Black Whole Query (Time Travel)

[DangerMouse]

So I was watching Star Trek for the zillionth time and got to thinking about the fact that when Spock and Nero get pulled into the spatial anomaly - a black hole - they time travel???

Now I'm not really up on my astro physics but black holes don't bring about time line phenomenas... do they?

I thought black holes simply pulled you apart into a vortex of nothingness.

Anyone have any answers

 

[The_Baroness]

T'was a black hole that had been injected with Red Matter! So the physiscs work differently...

or something..

 

[F. King Daniel]

Sci-fi black holes work however they need to at the time

It's postulated in real life that time slows down the closer you get to the event horizon of a black hole - it was the bases of the first episode of Andromeda, and was used a couple of times in Stargate SG-1 (but, of course, their effects were probably heavily fictionalized in both cases).

As for Star Treks using black holes to time travel, I think there was a TOS episode where they went back in time after colliding with a "black star". V'Ger fell though a black hole in the 1980's and wound up on the other side of the galaxy - it may have gone though time too . There was also the vortex in "Yesterday's Enterprise" that looked very similar to the STXI black holes.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The problem is that in this movie, it was specifically called a "black hole'. It wasn't referred to as a black star, vortex, wormhole, spacetime distortion, rift, interphasic rift, or any other time travel plot device used in Trek history. It was called a "black hole", specifically. So why should it behave any differently than what we know of black holes (which, admittedly, isn't much)? Of course, the same could be said of the (*snicker*)"supernova". Either way, I can see the OP's point. Had they given it another designation that wasn't something related to real physics that we know something about, it would have made much more sense.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^You do know a real-life wormhole wouldn't match the one in DS9, right?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

One never knows. Nobody has ever actually seen or studied a wormhole. For now, they are still theoretical. They may indeed work the same way as the one on DS9. Then again, they may not. Who knows. That's the beauty of using scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood. Black holes, on the other hand, are much better understood than wormholes. We have actual evidence of their existence and thus some understanding of how they work. That's what makes the STXI black hole so unbelievable. At least for me. It wouldn't have been that difficult to label it a spacetime rift or something like that. But oh well.

 

[Dukhat]

That's what makes the STXI black hole so unbelievable. At least for me. It wouldn't have been that difficult to label it a spacetime rift or something like that. But oh well.

And yet, in the confines of this movie, it worked. It did what it was meant to do. And nobody's complaining about it. Except, of course, you.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I don't get it either. By all scientific accounts they should have wound up trapped inside of a big red robot, stranded on a mountain, surrounded by a lake of fire.

 

[Devon]

Had they given it another designation that wasn't something related to real physics that we know something about, it would have made much more sense.

You just admitted that we know very little about them. So why not entertain the idea that this is one of the many things we don't know about them?

But one big thing I think many are forgetting, it isn't a natural black hole. It's an engineered blackhole, and when talking about the black hole, Spock states "such technology could theoretically be manipulated to create a tunnel through space time."

 

[Captrek]

I don't get it either. By all scientific accounts they should have wound up trapped inside of a big red robot, stranded on a mountain, surrounded by a lake of fire.

FTW!​

Zim, you’re confusing the phenomenon that 23rd century people call “a black hole” with the phenomenon that 21st century people call “a black hole” and 23rd century people call “what they used to call a black hole.”

 

[Dukhat]

I don't get it either. By all scientific accounts they should have wound up trapped inside of a big red robot, stranded on a mountain, surrounded by a lake of fire.

FTW!​

Zim, you’re confusing the phenomenon that 23rd century people call “a black hole” with the phenomenon that 21st century people call “a black hole” and 23rd century people call “what they used to call a black hole.”

Now that's funny.

 

[EnsignRicky]

There's nothing funny about being trapped inside Maxamillian's shell.

Especially if you just so happen to be Maxamillian schell.

 

[Dukhat]

There's nothing funny about being trapped inside Maxamillian's shell.

Especially if you just so happen to be Maxamillian schell.

Now that's punny.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't get it either. By all scientific accounts they should have wound up trapped inside of a big red robot, stranded on a mountain, surrounded by a lake of fire.

