I like it better when we try to force real world explanations onto all the acts, technology, and special effects of the "dramatic" presentation of the fictional world of Star Trek.
Okay, so why did Saavik get facial reconstruction surgery right after Spock's funeral? Why is the Romulan cloaking device made out of Nomad's head and Sargon's globe? Why is the Enterprise visibly turning when it orbits a planet, even though any orbital path would be tens of thousands of kilometers in circumference and thus appear as a perfectly straight line on the scale of a three-hundred-meter starship? And why do the stars often appear to move even when a ship is at impulse? Some of what we see has to be taken as figurative.
I said I "like" it better, not that it is any more accurate. I actually find it more entertaining and enjoyable to watch when people try to explain away plot holes, actor changes, etc.
I personally try to keep in mind that this is a mutable and fictional universe, and although it is fascinating when real world science is used to explain broad themes (your excellent discussion of "alternate" universes in the DTI books is a good example) when real world science is used as support when arguing about whether or not phasers would be blue, or whether or not torpedoes glow, or whether hand phasers would make "beyoo" sounds it gets just a bit goofy.