Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can someone answer this?



Do the dilithium crystal burn up faster at max warp on the Voyager, which is like 9.975?

If someone can answer this, I have counter points to that.


Please cite your sources/episodes. Wiki's are acceptable to me.

I think it still would have taken too long at maximum warp.

Warp 9.975 is "only" 9.968x10^9m/s (based on the TNG+ warp equations) and they had to travel hundreds of light years to get home. According to early episodes of Voyager the warp drive they used required refueling every 3 operational years.

I can't do the rest of the math right now but I think that's the gist of the argument.

Now that I've done the math . . .



9.968x10^9m/s
30,000 light years to travel
9.46x10^15m in one light year

9.46*10^15 x 30,000 = 2.838*10^22 (distance they need to go)
2.838*10^22 / 9.968*10^9 = 2.847*10^12 (travel time in seconds)

converted to years . . . 90277


And that is why Voyager couldn't just go home at max warp.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now that I've done the math . . .



9.968x10^9m/s
30,000 light years to travel
9.46x10^15m in one light year

9.46*10^15 x 30,000 = 2.838*10^22 (distance they need to go)
2.838*10^22 / 9.968*10^9 = 2.847*10^12 (travel time in seconds)

converted to years . . . 90277


And that is why Voyager couldn't just go home at max warp.


Your solution is incorrect, but your math is correct, if that makes sense.


If this were a test, you'd get the question wrong, but get partial credit for doing the math correctly...I guess.



70,000 light years is the distance needed to get home.




They actually did state that at maximum warp, it would take like 17 years or something, but it burns up the cystals MUCH too quickly at max warp and the warp core gets hot. In a "cruising warp", it would take 75 years.

It says on wikipedia that it would take 75 years...so we'll go with that, assuming that the rabid trekkies are vigilant enough to keep that information accurate.

70000/75 = 933 and a third light years a year.

That's

933.33C











But, still, that's fast.





And if you wanted to know the KM traveled during that one year, it's 8826861530917886.4

Well I didn't know where in the Delta quadrant they were so I used to lowest numbers. I'd also say that the Voyager writers are obviously terrible at math if they said it would only take 17 years to get home.

Even if we use the 17 year figure it still isn't feasible. They have to refuel a minimum of every three years (according to you probably every few months or weeks at max warp). There's no way they could risk getting stuck in deep space with no warp drive.

Also, that couldn't be a question on a fair test. Your critique is based on just choosing different figures.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well I didn't know where in the Delta quadrant they were so I used to lowest numbers. I'd also say that the Voyager writers are obviously terrible at math if they said it would only take 17 years to get home.

Between 9.9 and 10, the speed increase is exponential. 10 is infinite velocity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if we use the 17 year figure it still isn't feasible. They have to refuel a minimum of every three years (according to you probably every few months or weeks at max warp).

I would say with their max warp, it would be like.....every few hours. If they could sustain it at max, it would have taken them that long or something.


I could be wrong....it may have been far less. If I can figure out how fast 9.975 is, then I can come up with my own number.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no way they could risk getting stuck in deep space with no warp drive.

Well, I have another argument that I'd like to bring to the discussion as soon as we can get the numbers out of the way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also, that couldn't be a question on a fair test. Your critique is based on just choosing different figures.

No, you didn't use the correct numbers in your calculation. I didn't provide them and I wasn' testing you. You used incorrect numbers on your own...I don't know why, either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Between 9.9 and 10, the speed increase is exponential. 10 is infinite velocity.

Isn't it exponential from 1 to 9 as well?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I could be wrong....it may have been far less. If I can figure out how fast 9.975 is, then I can come up with my own number.

I don't think you can. The equation from 1 to 9 is wf*c^(10/3). After that the exponent "10/3" rises "exponentially but they don't actually say what exponent.

In reality ships are believed to travel at P/D where P is the speed they need to get there at the right time and D is the level of drama in megaDawsons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I have another argument that I'd like to bring to the discussion as soon as we can get the numbers out of the way.

What's that?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you didn't use the correct numbers in your calculation. I didn't provide them and I wasn' testing you. You used incorrect numbers on your own...I don't know why, either.

I took the distance figure from the wrong place.

The equation I used for calculating speed was wrong. I assumed the wc^(10/3) formula went all the way up to warp 10. Figuring out the actual speed at warp 9.975 seems impossible (unless you back track through distance and time but that's no fun and certain to be inconsistent with other times).



In any event. Do you think they should have been able to go back by just zooming at max warp or not, I'm confused.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't it exponential from 1 to 9 as well?

Sure...but from 1 - 9, 9 isn't infinite.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think you can. The equation from 1 to 9 is wf*c^(10/3). After that the exponent "10/3" rises "exponentially but they don't actually say what exponent.

I can because just want to calculate the speed and since we already have the distance, all we need is the speed. We don't need to use the formula...as it is obviously not as applicable to Voyager as it was to TNG.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In reality ships are believed to travel at P/D where P is the speed they need to get there at the right time and D is the level of drama in megaDawsons.



I've never heard that before! That's so true.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's that?

I don't want to bring it up until we figure out this other stuff.



Here's what I need answered in order to use that argument:



1. How long it would take them at max warp, disregarding energy requirements.

2. How fast 9.975 is.

3. Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The equation I used for calculating speed was wrong. I assumed the wc^(10/3) formula went all the way up to warp 10. Figuring out the actual speed at warp 9.975 seems impossible (unless you back track through distance and time but that's no fun and certain to be inconsistent with other times).

I will have to look...but I think from 9.9 to 10, as "x" approaches 10, "y" approaches infinity. But from 1-9, it is just an exponential growth...no asymptotes.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In any event. Do you think they should have been able to go back by just zooming at max warp or not, I'm confused.


Yes. Maybe. I'm not sure. I am unsure why they couldn't go at max warp.

Aside from Star Trek math not equating with real math, it would have taken them 70+- years to get home w/o any stops.

Janeway was the captain and decided that forging alliances and exploring was important enough to not make a bee line for Earth.

However, in the 23rd century, warp factors of 10 and higher, seemed to denote extraordinarily fast, but not infinite, speeds. In 2267, for example, Nomad fired energy bolts that traveled at warp 15, as well as made the USS Enterprise (by improving efficiency in the antimatter input valve and energy release controls) go at least warp 11. When this happened, Montgomery Scott was in disbelief and stated that it would be impossible. (TOS: "The Changeling" Later that year, the Enterprise engaged an Orion scout ship capable of warp 10, if not higher speeds, since crew safety was of no concern to them, prompting Spock to remark that it was "interesting." (TOS: "Journey to Babel"

In 2268, the Enterprise achieved a speed of warp 14.1 after being sabotaged by a Kalandan planetary defense system, though at that velocity the ship came within moments of destroying itself. (TOS: "That Which Survives" Bele, upon commandeering the Enterprise, propelled the ship faster than warp 10. (TOS: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"


(This was investigated b/c Riker sends the Enterprise to Warp 11 in a movie.) ((bolded))

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
However, in the 23rd century, warp factors of 10 and higher, seemed to denote extraordinarily fast, but not infinite, speeds. In 2267, for example, Nomad fired energy bolts that traveled at warp 15, as well as made the USS Enterprise (by improving efficiency in the antimatter input valve and energy release controls) go at least warp 11. When this happened, Montgomery Scott was in disbelief and stated that it would be impossible. (TOS: "The Changeling" Later that year, the Enterprise engaged an Orion scout ship capable of warp 10, if not higher speeds, since crew safety was of no concern to them, prompting Spock to remark that it was "interesting." (TOS: "Journey to Babel"

In 2268, the Enterprise achieved a speed of warp 14.1 after being sabotaged by a Kalandan planetary defense system, though at that velocity the ship came within moments of destroying itself. (TOS: "That Which Survives" Bele, upon commandeering the Enterprise, propelled the ship faster than warp 10. (TOS: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"


(This was investigated b/c Riker sends the Enterprise to Warp 11 in a movie.) ((bolded))


Everything referenced is not applicable to Voyager.

Not Voyager specifically, no. I was observing (and hoping for an explanation?) that speeds above Warp 10 have been seen. Warp 10 wouldn't be infinity if warp 11 was available. Is there any evidence for an alternate scale being used?

The scale used in TOS was a different one where 10 was not the maximum.

k then. Problem solved.

This scale might help.

http://www.trekmania.net/science/warp_scale.htm

Eh, every ship in the series that goes to maximum warp is told by their engineer 'We can only sustain this for another ... minutes/hours.' So obviously maximum warp isn't something you can sustain for long periods of time. That's really all the evidence you need, since the actual science isn't... real science.

Blasphemy!

