There's solid physical theory that can be used to justify warp drive and (to a lesser extent) transporters. And there's enough rationalization for humanoid aliens in Trek that I'm able to live with it. All fiction requires a degree of willing suspension of disbelief. But that doesn't mean I'll just lie back and accept any absurdity when I'm able to think of a better way of justifying it. It's called willing suspension of disbelief, not compulsory. And the more I can find plausible justifications for things in ST, the easier it becomes to suspend disbelief.
And so many visual effects in ST are clearly impossible that it's a given they can't be taken literally. Not to mention other visuals that can't be taken literally, such as the same individual (Saavik, Cochrane, Ziyal, etc.) having two or more different faces, or the same starship design being used by species in different quadrants of the galaxy that couldn't possibly have contact with each other. Therefore I see no reason to feel obligated to embrace a slavishly literal interpretation of any information that's strictly visual.
And no, it wasn't "zero research by the STXI writers." The screenwriters know their science quite well and I'm certain that their original draft of the script depicted the disaster in a far more credible and well-researched way. But Abrams is less concerned with scientific accuracy than Orci and Kurtzman are, and it's the prerogative of the director to change or simplify things in whatever way he feels is appropriate for the story. Research is a tool in the process, but whether or how much it gets used is a decision that must be weighed against other artistic factors. So don't assume that the research wasn't done at all just because it didn't end up onscreen.
