When Treknology makes absolutely no sense

[CorporalCaptain]

Direct effects yes. Indirect effects were felt globally though. There was rationing in the states. A whole generation was sent off to war. That last part is what affected the baby boomers. Their parents were affected by the war which caused the boomers to go off their rockers.

This makes no sense to me. Sorry.

I'll try again. I'm not the best writer so here goes.

I was agreeing that the west did not have any major direct involvement like say, England, for example. However there were effects that shaped the culture for decades. For some reason the baby boomers which were the generation after the war went nuts when they hit college. When that generation came to power it set up the events that caused the current problems. My generation is getting screwed because of the selfishness of that generation. They had to have it all and I get to pay the bill.

I understood what your premise is, but not why it works. In fact I don't see that it works at all. There is a big gap in the part that I've highlighted.

Before, it seemed like you were blaming boomers going nuts on the war. I'm sure that counts for something, but without a more detailed description of how they went nuts and what the reasons for going nuts were, it just doesn't yet make sense. I'm not necessarily willing to concede that they even did go nuts, per se.

 

[Maverisms]

I'll try again. I'm not the best writer so here goes.

I was agreeing that the west did not have any major direct involvement like say, England, for example. However there were effects that shaped the culture for decades. For some reason the baby boomers which were the generation after the war went nuts when they hit college. When that generation came to power it set up the events that caused the current problems. My generation is getting screwed because of the selfishness of that generation. They had to have it all and I get to pay the bill.

Gotta disagree, slightly. The Boomers didn't really screw your generation, or mine. Not directly. The current issues we have are a reflection of a specific set of policies crafted in 1980 and first employed by the Reagan Administration. I don't mean to knock old Ronnie Raygun here. He did try it and results were not good. He pretty much gave it up and generally followed sane economic policies.

Our current problems stem form the fact that the Bush Administration tried it again, and this time it worked as planned. The general idea is to create a fiscal crisis in the government, while stimulating an unsustainable economic expansion. Then, when the bubble bursts, let the Democrat clean it up. If all goes well, the Democrat will get things turned around, but bear the brunt of the voters' anger over the economy. This should get the Dem out of office in one term, and the Republican can take credit for the turn around.

One of Ronnie's advisers has publicly stated this was the strategy. There's an article in Rollingstone that references it. "How the GOP became the party of the 1%" or some such. IIRC, he implied the current Repubs have gone too far. The idea was to trigger a recession not something bordering on the Great Depression. I guess one could blame THAT on the Boomers, but I'm pretty sure most of the generation totally didn't see this coming and would be hacked off if they knew about the manipulation. I also can't see how their choices, as a whole, could have lead to this.

 

[tighr]

The general idea is to create a fiscal crisis in the government, while stimulating an unsustainable economic expansion. Then, when the bubble bursts, let the Democrat clean it up. If all goes well, the Democrat will get things turned around, but bear the brunt of the voters' anger over the economy. This should get the Dem out of office in one term, and the Republican can take credit for the turn around.

NO ONE in politics has that kind of patience. If you truly think that anyone in politics does anything "long term" that they don't think will immediately benefit them right now, then you are deluding yourself.

Republican A does not care if Republican B gets in office 8 years from now.

 

[Maverisms]

NO ONE in politics has that kind of patience. If you truly think that anyone in politics does anything "long term" that they don't think will immediately benefit them right now, then you are deluding yourself.

Republican A does not care if Republican B gets in office 8 years from now.

There's no delusion here. Reagan openly advocated "Starve the Beast" in public statements, and he implemented the plan in 1981. By 1982 it was clear the damage would hit during his term in office (it did in 1983) and he pulled back. By 1985 he was pushing to tax the rich to stabilize the economy.

Bush II also openly stated that the reason behind his tax cuts was to starve the beast. Republican A may not give a crap about Republican B as a matter of personal advancement, but as a matter of political advancement, he has to. With out the support of B, he might not manage to get 2 terms himself. Horse trading policy is a part of politics.

If politicians really only acted in self interest, Dan Quayle would never have been VP. Palin wouldn't have held the lower part of the ticket and Hillary Clinton would be the VP, not Biden. In all cases the VP choices were compromise choices (unless you buy the argument that McCain tapped Palin in order to throw the contest).