Originally posted by Kinneary
Eh, every ship in the series that goes to maximum warp is told by their engineer 'We can only sustain this for another ... minutes/hours.' So obviously maximum warp isn't something you can sustain for long periods of time. That's really all the evidence you need, since the actual science isn't... real science.

good one! that is true. did they ever make it out of the milky way galaxy?? Cause whinny wesley had said in one episode that they have only charted 10% (or something like that) of our own galaxy and the rest is out there waiting for us.

and where is the delat quadrant? still in our galaxy? if so and they are clear on the other side of the galaxy and these calcs are correct
http://www.trekmania.net/science/warp_scale.htm

then they could of made it home in 6 months or less.

take a look at this map

http://www.inobambino.com/ino/quadrants.jpg

Originally posted by darthmaul1
good one! that is true. did they ever make it out of the milky way galaxy?? Cause whinny wesley had said in one episode that they have only charted 10% (or something like that) of our own galaxy and the rest is out there waiting for us.

and where is the delat quadrant? still in our galaxy? if so and they are clear on the other side of the galaxy and these calcs are correct
http://www.trekmania.net/science/warp_scale.htm

then they could of made it home in 6 months or less.

take a look at this map

http://www.inobambino.com/ino/quadrants.jpg

The calculations from that table (that i posted earlier) would show that between warp 9.9 and warp 9.99 then it would take between 13 and 33 years at maximum warp....Assuming, like other ST vessels, they can't sustain that velocity then reduce it from 9.975 to a flat warp 9 then it would take them 66 years to cross the galaxy from the edge of the delta quadrant to federation space.

To do it in 6 months they'd need to be doing it at 9.9999...given that it's a logarithmic scale 9.9999 is actually 200 times faster than warp 9 and some 25 times faster than 9.99

Originally posted by jaden101
The calculations from that table (that i posted earlier) would show that between warp 9.9 and warp 9.99 then it would take between 13 and 33 years at maximum warp....Assuming, like other ST vessels, they can't sustain that velocity then reduce it from 9.975 to a flat warp 9 then it would take them 66 years to cross the galaxy from the edge of the delta quadrant to federation space.

To do it in 6 months they'd need to be doing it at 9.9999...given that it's a logarithmic scale 9.9999 is actually 200 times faster than warp 9 and some 25 times faster than 9.99

Cool, if they were in the millenium falcon they would be on the otherside of the galaxy by now.jawdrop

Didn't TREK, THE MOTION PICTURE send Kirk through the center of the Galaxy? As in, you have to get there first?

Originally posted by jaden101
This scale might help.

http://www.trekmania.net/science/warp_scale.htm


Cool.


Then I wasn't crazy by saying 17 years was how long it would take at max warp.

9.975 is much closer to 9.99 than 9.9.

Using logs..


x^(9.9y) = 3053

x^(9.99y) = 7912


What is x for x^(9.975y)?



I just assume x and y will be constants. it could be far more complex than that.


I actually need to plot this and figure out a way to do so.


But 9.975 is closer to 9.99 than it is 9.9 and since it is an assymptote, then it is much closer to 9.99's speed than 9.9's speed.



So 17 years may not be too far off.




Someone helpe me here.

17 years does seem reasonable at max warp. Given that there isn't a massive rise in time differences between 9.9 and 9.99...

I think there's a piece about warp velocities in the next generation tech manual that explains it in depth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool.


Then I wasn't crazy by saying 17 years was how long it would take at max warp.

9.975 is much closer to 9.99 than 9.9.

Using logs..


x^(9.9y) = 3053

x^(9.99y) = 7912


What is x for x^(9.975y)?



I just assume x and y will be constants. it could be far more complex than that.


I actually need to plot this and figure out a way to do so.


But 9.975 is closer to 9.99 than it is 9.9 and since it is an assymptote, then it is much closer to 9.99's speed than 9.9's speed.



So 17 years may not be too far off.




Someone helpe me here.

Found this

http://www.ussdragonstar.com/utilitycore/warpspeeds.asp

Which gives a time of 16.477 years to cross the galaxy at warp 9.975

Originally posted by jaden101
Found this

http://www.ussdragonstar.com/utilitycore/warpspeeds.asp

Which gives a time of 16.477 years to cross the galaxy at warp 9.975

LOL


Dude...



Voyager was at about 70% of that distance...so at max warp, it would only have taken them 11.5339 years to get home.





Okay...knowing that, I can finally come to the final point that needs to be answered:

3. Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time?


I need to know exactly why.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL


Dude...



Voyager was at about 70% of that distance...so at max warp, it would only have taken them 11.5339 years to get home.





Okay...knowing that, I can finally come to the final point that needs to be answered:

3. Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time?


I need to know exactly why.


Cause they didn't have SCOTTY as chief engineer!!!!! and therefore belanna or what ever her name was would cause the ship to blow up
blowup

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can someone answer this?



Do the dilithium crystal burn up faster at max warp on the Voyager, which is like 9.975?

If someone can answer this, I have counter points to that.


Please cite your sources/episodes. Wiki's are acceptable to me.

cos Janeway isn't Kirk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL


Dude...



Voyager was at about 70% of that distance...so at max warp, it would only have taken them 11.5339 years to get home.





Okay...knowing that, I can finally come to the final point that needs to be answered:

3. Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time?


I need to know exactly why.

It can sustain that speed for long periods of time. That's the Intrepid class sustainable cruise velocity.

The reason it doesn't go at that speed constantly is because it uses up the dilithium crystals faster than travelling at slower speeds. They have to plot their travel time to take into account the possibility of running out of dilithium and so use the most effective speed between systems which may have dilithium.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time?


I need to know exactly why.

It uses up their dilithium at a disproportionately high speed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is voyager unable to sustain 9.975 for long periods of time?

I need to know exactly why.

1. Because then there'd be no show.
2. Pacing: maximum speed is not necessarily optimum speed.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Because then there'd be no show.

It would still take about twelve years. That's plenty of time for a show with an adventure a week.

Originally posted by jaden101
It can sustain that speed for long periods of time. That's the Intrepid class sustainable cruise velocity.

The reason it doesn't go at that speed constantly is because it uses up the dilithium crystals faster than travelling at slower speeds. They have to plot their travel time to take into account the possibility of running out of dilithium and so use the most effective speed between systems which may have dilithium.


I also think there's something about it overheating or something.







So here's my last point:




They could have easily gotten home by replicating new dilithium crystals and also refitting the cooling system to be more efficient at maximum warp to prevent over heating.


So, like, yeah.



Someone might say that the complexities of the crystalline structure of dilithium makes it impossible to replicate a usable copy. Then I respond with, "What part of arranging it, molecule by molecule, as compared to the template, do you not understand? In other words, it's a retarded REACH to assume that they couldn't just use the replicator to make some dilithium.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also think there's something about it overheating or something.

So here's my last point:

They could have easily gotten home by replicating new dilithium crystals and also refitting the cooling system to be more efficient at maximum warp to prevent over heating.


So, like, yeah.

Someone might say that the complexities of the crystalline structure of dilithium makes it impossible to replicate a usable copy. Then I respond with, "What part of arranging it, molecule by molecule, as compared to the template, do you not understand? In other words, it's a retarded REACH to assume that they couldn't just use the replicator to make some dilithium.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Someone might say that the complexities of the crystalline structure of dilithium makes it impossible to replicate a usable copy. Then I respond with, "What part of arranging it, molecule by molecule, as compared to the template, do you not understand? In other words, it's a retarded REACH to assume that they couldn't just use the replicator to make some dilithium.

Or it would be in TNG hadn't unequivocally established that replicating dilithium was impossible with their tech.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would still take about twelve years. That's plenty of time for a show with an adventure a week. Figure roughly 14 years, with an average of one day adventure time for each encounter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Someone might say that the complexities of the crystalline structure of dilithium makes it impossible to replicate a usable copy. Then I respond with, "What part of arranging it, molecule by molecule, as compared to the template, do you not understand? In other words, it's a retarded REACH to assume that they couldn't just use the replicator to make some dilithium. Made of matter, dilithium is unique in that it handles both matter and antimatter. Perhaps it is this unprecedented quality which makes its replication especially difficult.

Originally posted by jaden101
Though low-quality artificial crystals can be grown or replicated, they are limited in the power of the reaction they can regulate without fragmenting, and are therefore largely unsuitable for warp drive applications

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or it would be in TNG hadn't unequivocally established that replicating dilithium was impossible with their tech.

Originally posted by Mindship
Made of matter, dilithium is unique in that it handles both matter and antimatter. Perhaps it is this unprecedented quality which makes its replication especially difficult.


Which is complete rubbish. It his simply a plot device only. There's no reason that something that can turn energy into matter and do it perfectly, molecule by molecule, that we end up with a sub-par replication. If replication wasn't perfect, then transporting wouldn't be, either, and we'd end up with absurd deformities...but that was worked out 2 centuries before Star Trek TNG.