FTW!​

Zim, you’re confusing the phenomenon that 23rd century people call “a black hole” with the phenomenon that 21st century people call “a black hole” and 23rd century people call “what they used to call a black hole.”

I loved that movie. I can totally see JJ Abrams trapped inside his Bad Robot.

 

[Deckerd]

One never knows. Nobody has ever actually seen or studied a wormhole. For now, they are still theoretical. They may indeed work the same way as the one on DS9. Then again, they may not. Who knows. That's the beauty of using scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood. Black holes, on the other hand, are much better understood than wormholes. We have actual evidence of their existence and thus some understanding of how they work.

Wormholes are not scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

One never knows. Nobody has ever actually seen or studied a wormhole. For now, they are still theoretical. They may indeed work the same way as the one on DS9. Then again, they may not. Who knows. That's the beauty of using scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood. Black holes, on the other hand, are much better understood than wormholes. We have actual evidence of their existence and thus some understanding of how they work.

Wormholes are not scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood.

Actually, yes. They are. Wormholes are theoretical. They are mathematically possible, but have never actually been observed. And they are far from being fully understood considering that nobody has ever actually seen one or studied one firsthand.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^However they certainly won't have non-linear aliens living inside, nor will any be created by unbalanced antimatter-powered FTL drives when engaged inside Earth's solar system. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's just Star Trek fantasy - exactly like the black holes in STXI were.

 

[UFO]

.... Nobody has ever actually seen or studied a wormhole. For now, they are still theoretical. They may indeed work the same way as the one on DS9. Then again, they may not. ... That's the beauty of using scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood. ...

Wormholes are not scientific phenomena that aren't fully understood.

Actually, yes. They are. Wormholes are theoretical. They are mathematically possible, but have never actually been observed.

Sorry to be picky, but if they have never been "observed" then they are not "phenomena" and therefore not "scientific phenomena". They are more a very unlikely mathematical conjecture, as I imagine you would agree.

This link provides some information on black holes and wormholes:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

The problem is that in this movie, it was specifically called a "black hole'. It wasn't referred to as a black star, vortex, wormhole, spacetime distortion, rift, interphasic rift, or any other time travel plot device used in Trek history. It was called a "black hole", specifically. So why should it behave any differently than what we know of black holes (which, admittedly, isn't much)? ...

I agree with you. From what we do know about them, I think it is a tough ask to expect Red Matter to change the behaviour of black holes such that they would no longer destroy "small" things that get that close them. Lets face it, STXI black holes are really wormholes. I think the problem in terminology is due to the dual, not entirely compatible, jobs that had to be performed: Destruction of stars/planets and transportation of spacecraft.

Given that, I have to conclude that Vulcan still exists. It was just "disassembled" and sent back in time! Come to think about it, same deal with the remnants of the supernova (which would still be significant!). Strange no one saw that bad boy (no, not Kirk ) coming through berfore Nero?

By the way, did anyone notice that the red matter ignited more or less within Nero's ship when the Jellyfish rammed it, but the "black hole/wormhole" formed around it? I guess red matter must take quite some time to do its job because if Nero was that near to a decent black hole, there would be no time for long good byes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero and Spock entered the black hole seconds apart, and emerged 25 years apart on the other side. The nova, having been absorbed a few minutes earlier, may have emerged at around 43 BCE.

Also, at the end the Narada was attempting to hold itself stationary in the black hole (and avoid falling though it) by holding it's tentacles open, something that it didn't do the first time. Yes, in movies black holes can be 2D and giant spaceships can hold on to the event horizon with their tentacles. Just accept it

 

[UFO]

Nero and Spock entered the black hole seconds apart, and emerged 25 years apart on the other side. The nova, having been absorbed a few minutes earlier, may have emerged at around 43 BCE.

Oh, so there is probably some logarithmic deferential involved? Wait, let me get my
calculator out ...

Also, at the end the Narada was attempting to hold itself stationary in the black hole (and avoid falling though it) by holding it's tentacles open, something that it didn't do the first time. Yes, in movies black holes can be 2D and giant spaceships can hold on to the event horizon with their tentacles. Just accept it

Say it isn't so! Well at least you found a use for the "tentacles". Well done.