RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,250
Posts: 5,438,974
Members: 24,958
Currently online: 437
Newest member: greatmovies

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 28 2013, 05:40 AM   #1111
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Since their position with respect to the moon doesn't really change during the entire encounter
You don't know that. Even a relatively slow (by Trek standards) orbital velocity of 10 to 15km/s wouldn't be noticeable in the short timeframe we're seeing; at that velocity alone you wouldn't start to notice a change in the moon's position for at least an hour, and you would approach the Earth in about six hours.
Well, that depends strongly on your assumed initial conditions, but be that as it may, 6 hours is still much greater than 5 minutes. So no matter how you slice it: they aren't falling to earth in the time shown. I had to edit my initial post for you to understand that, but apparently that was pointless.

On the other hand, Enterprise would have been heading for Earth under impulse power at this point,...

...Vengence blows up, Enterprise heads for Earth at one quarter impulse power. ...

etc...
It was not. The warp and impulse engines were disabled, and the power fails pretty much immediately after the torpedoes disable the Vengeance. The Enterprise was dead in the water. Spock even says so earlier.

Using Newtonian mechanics is bad science, huh.
Only when you use it incorrectly.
There is nothing wrong with my analysis, nor my assumptions about what will or will not affect the calculation (your own numbers show that). Your use of faulty initial data, however, skews your numbers.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:07 AM   #1112
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Impulse deck was powered up through the fight, and when the fall first started, then exploded after they were already being dragged down. So she was moving, maybe not full speed, but she was under some sort of power.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |

Last edited by SeerSGB; August 28 2013 at 06:27 AM.
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:34 AM   #1113
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Impulse deck was powered up through the fight, and when the fall first started, then exploded after they were already being dragged down. So she was moving, maybe not full speed, but she was under some sort of power.
If you watch the scene, the Enterprise is always pointed toward the Moon while the imuplse engines are "on." That wouldn't push them toward the Earth (and moreover doesn't really push them at all).
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:36 AM   #1114
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It was not. The warp and impulse engines were disabled
Warp drive, yes. Impulse, clearly NOT since it was exactly that which arrested the fall in the first place. The misalignment of the warp core was apparently a consequence of the ship being tossed around after the initial power loss and was just a "finishing touches" move for the repairs that brought the engines back online.

and the power fails pretty much immediately after the torpedoes disable the Vengeance.
Actually, it's closer to two to three minutes; time enough for Kirk to carry a hobbled Carol Marcus to sickbay and talk to bones about the torpedoes and the sleeping pods. We don't know EXACTLY how much times elapses because of the condensed pace of the Abrams movies; real world time, that's anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

The Enterprise was dead in the water. Spock even says so earlier.
Spock says they "cannot flee." He doesn't say WHY, though the reason for this is pretty obvious.

Using Newtonian mechanics is bad science, huh.
Only when you use it incorrectly.
There is nothing wrong with my analysis
Really? You started by asserting that Earth's gravity is non-existent at 300,000km, which is DEAD wrong. You implied that Enterprise would have "fallen" from a stationary position at that altitude, which is impossible. You implied that their position relative to the moon was unchanged, which is ALSO impossible. And then with the simple fact that their actual motion throughout the encounter is unknown, you wave your hands and change the subject.

Bad science remains bad science even if you're using it to criticize other bad science.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:37 AM   #1115
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
Impulse deck was powered up through the fight, and when the fall first started, then exploded after they were already being dragged down. So she was moving, maybe not full speed, but she was under some sort of power.
If you watch the scene, the Enterprise is always pointed toward the Moon while the imuplse engines are "on." That wouldn't push them toward the Earth (and moreover doesn't really push them at all).
Gee she's more parallel to the moon and banks into the turn that puts her on the course for Earth. And describe it however you want, the impulse engines were firing.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:39 AM   #1116
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
If you watch the scene, the Enterprise is always pointed toward the Moon while the imuplse engines are "on."
Incorrect. The moon remains close to the Enterprise's starboard side. Never close to the bow.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:52 AM   #1117
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
If you watch the scene, the Enterprise is always pointed toward the Moon while the imuplse engines are "on."
Incorrect. The moon remains close to the Enterprise's starboard side. Never close to the bow.
Bingo, when Khan starts shooting (the last one in this series of caps) she's running along side the moon, impulse engines full burn.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |

Last edited by SeerSGB; August 28 2013 at 07:07 AM.
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 07:01 AM   #1118
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Really? You started by asserting that Earth's gravity is non-existent at 300,000km, which is DEAD wrong.
I said *effectively 0*, not *absolutely 0*, and for the purposes of this argument it's correct. When things are CLOSE to 0, you can TREAT them as 0 without any significant impact on your calculation (especially in this case, considering the bulk of the acceleration doesn't happen until the ship is very close to Earth). That being said, the figure of 40 hours I gave you assumes it starts to fall (from rest) at a distance r away from the Earth in a field GM_e/r^2 (non- zero). Giving the ship an initial velocity of 15, 20, even 100m/s won't bring that figure down to 5 minutes.

