That supposed "more careful look" is the assumption I'm talking about.
You're assuming I was talking about this particular issue rather than the movie as a whole. That example was intended solely to demonstrate why the two sentences of mine you quoted are not the same thing. Can I ask if you now understand why they aren't the same?
You're assuming that you know more about how red matter black holes work than the writers who created red matter black holes in the first place, an obvious mistake.
If, as I have twice pointed out, I believe the capabilities of RMBHs is not the issue, then whether I think I know how they work is a red herring. But for the record, I don't believe I know how they work. I doubt anyone does!
In this context the assumed distinction between fantasy and science fiction is illusory. Previously unknown phenomena and technology in science fiction will be functionally indistinguishable from magic.
I would have preferred you address the comment I wrote below (Do you think it is reasonable or not and why?) rather than doing an Arthur C Clarke impersonation, impressive though it was!
UFO said:
There could still be a logical flaw in the way it interacts with other aspects of the story which might prevent it from achieving what it is supposed to. Which is all I am saying.
UFO said:
No offence, but I think we are both wasting our time if your position boils down to: "That’s just what the writers wanted". Because I will never go along with that.
I agree that it's a waste of time, if you're merely promoting the contrarian viewpoint which summarily rejects authorial intent regardless of the admitted fact that you can never prove the film to be inconsistent with the writers' position.
I have given good
reasons to at least doubt that what the writers intended is possible (even in the confines of the ST universe). There is a whole other thread which started off asking for other people's opinions. So to imply I am
summarily rejecting authorial intent is, shall we say, "mischievous"?
My apologies, in any event, for going a bit over the top in my "assumption" example from my last post. It is not my intention to belittle the opinions of people who enjoyed STXI.
To get back a little closer to the topic of the thread:
M'Sharak's "long event" solution seems predicated on the "wormhole" being stable at both ends. I am not sure we can decided if that is the cased based on what we saw, but it would seem likely that a new wormhole opening would attract a considerable amount of attention. Obviously Starfleet would be back at the scene of the Kelvin disaster sniffing around for a while. Do we have to assume the wormhole is effectively undetectable when not actually in use? That's not the case at the other end. There might be a science station, perhaps an attempt to send a probe through (if it is bi-directional). Or at least a monitoring station, making regular reports on its behaviour, would seem prudent.
Certainly I would expect Star Fleet to know a little more about it, than they appear to in the film, if the "wormhole" was persistent. At least that Nero was back and has destroyed whatever was stationed there. I think someone else asked if the "wormhole" actually appeared in the same place?
If it was a "proper" persistant wormhole it might offer a way for Spock Prime to go home!
Revisting
captrek's point:
UFO, are you saying that, logically, the Jellyfish should arrive in a reality in which it has not been preceded by the Narada?
Should the stern of the Narada arrive in a reality in which it has not been preceded by the bow?
My guess about how branching works is that it is based on the principle that it should still obey the "laws" of nature, at least on the macro level. By that I mean, if it didn't, our cars might only start every other day and things could just blow up all the time for no good reason etc. So there might be a lot of different universes created at different points as the Narada emerges but initially at least the "wormhole" and what ever comes out for as long as it is stable, will emerge in the Abramsverse.
I don't think the stern of the Narada should arrive in a reality in which it has not been preceded by the bow. The reason the Jellyfish is not preceded by the Narada is because I viewed it's arrival as a descrete wormhole event aimed at the past of the prime universe.
If this seems difficult to work out or imagine (and I may not have it right), it is probably because we are dealing with two things (wormholes and branching universes) that are competing to see which is the least likely!
That's
before worrying about red matter.
Of course we now have the problem that the wormhole links two universes together, whereas initially it didn't ??? Arrrgh! Or does it? ...
Those are the same thing. They appeared to work just fine..
