Yes, we ARE discussing the Trek one, and we know from the Trek one it's not going to change. But then, you seem to like simply deleting and not answering the points that prove them.
I'm truly sorry for you if you feel you have proven "it's not going to change" for a television series that is all
about the premise that it is going to change.
You seem to have gotten the entire process backwards. What is established as a Trek fact is that WWIII had the end results of 37 or 600 million dead, depending on whom you ask and how. That is something you have to accept. You cannot go and claim that "in fact" billions died, because that is simply untrue in the Trek universe. No matter how much "proof" you pile on to support the claim of billions, you are still dead wrong and do not even deserve any sort of point-by-point rebuttal.
Voyager: Standard, present-day like first manned Mars mission with NO artificial gravity in the 2030s.
Emphasis mine. Error yours. Ares IV was not the first manned mission to Mars by any Trek account.
As for the other points of "no gravity manipulation seen", they are simply pre-empted by the Trek fact that antigravity did exist and was available to the builders of the DY-100 series of spacecraft, which were considered outdated by the 21st century.
How was the Apollo program visible in ST4? It wasn't. Doesn't mean it didn't exist in the Trek universe - indeed, other Trek pieces establish it as having happened, although possibly not exactly in the manner it happened in our universe. Bits of Trek establish interplanetary manned flight in the 1980s, while no bits establish it didn't happen back then.
Seeing as DS9 puts the Eugenics wars in the 22nd century, maybe it's time to face it; something changed the Star Trek timeline, and no artificial gravity was being had in the 80s and 90s.
That is of course a workable hypothesis. Perhaps ENT changed things? Oh, wait...
Do remember, though, that DY-100 remains a feature of the VOY universe as well. Not only is the model seen as a cutesy set decoration piece, the not-first Mars flight described for the 2030s is said to have been followed by a rescue mission that took a week to get to Mars. That's DY-100 performance for you, and flat out impossible with the sort of real-universe technology that you rather absurdly seem to cling on to.
What's the point, really? You can't hang on forever. There will be no Cochrane born in the 2030s, no warp drive breakthrough in the 2060s, in our universe. There aren't any Vulcans for real. But all those things will happen in the Trek universe, which is
different.
Oh, yeah, go back and watch it: reduced to city states where a judge ruled supreme. A type a feudal system harkening back to the dark and middle ages.
Thank you, oh thank you, for finally telling
what exactly in "EaF" makes you think billions died on Earth.
You are, of course, completely wrong. (In saying that your interpretation is the only correct one, as usual, of course. In saying that it is a possible one, you would have a point. But you'd still be wrong about the body count.) What we see in the court is never even hinted at being a global phenomenon. As you say, Q could have picked any kangaroo court from Earth's past; that he picked one from 2079 tells us exactly nothing, except that the writers of "EaF" dared be innovative.
As for Q's charges of savagery, he never claims that the 2079 court would have been the source of his charges. For all we know, he felt this court to be one of the more equitable and acceptable incarnations of humanity... What Q has on trial is the entire history of mankind, which certainly features far more barbaric acts and settings than the (relatively orderly) apocalyptic courtroom seen here.
Oh, wrong, it indeed DOES preclude human journeys, and colonizations, and especially stars by pre-warp means. After all, if the planets were already opened by pre-warp means, Cochrane's warp drive wouldn't have opened them, it would merely have expanded what was already opened earlier.
Pure semantics, and dubious ones at that when the one speaking is making a sales pitch. We know the planets were opened to us in the 1980s already, but we also know there wasn't enough incentive to go there a second or a seventh time. The same with the Moon: people in the 2050s had been there, done that, gotten the t-shirt - but there was no New Berlin there yet.
You have to admit that the late establishing of the first Martian colony in 2103 cannot have been the result of technological problems as such, because surely it could have been done basically overnight already with the technology of the 2050s that allowed Cochrane to make his test flight. Moreover, if Cochrane's technology did represent a turning point, why the 40-year gap? As per Troi's sales pitch, Earth recovered before Mars was colonized, so colonization of space cannot have been a major deciding factor in the recovery process.
I'm not making bullshit rationalizations, I'm making pointed observations.
Yes, I know. Like "Cochrane took a perfectly ordinary Titan II from the 2050s and modified it on his free time so that it outperforms a Saturn V". Not really an observation, but speculation, and baseless at that - but that's just semantics, and I decided to be lenient with semantics above already.
I also know you have a perfectly rational explanation for why Cochrane didn't become the richest man on post-apocalyptic Earth thanks to these fantastic skills, and didn't retire to his tropical island as planned. But once again, you're engaging in ass-backward deduction: you know the right answer, but you still start from the evidence, and when it gives you a different answer, you ditch the right one.
Try doing it in a slightly modified way: accept the right answer as a bit of evidence in an iterative process. You will then observe whether the process is missing an occasional bit of evidence, an omission that biased your earlier attempts which provided the incorrect answer.
That only proves my point even more. Timo mentioned the Titan II being used, not me. So his whole bit about the Titan II being much more than it could, is a pile of bullshit.
Darling, I was only trying to be kind to you. The missile we saw was a Titan II recast in a science fiction role. You wanted to argue that Titan II and its realistic ilk is what the future Trek folks will have. But the fact of the matter is that what they have is something they call Titan V (offscreen, that is), a missile that outperforms all of today's (or yesterday's) rockets by such an absurd margin that today's laws of physics must have been broken.
No matter how hard you fight, Trek as a setting is about a fictional future, not about a factual present or past. Trek as a message may be about today's woes, but the message is carried by technologies we can barely dream about. And these technologies often hold the promise of great destruction, as apparently witnessed in WWIII (like you say, the 2008 nuclear arsenal would have been unlikely to give a globally disastrous outcome, and would have had trouble kicking up a real nuclear winter, too). But Trek as a setting or as a message does not overrule Trek as a pseudohistory, in which we know that 37/600 million people died, a court approximately like Q's existed, Cochrane discovered warp, the Vulcans came, and Earth united. This is what did happen, and a thread discussing
how it happened cannot start from the premise that it did not.
Timo Saloniemi
You actually don't know? I actually have to explain that to you?
I'm the one who has to stay coherent? Maybe YOU should try and stay coherent. Nowhere did I mention even once anything about FC dialogue establishing the elimination of war and poverty, but you know, reading is difficult.
