Remember, the original plot was to have Nero rotting in a Klingon prison for 20 years, so obviously he wouldn't have known the change in history. He escapes, immediately finds Spock and maroons him, then goes to Vulcan and destroys some ships that look like they came from the prime universe anyway. Where in that scenario would Nero realize that things have changed?
Nero demonstrates this knowledge later in the film, during the fight with Kirk, saying something like "you were a great man, but that was another life", clearly demonstrating his understanding that the timeline has been altered, and not everything is the same. Nero also somehow seems to know that Kirk's father was aboard the Kelvin, but I'll save that one for Plot Hole City Part 4
When was it said that Nero knew exactly that Spock was aboard? And really, why wouldn't he have thought this? I stated in my last post that this would have been the time that Spock would have been serving on the NCC-1701.
There is no indication that he's trying to determine if Spock is aboard. The way he addresses Spock when he hails the Enterprise, he seems to already know Spock is there. As for why he wouldn't have thought was aboard, remember that an entire ship was destroyed 25 years ago, which, at the very least would have caused changes to personnel assignments for the rest of the fleet from that point on.
So you've answered your own question. It was coincidence. Coincidences happen.
Like I said, coincidences can happen, but when characters in the story plan on, expect, and use these coincidences, then the plot starts to lose credibility.
In "Relics," Geordi specifically states that transporter technology really hasn't changed much at all in over a hundred years. Two hundred if we count ENTERPRISE. And you didn't respond to my theory that by 2387, Starfleet may have had tech advances thanks to the war that may have made things like this relatively common.
But since we never saw Federation transporters acquire that kind of upgrade, we're forced to speculate on what they "may have had", in order for the plot device to work. That's flawed storytelling, if you ask me.
Besides, I don't think you addressed the second part of it: How do they
locate the Enterprise in order to beam onto it? In TNG's
Bloodlines, they can't locate the Ferengi ship because it's outside of sensor range. They end up finding it by back-tracing the sub-space transport the next time the Ferengi use it. Since there's no such transport going on in the Enterprise, how do they find it, seeing as how it went to warp hours ago?
You know what's funny? I never noticed Scotty falling flat on his face until you pointed it out. Because I usually never let things like that bother me, because they're really unimportant to the plot. Now if, say, Scotty was beamed into the matter/antimatter intermix chamber and then walked right out as if nothing happened, then that would be having "their authenticity severely diminished by such unlikely events" as you say. But falling down and getting up again? Have you ever watched a football game?
A football game? Come on, that's not the same thing. Football players fall from shorter distances, onto soft grass, and they're wearing all kinds of protective gear.
Because as someone else pointed out, the bridge has no transporter room, and as I pointed out, you and I don't know the true capabilities of the transporter in this new universe
Why would the bridge need a transporter room? If they can beam a person from down on the planet to the transporter room on the ship, why on earth wouldn't they be able to beam someone from elsewhere on the ship, straight to the transporter room? That seems like a much easier thing to do.
I'm just pointing out what you've tended to do in the past. There's nothing wrong with counterpoints; it's the fact that in the last two of these posts, you've tended to adopt an attitude that you're more interested in proving other people wrong than in listening to their opinions and trying to convince yourself that we might, just might, have a point. But I don't know, maybe you've gotten better. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
I thought I was doing both? It's not like I'm ignoring everything everyone says and just repeating myself; I listen to your arguments, and then respond by pointing out what I think is wrong with them. Isn't that the same thing you're doing to me? I don't have a problem with it, I just don't understand why I'm the bad guy here...