But this is exactly what I wanted to be brought up. I knew all of the information in this thread, already, EXCEPT the time and math around 9.975.


I submit to you that the idea that dilithium cannot be replicated is rubbish and they could have done the entire trip without problems, at 9.975. In other words, the writers have written themselves into a plot hole with the idea of replication and transporting whilst saying that some things cannot be replicated.

They've previously shown that replicators have flaws when constructing things that are complex on a molecular level (like food), so I see no reason that they would be able to create a highly specific form of a certain made up element.

Besides you can't override canon based on it being a plot device. ST is soft science-fiction, every word of it is a plot device.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They've previously shown that replicators have flaws when constructing things that are complex on a molecular level (like food), so I see no reason that they would be able to create a highly specific form of a certain made up element.

Besides you can't override canon based on it being a plot device. ST is soft science-fiction, every word of it is a plot device.

You mean O'Brian saying that it doesn't taste as good as real food? Hardly a confirmation of what you're saying.

Fact is, replicators are repurposed transporter technology.







The point of this thread is to pick apart the whole reason Voyager or any ship cannot travel at max for long distances. It's just stupid that they can't. The writers came up with a plot device that doesn't bode well with me. Transportor technology can resequence a living organism, perfectly, yet it can't resquence the crystalline structure of a dilithium crystal, which would have a very easily predicted structure that could be much more easily replicated (not the sci-fi meaning of that) with a mathematical formula. Doing something like crystal would be much much easier for a replicator's computer to do than replicating complex organic colloids and solutions. Pretending that there's something special about a crystal is rubbish when we have living organisms being safely transported millions to billions of times without incident.


In fact, there's no reason that a replicator should not be able to make a more efficient dilithium crystal that lasts much longer due to the inefficient natural crystalization that ocurs during the formation process. Minor temperature, magnetic, etc. differences cause deformaties in crystals that could be easily worked out using the absurdly powerful supercomputers of the future. Something simple like a crystal could be easily improved.


I sure hope that, one day, I get to write for Star Trek. I'll correct little plot holes like this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which is complete rubbish. It his simply a plot device only. There's no reason that something that can turn energy into matter and do it perfectly, molecule by molecule, that we end up with a sub-par replication. If replication wasn't perfect, then transporting wouldn't be, either, and we'd end up with absurd deformities...but that was worked out 2 centuries before Star Trek TNG.Of course it's a plot device! Superdupertechnology is like having an open powerset: yeah, it's great when you want the characters to do something really cool, but then you've either got to technobabble why they can't do other things they should be able to, or just don't say anything and hope no one else notices. You, lad, have noticed. Here's another: if transporter tech is so perfect, what the hell do they need doctors for? Just do System Restore.

Originally posted by Mindship
Of course it's a plot device! Superdupertechnology is like having an open powerset: yeah, it's great when you want the characters to do something really cool, but then you've either got to technobabble why they can't do other things they should be able to, or just don't say anything and hope no one else notices. You, lad, have noticed. Here's another: if transporter tech is so perfect, what the hell do they need doctors for? Just do System Restore.



Indeed.


Or replicate body parts and graft them back on, etc.


Even as a child, I wondered why in the world Dr. Beverly Crusher had to grow and replace Worf's spine when they could just replicate a new one and beam it in him perfectly integrated.


Each person DOES have a profile in the replicator when they leave the ship so that, when they return, they only come back as themselves without contagions...so their clothes should be perfectly restored with no battle damage or dust.


Even though it's the future and it's Sci-Fi, I can still demand that they not be illogical for the sake of plot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which is complete rubbish. It his simply a plot device only. There's no reason that something that can turn energy into matter and do it perfectly, molecule by molecule, that we end up with a sub-par replication. If replication wasn't perfect, then transporting wouldn't be, either, and we'd end up with absurd deformities...but that was worked out 2 centuries before Star Trek TNG.


I submit to you that the idea that dilithium cannot be replicated is rubbish

1: How can it be a plot device for Voyager when it was established before Voyager was even concieved of?

2: Noone said it can't be replicated. It just ends up being low quality and thus can't generate the same kinds of speeds that natural dilithium can. No different from the fact that artificial diamonds are of lower quality than natural diamonds in real life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even though it's the future and it's Sci-Fi, I can still demand that they not be illogical for the sake of plot. Another one...

The transporter was not part of Roddenberry's initial vision; it came later to address budget problems that would've accompanied showing the Enterprise landing on a planet each week. Not only did the inception of the transporter reduce the budget, but it also moved the story better, getting Koik and Spock in deep doodoo ASAP.

Problem: it also should've been able to get them out of trouble just as quickly...but then, where's the dramatic tension? So, either the aliens had to be advanced enough to block the transporter with a forcefield, or they had to be primitive enough to sneak up on our intrepid heroes, hit them over the head and snatch their communicators (God forbid the tricorder should've had some kind of proximity warning system -- a logical precaution when exploring an unknown planet).

Of course, TOS' biggest transgression against logic was the fact that -- virtually every week -- the commanding officer went down to take care of business, dragging his second-in-command with him.

I wonder if Kirk'n'Spock 90210 will do better.

Isn't there a limit on how long a starship can go max. warp?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Isn't there a limit on how long a starship can go max. warp? There is. But the point is, why? Given what Trek tech can do, why are there limits which are little more than extrapolations from today's far inferior machinery?

From a footnote on page 17 of the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual"...

"Given the existence of the matter replication devices...a very logical question is: 'Why can't they just replicate entire starships?' The real reason is that such an ability would allow us to create entire fleets of starships at the touch of a button. This might be great for Federation defense and science programs, but makes for poor drama."

Of course one could argue: it is highly unlikely that matter replication is 100% perfect, so something has to be lost in the transport process, even with people, though the difference is apparently insignificant.

But dilithium may be different. As matter it is unique, in that it doesn't react with antimatter in the usual way. This may make dilithium especially tough to replicate, ie, what's lost in the process is in fact significant.

I think anyone suggesting that one replicate a starship in one go is dramatically underestimating how gigantic they really are.

The point is, the tech in Trek is way more advanced than any technology we have, and therefore any misunderstandings about why things work the way they do can be simplified to 'You don't understand the mechanics involved because our understanding of science isn't advanced enough.'

Boom. Answer. Done.

Originally posted by jaden101
1: How can it be a plot device for Voyager when it was established before Voyager was even concieved of?

Odd. I don't remember saying that writers of Voyager made it up or that the writers of Voyager had a choice in the matter. In fact, they used existing PIS canon to strand Voyager. I am unsure what this point was about. Was it just general info and you were just throwing it out there?

So you don't think I'm talking out of my ass, I was the first to mention the excuse from TNG of inferior dilithium crystals.


Also, this:

"I knew all of the information in this thread, already, EXCEPT the time and math around 9.975."





Originally posted by jaden101
2: Noone said it can't be replicated. It just ends up being low quality and thus can't generate the same kinds of speeds that natural dilithium can. No different from the fact that artificial diamonds are of lower quality than natural diamonds in real life.

And no one is denying that it was stated. However, I am calling it rubbish and bullshit for this "rule" to exist as it goes against the grain of logic.

And artificial diamonds are not made, from pure energy, and arranged, molecule by molecule, either. If replicator technology actually existed, we could make artificial diamonds bigger and harder than naturally occurring ones.










The point of this thread was excellenty grasped by Mindship. In fact, he brought up other points that are in the exact same vein of logic as the point of this thread.






And, Mindship, misplace a few atoms and it can kill a person. Misplace a few atoms and it can cause someone to lose their memory. Misplace a few atoms, and it will cause mutangenic cells....i.e. cancer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, Mindship, misplace a few atoms and it can kill a person. Misplace a few atoms and it can cause someone to lose their memory. Misplace a few atoms, and it will cause mutangenic cells....i.e. cancer. Bullship. I shed atons every dy...and Im fyne.

And now, just to be a PITA...

I contest your claim that a few missing or misplaced atoms is a significant difference. Yes, critically poised, the missing atoms may start some kind of cancer, but I submit that the odds of this happening are minuscule. Consider...

The body is constantly making copies of itself on a cellular level. The process isn't perfect: that's one of the reasons we age or develop things like cancer. But for the most part, it works pretty darn well.

Now, why isn't the process perfect? What is? It's just basic physics that systems degrade (I'm really oversimplifying, but too bad ).

Accordingly, the transporter/replicator system can't be perfect because that would violate entropy. Hence, my reasoning that this error amplifies when replicating unique materials stands.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Odd. I don't remember saying that writers of Voyager made it up or that the writers of Voyager had a choice in the matter. In fact, they used existing PIS canon to strand Voyager. I am unsure what this point was about. Was it just general info and you were just throwing it out there?

