Abrams vs Fibonacci, or "Why the 09 Enterprise looks 'off' "

I was watching a "behind the scenes" documentary about a fan-design starship and they pointed out something I didn't know/realize about the original Jeffires/Probert Connies that sheds new light I think on why the Abrams version is so unsettling to a lot of viewers, esp long-time Treknologists.

The documentarian pointed out that the Connie Jeffries designed conformed to Fibonacci proportions. Since Fibonacci proportions undergrid almost all of nature, the human eye is going to be pleased by a structure that conforms to such proportions. Put simply, it will instinctively "feel" right.

The Abrams Connie does not conform to Fibonacci. The nacelles are simply too close together, breaking the proportions.

Not something I'd ever considered before, but it would very much explain it.

An article (not the documentary I was talking about above about Phi in relation to Connie's design:

http://www.goldennumber.net/uss-enterprise-golden-ratio-design/

 

Not a real thing.

I've pointed out that I thought the ship would look better if the nacelles were further apart. But as it is, the ship still looks slick.

 

They actually DON'T, but pretending that they do has been a hobby of mathematicians for a very long time.

Also, I actually LIKE the new design of the Enterprise considerably better than the TOS version. The nacelle placement works pretty well for a ship that is deliberately built along a sleeker, faster-looking "Hot rod" frame and bringing them wider again would give it more of a "platformish" look like the Excelsior or the Ambassador. The narrower profile isn't something we see a lot of and I think it works pretty well.

 

Bill, that's simply not true. The "treknological" fandom is one of the oldest known Trek fandoms. For a long time they were the most active ones too, focusing on the ships and technology of the Trek universe, and responsible for a great deal of the early Trek fan publication market (Franz Joseph, Mastercom, Jackill's, etc).

They actually do. The ratio has been found even at the atomic level.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/haog-grd010510.php

 

Which doesn't change the fact that "treknologist" is not a real thing, seeing how "treknology" is not a real thing.

I suppose there are people in the world who perceive themselves to be exceptionally knowledgeable in the technical background information of Star Trek, much the same way there are "experts" in the fictional history of comic books. Still, that's not a real discipline with certifications or a relevant knowledge base; it's more of a hobby for people who think they're really really smart.

No, they actually don't.

I've have this exact debate with actual mathematicians something like fifty times in the past decade. It's a cute metaphysical that gets kicked around in the back rooms a lot, but doesn't actually mean anything; basically it's the "cat.gif" of academia.

 

And those people call themselves "treknologists". I never said it was a matter of having some formal university degree or other professional certification.

Fine, so the aesthetic qualities of the ratio were only described later. That doesn't mean that the ratio is not ubiquitous in the natural world, because that has been clearly documented from the macro-scale to the atomic scale (and don't think I didn't catch you deleting the link to the scientific paper about it).

Since our intellectual development has taken place in a world full of the ratio, we subconsciously expect to "see" that ratio. It looks "normal" to us.

That's basic psychology.

 

As a psychology student, I would be curious to know what the documentation is for this basic psychology. It would be the first that I have heard about it, though I acknowledge that human beings seem to prefer things that are more symmetrical.

 

Having majored in psychology for my degree, I too would like to see this documentation. I know there are some things that humans visually process better, but the Fibonnaci sequence is not one I've heard of yet.

 

Agreed. I have a couple small objections to the ship, but as far as the overall package? I think the ship still delivers. When the JJPrise first debuted, I was actually pretty pleased at how closely it was inspired by the Refit.

Also, this thread is the first time I've ever heard of the term "Treknologist." As if there weren't enough labels for Trekkies (which is yet another label) to worry about!

 

I think the 09 Enterprise looks terrific in almost all angles. The only angle that I am not fully enamoured with is the top, but that's a minor beef that I share with the Jefferies' TOS design. I just prefer the nacelles to be a bit further apart and pushed forward, as I would have liked it to be more like the Refit Constitution. However, I realised it takes after the Jefferies' design in that regard, so I'm fine with it.

From all other angles, it is simply breathtaking. My favourite view is from the front, at an angle, but it looks great from the side and the back too.

