Isn't it dumb to only have 1 Doctor on Voyager and NX-01 Enterprise?

[thewanderingjack]

grr again... any idea on when or if I can ever edit my posts when I mess up like that?

 

[JRTStarlight]

Didn't mean to imply actually possible, just possible in-world. The teleporter, replicator, holodeck, time travel etc aren't actually explained, and I'm pretty sure if we used our science to try and explain it they'd fall apart (and often do). The puzzle was created by being well beyond the SF tech... I say he didn't explain it because he couldn't, not because there wasn't an explanation.

Transporters, replicators, holodecks, time travel, warp drive, etc., are not explained such that we can actually do them in the real world, no, but they are acknowledge and explained (mostly superficially) as to how they generally work in the stories and in that fictional universe. In fiction, this is usually enough to establish a premise or premises for the fictional universe we wish to play in. You can reject them since they are, in your opinion, not your cup of tea (stupid, silly, nonsense), and watch/read other stuff, or you accept them as part of that fictional universe (where they are mentioned, acknowledged, at least pseudo explained, and thereby demonstrate the creator/author is at the very least aware this is either not natural and is beyond our current understanding and show he/she is not just some idiot who doesn't know water doesn't normally run uphill).

But these premises are part of whole fictional universal backdrop, they establish the rules the game, the set of the boundaries we wish to color in. They are not rules for one story, but many stories. They have warp drive in the story. Despite the science fact nothing can travel faster than light, as far as we know, OK, we can write stories with warp drive now, and obey those rules or limitations and be consistent, and we can play in this fictional universe.

Thereafter, we need only strive for consistency and not color outside the lines - because that's cheating. For example, if you can't transport antimatter in one story because it's impossible (or we don't know how yet), then this should be true for all other stories thereafter in that universe. However, if it comes to pass a "scientific discovery" is made that we learned how to transport antimatter, then thereafter we should be able to transport AM in our stories. Hopefully this change is written by somebody with authority (the creator of the fictional universe, or some executive producer or the like OKs it, and not just a fly-by-night one story writer who only did it to make his story work). Because if the story is accepted, it becomes canon fact, and we have to live under the new rules. These rules are the "lore" of the universe. Trek lore, for example.

The danger is mostly by authors who write one or more stories without regard for the universe's lore (maybe because they don't know it, or they don't care they are violating the rules, the rules and limitations that were probably established for very good reasons). Or maybe they violate natural law or known science and don't really explain it or even try (good as saying it's magic, or God did it, aka deus ex mechina, which is generally considered cheating, lazy, and stupid, particularly if it's done for just one story), so they are inconsistent with known lore, known science, and coloring outside the lines.

A lot of time they try to do something that would make all future stories thereafter more problematic. Oh look, this genetically enhanced blood using pre 1990 tech brings people back to life. Great, we can replicate that (build it molecule by molecule if we need to) so from now on as long as the body is recovered and is more or less intact, we can bring a person back to life. Oh look, we can now transport to a planet 16 light years away in seconds (really, we don't need starships much anymore). Oh look, we can also transport through shields to a ship light years away and traveling at warp, despite not knowing exactly where it is. Oh look, we can transport through shields by a new means, but if you do it more than a few times, it's unhealthy. Yeah? I think we'll be beaming nukes into enemy ships right through their shields from now on. I'm not too concerned for the long-term health of my nuclear weapons. Etc.

Breaking lore has consequences. Doing it just for one story is often just an abuse. Worse, doing it just to make a problem, and doing it again to solve your problem, is just hard to stomach.

The Chase blew off a lot of real world science. Evolution isn't really a natural process. Really? We can write code buried so deep it is beyond the molecular level, beyond the atomic level, self replicating, aware, capable of altering the physical world, etc. etc. It just breaks too many rules, doesn't even try to explain it, and all for one story, never to be used again. Bad bad bad bad.

You say the author couldn't explain it, didn't have a scientific basis for it and didn't extrapolate beyond current science (like good science fiction does) but we should just trust this works, even though it not only doesn't build on science, but also explicitly says it's quite wrong when it comes to evolutionary theory. It's Magic.