So you don't think I'm talking out of my ass, I was the first to mention the excuse from TNG of inferior dilithium crystals.


Also, this:

"I knew all of the information in this thread, already, EXCEPT the time and math around 9.975.

And no one is denying that it was stated. However, I am calling it rubbish and bullshit for this "rule" to exist as it goes against the grain of logic.

And artificial diamonds are not made, from pure energy, and arranged, molecule by molecule, either. If replicator technology actually existed, we could make artificial diamonds bigger and harder than naturally occurring ones.

The point of this thread was excellenty grasped by Mindship. In fact, he brought up other points that are in the exact same vein of logic as the point of this thread.

And, Mindship, misplace a few atoms and it can kill a person. Misplace a few atoms and it can cause someone to lose their memory. Misplace a few atoms, and it will cause mutangenic cells....i.e. cancer.

You seem to be getting really angry about it. Why?

All they would need to do is write a reason for it. Something in the molecule that fluctuates and that the heisenburg compensators can't fix.

Replicator technology doesn't use pure energy anyway. It stores mass and resequences it dependant on what is requested.

There's also differences between replicator and transporter technology that mean transporters can arrange an object exactly where-as a replicator can't in some instances. This is because the transporters work at the quantum level and replicators only work at the molecular level. So materials which are complex at the quantum level can't be replicated. Many real life materials exhibit strange quantum properties such as electrons which fluctuate between different shells. Radioactive substances which throw off ionizing particles etc.

j

Originally posted by Mindship
Bullship. I shed atons every dy...and Im fyne.

But you don't lose data in the form of DNA, or get data changed because a transporter doesn't piece you back together correctly.

Originally posted by Mindship
And now, just to be a PITA...

I contest your claim that a few missing or misplaced atoms is a significant difference. Yes, critically poised, the missing atoms may start some kind of cancer, but I submit that the odds of this happening are minuscule. Consider...

The body is constantly making copies of itself on a cellular level. The process isn't perfect: that's one of the reasons we age or develop things like cancer. But for the most part, it works pretty darn well.

Now, why isn't the process perfect? What is? It's just basic physics that systems degrade (I'm really oversimplifying, but too bad ).

Accordingly, the transporter/replicator system can't be perfect because that would violate entropy. Hence, my reasoning that this error amplifies when replicating unique materials stands.

See my above post.


And how are memories stored on our neurons?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you don't lose data in the form of DNA

That's not quite true. Your DNA is being torn apart and rebuilt all the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And how are memories stored on our neurons?

Apparently in a way that transporters don't mess up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See my above post.Let me ask this way: Are you saying replicators operate with 100% efficiency (and not just within a tolerable margin of error)? If so, then yeah, making more dilithium should be do-able. But (I would argue) Trektech is not that advanced; I don't think it can build an infallible machine (hell, even Nomad f*cked up).

Originally posted by jaden101
You seem to be getting really angry about it. Why?

That's rather strange. I don't read anger at all in my post. Not a single bit of it. I apologize if it came off that way.

Originally posted by jaden101
All they would need to do is write a reason for it. Something in the molecule that fluctuates and that the heisenburg compensators can't fix.

Then transporter technology would kill most "alive" organic life.

Originally posted by jaden101
Replicator technology doesn't use pure energy anyway. It stores mass and resequences it dependant on what is requested.

It most certainly does. Replicators are repurposed transporters. It converts the matter into energy and then makes that energy into whatever matter is requested.

Originally posted by jaden101
There's also differences between replicator and transporter technology that mean transporters can arrange an object exactly where-as a replicator can't in some instances.

Okay. I'll buy this and go with it. Replicators are like the "made in China" version of transporter technology. Cool. I can "feel" this.

Originally posted by jaden101
This is because the transporters work at the quantum level and replicators only work at the molecular level.

Okay. I'll buy this, as well. This works for me.

Originally posted by jaden101
So materials which are complex at the quantum level can't be replicated. Many real life materials exhibit strange quantum properties such as electrons which fluctuate between different shells. Radioactive substances which throw off ionizing particles etc.

Right. I'm cool with this explanation.





Now, onwards to something else.




If your idea were correct, why hasn't anyone thought of "upgrading" replicators in the almost 2 decades they have been widely used?

Here's why:

Matter to energy. There's you're energy for the system as it is the most efficient form of energy you can get. (e=mc^2)

Make an uber replicator to make perfect dilithium crystals, ship parts, etc.



There's not reason they shouldn't have replicators that can replicate entire ships.



Just convert enough mass into energy and convert that and resquence it into matter. There's more than enough matter to convert into energy for the transporter/replicator systems.


Upgrade from the molecular level to the subatomic level, and, presto, you have an nearly unlimited energy source as well as matter source. That also means that we've avoided heat death.



The fact is, they wrote a very retarded plot hole into the series by coming up with transporters and replicators.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not quite true. Your DNA is being torn apart and rebuilt all the time.

You can't make that point as if I weren't aware of it.

Hell, I am the one who mentions telomeres at any chance.


And, no, the DNA is not being torn apart, it is being replicated and the chromosomal bodies are being pulled apart into daughter cells via cytokinesis. This process is so efficient that it takes almost a life time for humans to reach the Hayflick limit.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Apparently in a way that transporters don't mess up.

My question wasn't relative to transport technology, but about actual science. I think you know why I'm asking...






Originally posted by Mindship
Let me ask this way: Are you saying replicators operate with 100% efficiency (and not just within a tolerable margin of error)? If so, then yeah, making more dilithium should be do-able. But (I would argue) Trektech is not that advanced; I don't think it can build an infallible machine (hell, even Nomad f*cked up).


Not really. But the margin of error would have to be like .0000000001% or something absurd as each transport would degrade the body's integrity past a critical point and people would start to develop cancers or, as I stated earlier, start to mutate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. But the margin of error would have to be like .0000000001% or something absurd as each transport would degrade the body's integrity past a critical point and people would start to develop cancers or, as I stated earlier, start to mutate.
So then, what if dilithium's tolerance is even harder to meet? After all, it is (and I quote), '...the only material known to Federation science to be nonreactive with antimatter when subjected to a high-frequency electromagnetic field in the megawatt range...'

Sounds like one-of-a-kind, hard-to-replicate eigenvalues to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My question wasn't relative to transport technology, but about actual science. I think you know why I'm asking...

Well to the limits of my, quite prodigious, knowledge that is still largely a mystery.

Originally posted by Mindship
So then, what if dilithium's tolerance is even harder to meet?

Could be...but unlikely as it's a crystal. Structure should be much easier to predict with math.




It is far more likely that it is a far simpler structure than, say, all of the diversity in an organic body like a human's. It's the property of the matter that gives it its effect.

Originally posted by Mindship
After all, it is (and I quote), '...the only material known to Federation science to be nonreactive with antimatter when subjected to a high-frequency electromagnetic field in the megawatt range...'

Sounds like one-of-a-kind, hard-to-replicate eigenvalues to me.

Sounds like they wrote themselves into a plot hole with replicators and transporters, to me.




Warp drive and any derivative of transportor technology are all much too far ahead for the 25th Century of Star Trek.

Phasers...meh. They could exist.


Shields. Meh, they are working on stuff similar (though ridiculously far removed)...300 years is more than enough time to advance enough to that point.


Interactive holographic doctors. Other than the doctors having the ability to physically affect things, not too far off.



Etc. etc.



Having a machine that can convert an entire human into energy, move that energy a specific distance at the speed of light, and then resequence the matter so specifically as to not disrupt the biology of that person, while keeping everything in tact about that human (mind/spirit), that's a bit far fetched...right? Maybe we can do it in the future...who knows.





More on topic, the crystals would be really easy to replicate. They just need a plot device.


In over a hundred years, no one thought to upgrade replicators to be on par with the precision of a transporter, or use the transporter technology to convert matter directly into energy...you know, what the dilithium crystal facilitates.

So wait, you buy that they have a crystal which is made of matter but doesn't explode on contact but you don't buy that it might be really hard to make?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So wait, you buy that they have a crystal which is made of matter but doesn't explode on contact but you don't buy that it might be really hard to make?

Most certainly.


We already isolate antimatter as best as we can. No reason to think that there is a pretend material out there that can suspend, stabiliy, anti-matter, in such a way that it can reacte on a very efficient level with matter and make energy.

Why would I assume any other way.


Edit - You do see that the dilithium does not react when exposed to a big electro magnetic filed.



Why not skip that entire process and convert matter into energy with the transporter?

But why do you think it would be so absurdly complex that it makes humans look like salt in comparison? It could be some sort of 4D fractal structure that produces strings of pseudomagnetic fields to channel antimatter through it to various points in a highly complex but predictable sequence.