You make the mistake of assuming that a politician will commit to a long term policy that isn't working. Reagan started, and stopped when the plan was about to bite him in the butt. Bush II started and the plan held until late '07 when it no longer mattered for him. Had it come apart before '04, he'd have backed off just like Reagan did. Look up Grover Norquist, David Stockman, Irving Kristol.

This runs rather far afield of the topic though, so I'll stop. I'm gonna leave on the note that, however you slice it, the Baby Boomers aren't directly responsible for the state of the economy. Look at the income data, they've been getting the shaft for something near 15 years.

 

[Tiberius]

I thought I'd start this topic after thinking about some things in Trek that make absolutely no sense. Now fair enough, it's a fictional show with many things that are impossible with current real world physics, etc. The point of this topic is to discuss the things that make absolutely no sense within the fictional world of Star Trek. So I'll start off with the most annoying one for me...

"Quantum Dating"

A concept which was first introduced in ENT (IIRC). It allows them to accurately calculate where a particular item has come from. The thing is, it will tell them if its from the future too! This doesn't make any sense because surely it would only read how old the actual item is and not what time period in the future it is from? I mean seriously?! Technology that doesn't obey the laws of temporal physics in the 22nd century?

Furthermore, when Archer suggest that the Xindi use quantum dating to prove where the emblem came from, I was thinking that there was no way anyone with any sense would believe such a story. Sure, they have the technology that predicts where items come from in the future (which is extremely far fetched) but what is to stop Archer from faking the age of the emblem? Starfleet had access to that technology too, they could have faked the quantum signature.

It also creates a massive plot hole. In the 22nd century, the Vulcans believe that time travel is "impossible". Yet they are obviously aware that quantum dating can identify items as being from future time periods.

There is no real way to explain this without clutching at straws. Sure, the quantum dating could be based on a computer program that factors in predictions and variables along with possible changes that could occur in a future timeframe. But how is it supposed to determine which timeframe in the future an item is actually from? For a series that tried to be more realistic and limiting (It's the 22nd century) with it's technology, they sure screwed up with this one.

Anyone got anymore?

Quantum dating could work by measuring something like the way the strings vibrate (assuming string theory is correct). The vibrations of every string in the universe could be changing constantly in a predictable manner. Measure the vibration of the strings in something and you can compare it to the way the strings vibrate presently, and that allows you to say, "Strings aren't meant to vibrate like this for two hundred years."

 

[SoM]

Why? We have technology today that could get that sort of results. Carbon dating doesn't tell how old an object is - it merely tells when the organic matter used in making that object died. The death stops the matter from ingesting radioactive isotopes from the air, fixing an isotope ratio, and the decay changes in that then tell the age of the object. It's quite possible, in the theory of that dating, that an "unnatural" ratio would turn up, indicating the piece of wood died yesterday even though the object was discovered ages ago. This retroactively establishes that time travel happened...

No, it establishes that the root conditions were different. As they have already become, in fact - archaelogists consider radiocarbon dating to be unusable on anything originating from later than 1950 due to the post-nuclear amount of man-made radioactive crap in the atmosphere, which throws off the consistant base that made C14 dating possible.

Trying to radiocarbondate something when you don't know the root conditions = ultimately impossible. And there are far more plausible reasons for differing root conditions than "time travel"...

 

[Timo]

Not by any sort of a universal or a priori justification. There's nothing to stop us from postulating a system analogous to radiodating but free from any sort of plausible interference from natural "root conditions". That is, when unnatural interference clearly is at play, and time travel is the obvious implication, it should be seriously considered as a leading explanation. (Perhaps not in our universe, but certainly in Trek's.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Elder Knight]

I was always bothered by that scene in Star Trek IV wherein Uhura and Chekov sneak onto the atomic submarine and collect "high energy photons" off the nuclear generator in some gimcrack device. Then Uhura nonchalantly beams back to the ship with the supercharged collecting device in hand.

It seems like such a cheat to grab enough energy to power a starship and to wirelessly transport it. If it were that easy, then energy would be sent that way all the time. 23rd century laborers would always be loading boxes of energy onto transporter platforms.

Furthermore, if the transporter really turns matter to energy and back again after transport, I'd be very worried about the energy equivalent of my own humble living molecules getting overwhelmed by about a billion to one by the massive energy content in that handy photon vacuum cleaner.

