The Genesis planet...

[CoveTom]

beamMe wrote:

---

Well, they were running from the explosion of the Omega 13... I mean Genesis.
But since the Genesis device wasn't the only thing that could explode on the Reliant, they were also running from everything else that would be ignited - mainly her anti-matter tanks.

But that's my point. Do we know what aspect they feared would lead to their destruction? We know that the Genesis torpedo is meant to be fired at a planet and detonate and do its magic on impact. How do we know how destructive its wave would be at a distance away from the original detonation? My point was perhaps that they were more concerned about the explosive force of the warp core breach than the Genesis wave.

[RyanKCR]

CoveZombie wrote:

---

But that's my point. Do we know what aspect they feared would lead to their destruction? We know that the Genesis torpedo is meant to be fired at a planet and detonate and do its magic on impact. How do we know how destructive its wave would be at a distance away from the original detonation? My point was perhaps that they were more concerned about the explosive force of the warp core breach than the Genesis wave.

Then why did Kirk look to David after the time and distance reports? And why did David shake his head in response?

[Hartzilla2007]

RyanKCR wrote:

---

Then why did Kirk look to David after the time and distance reports? And why did David shake his head in response?

And why wouldn't they have mentioned the warp core breach if that was what they were running from?

[CoveTom]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

And why wouldn't they have mentioned the warp core breach if that was what they were running from?

Well, aside from the fact that the term "warp core breach" hadn't even been invented yet, why should they mention it? They certainly didn't mention the fact that it was the Genesis wave they were running from either. I assume they didn't mention it because, in either case, everyone understood what they were running from.

[RyanKCR]

We know it was Genesis they were running from due to these two conversations:

McCoy: Dear Lord. You think we're intelligent enough to... suppose... what if this thing were used where life already exists?
Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
McCoy: Its "new matrix"? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

DAVID: It's the Genesis Wave!
KIRK: What?
DAVID: They're on a build up to detonation!
KIRK: How soon.
DAVID: We encoded four minutes.
KIRK: We'll beam aboard and stop it.
DAVID: You can't!
KIRK: Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we're all dead!

[CoveTom]

Okay, I don't want to be obstinate about this, and I'll grant that your interpretation could be correct. But I still submit that the dialogue you've provided doesn't indicate that without the possibility for another interpretation.

In the first conversation, McCoy is rightly discussing the fact that while Genesis is meant to create life, it will also destroy any existing life it encounters. But that is in relation to it being fired at a planet and detonating upon impact with the planet, which it was designed to do. Kirk and Company have no idea what the Genesis device would do if detonated in space or aboard a starship, because it wasn't designed for that purpose. Maybe it would destroy all life within thousands of kilometers. Or maybe it would just fizzle out and the wave have no effect at all if it doesn't impact with a planet.

In the second conversation, obviously, the fact that Genesis is about to detonate is a point of major concern. But it still doesn't say that it's a point of major concern because the Genesis wave will impact the ship and destroy everything. It could just be that the Genesis wave will detonate the antimatter reactor aboard the Reliant and the resultant explosion will destroy anything that's too close.

And, while we're on the subject, why does Genesis even have a "countdown" detonator anyway? We see from Carol's video presentation that it is meant to be fired at a planet and detonate on impact. There shouldn't ever be any reason to need a countdown.

[Tiberius]

CoveZombie wrote:

---

In the first conversation, McCoy is rightly discussing the fact that while Genesis is meant to create life, it will also destroy any existing life it encounters. But that is in relation to it being fired at a planet and detonating upon impact with the planet, which it was designed to do. Kirk and Company have no idea what the Genesis device would do if detonated in space or aboard a starship, because it wasn't designed for that purpose. Maybe it would destroy all life within thousands of kilometers. Or maybe it would just fizzle out and the wave have no effect at all if it doesn't impact with a planet.

However, you have two of the scientists who built it, and they act like it's going to do its job in the Nebula.