That wouldn't even make the top fifty weirdest things they ever found.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could be...but unlikely as it's a crystal. Structure should be much easier to predict with math. One would think. But the 'fact' that dilithium can be made nonreactive to antimatter...this is an exception to a very fundamental reaction. This might suggest that, perhaps at a very fundamental level, dilithium is not like the matter making up our bodies. Yes, the human body is more complex, but that's a difference of degree, whereas dilithium may be a difference of kind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It could be some sort of 4D fractal structure that produces strings of pseudomagnetic fields to channel antimatter through it to various points in a highly complex but predictable sequence.What he said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sounds like they wrote themselves into a plot hole with replicators and transporters, to me. Open Powerset Conundrum (favorite comics version: if the Power Cosmic can do virtually anything, why does the Silver Surfer tumble like a girlie man everytime he's knocked off his blinkin' board? At least hover, dammit).

Originally posted by dadudemon
In over a hundred years, no one thought to upgrade replicators to be on par with the precision of a transporter, or use the transporter technology to convert matter directly into energy...you know, what the dilithium crystal facilitates. I used to wonder why transporters/replicators were not part of special weapons and tactics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But why do you think it would be so absurdly complex that it makes humans look like salt in comparison? It could be some sort of 4D fractal structure that produces strings of pseudomagnetic fields to channel antimatter through it to various points in a highly complex but predictable sequence.

That wouldn't even make the top fifty weirdest things they ever found.

Still, much more predictable than the super nova leftovers found in every human body.



One element versus many.


Much less math involved...espcially considering the computers are powerful enough to decontruct entire humans, move them many thousands of miles, and materialize them....in mere seconds.

Originally posted by Mindship
I used to wonder why transporters/replicators were not part of special weapons and tactics.

Then your wonder is even great than mine because I didn't start wondering that until this last Star Trek movie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then your wonder is even great than mine because I didn't start wondering that until this last Star Trek movie.

I started wondering in the episode where Picard uses the transporter code that makes the target explode. Actually the first thing I did was wonder why anyone would make it so easy for the transporter to do that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I started wondering in the episode where Picard uses the transporter code that makes the target explode. Actually the first thing I did was wonder why anyone would make it so easy for the transporter to do that.

Wow.


I don't remember that episode...and I could have sworn I had seen them all.



And, yes, that's a lot of energy...depending on how much Picard was turning into energy and exploding.

I don't remember, but i think the e=mc^2 thing is in joules, and the m is in kg.


72 kg is a rediculous amount of energy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I started wondering in the episode where Picard uses the transporter code that makes the target explode. IIRC, Nomad was just dissipated. Must've been kinder, gentler transporters in TOS.

Why? The transporter technology is the one that DOES read and rebuild at the quantum level.

If you meant replicators, Star Fleet doesn't have replicators that can make live organisms (that's why they always have real gagh for their klingon guests as replicated or dead gagh is considered an insult) Although some species do have replicators that can create life.



The reason given is that a fully quantum replicator would require stored data in memory of everything it needs to replicate as a quantum level and apparently there isn't enough memory available. Either that or they'd need to store a physical copy of everything on the ship so it could be scanned and then replicated at the quantum level.



They do have industrial sized replicators that can replicate large pieces of ships and regularly replace parts using replicator technology.




Transporters work on the quantum level to explain a real life problem in ever creating transporter technology called the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Meaning that, at the quantum level, sub-atomic structures have properties that the more you measure 1 with precision, the less you can measure the other. Position and momentum of electrons are 2 such pairs of properties...if you know the exact location of an electron in an outer shell (as if it's stopped completely) then you cannot know the momentum as it wouldn't be moving. Same with the spin of electrons. Electrons always pair up in the shells of atoms and in those pairs 1 is always spinning clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. If you were to know their exact location in the shell at any given moment then you wouldn't know their spin properties.

This means that any attempt to read exactly, all the properties of an organism is impossible although star trek gets around these problems with an unexplained technology called "heisenberg compensators"

A reason it still might not work if quantum level replicators were used are similar to those i've mentioned (movement of electrons between shells, radioactive nuclei).



Transporters were only ever used on the original series because the budget didn't allow for a the special effects team to make it look like the ship or shuttles were landing on a planet every episode.

Originally posted by jaden101
Why? The transporter technology is the one that DOES read and rebuild at the quantum level.

If there were fluctuations due to the uncertainty principle...that's why I said, "then" to start my sentence off.


Since we don't experience hardly any fluctuations in reassembly, we don't have to worry about that.

Originally posted by jaden101
If you meant replicators, Star Fleet doesn't have replicators that can make live organisms (that's why they always have real gagh for their klingon guests as replicated or dead gagh is considered an insult) Although some species do have replicators that can create life.

I didn't.

Originally posted by jaden101
The reason given is that a fully quantum replicator would require stored data in memory of everything it needs to replicate as a quantum level and apparently there isn't enough memory available. Either that or they'd need to store a physical copy of everything on the ship so it could be scanned and then replicated at the quantum level.

Nah. Tricorder's have more computing power than half of the computers on the earth, combined.

A large console in the transporter room could be all "enclosed" in the wall with a replicator...also, considering there is a central database for the replicator, not much computing power is needed, relative to the already available MASSIVE computing power of the main computer. To think that their computers have to be discrete calculating units would be ridiculous...don't you think?



Originally posted by jaden101
They do have industrial sized replicators that can replicate large pieces of ships and regularly replace parts using replicator technology.

I know this.




Originally posted by jaden101
Transporters work on the quantum level to explain a real life problem in ever creating transporter technology called the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Meaning that, at the quantum level, sub-atomic structures have properties that the more you measure 1 with precision, the less you can measure the other. Position and momentum of electrons are 2 such pairs of properties...if you know the exact location of an electron in an outer shell (as if it's stopped completely) then you cannot know the momentum as it wouldn't be moving. Same with the spin of electrons. Electrons always pair up in the shells of atoms and in those pairs 1 is always spinning clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. If you were to know their exact location in the shell at any given moment then you wouldn't know their spin properties.

I learned this at 10.

Originally posted by jaden101
This means that any attempt to read exactly, all the properties of an organism is impossible although star trek gets around these problems with an unexplained technology called "heisenberg compensators"

I know this.

Originally posted by jaden101
A reason it still might not work if quantum level replicators were used are similar to those i've mentioned (movement of electrons between shells, radioactive nuclei).

No. It's a stetch. 200 years is more than enough time to get it right. It just doesn't make the plot work right.

How many episodes would have failed if they had a "transporter-level" replicator?



Originally posted by jaden101
Transporters were only ever used on the original series because the budget didn't allow for a the special effects team to make it look like the ship or shuttles were landing on a planet every episode.

He used it. He liked it. The end. The reasons behind it are unnecessary in the face of that.

No I don't think, given that at the quantum level objects are hugely more complex than at the molecular level as you would need to know the location of every electron. It's spin and momentum and calculate this for every single atom and every single nuclei. To replicate at the molecular level, you only need to know the structure of 1 molecule and multiply it up to set shapes




Proof?



You're lying.

Originally posted by jaden101
...Proof?...

It's fiction! What do you consider to be proof?

Originally posted by jaden101
No I don't think, given that at the quantum level objects are hugely more complex than at the molecular level as you would need to know the location of every electron. It's spin and momentum and calculate this for every single atom and every single nuclei. To replicate at the molecular level, you only need to know the structure of 1 molecule and multiply it up to set shapes

There's no reason to assume that "the computing power is simply not there", because it is, in spades. They were able to do it on computers 200 years before the late 24th century, so why would you assume that the computing power wouldn't exist that far in the future?



Originally posted by jaden101
Proof?

That was a gross under-exaggeration, on my part, as it would actually be much greater than all of the Earth's computers, combined.


And, I sure hope you're joking about proof. Watch the shows. There's your proof.







A built in universal translator....holograhic displays, the ability to interface with other computers, both starfleet and non-starfleet.

Then measuring and calculation temporal distortions. That alone would be vastly superior to anything that can be done with current technologies.


Then there's the loose definition of "moore's law.

Voyager's computers were at 575000 exaflops. Scale that with hand-held devices today and see if it holds to the loose definition of moore's law.


Since Tricorders were very advanced devices...top of the line, usually, we can assume they would be similar to our "iPhones", relative to our server side systems.



If you would like to prove me wrong, you can do so with what I have provided and a little research.

Edit- How it works now, in 20 years, our handheld devices will be vastly superior to our top of the line, home PCs.

Originally posted by jaden101
You're lying.


You only wish. It was probably closer to 9 than 10, actually. I could recite Planck's constant and the first 20 digits of pi when I was a we laddy. I think you're underestimating what a true nerd is capable of. Most college graduates don't even know what Planck's constant was used for, much less what it was.


