Actually, I'm one of those stupid annoying jerks who keeps waiting for you to back up your statement with actual data instead of just flaming Devon for disagreeing with you. I'm not sure anymore that you actually know what you're talking about.
JarodRussell said:
And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and your unexplained talking dog!!!
If you don't believe there's no sound in space and that a movie is always right until proven wrong, then that's not my problem. And if I point you to a source about that specific issue, then I have already done more than I actually need to. And I believe I did that by pointing Devon to a couple of books about black hole physics. He even gets FREE Super Saver Shipping. It's a real bargain.JarodRussell said:
Damn it.
Right. That's as simple as saying "There's no air in space to refract the energy from the beam or to transmit sound." It's just the common courtesy of explaining your viewpoint instead of the blanket assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, especially since you don't always know for sure WHY that person disagrees with you.
But you didn't NAME a specific issue. "Black holes" is a pretty general topic in this context.
If you've read "one of these" yourself, then you should be able to summarize, in easily-understandable terms, the reasons why a stellar black hole couldn't possibly produce the effect depicted in the movie which, when you get right down to it, is really all he's been asking; "read a book about it, or go to school" is a lazy argument, at best, and dismissive besides. Several ideas have been offered, both in this thread and in others, which might go some way to explaining what was shown in the movie--attempts are at least being made--yet what I'm seeing from you and Ryan8bit here are flat, unsupported repetitions of the "black holes don't work that way" mantra, which really is no less annoying than Devon's repeated invitations to prove that they don't. If you're going to assert that black holes do or do not do such-and-so, or that the writers don't know what they're talking about, then back it up -- provide the reasons behind the assertion. I-Am-Zim at least made a gesture of posting a link to an encyclopedia entry on black holes, even though I don't think its scope is broad enough to address the question under discussion here.
I don't know about you, but I read that quote of a recurring trope from Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? (see #6) as a joke, and little else.JarodRussell said:
Damn it.
Funny, how can you possible take that quote personal?! Sometimes you really long for conflict, don't you?
Seriously? Didn't you yourself point out that a wormhole would actually have the same properties as the black holes depicted in the movie?
I have no issue with the red matter creating a wormhole, except of course the energy from the supernova was fed through the wormhole too - where did all that engergy go? Maybe Spock really did destroy romulus by funnelling the energy through a wormhole bringing it out a few hours before he used the red matter much closer to the planet - whoops...
As for the "Supernova". I got nuthin.
Well we know the end point of the wormhole/black hole was effectively skipping through time and space, and the supernova would have had a lot more juice than the two ships passing through - maybe the energy ended up somewhere beyond the visible universe, in the ultra-distant past or future... and thus the plot of Star Trek XIII is revealed: "The Aliens from Beyond the Universe show up and demand to know who opened up a cosmic blowtorch on their neighborhood!"
Old Spock: "My bad"
Not really, no. We've DETECTED black holes and (in some cases) the accretion disks and the polar jets around them, but the actual event horizon--the black part of the phenomenon, what makes it a black hole to begin with--has never been observed.
We know as a matter of course that it's not theoretical in the trekiverse, and by the same token we also know a wormhole can be traversible without being stable. STXI's black holes qualify in both counts in that 1) they allow passage of starships and 2) they are unstable and collapse fairly quickly.
That particular observation was mostly not directed at you.
That's precisely my point. We've all seen the sun and we know what it looks like; if not from looking at the sky, then from looking at pictures of it in science magazines and textbooks. BLACK HOLES, on the other hand, have never been imaged directly, and the only reason we have any idea what they look like at all is because of artist renderings based (loosely) on scientific theories about what's in them and distant observations of some of their emission factors. The artist renderings are no more accurate than the movie depictions, and even their depiction of the event horizon as a spheroid region of blackness could easily be entirely wrong. We don't know, because nobody's ever seen one.
They did. They called it a "black hole," which as you know encompasses a class of phenomena that may include wormholes, stellar blackholes, supermassive black holes, and even strangelets (which I half belief Red Matter may be).
I meant stable in the sense of not ripping your atoms apart.
I'm sure wormholes can be a feature, but they're not the sanitized friendly kind like we see in the rest of Trek. They're the kind that rip up atoms and send them shooting somewhere else in space and time.
More than likely it is spheroidal, or even oblong or distorted. It's probably anything but flat.
Black hole != wormhole
If ILM was more faithful to Ryan Church's original concept art, it wouldn't have made a difference. I think the 2D disk concept works better cinematically, though, since most of the audience knows to associate that with "black hole/wormhole/space warp tunnel thing."
I meant stable in the sense of not ripping your atoms apart.[/quote]
Probably not, but then a black hole shouldn't have an accretion disk unless there's a huge amount of interplanetary material falling into it. Without that, you wouldn't be able to see the event horizon at all, it would look like a black shadow on a black background that only shows up when it passes in front of other objects.
In the first case, wormholes cannot form anywhere except in the event horizon of black holes, so in this case they are equivalent to being the same thing (and a traversable wormhole would be a Kerr-Newman singularity were the event horizon actually has a squashed, oblong shape such that it becomes a doughnut-shaped region when you get close to it).