I don't mind magic, even if I tend to try to explain it after a fashion, but it's not science fiction. It's fantasy. Maybe science fantasy. I like that, too. But I'd rather not see it in Trek, or have to deal with the fallout for future stories, or even live with the idea that this didn't just go beyond current science, but essentially said the current science is an outright lie, a huge error, a massive case of humanity deluding itself. This has all the charm of the explanation for why dinosaur bones appear to be millions of years old on an Earth that is only a few thousand years old; because God made the bones, caused them to appear to be very old, and buried them for us to find later. Worse, asking I now disprove the existence of God to demonstrate that's a bad theory or a bad idea before you will reject it - for I cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, or prove magic or a miracle did not make something "appear" that way.

OTOH, not everybody cares about this stuff and anything is fair game in fiction. They even often say, "It doesn't have to make sense. It's fiction." Well, in truth, fiction often needs to make more sense than non-fiction, lest it be considered a product of ignorance or indifference.

Ah, right... so this actually is possible (writing messages in genes). They're not on the genes like "on paper," they use gene sequences as a code that can be translated into a readable language (though you could do it the other way I guess) or by creating "molecular shapes/markers." People sign GMO genes this way.

The puzzle was on the gene base pairs, sort of like computer coding, and in junk DNA, probably, so it wouldn't interfere with other things (though even that is well beyond single cell life, so to say this code has been a part of all life since it began already is a bit much and probably impossible). I didn't have a problem with the coding on THAT level (of the puzzle, if it was introduced well after life began and into more complex organisms whose genes are big enough to hide stuff in) and the way they did it on Orphan Black, for example, is good science fiction, IMO. But then The Chase went WAY beyond that to something that's just too hard to believe (directing evolution to humanoid form, self aware, apparently, self replicating, aware of the other code around it, capable of manipulating the external universe by altering the hardware on a tricorder, etc.). Even in Broken Bow what they wrote on that one Klingon's code was likely not self replicating or worse, but just well hidden in him, that one guy. I could buy that. I'm not sure how it was done, but it didn't go too far for science fiction, IMO.

The fact that no one has discovered this (in-world) before now is fairly easily explained too, given they've never defined how far along in genetics people are. There's tons of human gene code we have no idea about right now. Obviously they know enough to make genetically modified people... but then you only have to know stuff about what you're targeting, not what everything in the genome does. It's also made clear that most of the puzzle is from non-Federation worlds... if they didn't have enough samples that contained it, they would've never seen a pattern before now.

Even you seem to feel they need a lot of room to play with for this code. Where is that room in simple, single cell creatures or plants like algae? I think you can hide a lot of stuff in the junk DNA of quite complex creatures, like humans, but this stuff is hidden not in code and genes, but past the atomic level it seems. It's nonsense. Anyway, your above paragraph is fine in many ways if all you wish is the puzzle at the genetic level. But they go well beyond that for this story. They go too far. They essentially use magic, and don't build on science, like the puzzle might suggest, but trash it with all that forced toward humanoid stuff.

so the real problem with it would be, "if you put this code into the earliest (or even just early) forms of life, why have other things evolved (on the same planet, in the same span) from that same life not developed to the same design and level?" There's very little evidence to support that (a few examples of "creatures that haven't evolved since the X period")... and would probably need the response of selectively breeding, picking and choosing which species to let evolve, or something like that.

Yeah, it's working well beyond the ability it should be for just some code, and not at the genetic level, either, but far deeper, and if it's been part of all life since life began, it doesn't even need a lot of room, like multiple chromosomes, or more genes to work with, since apparently each speck at the smallest level contains God-like attributes. And remember, evolutional theory and natural selection is just bogus now (despite it being referenced many times in Trek stories, they were just wrong, it turns out).

Not everything gets (or needs) an immediate and thorough answer, part of leaving it open means there's a chance to tell a good story in the future.

When writing fiction, everything should have an answer, even if you don't share it immediately. And you should share it eventually (either in story, or some backstory elsewhere). But if you don't have it now, and don't have the other stories written where you share it, and you're just relying on somebody else to pick up your slack or invent your reasons for you, this is just bad writing and lazy and sloppy and inconsiderate, and up front, it makes you look like a scientifically illiterate moron (mostly to people who are scientifically literate). But even if only 5% of the audience are well versed enough in that particular science to know how bogus that is, and the author is relying on the other 95% to not notice the nonsense, this is another example of being lazy and writing a bad story, particularly when a little fact checking or a little tweaking could have fixed that story, saved most of its favorable elements, and not crap all over Trek lore, known science, or have been introduced only to be used for one story.