But, be real. Uncertainty principle is one of the "simpler" concepts of quantum physics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Voyager's computers were at 575000 exaflops. Scale that with hand-held devices today and see if it holds to the loose definition of moore's law.

Bah, so they can beat us at floating point calculations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You only wish. It was probably closer to 9 than 10, actually. I could recite Planck's constant and the first 20 digits of pi when I was a we laddy. I think you're underestimating what a true nerd is capable of. Most college graduates don't even know what Planck's constant was used for, much less what it was.

But, be real. Uncertainty principle is one of the "simpler" concepts of quantum physics.

There's a huge difference between knowing about something and actually understanding.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's a huge difference between knowing about something and actually understanding.

So, you're implying that I didn't understand it? If you are, then that's rather insulting of you to say. Yes. I feel insulted from someone on internet...probably because I think highly of you...you big meanie head.

KICK HIS ASS, SEABASS.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you're implying that I didn't understand it?

I'm implying that unless you managed to take several years of graduate level physics before the age of ten you wouldn't even have had access to the needed information. Perhaps you're a walking intellectual singularity, but I think it's more likely we have different scales of what it means to "really" understand something. Like could you have derived the plank equations at 10?

I was probably aware of the uncertainty principle and some of it's implications when I was ten but I wouldn't say that I understood it, I wouldn't even say that of myself today.

All this talk about who knows what about physics, and no one questions my bringing up "eigenvalues"...

dance dance

All the talk is moot since, like I said before, anything that doesn't make sense can be explained away by 'We don't have a great enough understanding about science.' Compare us to ourselves three hundred years ago, for example. The leaps are amazing and we were wrong about so many things. So why even try to analyze this? Just accept the show as is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like could you have derived the plank equations at 10?


Absolutely not. Still doesn't change the fact that I Jaden101 was explaining the uncertainty principle to a former physics major.



Let's stay on topic, though.





Voyager could have gone home using replicators, in a little more than 11 years.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Voyager could have gone home using replicators, in a little more than 11 years.

Or rather, you would've wrote it that way.

Still would've got 11 years out of it.

Personally I would've liked to have seen them fight through more familiar space...Romulan or Cardassian or something...A lot more difficult to explain your presence in the space of an enemy race than that of one you've never encountered before.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Voyager could have gone home using replicators, in a little more than 11 years.

Without them it only took five years to get home

Originally posted by jaden101
Or rather, you would've wrote it that way.

Still would've got 11 years out of it.


That's also true. I would liked to have seen more episodes out of this television series, as it was good. Not TNG good....but still excellent. Tuvoc was an excellent Vulcan...this may seem off, but I'm making a plug at Gabriel's performance in Star Trek.


I still submit that the transporter and replicator diliema is too immaturely conceived to bode well with me.



There's no reason they shouldn't replicate entire ships at the drop of a hat.




I hope so bad that I can write for a Star Trek show, one day. I'll come up with all sorts of logical things that will shut the "dadudemon" types up.



During the dominion war, why did no one draw up some schematics for a ship sized replicator with a massive computer and resources to pull on, and just replicate ship after ship, in secret? The numbers would have made things awesome.




And why, that far into the future, are ships not remotely controlled through subspace? Subspace communication works at, from what I can tell, 52941 times faster than light...as that is how long it would have taken to send a transmission back to federation space in the episode that the Enterprise D gut launched by that weird alien, out of the galaxy.


Knowing this, we can calculate the speed of a subspace transmission to be 52941.176470588235294117647058824 times faster than light.


Since Voyager was 70,000 light years away, we divide 70,000 by 52941.176470588235294117647058824 to come to the time, in years, for it to take a sub-space transmission to travel.


That is 1.32222222222222222222222222222 years...or


1 year and 117.7 days.


Also, they figured out how to send data super fast at the CRC. Primarily, it was Barclay who did so.




I guess the "soul" is still needed, though. I was thinking about making a "data transmission" of a transporter profile into a real tangible human on the other side. But I think in the Star Trek verse, people have souls. There was that one episode in TNG that had 3 souls take over Data, Troi, and some other person.

Originally posted by jaden101
Personally I would've liked to have seen them fight through more familiar space...Romulan or Cardassian or something...A lot more difficult to explain your presence in the space of an enemy race than that of one you've never encountered before.

Excellent points...but I liked that there were brand new species to explore and the Borg had a huge presence. I loved it. What you're descibing is one or two episodes long...maybe a 5-10 part saga or something, but not 7 years worth of material.




It would have been more interesting. The dominion war was a contemporary issue...etc.



hmm


I..


I've got nothing. I liked Voyager, but the replicator thing got in the way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's no reason they shouldn't replicate entire ships at the drop of a hat.

None mentioned. There was also no mentioned reason that they couldn't control reality by flexing their biceps.

Perhaps power requirements rise exponentially or the technology only works at a certain distance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope so bad that I can write for a Star Trek show, one day. I'll come up with all sorts of logical things that will shut the "dadudemon" types up.

I would advise writing Trek novels or background information. There's an old axiom that experts (or anyone who thinks everything needany explaination) make for terrible scriptwriters. Not to mention the simple realities of making movies and TV shows.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
None mentioned. There was also no mentioned reason that they couldn't control reality by flexing their biceps.

Non sequitor.


They have the technology to convert matter directly into energy, move that energy, and then rematerialize it some where else. That means they can do it so efficiently, the ridiculously vast majority of the material is not lost.




There's no reason why they couldn't use a cell of many transporters, or one massive transporter, to put together a ship from just a profile. (A huge replicator, basically.) They could use smaller replicators to power the huge one, by converting matter into energy that is then supplied to the massive replicator. There'd be some sort of energy transformer, though.




Since the entire ship obviously doesn't shut down when a transport is done, we can assume that the main computer is minimally affected by this transport. Only when energy is running scarce during battle is transporting ever a big deal. We can assume that it takes more computer attention than, say, the gravity systems, as the gravity system remains in tact, but the replicators can't be used as much, as seen by Voyager. (I am putting replicators and transporters in the same category as far as power and computing goes...)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps power requirements rise exponentially or the technology only works at a certain distance.

Okay.

I can agree with the first statement. I'll agree with the exponential part. In fact, I'll say that it is a cubic function, as the objects are 3d. Sound fair?


So, we can agree that it's a volumetric function. This is obvious, imo, because the objects being transported are 3d.


So, a cube that has a side that is 2 cm takes 16 megajoules (just for instance, 2 Megajules per cubic cm.)

So a cube that has a side that is double the original would take 128 megajoules.

Double that side again....8 cm. 1024 Megajoules.


As it's volume increases, so does the amount of power required to transport it, exponentially. Again, I feel that this should be obvious.





Now, I could be totally misinterpretting what you're saying and there is some sort of growth above and beyond the cubic function that you're referring to...


Like this.


m = mass

e = energy required to transport material.

x = is constant applied to the geometric formula..



and here's the formula:

m^(3x) = e

Is this what you're wanting?



Or is it my example of just


m^3 = e


?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would advise writing Trek novels or background information. There's an old axiom that experts (or anyone who thinks everything needany explaination) make for terrible scriptwriters. Not to mention the simple realities of making movies and TV shows.

I disagree. But, I'm a buddying script writer, so you could prove those sentiments true here when my hopes and dreams are dashed to pieces by a producer.

I think one can write intelligent plots whlie still conveying a good story.


I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be ANY plot holes in an excellent* story. Even if you're writing Sci-Fi, you should do a good job of eliminating plot holes. To not do so is to show stupidity and oversight.



With your comment, it is the script, novel, novella, etc. version of "she's beautiful on the inside," while my response is, "That's only what ugly people say."


*By excellent, I mean intelligent and entertaining.

Originally posted by dadudemon
MATH STUFF

Is this what you're wanting?

Does it make me right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. But, I'm a buddying script writer, so you could prove those sentiments true here when my hopes and dreams are dashed to pieces by a producer.

I think one can write intelligent plots whlie still conveying a good story.

I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be ANY plot holes in an excellent story. Even if you're writing Sci-Fi, you should do a good job of eliminating plot holes. To not do so is to show stupidity and oversight.

A story can certainly be made with zero plot holes. A movie or TV show cannot be made without plot holes if you include not mentioning certain things as a plot hole. It ceases to be realistic when people exposit on pieces of what are (for them) ordinary technology.

Gene Roddenberry summed it up nicely. "Cops don't talk about how a gun fires every time they use one, neither should Captain Kirk." (paraphrased)

People like Doc Smith and Tolkien make expansive, detailed, internally consistent worlds by use of narration (lots of narration), you just can't do that in a visual medium without it turning into music video for a book on tape.