In the second conversation, obviously, the fact that Genesis is about to detonate is a point of major concern. But it still doesn't say that it's a point of major concern because the Genesis wave will impact the ship and destroy everything. It could just be that the Genesis wave will detonate the antimatter reactor aboard the Reliant and the resultant explosion will destroy anything that's too close.

Carol's video clearly defines what the genesis effect is - "Matter is reorganized at the subatomic level with life generating results." There's no evidence at all to suggest that it will not do this if the only matter available is gaseous.

And, while we're on the subject, why does Genesis even have a "countdown" detonator anyway? We see from Carol's video presentation that it is meant to be fired at a planet and detonate on impact. There shouldn't ever be any reason to need a countdown.

To avoid premature detonation?

[Therin of Andor]

I'm reminded of my post in a similar debate over in ST XI- :

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...3&postcount=66

[FKnight]

The look from Kirk to David and David's shaking of his head isn't just a throwaway part of the script, it's pretty important. And when Chekov read the distance off to Kirk and Kirk looked over to David, Kirk was not at all concerned about David's opinion over whether they were at a safe core breach distance. The only possible content of the exchange between Kirk and David was whether they were far enough away to avoid the Genesis Wave, which is where David's expertise is and the reason Kirk gave a querying look to David.

The concern of getting far enough away was exactly about the Genesis Wave itself, because there's no other logical reason for the visual exchange between Kirk and David.

Edit to add:

As to the effectiveness of the Genesis device within a nebula, this may have been mentioned already, but I think it's reasonable to note that the use of protomatter has never directly been proven to have contributed to the instability of the Genesis planet, and it's certainly possible that the resultant instability may have been precisely because it wasn't designed to be used in a nebula, nor interact with a simultaneous warp core breach caused by it's detonation*. The circumstances of the formation of the Genesis planet were nowhere near the ideal prescribed testing conditions for Phase 3 of Genesis. The planet may have formed from the Nebula and the other matter resulting from Reliant's detonation, so it formed, but really couldn't cut it in the long run because it had crap to work with.

[los2188]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

I'm reminded of my post in a similar debate over in ST XI- :

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...3&postcount=66

I read your past post and I do agree with you wholeheartedly, but to me, the debates are what makes this such a great website for me. I love reading people's points and opinions, as long as people aren't mean about it, from the colour of uniforms, to the importance of the prime directive, but I do agree with you.

I do have one other question. I keep reading about how the genesis device is supposed to be aimed at a lifeless planet and presumably fired on said lifeless planet. Was the device set up like a missile or torpedo or something? If so, wouldn't it just be destroyed and pretty much rendered non effective? My thoughts have always been that it's time coded so it could be beamed down to the planet, set to detonate, and then you have 4 minutes to get away at a safe distance which would work given transporters and warp speed. Did any of that make any sense?

[Timo]

The simulation shows the Genesis device flying into a dead moon at high speed, like a suicidal projectile. But the simulation is also... a simulation. Quite possibly it "actually" shows the device soft-landing on a preselected spot on the moon, performing a safety countdown, and then initiating the Genesis process.

Genesis is credited with the ability to turn dead things into living ones, and also with the worrisome ability to turn living things into other living things. This alone is reason enough for our heroes to fear for their lives.

But Genesis is never credited with the ability to turn nebulas into planets, or otherwise manipulate the larger physical shape of things. Mountains do not rise on the simulated moon; basins merely fill with water. The moon's diameter is not altered. As far as the movie is concerned, Genesis just redecorates your house. You need Starfleet Corps of Engineers to build the actual house.

Carol Marcus does say that the third stage experiment or the related simulation only represents a "merest fraction" of the potential of the Genesis technology, granted. But Khan only had access to the third stage hardware; there's no reason to believe this hardware lived up to the full potential. I mean, if it did, Marcus would have arranged for a more impressive and relevant demonstration. If interstellar population and food supply problems are to be solved by the tech, surely the creation of a new planet would be the proper demonstration of the full technology - mere transformation of existing bodies, at inconvenient locations, would leave major transportation problems.

