Yeah. But it's only fiction, so it doesn't matter.
The Absurdity of Borders in Space
- Thread starter ticktock
- Start date
Yeah. But it's only fiction, so it doesn't matter.
I think you are missing the larger factor... speed verses relative size.
That is... How fast are the stars moving relative to each other?
By the logic you are putting forward here, borders on the earth are an absurd idea because the tectonic plates are all moving, and what is a border today may not be one... in a million years or so.
Think about it... neither of us will live long enough to see one complete orbit of Neptune. In fact, Neptune won't reach the same spot it is in today until after the events of ST:ENT. Or what about Alpha Centauri? Today it is 4.365 light years away from us, but how far away will it be in 500 years?
Frankly, I wouldn't worry too much about borders... they rise and fall much faster than most aspects of nature (either here on Earth or throughout the galaxy).
As for the wonderful question of reference frames, I suggest that you start by reviewing the Michelson–Morley experiment and move forward from there. The question of reference frames leads to Special Relativity and eventually General Relativity, which once you've learned enough of the mathematics behind them, some very interesting (and beautiful) consequences of nature become visible.
Yea but it would really suck if one of your star systems moved into the other guy's territory on its own.
Seriously though, we do not draw borders over the oceans of the world. Territorial waters are limited to those waters adjacent to and within territorial land. I think the same thing would apply to the trekverse. Intestellar space would be freely navigatible while the space say enclosed within the heliopause of a star might be territorial.
But we know it doesn't apply to the Trekverse. Klingons don't grudgingly accept the presence of Federation spyships right between their star systems. Humans don't tolerate Ferengi intruders who refuse to as much as file a flight plan. They don't have to, because Trek sensors can spot such intruders, and Trek ships can drive them away.
The same holds true for oceans today, to a degree. There are restricted waters that extend far beyond the antiquated concept of 12 nautical miles, waters where aerial surveillance ensures that e.g. fishermen don't harvest the local fauna for one minute longer than the law allows, or lower their nets a hundred yards to the wrong side of the legal border.
When the outdated laws about 12 nautical miles were written, aerial surveillance wasn't possible or practicable. The near future might see such legislation change radically.
As for the "astrographical" basis for territories, the outer edges of solar systems in practice almost rub against each other. Our system has wisps of the Oort cloud half a lightyear from the central star, and extends its gravitational influence halfway to the neighboring stars. There might be a subspace sphere around each star in Trekverse, too, further expanding the definition of a star system.
Timo Saloniemi
The same holds true for oceans today, to a degree. There are restricted waters that extend far beyond the antiquated concept of 12 nautical miles, waters where aerial surveillance ensures that e.g. fishermen don't harvest the local fauna for one minute longer than the law allows, or lower their nets a hundred yards to the wrong side of the legal border.
When the outdated laws about 12 nautical miles were written, aerial surveillance wasn't possible or practicable. The near future might see such legislation change radically.
As for the "astrographical" basis for territories, the outer edges of solar systems in practice almost rub against each other. Our system has wisps of the Oort cloud half a lightyear from the central star, and extends its gravitational influence halfway to the neighboring stars. There might be a subspace sphere around each star in Trekverse, too, further expanding the definition of a star system.
Timo Saloniemi
I wish Trek had gone the "international waters" route, where most of the void is unclaimed and unclaimable and a planet's sovereignty extends only a short distance3 (in astronomical term) beyond its star system. Imagine how much scarier and more fun it would be if Klingons could "legally" establish a base in the Oort Cloud.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
You could always nudge it back into place with a Shkadov Thruster.
On the other hand, galactic kinematics would obviously need to be taken into account by the relevant parties when agreeing - or, in the case of war, disagreeing - upon interstellar boundaries.Perhaps. However, it is entirely conceivable that an alien civilization could find its natal world located outside the heliopause of its own sun depending on where the stellar primary lies on the H-R diagram, the density, composition and average velocity of the local interstellar medium and the orbital elements of the system's life-bearing planet/s.
TGT
Yes, but while a single planet's (or solar/star system's) sovereignty may be all well and good, an organization like the United Federation of Planets could never exist without some control over the space between the member worlds that make it up. Interplanetary shipping lanes and colonization efforts would never have the necessary protections to keep the organization alive. A member world joins the Federation for a reason; the benefits and protections that the greater association offers.
While it might serve the dramatic for a time, I think Trek's original ideal of commonality would have suffered if there were Klingons and pirates setting up shop on every third Oort dwarf and constantly interfering with those original missions. I mean, there was plenty of danger in the unexplored territories, and plenty of the diplomatic two-stepping go on with quite a few worlds being enticed by both the Federation and the Klingon Empire in the unclaimed regions. I think Trek chose well on that front.
I don't think it has to do with anyhting with actual border lines or stellar drift or any astronomical phenomena. But the possiblility of lack of prime real estate in the universe.
You see, according to The Hitchiker's Guide, space is big. REALLY big. And based on science we know now, habitable worlds, that is worlds that can sustain the carbon based lifeforms we see in Trek, are few and far between. Between them are just inhospitable regions, systems with gas giants, and other things that would make an area not worth considering. As a result, the worlds that are suitable for colonization for economic or military purposes are valuable. The establishment of imaginary "borders" are put in place so as to not spark any wars and conflicts, which would be the case since, without it, worlds would be in dispute which would result in in an endless cycle of bloodshed.
You see, according to The Hitchiker's Guide, space is big. REALLY big. And based on science we know now, habitable worlds, that is worlds that can sustain the carbon based lifeforms we see in Trek, are few and far between. Between them are just inhospitable regions, systems with gas giants, and other things that would make an area not worth considering. As a result, the worlds that are suitable for colonization for economic or military purposes are valuable. The establishment of imaginary "borders" are put in place so as to not spark any wars and conflicts, which would be the case since, without it, worlds would be in dispute which would result in in an endless cycle of bloodshed.