But that's my opinion. YMMV.

 

[thewanderingjack]

Transporters, replicators, holodecks, time travel, warp drive, etc., are not explained such that we can actually do them in the real world, no, but they are acknowledge and explained (mostly superficially) as to how they generally work in the stories and in that fictional universe. In fiction, this is usually enough to establish a premise or premises for the fictional universe we wish to play in. You can reject them since they are, in your opinion, not your cup of tea (stupid, silly, nonsense), and watch/read other stuff, or you accept them as part of that fictional universe (where they are mentioned, acknowledged, at least pseudo explained, and thereby demonstrate the creator/author is at the very least aware this is either not natural and is beyond current our understanding and show he/she is not just some idiot who doesn't know water doesn't normally run uphill).

But these premises are part of whole fictional universal backdrop, they establish the rules the game, the set of the boundaries we wish to color in. They are not rules for one story, but many stories. They have warp drive in the story. Despite the science fact nothing can travel faster than light, as far as we know, OK, we can write stories with warp drive now, and obey those rules or limitations and be consistent, and we can play in this fictional universe.

Thereafter, we need only strive for consistency and not color outside the lines - because that's cheating. For example, if you can't transport antimatter in one story because it's impossible (or we don't know how yet), then this should be true for all other stories thereafter in that universe. However, if it comes to pass a "scientific discovery" is made that we learned how to transport antimatter, then thereafter we should be able to transport AM in our stories. Hopefully this change is written by somebody with authority (the creator of the fictional universe, or some executive producer or the like OKs it, and not just a fly-by-night one story writer who only did it to make his story work). Because if the story is accepted, it becomes canon fact, and we have to live under the new rules. These rules are the "lore" of the universe. Trek lore, for example.

The danger is mostly by authors who write one or more stories without regard for the universe's lore (maybe because they don't know it, or they don't care they are violating the rules, the rules and limitations that were probably established for very good reasons). Or maybe they violate natural law or known science and don't really explain it or even try (good as saying it's magic, or God did it, aka deus ex mechina, which is generally considered cheating, lazy, and stupid, particularly if it's done for just one story), so they are inconsistent with known lore, known science, and coloring outside the lines.

A lot of time they try to do something that would make all future stories thereafter more problematic. Oh look, this genetically enhanced blood using pre 1990 tech brings people back to life. Great, we can replicate that (build it molecule by molecule if we need to) so from now on as long as the body is recovered and is more or less intact, we can bring a person back to life. Oh look, we can now transport to a planet 16 light years away in seconds (really, we don't need starships much anymore). Oh look, we can also transport through shields to a ship light years away and traveling at warp, despite not knowing exactly where it is. Oh look, we can transport through shields by a new means, but if you do it more than a few times, it's unhealthy. Yeah? I think we'll be beaming nukes into enemy ships right through their shields from now on. I'm not too concerned for the long-term health of my nuclear weapons. Etc.

Breaking lore has consequences. Doing it just for one story is often just an abuse. Worse, doing it just to make a problem, and doing it again to solve your problem, is just hard to stomach.

The Chase blew off a lot of real world science. Evolution isn't really a natural process. Really? We can write code buried so deep it is beyond the molecular level, beyond the atomic level, self replicating, aware, capable of altering the physical world, etc. etc. It just breaks too many rules, doesn't even try to explain it, and all for one story, never to be used again. Bad bad bad bad.

You say the author couldn't explain it, didn't have a scientific basis for it and didn't extrapolate beyond current science (like good science fiction does) but we should just trust this works, even though it not only doesn't build on science, but also explicitly says it's quite wrong when it comes to evolutionary theory. It's Magic.

I don't mind magic, even if I tend to try to explain it after a fashion, but it's not science fiction. It's fantasy. Maybe science fantasy. I like that, too. But I'd rather not see it in Trek, or have to deal with the fallout for future stories, or even live with the idea that this didn't just go beyond current science, but essentially said the current science is an outright lie, a huge error, a massive case of humanity deluding itself. This has all the charm of the explanation for why dinosaur bones appear to be millions of years old on an Earth that is only a few thousand years old; because God made the bones, caused them to appear to be very old, and buried them for us to find later. Worse, asking I now disprove the existence of God to demonstrate that's a bad theory or a bad idea before you will reject it - for I cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, or prove magic or a miracle did not make something "appear" that way.

