Star Trek - it is not logical

[PirateJafa]

SPOILERS WITHIN

Right. This movie has some serious flaws in the plot.

I mean, let's face it. SPOCK lands his little spinning gyroscope in the SpaceRomans ship hold when he is captured. Then he conspicuously FAILS to point out to his capturers that as they are twenty-five years in the future, and he has his ship that still carries the billiard ball/pintsize death star/banhammer, why don't they just rock on over to the Romuleans home planet and destroy the dying star now. Twenty-five years before it decides to explode.

Which would, of course, save their homeworld, and result in the entire movie being about 30 minutes long.

But no, he doesn't suggest this, despite it being the most logical thing to do. Indeed, it is not logical for him not to suggest this, as it's the best way to resolve the conflict without bloodshed. Sif you're a decent vulcan, you're a traitor, Spock.

<img src="http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/520/spock.jpg">

PirateRating:

8/10 for explosions

3.5/10 for plot (Would be 2.5 for plot, but they scored a 7 for technobabble)

[98tls]

Those ears are not logical either,not much to hear in outer space.They should be little puckered up things similar to a cats arse.

[JimO]

Those ears are not logical either,not much to hear in outer space.They should be little puckered up things similar to a cats arse.

xbert on cats arses are we:Pokey:

[98tls]

xbert on cats arses are we:Pokey: Actually Jimmy ive become one,rescued this staunch fucker from the SPCA and it struts round here tail in the air like it fucken owns the place,even my dog Mac is wary of the bastard.

[p.dath]

It's a movie, not a statement of fact. Just enjoy it!

[Magua]

I mean, let's face it. SPOCK lands his little spinning gyroscope in the SpaceRomans ship hold when he is captured. Then he conspicuously FAILS to point out to his capturers that as they are twenty-five years in the future, and he has his ship that still carries the billiard ball/pintsize death star/banhammer, why don't they just rock on over to the Romuleans home planet and destroy the dying star now. Twenty-five years before it decides to explode.

Which would, of course, save their homeworld, and result in the entire movie being about 30 minutes long.

Because they're from the future. They can't get back to the future, so even with a saved planet the romulans on the ship are proper fucked. Everything they know is dead. _b _b

[LBD]

It is logical Jim...just not as we know it!

[sinfull]

Awwww you wanker !

[sinfull]

Ok i'm drunk nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah anha nanna nan mum gran
i won't remember nothing in the morning !!!

[sinfull]

Awww you wanker !

[Big Dave]

So what particular part of 'Science Fiction' are you having trouble with?

[Ixion]

It is an absolute rule of science fiction that the science must be solid. You are permitted to posit "sooner or later someone will find a way to exceed the speed of light. " . So the warp drive is OK. Sure, we can't do it now, but there's nothing in science that says it is actually impossible

But you cannot invoke magic, in any form. That makes it fantasy. So pterry's flying broomsticks, f'instance, are not valid science fiction (unless he can come up with a scientifically valid, albeit as yet undiscovered, explanation of how they can fly). Similarly, most of Superman's exploits.

I agree with the bucaneering gentleman. The plot was crap. It wouldn't have done for Heinlen or Clarke or Asimov.i

[Big Dave]

but there's nothing in science that says it is actually impossible

Causality and prohibition of motion faster than light

See also: Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Light_cone.svg/180px-Light_cone.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_cone.svg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_cone.svg)
Diagram 2. Light cone


In diagram 2 the interval AB is 'time-like'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which event A and event B occur at the same location in space, separated only by occurring at different times. If A precedes B in that frame, then A precedes B in all frames. It is hypothetically possible for matter (or information) to travel from A to B, so there can be a causal relationship (with A the cause and B the effect).
The interval AC in the diagram is 'space-like'; i.e., there is a frame of reference in which event A and event C occur simultaneously, separated only in space. However there are also frames in which A precedes C (as shown) and frames in which C precedes A. If it were possible for a cause-and-effect relationship to exist between events A and C, then paradoxes of causality would result. For example, if A was the cause, and C the effect, then there would be frames of reference in which the effect preceded the cause. Although this in itself won't give rise to a paradox, one can show<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#cite_note-23)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference">[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#cite_note-24)</sup> that faster than light signals can be sent back into one's own past. A causal paradox can then be constructed by sending the signal if and only if no signal was received previously.
Therefore, one of the consequences of special relativity is that (assuming causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) is to be preserved), no information or material object can travel faster than light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light). On the other hand, the logical situation is not as clear in the case of general relativity, so it is an open question whether there is some fundamental principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture) that preserves causality (and therefore prevents motion faster than light) in general relativity.
Even without considerations of causality, there are other strong reasons why faster-than-light travel is forbidden by special relativity. For example, if a constant force is applied to an object for a limitless amount of time, then integrating F = dp/dt gives a momentum that grows without bound, but this is simply because p = mγv approaches infinity as v approaches c. To an observer who is not accelerating, it appears as though the object's inertia is increasing, so as to produce a smaller acceleration in response to the same force. This behavior is in fact observed in particle accelerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerators).
See also the Tachyonic Antitelephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_Antitelephone).

from the wiki

[LBD]

Define light....as not all visible to the eye light (let alone light outside the visible spectums) travels at the same speed (Hence twinklng stars)

[Big Dave]

Not Dark.

<tenchars> </tenchars>

[Ixion]

Certainly, if we limit the discussion to relativistic physics. But, as we now know, there is considerable reason to suppose that there is a great deal beyond relativistic physics.

Arguing that FTL travel is impossible because Einsteinian physics cannot resolve the paradoxs, is akin to arguing that it IS possible because Newtonian physics does not recognise the paradox.

Quantum mechanics does present certain phenomena that suggest that c is not an absolute barrier, in particular the famous "spooky action" paradox. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)for Wiki discussion.

In summary, although classical (ie old fashioned) physics regards the speed of light as an absolute, it may be that there are ways to evade it. We can say that you can't exceed c by just pedalling faster, or even by fitting a turbocharger. Not even a big turbocharger and NOS. But, it may be possible using physics that we don't yet understand. (Personaly, I suspect the secret will be to paint the spaceship red , and attach LOTS of stickers).

Since there is enough evidence that FTL might one day be possible , it has generally been accepted that science fiction may make an assumption that it is feasible. Some time, some where.

This thread may get very interesting .

[Big Dave]

Not Dark. <tenchars> </tenchars>

[Usarka]

Faster than light travel is a piece of piss. At any point in time an atom can be in different places, have different states, and quite possibly even exist in different universes. Work out how to translate the quantum to the macro and voila! As Ix says you probably don't go faster so much as go around it.....

As for time travel......

The event that caused spock to come back from the future would never happen if he destroyed followed the OP advice.

If he couldn't come back from the future then he couldn't use the device.

Work arounds to such paradoxs have been hypothesised (again using quantum theory) but the beauty is you can't disprove my hypothesis above. So the movie was just fine :bleh:

[PrincessBandit]

How can you be worried about such trivialities compared to how awful old/past Spock's teeth looked????

[Usarka]

How can you be worried about such trivialities compared to how awful old/past Spock's teeth looked????

Going to a dentist is not logical.

[gijoe1313]

So what about the convention of "Slower than Dark" speed? :rolleyes: As for elves in space, I'm sure there will be some token theory that people will draw a ring around it.

And what about the furor that Trekkers/Trekkies will place on how this fits in the canon of their light/dark universe? :scratch:

I just shudder to think of the extra legions of weight challenged people squeezing into Star Fleet uniforms! :sick:

Oh wait, done already with 300lb men wearing Sailor Moon outfits :sick: