The Genesis planet...

[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]

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?p=7046833&postcount=66

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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]

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

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=7046833&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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I've noticed that you view yourself as the arbiter of all things right and true in Star Trek

And you don't? Isn't this why these argument just go on and on. No one will win. Neither of us will convince the other that what they've considered to be true for several decades is not true.

When I saw ST II, I saw the Genesis Device draw material from the nebula and create a planet. Later, this interpretation was confirmed (for me) by reading the novelization, "making of..." books and magazines, and the script. I also saw comics and novels, over the years, that revisited Regula One and the Genesis Cave. Also a recent IDW adaptation in comic form.

Until a few weeks ago, I don't think I realised there were fans who thought that Regula became the Genesis Planet.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Until a few weeks ago, I don't think I realised there were fans who thought that Regula became the Genesis Planet.

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how that would even work in a way thats more plausible then the nebula becoming the Genesis Planet.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how that would even work in a way thats more plausible then the nebula becoming the Genesis Planet.

And, unless it also shifted solar systems, why would it not still be called Regula? When McCoy was attempting to get transport there, in ST III, why not ask for passage to Regula?

"Genesis? Genesis is planet forbidden!"

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how that would even work in a way thats more plausible then the nebula becoming the Genesis Planet.

And, unless it also shifted solar systems, why would it not still be called Regula? When McCoy was attempting to get transport there, in ST III, why not ask for passage to Regula?

"Genesis? Genesis is planet forbidden!"

People can't book passage to Czechoslovakia anymore. Prague hasn't moved, though.

Names can change, even when locations don't.

 

[Tiberius]

Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how that would even work in a way thats more plausible then the nebula becoming the Genesis Planet.

And, unless it also shifted solar systems, why would it not still be called Regula? When McCoy was attempting to get transport there, in ST III, why not ask for passage to Regula?

"Genesis? Genesis is planet forbidden!"

People can't book passage to Czechoslovakia anymore. Prague hasn't moved, though.

Names can change, even when locations don't.

Okay, let's assume you are right.

The Genesis planet was formed from the Regula planetoid. And afterwards, the name was changed to the Genesis Planet.

My question is this: why would this name change be common knowledge if Genesis is so top secret that it is planet forbidden?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And, unless it also shifted solar systems, why would it not still be called Regula? When McCoy was attempting to get transport there, in ST III, why not ask for passage to Regula?

"Genesis? Genesis is planet forbidden!"

People can't book passage to Czechoslovakia anymore. Prague hasn't moved, though.

Names can change, even when locations don't.

Okay, let's assume you are right.

The Genesis planet was formed from the Regula planetoid. And afterwards, the name was changed to the Genesis Planet.

My question is this: why would this name change be common knowledge if Genesis is so top secret that it is planet forbidden?

I'm sorry, but I didn't claim that Regula was Genesis. From the content of my earlier posts in this thread, about how fast the Genesis Planet evolved, it should be pretty clear that I accept that Genesis formed out of the nebula, apart from Regula.

What I said was that the argument that a name change is implausible doesn't wash. Not at all. That's especially so in the context of the political controversy.

I'll let Admiral Morrow take the rest of your question [http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie3.html]:

MORROW: Jim, the Enterprise is twenty years old. We feel her day is over.
KIRK: But we had requested... We'd hoped to take her back to Genesis.
MORROW: That is out of the question.
KIRK: May I ask why?
MORROW: In your absence, Genesis has become a galactic controversy. ...Until the Federation Council makes policy, you are all under orders not to discuss with anyone your knowledge of Genesis. Consider it a quarantined planet, and a forbidden subject.

The word was already out. They were under orders not to discuss it.

---

While I considered both possibilities on first viewing, the tipping point for me was that Regula was not inside the nebula. As sketchy as the visual effects are, they pretty clearly suggest that the Genesis planet formed at ground zero of the explosion, which was inside the nebula. Therefore, not Regula.

If anything happened to Regula, it was absorbed by the Genesis wave along with the whole nebula and reformed at the point of explosion. Although there's no direct evidence of that either, it did occur to me during STIII that that could have explained the wonkiness of everything on the planet. David never brought that up though, so that casts an enormous amount of doubt on even just that idea.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If anything happened to Regula, it was absorbed by the Genesis wave along with the whole nebula and reformed at the point of explosion. Although there's no direct evidence of that either, it did occur to me during STIII that that could have explained the wonkiness of everything on the planet. David never brought that up though, so that casts an enormous amount of doubt on even just that idea.

To clarify the point in boldface, Regula held the Genesis Cave. The Genesis Effect happening on top of something already produced from the Genesis Effect might behave strangely, especially if the design was flawed to begin with. But, as I said, if that was the reason why the Genesis Planet fell apart, David sure didn't mention it.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm sorry, but I didn't claim that Regula was Genesis. From the content of my earlier posts in this thread, about how fast the Genesis Planet evolved, it should be pretty clear that I accept that Genesis formed out of the nebula, apart from Regula.

Then I am confused about why you brought up the whole name change issue. What name was changed in Trek three if it wasn't the Regula planetoid to Genesis Planet?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm sorry, but I didn't claim that Regula was Genesis. From the content of my earlier posts in this thread, about how fast the Genesis Planet evolved, it should be pretty clear that I accept that Genesis formed out of the nebula, apart from Regula.

Then I am confused about why you brought up the whole name change issue. What name was changed in Trek three if it wasn't the Regula planetoid to Genesis Planet?

I answered why I brought it up, already.

What I said was that the argument that a name change is implausible doesn't wash. Not at all. That's especially so in the context of the political controversy.

I'm not arguing that any name change occurred, only that a name change might be completely plausible if the two planets were one and the same.

Pointing to the fact that the name Regula was never used to refer to the Genesis Planet carries no weight in the argument that the two were supposed to be different. To support my point, I've cited a real world example when the name of a place has been changed, following political events.

In other words, I agree with those who've said that a name change makes total sense. I agree, it would, if the two planets were the same.

 

[Timo]

One point relevant to the name change is that the star didn't change. That is, the action never ventured sufficiently far away from the star of Regula that the star of Genesis could be a different star.

We sometimes hear that Trek locations are known by the name of the one relevant planet, sometimes by the name of the star. If the relevant planet changes, then that name probably is the informative one, and the star system now has to go by a different name. And of course the system can go by multiple different names: Ceti Ypsilon system (say), Regula system, Genesis system. Few would have even heard the name of the star or the planetoid before Genesis made the location famous...

Timo Saloniemi