OTOH, not everybody cares about this stuff and anything is fair game in fiction. They even often say, "It doesn't have to make sense. It's fiction." Well, in truth, fiction often needs to make more sense than non-fiction, lest it be considered a product of ignorance or indifference.


The puzzle was on the gene base pairs, sort of like computer coding, and in junk DNA, probably, so it wouldn't interfere with other things (though even that is well beyond single cell life, so to say this code has been a part of all life since it began already is a bit much and probably impossible). I didn't have a problem with the coding on THAT level (of the puzzle, if it was introduced well after life began and into more complex organisms whose genes are big enough to hide stuff in) and the way they did it on Orphan Black, for example, is good science fiction, IMO. But then The Chase went WAY beyond that to something that's just too hard to believe (directing evolution to humanoid form, self aware, apparently, self replicating, aware of the other code around it, capable of manipulating the external universe by altering the hardware on a tricorder, etc.). Even in Broken Bow what they wrote on that one Klingon's code was likely not self replicating or worse, but just well hidden in him, that one guy. I could buy that. I'm not sure how it was done, but it didn't go too far for science fiction, IMO.


Even you seem to feel they need a lot of room to play with for this code. Where is that room in simple, single cell creatures or plants like algae? I think you can hide a lot of stuff in the junk DNA of quite complex creatures, like humans, but this stuff is hidden not in code and genes, but past the atomic level it seems. It's nonsense. Anyway, your above paragraph is fine in many ways if all you wish is the puzzle at the genetic level. But they go well beyond that for this story. They go too far. They essentially use magic, and don't build on science, like the puzzle might suggest, but trash it with all that forced toward humanoid stuff.


Yeah, it's working well beyond the ability it should be for just some code, and not at the genetic level, either, but far deeper, and if it's been part of all life since life began, it doesn't even need a lot of room, like multiple chromosomes, or more genes to work with, since apparently each speck at the smallest level contains God-like attributes. And remember, evolutional theory and natural selection is just bogus now (despite it being referenced many times in Trek stories, they were just wrong, it turns out).


When writing fiction, everything should have an answer, even if you don't share it immediately. And you should share it eventually (either in story, or some backstory elsewhere). But if you don't have it now, and don't have the other stories written where you share it, and you're just relying on somebody else to pick up your slack or invent your reasons for you, this is just bad writing and lazy and sloppy and inconsiderate, and up front, it makes you look like a scientifically illiterate moron (mostly to people who are scientifically literate). But even if only 5% of the audience are well versed enough in that particular science to know how bogus that is, and the author is relying on the other 95% to not notice the nonsense, this is another example of being lazy and writing a bad story, particularly when a little fact checking or a little tweaking could have fixed that story, saved most of its favorable elements, and not crap all over Trek lore, known science, or have been introduced only be used for one story.

But that's my opinion. YMMV.

I do get your general thing... I had another theory come to mind: a single cell lifeform is used as a... nano-virus? One that manipulates other organisms. It gets to work on a species (or whatever you'd call them at early levels of life) selected to be the "superior," to start developing the required features. It leaves the genetic puzzle behind as a track... and wiped intself out once it job was "done." Don't know if that's better... but, back to the prior theory, what's the limit to cellular/DNA information on that level (single cell)? Let's just say, maybe like species 8472, it has dense DNA strands, triple+ helix or what have you. Technically each single cell in our bodies has all our DNA... maybe it did too... it was a much more advanced single cell than any naturally evolved here.

If you wanna go based on explicitly stated things, take what they're saying at face value and hold it up to stricter, real world scientific scrutiny... well, have fun (literally ) that's the bottom line... For me it's more fun to go with "advanced enough science would look like magic to [us]" to varying extents, otherwise, time travel stories would wreck it all for me, despite the floated around theories (in scientific circles), because I have an idea I can't get out of my head (love to share it with you i you'd like, would love you analysis); as well as imagining that maybe there's enough not said that someone might come up with a good story for it later... like maybe these ancient bastards have been manipulating us (Delta Quadrant species) the whole time (maybe even are, and that whole thing was some ploy), with some sort of agenda planned out.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

And what about the TARDIS? It only ever had one doctor at any given moment even though 12 doctors have been on board at different times.