The plot really should have required them to get the energy-laden dustbuster out of there without the convenient beam.

 

[blssdwlf]

^ They grabbed the photons to rehabilitate the failing dilithium crystals - not to directly power the ship. It's the crystals that are providing power to the BOP.

 

[sojourner]

^Either way transporting them is a bit of a flaw in the writing.

Oh, and it was CVN-65 - The Enterprise, not a nuclear sub.

 

[Tiberius]

Since when is it unrealistic to have something that can absorb energy and then release it later? That's what solar panels do. It's what that glow-in-the-dark paint does...

 

[Timo]

Also, wireless energy transfer seems to be more or less the norm in Star Trek. I mean, you don't plug your phaser, PADD or android into a socket to recharge it, so apparently your starship, starbase or home comes equipped with a wireless power network that takes care of that.

Moreover, Star Trek energy is compatible - we have seen hand phaser batteries power up a transporter and a shuttlecraft. A handheld power transfer pack that can kick-start a starship doesn't sound all that unusual, then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sojourner]

It's the beaming of said energy pack in TVH that stretches logic.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I didn't think the "high-energy photons" babble in TVH made any sense. I just overlooked that along with all its other infractions [e.g. "how do we know he didn't invent the thing"]. I personally enjoyed the film anyway, as a lighthearted and fun entry into the series.

 

[Elder Knight]

I didn't think the "high-energy photons" babble in TVH made any sense. I just overlooked that along with all its other infractions [e.g. "how do we know he didn't invent the thing"]. I personally enjoyed the film anyway, as a lighthearted and fun entry into the series.

No argument there. I just think that drawing the line at beaming a vast store of energy around is reasonable.

 

[blssdwlf]

I would've figured it was okay since they routinely beam around with fully charged phaser packs, occasionally an antimatter bomb on antigrav units, once the ultra-powerful Nomad, etc. A bunch of high energy photons doesn't seem unusual, IMHO.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I would've figured it was okay since they routinely beam around with fully charged phaser packs, occasionally an antimatter bomb on antigrav units, once the ultra-powerful Nomad, etc. A bunch of high energy photons doesn't seem unusual, IMHO.

Actually, I agree with this statement. I just meant that the part about needing to go to a nuclear reactor for high-energy photons wasn't really convincing.

 

[Lt. Beatings]

I don't get the phaser rifles. They're bigger than phasers, but they don't really do anything that phasers don't do. . . Unless maybe they fire for longer?

The tech doesn't get explained properly . . .
If they make a new Trek I would like all the tech to be quantified in some way so that the writers don't just use it as a plot device or deus ex machina. In fact less tech would be good for this reason, less episodes where failing tech changes things, because it's just lazy writing.

 

[tighr]

I don't get the phaser rifles. They're bigger than phasers, but they don't really do anything that phasers don't do. . . Unless maybe they fire for longer?

They confused me at first too, until I compared them to real-life handguns and assault rifles. I don't own guns, but a few friends do. There are clear differences between firing a handgun and firing a rifle, most notably aiming. Plus, the rifle is a hell of a lot of fun to shoot.

I would imagine that the rifles are able to work over longer distances, with more sustained blasts, possibly at higher energy levels, and more accurately.

You wouldn't mount a handheld phaser to the saucer section, I'd imagine!

 

[Timo]

It's the beaming of said energy pack in TVH that stretches logic.

I don't get this one. Why would beaming an energy pack be any different from beaming a person or a turnip? We have been given no indication that the energy state of the beamee would matter one way or the other: an energetic transportable doesn't "yank the beam" any worse than a cold and dead one. And why should it?

We are given many examples of the beaming of high energy sources. Our heroes beam around with their phasers on their belts - and these devices can power a shuttlecraft enough to make it reach space! Wesley even once beamed with enough oomph to get an entire starship going (if only for a couple of seconds). Not to mention that our heroes have beamed, or ordered to be beamed even though plot complications then thwarted the attempt, entire warp-capable shuttlecraft.

For all we know, phasers are based on the premise of beaming lots of energy at the enemy, using the very same "phased stream" concept as the transporters.

There are clear differences between firing a handgun and firing a rifle, most notably aiming.

The problem with that is that Trek guns seem to do their own aiming... It's not necessary to point and shoot - shooting will suffice!

Timo Saloniemi