You need to understand how assumptions can or cannot affect calculations. Based on your language and the level of your discussion, I'm going to guess you're either an undergraduate or beginning graduate student (probably the former). Take my advice: solid assumptions that don't necessitate explicit calculations are far from bad science. They're the way things are really done.

You implied that Enterprise would have "fallen" from a stationary position at that altitude, which is impossible. You implied that their position relative to the moon was unchanged, which is ALSO impossible. And then with the simple fact that their actual motion throughout the encounter is unknown, you wave your hands and change the subject.
I never changed the subject. I stated earlier (which you continue to ignore) that they would certainly fall toward Earth, but, without significant (read: very fast) initial velocity in the radial direction, they wouldn't in the time shown in the movie. And that is all correct, your order-epsilon blatherings not withstanding.

You need to hit the books a bit more. In fact, scratch that. You need to get away from the books and really *understand* what it is you're talking about. A solid understanding of physics is knowing when you do and when you *don't* have to do the calculation.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; August 28 2013 at 07:40 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 12:15 PM   #1119
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Star Trek has never put physics above the story. So why are some people busting Into Darkness balls over it?

It's fucking silly.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 04:29 PM   #1120
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Really? You started by asserting that Earth's gravity is non-existent at 300,000km, which is DEAD wrong.
I said *effectively 0*, not *absolutely 0*, and for the purposes of this argument it's correct. When things are CLOSE to 0...
55mm/s is not close to zero in gravitational terms. A spacecraft at that orbit orbit still requires several dozen to several hundred m/s delta-v to reach escape velocity.

But that still assumes their starting altitude was 237,000km. This, too, is not known.

You need to understand how assumptions can or cannot affect calculations. Based on your language and the level of your discussion, I'm going to guess you're either an undergraduate or beginning graduate student
Actually I used to be a guidance systems technician in the USN before I got a teaching certificate. So no, unlike you I am NOT an undergraduate from the University of the Internet.

More importantly, I never really expect Star Trek to give rigidly explicable depictions of the known laws of physics, because it rarely (almost never) does. There are times, however, when its depictions can be reconciled with the known laws of physics, and this is one of them.

I never changed the subject. I stated earlier (which you continue to ignore) that they would certainly fall toward Earth, but, without significant (read: very fast) initial velocity in the radial direction
Since you don't know their radial velocity -- either before or after the ship dropped out of warp -- this is a bad assumption on your part. Nor do you know the performance envelope of their impulse engines, the ship's maximum acceleration or its behavior immediately after the explosion of the Vengeance.

Really, this is just a repeat from 2009. "Earth to Vulcan in three minutes? Impossible!" Chalk it up to much editing and too little exposition.

You need to hit the books a bit more.
Says the guy who still insists the Enterprise is only 300 meters long.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 05:25 PM   #1121
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

And has issues with perspective.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 07:08 PM   #1122
I Am Groot
I Am Groot
 
I Am Groot's Avatar
 
Location: I Am Groot
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
You need to hit the books a bit more. In fact, scratch that. You need to get away from the books and really *understand* what it is you're talking about.
A work of fiction dealing with fanciful far-future technology that's always been inconsistently and often incorrectly depicted? A bit of minutiae that should be a fun tangent to discuss at most but shouldn't stand in the way of one's enjoyment or lack thereof of more important things like the story and characterization?

I didn't think this argument could get any more tedious, but you proved me wrong. So it's not fair to say you haven't proven anything in this thread, because you'll always have that.
__________________
We are Groot and Locutus of Bored.
I Am Groot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 07:30 PM   #1123
YellowSubmarine
Rear Admiral
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Says the guy who still insists the Enterprise is only 300 meters long.
The bureau of weights and measures was broken into last month. The metre was found to be stolen and replaced with a fathom. Adrian Lester and Jaime Murray were earlier spotted near the facility. The bureau officials said they could not metre how anyone could have gone in, given the tight security measurements, but the Enterprise was now officially 300 nuMetres.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 08:32 PM   #1124
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So, back to size, if they said the official size was 1 cm, we'd have to find a way to make that work. As it is, it's 700+ meters. Which, works.

I don't get the need to prove the official numbers wrong. Isn't more about taking what's official and asking "how do these pieces fit together?"; over, "fuck what the people that made it say, my opinion is more valid than the people that worked on the movie cause I'm a fan!"
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 10:51 PM   #1125
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Spock said that the gravity systems were failing, that could mean they were going haywire, it didn't help that the Enterprise was caught in the gravity field of Earth.
At 300,000km from Earth, the gravitation field from the Earth is effectively 0.
Incorrect. It's actually about 55mm/s.
What exactly is 55 millimeters per second? That's a speed. What does it indicate?

I've never heard of measuring a gravitational field by speed. I've heard of measuring it by acceleration, though.

At an altitude of 300,000 km above the Earth, I get an acceleration, due to the Earth's gravitation, of about 4.2 millimeters per second per second, or 4.2mm/s^2 using abbreviations.

How does that relate to 55mm/s?.

__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.