I never understood why the Doc couldn't summon a holographic army of nurses and surgeons when necessary. Or even multiples of himself operating from a single consciousness, since he's software.

The I remember the stacks of PADDs and remember how technologically illiterate the writers were.

Not illiterate but rather unimaginative.

Also, it might've been out of the effects budget to do multiple holo-doctors in sick bay.

 

[thewanderingjack]

And what about the TARDIS? It only ever had one doctor at any given moment even though 12 doctors have been on board at different times.

Not illiterate but rather unimaginative.

Also, it might've been out of the effects budget to do multiple holo-doctors in sick bay.

HAHA patently not true, a few times there was more than one Dr, (like Time Crash, Journey's End... does Dr Donna count?)

Maybe both... seems like most writers are unimaginative, but well read (or well versed in some story telling media), and their stories are based on (generally) older stories (see https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/recurring-plots.289027/#post-12103303).

The effect itself should've been cheap once developed (a bit like the transporter) so then it's just about 1 or more minor actor (extras even). The main factor would be that they would be simple compared to the Dr... but if it can pass as much as any holodeck character (which they do have in-show, meaning generating more holograms wasn't a problem) in the performance of receptionist/nurse/assistant duties that'd be fine. This idea makes so much sense it's making me hate that whole thing about VOY. Someone please put a huge hole in it!

 

[JRTStarlight]

what's the limit to cellular/DNA information on that level (single cell)?

Not a biologist, but the simplest living cell is a bacteria with around 250 genes? And humans have around 20,000?

Technically each single cell in our bodies has all our DNA... maybe it did too... it was a much more advanced single cell than any naturally evolved here.

Be mindful, when you say DNA you should say DNA code or DNA sequences. DNA is just a single molecule, and every DNA molecule is identical (isotopes notwithstanding). Just like every water molecule is identical, and I don't think you can hide self-replicating code on a subatomic level on the oxygen atom or the hydrogen atoms in a water molecule. The DNA molecule is similarly like that - just more atoms - about 200 billion more, but you still can't write on atoms, no matter how many you have. The human DNA sequences has about 3 billion base pairs, so about 6 billion nucleotides, and I can see you writing/hiding a message in all that - like they did for the puzzle. But where do you hide all that information in a bacteria with only 250 genes? Not only do you need about the same information for a human in there (or humanoid template) but so much more for the puzzle, and a hell of a lot more to drive evolution, manipulate the environment, be essentially self-aware so it can direct the manipulation, and self-replicating, for all that code (humanoid, puzzle, and evolution manipulation, replication) hidden in just 250 genes?

And yes, one single human cell contains all the coded information - our personal DNA sequence. But I really don't know how large a message you can hide in the junk, the stuff that's there but not being used. I doubt, however, it would be enough to do all the stuff they have it doing on that smaller level, and for the smaller level, I don't see how you can code self-replicating information on that. I would think, for example, you'd need more instructions to replicate the program into every cell than you'd need to just to code for an entire human.

"advanced enough science would look like magic to [us]"

There are limits. And if it's so advanced that it looks like magic (to us, and not some primitive), then it's not really science fiction so much as fantasy, unless you at least explain it well enough to lay out the rules for that tech. But if it seems more like magic, why not just write fantasy? That's good stuff. Midichlorians.

 

[thewanderingjack]

Alright then, it seems to me your arguments boil down to "I can't believe/imagine science (fiction) "facts" that are not based on our own current scientific "facts."" That's cool. Not worth discussing anymore though. Thanks .

 

[Paul Weaver]

And another inconsistency never addressed by Trek is how multiple species can serve aboard a single pseudo-military starship efficiently. Even with "The Chase" factored in, that doesn't account for different planets having different day/night cycles. There's no way every species in the Federation operates on a 24-hour biological clock.

DS9 operates on a 26 hour shift, and that would suit me more than 24 hours to be honest.

