>
> What do you think?
>
then shrincks.............
Isaac
bad in these physics groups; however, I got tons of very informed, and
thoughtful discussions in the groups you suggested.
Again I greatly appreciate your help!
Cheers,
Ariel-
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1d79668-6c99-4251...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Yousuf Khan
even for pure physics discussions.
Yousuf Khan