Timo Saloniemi

[Therin of Andor]

los2188 wrote:

---

but to me, the debates are what makes this such a great website for me.

My point is that fans who will not permit one iota of non canonical explanation (author's intent, script, production notes, novelizations, common sense) count, every debate becomes invalidated. If the episode or movie doesn't show us, no further speculation is tolerated.

then you have 4 minutes to get away at a safe distance which would work given transporters and warp speed. Did any of that make any sense?

Well, they did use the term "torpedo". Who knows. There are four "Genesis Wave" novels by John Vornholt you might be interested in, plus the novelizations of ST II and III by Vonda McIntyre. Also the beginnings of Carol's research in the "Vanguard" series and "Faces of Fire".

[beamMe]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

My point is that fans who will not permit one iota of non canonical explanation (author's intent, script, production notes, novelizations, common sense) count, every debate becomes invalidated. If the episode or movie doesn't show us, no further speculation is tolerated.

Common sense?
Isn't it nice that those who don't agree with you (and I've noticed that you view yourself as the arbiter of all things right and true in Star Trek) are just too dumb to see the light.

This discussion is still ongoing because we all know what the intent of the filmmakers was for the final act. The problem is that nothing of that translated into the finalized movie.
The film in its incomplete and very vague form (as far as the not realized VFX-shots and dropped lines of dialogue go) leaves room enough for both views.
Hence the very lively discussion.

So don't give us this crap about common sense.

[Timo]

...This doesn't mean that some of the explanations offered in the novels wouldn't be sensible ones. Bringing them up is a good thing to do, then - they are one possible application of common sense, and a worthy competition and addition to the arguments being juggled here.

On the other hand, some are clearly less sensible than others, and some may even contradict what was seen on screen, which is a big no-no. Bringing up those should only be done to demonstrate things like "this certainly doesn't work" or "see, the book is much better drama than the movie ever was, I wish things had gone this way, but alas..." and so forth.

Neither type of referring to the noncanon works is irrelevant to the overall argument. Only if one claims that the written word should be considered over and against canon material and common sense is one getting lined up for a gang-smacking with boiled broccoli.

Timo Saloniemi

[Tiberius]

Timo wrote:

---

The simulation shows the Genesis device flying into a dead moon at high speed, like a suicidal projectile. But the simulation is also... a simulation. Quite possibly it "actually" shows the device soft-landing on a preselected spot on the moon, performing a safety countdown, and then initiating the Genesis process.

I agree, it could have been dramatised for the sake of the video proposal. No one would want to sit and watch nothing happen for four minutes while the countdown went through its thing.

But I disagree with most of the other stuff you said.

But Genesis is never credited with the ability to turn nebulas into planets, or otherwise manipulate the larger physical shape of things.

No, it is credited with being able to reorganise matter. "It is a process by which molecular matter is re-organised at the subatomic level into life-generating matter of equal mass." Does sound to me like it cares whether it's a solid, liquid or gas. Indeed, if Genesis was to work at all, it would have to deal with gasses, as most moons and planets have atmospheres. No use terraforming the surface if the atmosphere remains poison. We must assume that if it is matter, Genesis can work with it.

Mountains do not rise on the simulated moon; basins merely fill with water.

Yes they do certainly rise.

The moon's diameter is not altered. As far as the movie is concerned, Genesis just redecorates your house. You need Starfleet Corps of Engineers to build the actual house.

Carol was quite clear that the mass remains the same, but topography can change. We see it change in the proposal.

Carol Marcus does say that the third stage experiment or the related simulation only represents a "merest fraction" of the potential of the Genesis technology, granted. But Khan only had access to the third stage hardware; there's no reason to believe this hardware lived up to the full potential.

Actually, Carols says the reformed moon in the proposal represents the merest fraction of the Genesis potential.