Given how many M-Class planets we know about in real life, I would guess that 22-26 hours is a normal day. Prove me wrong.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Alright then, it seems to me your arguments boil down to "I can't believe/imagine science (fiction) "facts" that are not based on our own current scientific "facts."" That's cool. Not worth discussing anymore though. Thanks.

Sorry it seems that way to you. I think it would be more appropriate to say, I dislike science fantasy trying to pass itself off as science fiction.

For example, you want to play in a fictional universe where the premise is that water runs uphill, I can play there. Darn skippy, I can. I can't really imagine how that might work, scientifically, but if it's a foundational premise of the show, we can play there. Or a better example, most comic book heroes make next to no sense scientifically speaking, but we accept the premises of those powers, and we can play there. So it's wrong to say I can't imagine it. It's even almost insulting for it seems to imply the only reason I can't accept what you're doing is because I lack imagination. But perhaps you didn't mean it that way.

For what's it's worth, Wiki defines science fiction thus:

Science fiction (often shortened to SF, sci-fi or scifi) is a genre of speculative fiction, typically dealing with imaginative concepts such as futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. Science fiction often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas." It usually avoids the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, historically, science-fiction stories were intended to have a grounding in science-based fact or theory at the time the story was created, but this connection is now limited to hard science fiction.

However "hard" Star Trek is in science, even delving to a degree into fantasy, or less hard scientific extrapolation is fine inasmuch as, like all good fiction, they obey the rules. In this case, color inside the lines - i.e. conform to the show's premises, remain internally consistent, and do not take wild liberties for one story just to make a story idea work, particularly when the logical ramifications of those liberties could be considerably problematic for other stories.

 

[JRTStarlight]

DS9 operates on a 26 hour shift, and that would suit me more than 24 hours to be honest.

Given how many M-Class planets we know about in real life, I would guess that 22-26 hours is a normal day. Prove me wrong.

I felt this was a fascinating topic and there's even a whole thread dedicated to it.

It ranges from what do you mean by hours (like Earth standard hours or Bajorian hours), use of military time, time keeping aboard starships, and more.

My POV is most planets have 24 hours (if they are in the right range and not too wildly different) but those are local hours and not Earth hours. They tend to use something like 24 since it has so many useful factors ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24), so most planets might divided up its rotational period in 24 units.

Then the universal translator just translates, for example, when Kira says 24 hours (Bajoraian hours) to 26 hours (Earth hours for those familiar with that and with Federation UTs) and not 25.9567836 hours or something like that since even the UT can be set to round off some terms and not annoy the heck out of you.

So while Bajor probably has 26 (or thereabouts) earth hours, they might just call them 24 Bajorian hours.

Of course, you can't prove any of that.

 

[thewanderingjack]

DS9 operates on a 26 hour shift, and that would suit me more than 24 hours to be honest.

Given how many M-Class planets we know about in real life, I would guess that 22-26 hours is a normal day. Prove me wrong.

And that sort of thing should apply to gravity, exact atmosphere etc... So shared ships etc would have an average of these, meaning most species would have to adjust a bit... like when we go from low to high altitudes. This would probably be relatively short (like Tripp ENT:Unexpected). Then we assume they've done it in training or when they first got on ship. Maybe a reference to having a hard time with these adjustments could be made, maybe even have a running thing about a certain species having a particularly hard time (haha maybe Bolians are constantly "space sick" on SF ships for instance).

Not sure the real relationship between "length of day" and "M class" (in-world or in reality). Obviously very applicable to "Earth like," but seems less so in terms of "capable of life" (esp considering extremophiles), or when you consider tidal lock (it's not just for moons ;-)). I can see see that high rotational speed (relative to planet size) would mean the planet is moving really fast, maybe too much so to hold atmosphere... but besides that, what's the rub?

Remus is tidal locked. So they have no day/night cycle. also Daled IV.

 

[JRTStarlight]

I'm pretty sure rotational speed has little to do with holding an atmosphere. It's the gravity, and whether the energy hitting the atmosphere (sun light) kicks most gas molecules hard enough to impart sufficient velocity that it is beyond "escape velocity." So the atmospheres bleeds away into space.

But I'm not sure how long it would take. Our moon, for example, can NOT hold an atmosphere (the gravity is too low) but if we could dump massive amounts of oxygen and nitrogen there, enough so we could breath, it might hold onto it for centuries or longer. I've never read an analysis about how quickly it would bleed away, but if it took something like 100,000 years, that's a long time humans could live there without a dome.