Finally, the first responsibility of a story teller is to tell an interesting story. Everything else is tertiary at best.


My point, basically, is that while plot holes do hurt a story filling them can make things far worse usually by driving the viewer out of the story itself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it make me right?

The real question is...were we ever in doubt that you were wrong? naughty



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A story can certainly be made with zero plot holes. A movie or TV show cannot be made without plot holes if you include not mentioning certain things as a plot hole. It ceases to be realistic when people exposit on pieces of what are (for them) ordinary technology.

For my information system assurance class, I had to design a product, from the ground up, completely on paper.

I included exact measurements, power needs in each mode, etc. It was perfectly designed, as far as "plot holes" go. Sure, it wasn't perfectly secure, it wasn't perfect in design, but those flaws were disclosed and were not designed through, on purpose.

It was a 30+ page document with diagrams, illustrations, product specs, etc. It took me about 13 hours of actual REAL work to do the entire product. Now, 13 hours was probably the least amount of time spent on that paper of anyone in the ISA class, but my product was the best designed, by far. My professor actually said it was the most detailed product she had seen in ISA and that she never wanted to see the word "photonic" again.


The script for a television show is not that long.



A television show is written by a team, usually, with a primary writer on each ep.


They have accuracy checkers, copyright checkers, story continuity checkers, etc. Some flaws are specifically left into the story as working around them with better writing (I hate to say this) would require them to be smarter, more creative, and/or more intelligent. Sometimes, the staff simply isn't smart enough or doesn't know enough to make their deadline. Sometimes, fixing a plot hole to keep series continuity in order, would take too long to fix.

To the Star Trek verse's credit, they have done an EXCELLENT job in keeping things in continuity, across many series. There have been mistakes.

Here's why there were mistakes: They didn't hire a nerd or enough nerds, to check facts.


Now, here is how you fix continuity problems or plot holes in a T.V. series.






You write the entire thing out BEFORE you start filming.




The only problem with that: No series can be done like that, really, because there's no way to know if it would make it beyond the pilot.


However, the basic meat and potatoes could still be written out....or even the whole thing could be written out. A smart enough person could do the whole thing with minimal plot holes. Some Japanese manga is written very well, with very little plot holes, because the main author sometimes has the entire series in their head, or written out in partial form.





Bottom line, I expect more from stories and plot because I expect that same from myself. I, by no means, put my self on equal terms with those writers. Not at all. But I certainly expect out of them what I expect out of myself. Does that make sense?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gene Roddenberry summed it up nicely. "Cops don't talk about how a gun fires every time they use one, neither should Captain Kirk." (paraphrased)

Ah. Okay.

Yeah, this isn't going in the direction I was talking about.

To counter that point: They have official tech manuals and the like.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People like Doc Smith and Tolkien make expansive, detailed, internally consistent worlds by use of narration (lots of narration), you just can't do that in a visual medium without it turning into music video for a book on tape.

But there's certainly no reason to have a massive matter to energy device without using it as well as it could be.


You know, it would sit much better with me if they came up with something that explained that. Someone creative and intelligent could come up with something to explain why transporters don't make the use of a dilithium "powered" warp core, obsolete. It would sit better with me, even if I thought it was just a "plothole bandaid."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Finally, the first responsibility of a story teller is to tell an interesting story. Everything else is tertiary at best.

I was thinking more like quaternary or quinary.

And, no, I disagree, especially with Star Trek. The details are secondary and very much essential to the "fun" that is Star Trek.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point, basically, is that while plot holes do hurt a story filling them can make things far worse usually by driving the viewer out of the story itself.

Keyword is "can." An excellent story writer will not only make the details fit properly without plot holes, he or she will actually make the details work to add to the story.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bottom line, I expect more from stories and plot because I expect that same from myself.

On the other hand...when I was a kid and used to write my own space opera stories (and not Trek-based), I was very cognizant of trying to cover all the "Yeah but what about this..." loopholes (eg, instead of a matter-energy teleporter, I used "Jumpercraft": small ships which teleported via dimensional portals). I got so caught up in the details, I eventually stopped writing those stories (though it was still fun inventing future tech).

Originally posted by Mindship


On the other hand...when I was a kid and used to write my own space opera stories (and not Trek-based), I was very cognizant of trying to cover all the "Yeah but what about this..." loopholes (eg, instead of a matter-energy teleporter, I used "Jumpercraft": small ships which teleported via dimensional portals). I got so caught up in the details, I eventually stopped writing those stories (though it was still fun inventing future tech).

Because, you know, dimensional teleportation portals don't raise any questions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because, you know, dimensional teleportation portals don't raise any questions.
That, plus the portal requiring small craft...whatever made it harder to get out of a jam while still using an instant-travel effect.

Still, even if you dodge one bullet, supertech seems to inevitably cross paths with itself one way or another.

Originally posted by Mindship
That, plus the portal requiring small craft...whatever made it harder to get out of a jam while still using an instant-travel effect.

Still, even if you dodge one bullet, supertech seems to inevitably cross paths with itself one way or another.


Indeed.


One technique around it is to remain vague about it or have a character make a vague comment about it not working in other applications.




Such as...

For transporters, all it would take a short, yet interesting converstaion that has a humor twist at the end, to disband the idea of tons of energy moving about at the speed of light...but not being able to use that energy.


Wesley: Why don't we repurpose that energy as a power source and not have to use dilithium power systems again?

O'Brien: The energy is actually in a inter-dimensional flux until the transporter starts to repurpose it. The energy is unusable as a power source while in this state as the real usable energy is appearing and disappearing in the same space as our reality, while in transit to the target.

Wesley: "Oh. Well, I guess someone should work on stabilizing the energy state, or at least create an algorithm smart enough to account for every last millijoule so it can be harnessed at all times.

O'Brien: Good luck with that, Wesley. I bet you like replicator food, as well, don't you?




Here's the idea:


As the energy volume is rematerialized, the energy becomes smaller and smaller, and less excited, eventually resulting in all energy phasing into our reality and being "captured" for rematerialization purposes...and the only way to "recapture" the energy is to grab it and convert it into matter in a very quick amount of time, before that energy packet phases back out of this reality. That process is seen by the "sparkling" and lines seen on the ghost image as the person is materialized. The sparkles are actually excited energy escaping this reality, at a very rapid pace.






Now, that is an explanation of the technology that could be put into an encypclopedia.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One technique around it is to remain vague about it or have a character make a vague comment about it not working in other applications.

Such as...

For transporters, all it would take a short, yet interesting converstaion that has a humor twist at the end, to disband the idea of tons of energy moving about at the speed of light...but not being able to use that energy.

Wesley: Why don't we repurpose that energy as a power source and not have to use dilithium power systems again?

O'Brien: The energy is actually in a inter-dimensional flux until the transporter starts to repurpose it. The energy is unusable as a power source while in this state as the real usable energy is appearing and disappearing in the same space as our reality, while in transit to the target.

Wesley: "Oh. Well, I guess someone should work on stabilizing the energy state, or at least create an algorithm smart enough to account for every last millijoule so it can be harnessed at all times.

O'Brien: Good luck with that, Wesley. I bet you like replicator food, as well, don't you?

Here's the idea:

As the energy volume is rematerialized, the energy becomes smaller and smaller, and less excited, eventually resulting in all energy phasing into our reality and being "captured" for rematerialization purposes...and the only way to "recapture" the energy is to grab it and convert it into matter in a very quick amount of time, before that energy packet phases back out of this reality. That process is seen by the "sparkling" and lines seen on the ghost image as the person is materialized. The sparkles are actually excited energy escaping this reality, at a very rapid pace.
This is good. You're reading the rest of this response only because I don't have an applause smiley.







...'bet you like replicator food'.

Originally posted by Mindship
This is good. You're reading the rest of this response only because I don't have an applause smiley.







...'bet you like replicator food'.

Thank you very much, sir.



I was thinking that in the future, we won't call them mouth breathers, we will call them food replicators....meaning they are too dumb to make their own food and know what good food tastes like. AHA!





That doesn't change the fact that I would replicate food ALL the time.

Here we go. This comes from Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html)

And explains why making a movie or TV that has accurate science is impossible.


0) It's a business
This is a business venture - you put money in with the expectation that more money will come out. The general audience is historically happier watching space ships woosh by shooting glowing bolts of energy than they are watching a slowly rotating spaceship lazily drift across the screen. If you're putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go for the shooty-wooshy space ships every time, pure and simple.

1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.
If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.

2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies
Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.

3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.
A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects.

The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot.

The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production.

The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship.

The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.

(you're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time)

4) The script-reader's gauntlet
Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can.

People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.

5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.
It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.

6) The power of ego
You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment?

What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.

I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.

I'm not kidding.