 

No it's pseduo-science bunk:

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

http://nautil.us/issue/0/the-story-of-nautilus/math-as-myth

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

http://dropbox.bachnetwork.co.uk/ub1/tatlow.pdf

 

Look at something for 50 years, and when you see a new version with different proportions it's going to look "off". I don't think there's any more to it than that.

I love the current Enterprise, inside and out, and I've been a fan of "Treknology" since I was a kid.

 

I admit that I don't know the formal psychological term for the phenomenon, but I know the basic principle, which roughly goes as follows:

When we encounter a thing, our brains store a basic description of that thing, including the observed properties of the thing. That description we subconsciously label as being the state of "normal" for that thing.

Now, if we encounter that thing again, or a similar thing, and it does not match up to that mental checklist of what is "normal", then the brain goes "WTF?" and we lock onto that difference/anomaly.

Now to understand why our brains do that so readily, we have to look back at our developmental history. Seeking out anomalous elements of our environment was essential to our survival as a species because any anomaly represented a potential danger. Conversely, lack of anomaly (ie, the "normal" state of our environment) represented safety and security. Thus we associate "normal" with "good".

Now, applying that concept to the golden ratio/Fibonacci proportions: because the ratio is a ubiquitous part of nature (found in everything from the shape of flowers to pinecones, to people). The ratio itself is part of our checklist of what constitutes "normal". It is "safe" because it conforms to the "way things are supposed to be".

Therefore when we see an object that conforms to the ratio, we like it. It is not an anomaly. In aesthetic terms we would describe it as "pleasing".

The Abrams Enterprise does not conform, so we instinctively tag it as anomalous, hence possibly dangerous, hence we don't really like it.

Now is it silly for us to react thus? Obviously the Abrams Enterprise is no real threat to us in actuality. However, it does trigger an instinct that is for all intents and purposes hard-wired into us to look askance at it.

 

Why do you think repeating the same pseudo-science bunk will change the direction of conversation - it's bunk no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Its just garbage, it's not true.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth

 

I think a more straightforward explanation, at least using that logic, is that many of us are used to a mental picture of what the Enterprise is supposed to look like, and hence this is what is normal to us. No doubt the Abrams Enterprise will take some getting used to for some of us, just as the Refit, D, C, B, E have been to different fans over different periods of time. I just don't think this is necessarily due to anything related to the Fibonacci sequence, but rather just familiarity, like King Daniel Into Darkness said above.

 

I was basically going to say that - it looks off, because it's literally not the same design.

I can remember there was a time where I hadn't seen TOS for a while, but had repeatedly watched the TOS movies. By the time I got TOS on DVD, the original design never looked 'right'. The movie design is just what my brain associates with 'this is what the Enterprise looks like'.

I was never fond of D and E either (with D the dish bugged me, and E looked like Voyager). Weirdly, NX-01, C and Abrams version didn't bother me and they're the ones 'treknologists' seem to hate. It's just artistic taste, nothing more. Might as well try and work out why I like Monet more than Picasso.

Keep in mind that 'not fond of' does not mean the same thing with me as 'I wish they had done something different.'

 

The 09 Enterprise still looks like Kirk's Enterprise to me. Just a little bit sleeker.

 

This is not a concept I have seen taught in any psychology class, so I find it difficult to believe.

The idea that our brains store details about objects and categorize them is a simple one. It's called a heuristic and is a mental shortcut for our brains to fill in gapes about an object, person, or concept.

Other than that, I'll look askance at such concept as the rest of this. I'm inclined to agree with JoeZhang that it is pseudoscience with no real psychological basis.

 

This quote from the same article says it all:

 

Picard: Report, Lieutenant.
Worf: A highly localized distortion in the space time continuum.
Data: Sir, something is emerging.

<NuEnterprise appears out of the rift>

Riker: That looks like the old Enterprise but something's a little off.
Data: Sensors indicate that the ship's Fibonacci sequence is asynchronous with normal matter. It does not conform with the Golden Ratio.
Picard: Just what ratio does it conform to?
Data: 4:3, Captain.
Riker: That explains the black bars on the viewscreen.