Ship in a Bottle thought

[Timo]

And they wouldn't notice the difference between standing on a solid floor, and hovering over a massless gravity field? Very thin.

To the contrary, everything we see in Star Trek already convinces us that this is an everyday feat for treknology. Without it, we couldn't have starships.

Trying to argue that there would be shortcomings where our heroes see none is like trying to say that television entertainment cannot exist because the image will be distorted unless you watch from dead ahead. Yeah, that's true - but it's also irrelevant.

Meaningless details there, and an incredible amount of effort dedicated to finding reasons why something couldn't possibly work - when the starting fact is that it does!

Is it a case of perverse pride? "I for sure wouldn't be fooled by a holodeck!"?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[William Wallace]

Why would the show take the time to do an exposition dump about the holodeck? Most viewers wouldn't care, and it would take away from whatever the actual plot of the episode was.

They don't need to do an exposition. It would probably take less than a minute to explain them. The more implausible a plot device is, the more explanation it needs to be believable.

And they wouldn't notice the difference between standing on a solid floor, and hovering over a massless gravity field? Very thin.

To the contrary, everything we see in Star Trek already convinces us that this is an everyday feat for treknology. Without it, we couldn't have starships.

Trying to argue that there would be shortcomings where our heroes see none is like trying to say that television entertainment cannot exist because the image will be distorted unless you watch from dead ahead. Yeah, that's true - but it's also irrelevant.

Meaningless details there, and an incredible amount of effort dedicated to finding reasons why something couldn't possibly work - when the starting fact is that it does!

Is it a case of perverse pride? "I for sure wouldn't be fooled by a holodeck!"?

So let me get this straight: The fact that it happens, is in and of itself, evidence of its believability? That makes no sense. You could use that logic to explain away any plot hole, no matter how ridiculous. Surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator? Obviously realistic, because it happened! Reversing time just by reversing the spin of the earth? That happened too!

For something to be believable, it can't contradict itself or the laws of physics, otherwise believability goes out the window. If we just accept things that we see as real without explanation, then there's no limit to how stupid and ridiculous plots can be.

 

[DonIago]

So you have a problem with holodecks, but FTL drive, replicators, transporters, et al. are okay?

Honestly, with this level of scrutiny I'm not sure how you could enjoy the show...

And it's not like any of the Trek series are without their share of at best plausibility-stretching and at worst "stupid and ridiculous" plots.

I'd also be curious to hear how the holodeck could be explained in less than a minute and -not- still sound to the average viewer like "tech tech zzzz tech boring tech".

 

[Timo]

Moreover, the only "physical objections" brought up have already been preemptively covered by other aspects of Star Trek. Inertia negation and control is a necessary prerequisite for starship operations. The ability to create convincing visual simulations is established early on, and transporters precede the holodeck in airdate order as well. Replicators appear alongside holodecks, logically expanding on known treknology. So basically nothing about holodecks really is new - nothing is introduced in the "here, believe this" fashion of warp drives, phasers and Vulcans.

The arguments on must-be holodeck weaknesses appear tedious at best. Their basic fault is being pennywise: if Kirk can stand up straight when his ship is turning circles at warp ten, there's no point in arguing that Picard would notice if being subjected to a bit of well-intentioned inertia manipulation aimed to convince him he's riding a horse.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[William Wallace]

So you have a problem with holodecks, but FTL drive, replicators, transporters, et al. are okay?

Honestly, with this level of scrutiny I'm not sure how you could enjoy the show...

And it's not like any of the Trek series are without their share of at best plausibility-stretching and at worst "stupid and ridiculous" plots.

I'd also be curious to hear how the holodeck could be explained in less than a minute and -not- still sound to the average viewer like "tech tech zzzz tech boring tech".

The things you mentioned can be explained by 300+ years of technological advancement, seeing as how there's lots of stuff we still don't know about science. But you still have to be consistent with things the show has already established, as well as basic principles of physics. You don't have to explain the holodeck in minute detail, only the things that contradict what you would normally assume.

Moreover, the only "physical objections" brought up have already been preemptively covered by other aspects of Star Trek. Inertia negation and control is a necessary prerequisite for starship operations. The ability to create convincing visual simulations is established early on, and transporters precede the holodeck in airdate order as well. Replicators appear alongside holodecks, logically expanding on known treknology. So basically nothing about holodecks really is new - nothing is introduced in the "here, believe this" fashion of warp drives, phasers and Vulcans.

The arguments on must-be holodeck weaknesses appear tedious at best. Their basic fault is being pennywise: if Kirk can stand up straight when his ship is turning circles at warp ten, there's no point in arguing that Picard would notice if being subjected to a bit of well-intentioned inertia manipulation aimed to convince him he's riding a horse.

And treadmills are centuries-old technology in the Star Trek universe, so why does the TNG manual have to spell out the treadmill effect to explain how one can traverse long distances in the holodeck? Why would they explain the treadmill effect, but not the inertial dampers? I'll tell you why, because the writers just overlooked all the logistical problems with the plot, and hoped no one would pay enough attention to notice.