So to fill all those holes in the ST movies or shows you'll have to be a skilled director, writer, physicist, market analyst and be able to oversee dozens of people writers, FX designers, actors, set designs, costume designers . . .


So when I suggest writing a book to resolve plot holes it's not a slam at your skills it's just that I think you're human.

Of course...Because everyone knows what a total flop 2001: a space odyssey and Sunshine were.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Here we go. This comes from Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html)

And explains why making a movie or TV that has accurate science is impossible.

Not impossible, just more difficult and the general laziness of Hollywood puts this out.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.
If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.

This is incorrect. Every "trekkie" that has seen the new Star Trek that I have spoken to were a little pissed about the plot holes. Had they fixed those, it would have been an even better film. This is painfully obvious. And.....the "fixing" would not occur in production or post production either. More on this later.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies
Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.

Logical fallacy. You don't fix these problems AFTER production starts. You fix them BEFORE production starts. DUH! Whoever wrote this is approaching "idiocy".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.
A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects.

The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot.

The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production.

The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship.

The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.

(you're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time)


The fault is in the pre-production. Pre-production doesn't require gobs of money. It just requires nice attention to details. Funny how some movies get it and some movies don't, right?

It's all in the intelligence and willingness to work from the "movie makers".


And excusing laziness to fact check BEFORE it goes to post production is not a good enough excuse, imo. Is it REALLY that hard to fact check before the missile gets hundreds of man hours spent on it? I mean...five minutes would have corrected that simple mistake. It is the fault of the Digital Effects superivisor, post production superivisor, and director. They should have all met together BEFORE post production and decided on keeping things factually correct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
4) The script-reader's gauntlet
Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can.

People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.

Wow. This guy is a retard. I'm fully convinced of that, now. It's called script notes: end notes, technical manuals, etc.

I am writing a horror script right now. I've been writing it off and on since 2004. It includes such details as "angles", clothing worn, colors, what characters look like, the general coloration, sound effects, etc.


Almost all of it has been planned for. The actual script will not be very long. The script notes which will be used in pre-production, will be as long or longer than the script itself. The script will not be sent to production if I included all of those notes. In fact, those notes will be heavily debated and altered during pre-production...and I plan to be, at LEAST, a junior director for the film.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.
It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.

Yup. He's definitely an idiot. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in physics to know that shooting a bullet at a car will NOT blow it up.


There's a million and one of those very same sayings that could be used to tear apart the sheer stupidity found in blockbuster films.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
6) The power of ego
You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment?

What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.

I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.

I'm not kidding.

This is true. This is all true. And this is why it ends up as tripe, from the beginning. This is also why you ensure that the production company and executive producer's have laid down some law and WILL allow some debate in pre-production. It should all be worked out in pre-production and very few things changed during production.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So to fill all those holes in the ST movies or shows you'll have to be a skilled director, writer, physicist, market analyst and be able to oversee dozens of people writers, FX designers, actors, set designs, costume designers . . .


So when I suggest writing a book to resolve plot holes it's not a slam at your skills it's just that I think you're human.


Aaaaaannnd, I thoroughly disagree.

Market analyst is not necessary. Director is not necessary. Overseeing doezens of people is not necessary. Being an FX designer is not necessary. Set designer and costume designer is not necessary. Just an intelligent script writer with a knack for ensuring that your script and notes are not altered very much.


The simple fact tht some movies get it right and some don't should tell you that almost everything above is just an excuse. Some good excuses...but excuses that can obviously be worked around.

You're assuming the script writer has a lot more power than he or she really does. The odds of the perfect storm you want are absurdly slim.

To show that a scientifically accurate sci-fi film can still be entertaining, just watch "Primer"

It's probably one of the most difficult films to follow, ever.

** dadude's workin' on a horror script;
Chaos's is working on a disaster movie...
...where the hell is my old space opera stuff...?? **


lamo

I was quoting a guy on another website.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're assuming the script writer has a lot more power than he or she really does. The odds of the perfect storm you want are absurdly slim.

Uh. No.


The script writer has LOADS of power over their own script...as long as they are not held down by a contract.


It's as simple as writing and getting an agreement written into the contract BEFORE you sign.


evillaugh


Do you think I was born yesterday and that I'd let my masterpiece be raped and destroyed? There's a reason why I think almost every last bit of horror always misses that little something and never succeeds at true horror.


The deal is...if it's good enough, it will remain mostly unscathed. I fully expect things to be changed, but I also fully expect just a small few things to change.

If they want to shoot a scene slightly differently, fine. If they want to change some of the dialogue slightly, that's fine. In fact, I hope dialogue is changed as I....very sincerely think that it could be improved, but the essence of the story would be preserved.

Originally posted by jaden101
To show that a scientifically accurate sci-fi film can still be entertaining, just watch "Primer"

It's probably one of the most difficult films to follow, ever.

I will. I've never seen that.



Originally posted by Mindship
** dadude's workin' on a horror script;
Chaos's is working on a disaster movie...
...where the hell is my old space opera stuff...?? **


lamo

You definitely should keep working on it. My personal opinion...I think the more I write, the better I get. I think that it is possible to continually improve one's writing ability.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I will. I've never seen that.



I think you'd like it...Being a physics man and all. It's basically about a bunch of guys who try to make a machine that lowers the mass of objects so they can sell it to places like shipping companies. Through sheer fluke they realise that it effectively makes a time machine which they try to exploit, initially to make money on the stock market, but one of them becomes obsessed by controlling every little aspect of his life.

Even using the diagram on the films wiki page, i still don't fully understand the process but then theoretical physics aint really my thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

Originally posted by jaden101
I think you'd like it...Being a physics man and all. It's basically about a bunch of guys who try to make a machine that lowers the mass of objects so they can sell it to places like shipping companies. Through sheer fluke they realise that it effectively makes a time machine which they try to exploit, initially to make money on the stock market, but one of them becomes obsessed by controlling every little aspect of his life.

Even using the diagram on the films wiki page, i still don't fully understand the process but then theoretical physics aint really my thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

That presumes that there is only one timeline and that something like the multiverse does not exist.

But, yes, looks cool.


Have a "linear" timeline in sci fi makes it much easier to write a story around that concept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You definitely should keep working on it. My personal opinion...I think the more I write, the better I get. I think that it is possible to continually improve one's writing ability. Agreed.

I write other things these days. Unfortunately, space opera has been done to death, IMO, otherwise I'd give it another look (if nothing else, I really enjoyed designing the ship).

Anyway, real-life factors (time, budget, ego) do sometimes make for inexcusable plot holes. A tight plot/backstory certainly isn't impossible, but in the real world, it seems like an uphill climb.

So it occurs to me, even assuming that your canonically impossible plot to replicate dilithium is possible, there's no evidence I'm aware of that ST has the technology to make matter from nothing. How would Voyager continue to produce dilithium once they ran out of material to turn into it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So it occurs to me, even assuming that your canonically impossible plot to replicate dilithium is possible, there's no evidence I'm aware of that ST has the technology to make matter from nothing. How would Voyager continue to produce dilithium once they ran out of material to turn into it?


That's a fallacy.


The dilithium wouldn't burn up fast enough to run out of things to turn into dilithium.


Also....they could stop along the way to gather matter. Just for like....2 seconds or something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a fallacy.

No, it's a reasonable question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The dilithium wouldn't burn up fast enough to run out of things to turn into dilithium.

I'll admit to not doing the math, you've suggested previously in this thread that at max warp they would be burning dilithium at fairly extreme levels.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also....they could stop along the way to gather matter. Just for like....2 seconds or something.

They have a Bussard-ramscoop onboard or something?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it's a reasonable question.



I'll admit to not doing the math, you've suggested previously in this thread that at max warp they would be burning dilithium at fairly extreme levels.


The question is, how quickly?


And, they'd have to devise a change-out system...meaning, they'd have to create a dilithium cluster. 2 would be enough.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They have a Bussard-ramscoop onboard or something?

No. A transporter. awesome

Good Lod, what a remakrable waste of time much iof this thread was.

Please do not make threads that require such an absurd song and dance. if you want to make an thread about you thinking they should be able to replicate dilithium, then do so, with an accurate name, and get straight to the point. Doing it this way is just pointless and confusing.

The answer is, in any case, no more complex than: They conceptually want the ships to need fuel, they conceptually want that fuiel to be scarce. That overrides anything else.

Closed.

I'm going to re-open this, but give it an appropriate name so as to clear up any further confusion.

I don't see a problem in discussing the finer points of science as it relates to star trek and why they should or should not be able to replicate such things as ships or deuterium.

Long as you guys keep it on topic, you'll get no problems with me.

If you want to discuss a particular topic- in this case about whether the Federation should be able to replicate dilithium- open a thread with that subject name. The first half of this thread is too confusing to be reasonable.