But they DID use the word "singularity" and "black hole," both of which the audience generally understands.
Then you're arguing in a circle. All I said was that they should have called it a ring singularity.
Why? It doesn't change the effect that the black hole has on the planet, while at the same time it adds the plot complications of having to explain 1) what a ring singularity is 2) why this makes a difference and 3) how the Enterprise crew know it's a ring singularity as opposed to, say, a point singularity or a multi-dimensional object of some kind.
None of which adds anything to the plot; once "it's a singularity; it's eating the planet" is established, the rest is just technobabble.
ETA: There is, in fact, precedence for this, in at least two instances involving black holes. The most famous of these comes in 2001/2010, the movie versions which featured the raw visual effects of both the Monolith's "stargate" function and, in the second film, the implosion of jupiter to form a small star. Neither of these incidents is explained in the film, though both are explained in some detail in the novelizations. The lack of explanation in 2010 is probably omitted for brevity, but mainly it's because the scene as depicted is one of extreme drama in tension where alot of scientific exposition would spoil the mood: in the novel, they were literally sitting around a telescope for hours at a time trying to figure out what the hell was happening, where as in the film the collapse is depicted as happening in a matter of minutes, and Leonov barely escapes in one piece.
Second example comes from Michael Crichton's "Sphere." The novel has Ted and Harry sitting over a table literally hammering out Einstein field equations to try and figure out how an American space craft could have possible emerged through a black hole without being destroyed. They actually deal with exactly the same objections you raised: ring singularity, can't pass through the center (tidal forces tear you apart), and come up with something alot like Trekian "slingshot maneuver" time travel. The MOVIE, however, reduces this entire discussion to a half dozen lines of dialog, sans equations, which presents the exact same information without any of the attached jargon. Strangely, the discussion in the film almost mirrors the discussion in STXI: short of details, straight to the point.
I guess what I'm saying is it has never been a habit of filmmakers--especially in science fiction--to overtly insert technical discussions into what are supposed to be theatrical performances. This works perfectly well in novels, where the pace can be slower and more deliberate, but even Blade Runner omitted alot of the more sophisticated discussions about how androids function.
I'm also guessing that 90% of the people who saw this movie have no idea what a singularity is and that a roughly equal number don't really know what a black hole is either.
I tell you it's more like 60% (and nearly
all of them know what a black hole is). What they probably don't know are the details and a more sophisticated knowledge about the concept, which is to be expected; most people don't know how machineguns work either, even though everyone knows what machineguns
are. Yet in any given action movie dialog usually refers to "machinegun" or "rifle" or even "assault rifle," and there's rarely much discussion about muzzle energy or the caliber size of the weapon's cartridge or the weight of its powder charge. And though probably 90% of your audience doesn't know a "railgun" is, the concept reduces easily enough to "big fucking gun" to require little other explanation in, say, Transformers 2.
It doesn't have to be a physics lesson to be scientifically accurate. And it doesn't have to be technobabble either. Although if you're going to deal with high concept science, you probably should get some terminology relating to it.
Exactly my point. Star Trek isn't about high concept science. Star Trek is mainly built around CHARACTERS. Since science alone is not the center of Trek storytelling, that black holes are a subject studied by scientists
does not mean they must be depicted with the utmost scientific accuracy.
Imagine you had a show about computer programmers. Let's say, the movie Hackers. Of course they're going to throw in all sorts of lingo and terminology in because that's to be expected for what they're doing. Crime investigation shows do this, medical dramas do it, and still a good portion of the audience remains oblivious to what the terms mean so long as they get the gist of the story.
All very good examples. Because as you of all people should know, ALL of these movies/TV shows do an absolutely fucking
horrible job of accurately depicting the scientific concepts they showcase. CSI and spinoffs is probably the worst offender by far.
The good news is alot of these shows pretty much revolve around the science first and the characters second, so they can get away with a huge portion of their dialog being obscure medical/forenstic technobabble. The thing you need to keep in mind is 90% of that technobabble is complete bullshit that bears at at most passing resemblance to reality and is intended strictly to entertain the audience. Star Trek (when it's in its element) goes a different route, focussing on characters and interpersonal conflicts first with science and technology as background scenery. When it tries to do the opposite of this, they call it "Star Trek: Voyager"
all wormholes were stated to have several features in common with black holes: a singularity, and event horizon, and an accretion disk. They also had the property of not really being visible unless something was passing through them at that exact moment.
And while they may share certain properties, they still aren't the same in that an event horizon isn't inescapable and creating what we see as a black hole.
I beg your pardon mister "though shalt not speak inaccurately of black holes," but "being inescapable" is not a property of event horizons. Futhermore, there is no differentiation in trek between wormholes and black holes because the latter term is never used to describe
any phenomenon, with the singular exception of Q.