I can only assume when throughout Trek the story involves a moon with decent gravity and atmosphere, those moons must be massive (maybe bigger than earth) and orbit something like a gas giant, like Jupiter) without too much magnetic or hazardous radiations making the place uninhabitable.

 

[thewanderingjack]

I'm pretty sure rotational speed has little to do with holding an atmosphere. It's the gravity, and whether the energy hitting the atmosphere (sun light) kicks most gas molecules hard enough to impart sufficient velocity that it is beyond "escape velocity." So the atmospheres bleeds away into space.

But I'm not sure how long it would take. Our moon, for example, can NOT hold an atmosphere (the gravity is too low) but if we could dump massive amounts of oxygen and nitrogen there, enough so we could breath, it might hold onto it for centuries or longer. I've never read an analysis about how quickly it would bleed away, but if it took something like 100,000 years, that's a long time humans could live there without a dome.

I can only assume when throughout Trek the story involves a moon with decent gravity and atmosphere, those moons must be massive (maybe bigger than earth) and orbit something like a gas giant, like Jupiter) without too much magnetic or hazardous radiations making the place uninhabitable.

We always seem to miss each other, so don't be surprised if I stop reading/responding etc to your posts.

Rotation creates an outward force at the "equatorial line" (the plane perpendicular to an object's axis of rotation) of a spinning object in direct proportion to it's speed. This is called centrifugal force. At a given point (defined by the object's mass, ie.: gravity, which applies a centripetal force) that force, when in reference to a planet, can cancel out the (centripetal) force of gravity. These speed's may in fact be such, that in reality, the planet would fly apart altogether, or have other issues rendering the atmosphere issue irrelevant, but we're postulating hypotheticals that only relate to atmosphere, so :-).

Last free science lesson.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Rotation creates an outward force at the "equatorial line" (the plane perpendicular to an object's axis of rotation) of a spinning object in direct proportion to it's speed.

There are actually an infinite number of planes perpendicular to that line, but the equitoral plane is one of them.

This is called centrifugal force.

Yeah, but it's only an apparent force.

At a given point (defined by the object's mass, ie.: gravity,

The force of gravity is not defined by the mass alone, but also by the square of the distance to the center of mass.

We always seem to miss each other, so don't be surprised if I stop reading/responding etc to your posts.

As you wish. However, it's hardly a lesson when it's well known, and I find no evidence that is a significant means for a planet to lose atmosphere. I mean, I'd image, apart from such high rotations that planets would spin apart, but then they'd never become planets with that kind of angular momentum in the first place, so that hardly counts as losing a planet's atmosphere.

Instead, it is the method of the Jeans Escape that causes a planet to lose most of its atmosphere, stellar radiation impinging upon atmospheric molecules and increasing their kinetic energy, which may push them past their escape velocity for that planet's gravitational field. And of course the smaller or lighter the molecule, the less energy it takes to achieve that velocity, which is why hydrogen or helium and the like would bleed off into space long before oxygen or nitrogen or carbon dioxide.

I may not be a biologist or a geneticist, but I am a physicist. I feel you've developed an unfortunate tendency to assume too much about my knowledge, my feelings, or my thoughts in general with surprisingly little evidence to make such conclusions, but if you wish to forego reading my posts, by all means, please do so.

 

[thewanderingjack]

 

[Prax]

So I heard there is only one doctor on Voyager and the NX-01. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[JRTStarlight]

You know, with PhD's, I really can't. You might think they'd have quite a few of them on board - specialists in many areas, but they never make that clear.

 

[thewanderingjack]

So I heard there is only one doctor on Voyager and the NX-01. Can anyone confirm this?

And the NX-01only had one toilet, in de-con, while Voyager had... none? :-D

 

[Paul Weaver]

Were Remans native to Remus?

And the NX-01only had one toilet, in de-con, while Voyager had... none? :-D

I'm sure I watched an early episode of TNG where an extra was in the toilet and walked out onto the bridge.

 

[Paul Weaver]

And the NX-01only had one toilet, in de-con, while Voyager had... none? :-D

Voyager had at least 4 (Bride of Chaotica).