If you recall, one of the problems Kor had with the Federation was that the Federation "choked off our shipping lanes," which suggests just such a situation. The only species that was walled off in its tiny sovereign sphere was the Romulans. Of course, the movies and Modern Trek retconned all that so every hostile empire has its own neutral zone behind which it controls cubic parsec upon cubic parsec of vacuum. Seems a little lazy to me.
Anyway, TOS really didn't decide anything (it rarely did and was the better for it)--Kirk's run-ins with Klingons and Orions suggested that international waters was the model the show followed, with paranoid over-reactors like the Romulans, Gorn and Tholians trying to control vast bags of nothing.
Last edited:
Of Trek's favorite tricks, sensor technology is more unbelievable than warp drive, transporters, phasers, replicators and cloaks. The only things more unbelievable are the universal translator, disembodied energy beings, the repeal of the Third Law of Motion and the transfer of minds (aka souls.) The inane borders are unenforceable. Aerial surveillance of oceans simply doesn't compare.
Borders are also absurd because they are "bags of nothing," as stated above. There are no fish, no dissolved minerals, nothing but radiation which is vastly more concentrated near the stars that radiate. (If I recall correctly, radiation dissipates as the cube of the radius of the spherical volume! Interstellar distances are too great to approximate to the inverse square of the distance I think.)
Which means, most Trek fights or wars over borders are fights over nothing. This is dramatically weak, and depends entirely upon the viewer kindly assuming a real conflict by inapplicable analogy with the present Earth.
Borders are also absurd because they are "bags of nothing," as stated above. There are no fish, no dissolved minerals, nothing but radiation which is vastly more concentrated near the stars that radiate. (If I recall correctly, radiation dissipates as the cube of the radius of the spherical volume! Interstellar distances are too great to approximate to the inverse square of the distance I think.)
Which means, most Trek fights or wars over borders are fights over nothing. This is dramatically weak, and depends entirely upon the viewer kindly assuming a real conflict by inapplicable analogy with the present Earth.
Just wanted to point something out (and I haven't read the entire thread--sorry!--so I may not be the first) but Kathleen Sky's otherwise horrid novel Vulcan! deals with this very problem: a planet inhabitted by giant ant things is about to move into Romulan space and the Enterprise is sent to ascertain if the creatures are sentient and thus deserving of Federation protection before it happens.
We don't know that all border areas are simply bags of nothing. I've always liked the game Tachyon: The Fringe, and some of the political borders in that universe are based on two key factors: the location of jump gates, which provide FTL travel, and the presence of asteroid fields. The asteroids contain minerals which are valuable for mining and trade purposes, and this is why some areas were colonized. Most of the factions are rather territorial.
I know all about relativity and it just supports my contention that since you cannot have an absolute frame of reference using moving objects like stars and planets cannot make stable boundaries.Also aliens would not be able to see them.
Also everyone would use a different distant object of reference which would add to the confusion.
Imagine a wobbly jelly dripping down under gravity.some parts of the jelly would drip faster then othersand the jelly boundary would change with respect to time.
Also everyone would use a different distant object of reference which would add to the confusion.
Imagine a wobbly jelly dripping down under gravity.some parts of the jelly would drip faster then othersand the jelly boundary would change with respect to time.
I don't think anyone here that supports the "borders in space" notion is naive enough to think in terms of absolutes. The simple fact that we can sit here on this planet and maintain the same constellations for thousands of years just proves that some sort of boundary system would be achievable even if it required a little more flexibility than 21st century humans presently entertain, even while their continents drift apart and grind into one another by inches per year. Relativity in the context of this discussion wouldn't even necessarily be a factor given that warp travel will have given these civilizations a one-up on more precise measurements. Granted still no absolutes...
Confusion in map reading is nothing new, but why would they automatically use different reference objects. People who have agreed to recognize borders would probably agree to use the same referential system, in order for the agreement portion of it and all. Others who fail to or simply refuse to acknowledge such a boundary are either adversaries (one good reason for borders) or just out of the loop (one good reason for exploration.)
That could be millions or even billions of years of dripping jelly. More than enough time for a few civilizations to make their stage debut in that ooze, dance their highly organized choreography and then bow out.
Without borders there would be no border patrol or neutral zone
There are plenty of international and other boundaries right here on Earth which are vague, uncertain or otherwise undefined. Even ones relatively well-defined, either by mutual agreement or by geographical landmarks such as rivers and mountain ranges, are subject to change, sometimes quite rapidly, even by human standards.
Adding a third dimension, greatly increasing the scope and using different landmarks and other criteria raises the degree of difficulty somewhat, but it hardly makes the notion of borders any more absurd, impractical or arbitrary than what we've been using here for millennia. More than any other single thing, trade -- and the control of trade routes -- is what is going to determine where the lines are drawn, and there is nothing which makes space inherently different from planetary surfaces, in that regard.
You forgot that the land marks like stars,planets,asteroids,etc,are MOVING themselves and not fixed,thus the idea of a FIXED border is untenable.
Add to that the fact no ABSOLUTE frame of reference can exist,says Einstein and you will see why the idea of borders is absurd.
As someone said space is big and the idea of trade ROUTES is nonsense.
No mountain ranges or rivers or other obstacles exist.Space is so,so big compared to material objects.
In fact the volume of solid matter as a fraction of total space is very very low,less then 0.01%.
Space is mostly that,empty space.
Similar threads
