View Single Post
Old October 2 2011, 11:25 PM   #25
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Mass, volume, and Warpdrive question.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
So you're basically cherry picking on what supports your argument and discarding the rest on the grounds that it doesn't fit your world view of Star Trek? Okay.
No, I'm pointing out that none of the information offered in VFX shots can be taken literally. That's hardly "cherrypicking."

As I've pointed out before, in TOS, that's what we get. It's got less to do with the VFX and more to do with the time of dialogue.
I don't know what you're referring to here, but no Trek series has ever been consistent when discussing warp factor vs. travel time. It's "speed of plot," period.

"Roiling orange fireballs" might just be what a Romulan Plasma weapon looks like. Have you considered that?
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how explosions in space are always depicted as the same kind of explosions we're used to seeing in TV and movies, like the destruction of the Enterprise in ST III or of the E-D in "Cause and Effect," or for that matter the explosions of Alderaan and the Death Star -- explosions which are made by setting off a pyrotechnic charge or liquid-fuel container in a studio and filming the results. Explosions in vacuum don't look the same way. The big poofy orange fireballs that we think of as explosions are the result of the expanding gases mixing with the atmosphere they expand into, creating turbulence, which gives the fireball its roiling, cloudy appearance. Also the oxygen sustains the flame and keeps it bright. In vacuum, neither of those would be the case; you'd just get a quick flash and a spherical expanding cloud with no turbulence. So the way explosions in space are always depicted in TV/movies is imaginary.

(For that matter, even most film/TV explosions in atmosphere are unrealistic. They're generally made using low-power liquid-fuel explosives that produce a lot of flame and very little force. Whereas the high-powered explosives they're usually representing would have much smaller fireballs because they'd burn through or disperse the reactants far more quickly, and they'd produce a lot more shrapnel and smoke.)

"Lighting of ships in TOS" again, have you considered that in the Star Trek universe that's how bright it is?
You can't seriously be asking that.

If you insist that TOS warp drive works in the way you think it works, can you support your argument with the evidence in the show?
I'm not "insisting" anything. I'm merely describing what real physics says about the questions raised in the thread. Make of it what you will. (But don't take it so seriously, okay?)

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
I have my own perspective on some of this. But it'll piss off the fans of Abram's flick, who'll label me a "hater" or something for bringing it up. Ah, well, who cares?

See, the ship's main viewer is not a window. It's a computer monitor.
There's no reason why that should upset fans of the Abrams movie, because the Abrams movie is explicitly set in a parallel timeline, portraying a different incarnation of the Enterprise that is much larger and has different technology. Nobody disputes that the main viewscreen in the Prime universe's Enterprise NCC-1701 was a monitor. But the different Enterprise of the alternate reality has a different bridge design in which there is a window at the front with a heads-up display "viewscreen" projected on it. Two different ship designs, two different realities, so no reason for conflict.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote