Star Trek XI Plot Holes

posted on April 29th, 2010, 12:09 pm

STXI was a pretty damn good movie, and just what star trek needed. if we had gotten another Nemesis the franchise would probably be dead.

OMG. It was like a refinery just with water in glasspipes! Why the hell they should use glasspipes?!?

Transparent Aluminum.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 1:41 pm

You know, I read something, somewhere that they had actually created that stuff.  It wasn't called Transparent aluminum, but it was a clear substance that they said was as strong as steel, and they are going to replace car windows with it. 

I think it was an issue of popular science...

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on April 29th, 2010, 7:53 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on April 29th, 2010, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True that most all of what we know is gained through visual perception(an unfortunate limitation to the meaning of proof) However I contest that we have still never seen a black hole that small, therefore we have no way of saying that one exists.  And (asfar as I know, ) Black holes are fixed points in this galaxy,(this is an assumption, so I could be verry wrong ) and have enormous gravatational effects.  We have no idea if the holes themselfs have mass atall or merely the things contained in the event horizon have mass.

In that case, a blackhole, newly made, most likely with the energy created by the destruction of a planed would have extreme effects on the other planets in the solar system, even if it only existed for a breif moment, it would, as we have learned form our observations, draw in all other objects near it because of its immense gravitational pull.  Even if that is only enough to slightly mis-align a planet, it could have serious implications on near by planets.


Anyway, this is my opinion, and it is all theory.  We are delving into some deep Gravitational theory which assumes an almost two dimensional plane(you surely know what I"m referring to) and theory about cosmotic phenomenon which I still contest that we barely understand.  When each theory is based on the belief that another theory is true, many jumps in logic may be made, and what is produced is a very weak idea which can be destroy with the dis proving of a single almost unrelated theory.



I'm trying to writ a paper atm so forgive me for being long winded.  I"m trying to retain my state of mind while still staying on topic.

Sorry to drag this offsubject – but it’s far more interesting in my opinion. It’s not the long windedness that’s a problem – it’s the lack of reality and correctness I’m afraid. For one thing, you are heavily constraining your mind when you refer to “visual perception”. Observation does not necessary imply human visual acquity – and when we search the cosmos for black holes, it is assuredly NOT within the human visual spectrum.  Moving on, we absolutely know how large a black hole can be (the event horizon obviously). Black holes are also not “fixed points” – they are stellar bodies and move just like everything else, having periods, orbits etc. I have no clue what you mean by enormous gravitational effects – if a blackhole is made up of one solar mass, it will have the exact same gravitational impacts as… one solar mass. I suppose you are referring to that neither mass nor energy can escape from the gravity well – but of course, that is at the event horizon, not outside. Here is how you calculate the radius.



If a planet was compressed to form a blackhole (which isn’t feasible, but anyway since it would at least have to undergo fusion….) it would have exactly the same mass before and after. Consequently, the same gravitational effects would be incurred by a blackhole of 1/3 solar mass, as a planet of 1/3 solar mass.

Another thing: “gravitational theory” (are you talking about the law of gravitation or?) does not assume a two dimensional plane in any case. You can’t assume a two dimensional plane in any conceivable scenario. I’m not sure how you can even state we barely understand any of this, since this is the basis of modern physics itself. If we didn’t understand it, your computer wouldn’t work. Simple as that.

Lastly this argument: “When each theory is based on the belief that another theory is true, many jumps in logic may be made, and what is produced is a very weak idea which can be destroy with the dis proving of a single almost unrelated theory” has absolutely no basis in reality I’m afraid. I’m sure you are talking about hypothesis or conjecture – which of course plays no part in modern scientific synthesis. There are a number of books and videos if you’d like me to direct you to where you might learn how scientific inquiry works however.

You know, I read something, somewhere that they had actually created that stuff.  It wasn't called Transparent aluminum, but it was a clear substance that they said was as strong as steel, and they are going to replace car windows with it. 

I think it was an issue of popular science...

Yes, if you use lasers you can change the properties of the metal to be clear … until it is saturated and the electrons return to their orbitals. You can also change the color of the metal in this manner . It will be used to “paint” planes and other vehicles when the technology overcomes this limited time frame issue.

[Anonymous]

posted on April 29th, 2010, 8:45 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on April 29th, 2010, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it’s far more interesting in my opinion.

I agree 

For one thing, you are heavily constraining your mind when you refer to “visual perception”. Observation does not necessary imply human visual acquity – and when we search the cosmos for black holes, it is assuredly NOT within the human visual spectrum.

I did not say we have to see it.  Infact, I believe many things require a certain amount of faith for someone to believe they exist.   Anyway, I was merely pointing out the flaw that most people require visual perception in order for proof to exist in their mind.(personally, I require no proof, only i choose what I believe, and what I think is the truth)

  Moving on, we absolutely know how large a black hole can be (the event horizon obviously).

I disagree.  When even the speed of light is not constant in all areas of the galaxy, nothing we know at this point can we say is absolute knoledge.  Again, things get disproven all the time, and we realize things we thought were laws or universal constants are proven otherwise. However, in general cases, I"m sure you are right

If a planet was compressed to form a blackhole (which isn’t feasible, but anyway since it would at least have to undergo fusion….)

Heh, you have pointed out my main point   It was that a black hole, the size of a planet, being created merely with the energy of destroying said planet, having no adverse effects on planets in the same solar system, is not feasible   Thank goodness we agree on that:D

Another thing: “gravitational theory” (are you talking about the law of gravitation or?) does not assume a two dimensional plane in any case. You can’t assume a two dimensional plane in any conceivable scenario. I’m not sure how you can even state we barely understand any of this, since this is the basis of modern physics itself. If we didn’t understand it, your computer wouldn’t work. Simple as that.

Removed:ok, I am not going to debate this, I will merely conciede.  I showed my preception of the twodimentionality of gravity, and that it is 3D in reality, but it is not worth arguing about.  I also fear I am getting gravity and space time confused. :fish:  My bad.

Lastly this argument: “When each theory is based on the belief that another theory is true, many jumps in logic may be made, and what is produced is a very weak idea which can be destroy with the dis proving of a single almost unrelated theory” has absolutely no basis in reality I’m afraid. I’m sure you are talking about hypothesis or conjecture – which of course plays no part in modern scientific synthesis. There are a number of books and videos if you’d like me to direct you to where you might learn how scientific inquiry works however.

You insult me! I don't need your stinking books, I know quite well how Scientific method works.   jokes aside, My point is that people sometimes do place conjuncture in, where science should be.  Unless you assume that a theory is never based on another theory, which does happen all the time.  However, my point was, again, merely that even scientific laws can be broken or disproved, and once those  are broken, every bases of thought or theory that began with the assumption that the law was true, now becomes false in some way.  Nothing is proven to be true, even by the use of science, only false.  We can't tell that something happens all the time in every instance, only that it does not.  Something can be a law for hundreds of years until it is found to be wrong, or that it only applies to certain instances.

Yes, if you use lasers you can change the properties of the metal to be clear … until it is saturated and the electrons return to their orbitals. You can also change the color of the metal in this manner  . It will be used to “paint” planes and other vehicles when the technology overcomes this limited time frame issue

Verry interesting   I can't wait to see what real world uses it has(other than the obvious )

posted on April 29th, 2010, 9:01 pm

O btw it was in pop sci im pretty sure

posted on April 29th, 2010, 9:10 pm

Heh, yeah. I think it was an article about a future car .  I get both Pop-Sci And Popular Mechanics, so I get them confused sometimes.

posted on April 29th, 2010, 11:41 pm

I did not say we have to see it.  Infact, I believe many things require a certain amount of faith for someone to believe they exist.    Anyway, I was merely pointing out the flaw that most people require visual perception in order for proof to exist in their mind.(personally, I require no proof, only i choose what I believe, and what I think is the truth)

Faith is irrelevant as that is “the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness”. Picking and choosing what you want to accept in scientific theory is only useful to those who are not going to use that scientific knowledge. One can say all they want that they “believe” that the human body is made up of cells, but if they don’t “believe” that those cells pass on heritable information and can be selected on over time they cannot “believe” the first statement either. That is the quandary of picking and choosing theories. Of course, there is also hubris – believing that one is more adept at understanding something, than the theory that was compiled on the backs of many others. An inconsistent universe is one in which humanity would never have evolved.

I disagree.  When even the speed of light is not constant in all areas of the galaxy, nothing we know at this point can we say is absolute knoledge.  Again, things get disproven all the time, and we realize things we thought were laws or universal constants are proven otherwise. However, in general cases, I"m sure you are right 

You are confusing the speed of light through a medium, with the absolute fundamental speed, which is a known and absolute constant. Things do not get “disproven all the time” – unless one happens to be a flat earther. The field of physics (as other scientific fields) has been very stable since it was born, and universal constants are refined – not “disproven” – and do not mistake this as splitting hairs. The speed of light has been known since 1850, but it took more precise instruments to measure it exactly. That is why we know absolutely that 299,792,458 meters per second is the speed of light in a vacuum. If this example does not serve, Newtonian mechanics for instance is not complete, and thus has been incorporated into Einsteinian mechanics. That does not make Newtonian mechanics wrong – just incomplete.

Heh, you have pointed out my main point    It was that a black hole, the size of a planet, being created merely with the energy of destroying said planet, having no adverse effects on planets in the same solar system, is not feasible    Thank goodness we agree on that:D

Don’t mix up my words . I merely pointed out that a planet collapsing on its own into a blackhole is not feasible (since we know roughly what the minimum mass and conditions are that are required to develop a blackhole of that sort - discounting microblackholes) – not that a planet could not be made to collapse (which it most assuredly could be with some nice tools). As I said before, if a planet collapses into a blackhole, it will have EXACTLY the same gravitational effects on its neighbors as if it was still a planet.

Removed:ok, I am not going to debate this, I will merely conciede.  I showed my preception of the twodimentionality of gravity, and that it is 3D in reality, but it is not worth arguing about.  I also fear I am getting gravity and space time confused.    My bad.

Sorry to continue this, but I absolutely must point out that gravity and space and time are intertwined,  and there is no way to discuss it in a two dimensional reality. Even when separated, they still cannot be discussed in two dimensions .

You insult me!  I don't need your stinking books, I know quite well how Scientific method works.    jokes aside, My point is that people sometimes do place conjuncture in, where science should be.  Unless you assume that a theory is never based on another theory, which does happen all the time.  However, my point was, again, merely that even scientific laws can be broken or disproved, and once those  are broken, every bases of thought or theory that began with the assumption that the law was true, now becomes false in some way.  Nothing is proven to be true, even by the use of science, only false.  We can't tell that something happens all the time in every instance, only that it does not.  Something can be a law for hundreds of years until it is found to be wrong, or that it only applies to certain instances.

Respectfully, I disagree (also, everyone could use more books keeping on the blade's edge is very important if you want to stay informed, and I don't mean reading popular science). All theories are based on other theories. It doesn’t make anything weaker though – it makes scientific inquiry stronger. Like the before used exampled, Einsteinian mechanics relies on Newtonian and so on. Neither is wrong, though they are both incomplete in some senses. Do not confuse incompleteness with incorrectness. It is like arguing that microevolution doesn’t work because we haven’t determined all the cellular repair mechanisms. Incidentally, the definition of a scientific law is one that has been so completely backed up with other theories, examples etc that it is unassailable. I know of no scientific laws that have ever been proven wrong. That last part of your paragraph is pretty strange I’m sorry, as you can most assuredly determine whether things have remained the same. The speed of light has remained the same for the entire age of this universe for instance. The constant G has remained constant as well – hence being a constant. Laws do not change in this universe. Provide an example if you’d wish to back it up – and I’d dare say you will not be able to find a single one.

[Dircome]

posted on April 29th, 2010, 11:43 pm

Last edited by Dircome on April 29th, 2010, 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Heh, yeah. I think it was an article about a future car .  I get both Pop-Sci And Popular Mechanics, so I get them confused sometimes.

Well they run the same (more or less) articles sooo its hard to keep them apart.

Where is mimsot when you need a science debate settled

[Anonymous]

posted on April 30th, 2010, 1:27 am

Last edited by Anonymous on April 30th, 2010, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Heh, Dom I believe we have reached an Impass.  Suddonly I find that we, once again come to an evolution vs. Creation Argument, which I think is clear that neither one of us  are willing to change our opinions on.

So, I will specifically aviod areas of your statements which may lead to said argument.  Debate is useless unless someone is wiling to change their mind or conceded.  I really want to talk about it with you(again ) but unfortunatly I don't have the time, or a good reason to do so atm.


"unless one happens to be a flat earther." Unfortunately, there are examples of this today(which is exactly what I'm talking about ) I know I"m gonna regret this, but take Global warming for example

And again I agree with you.  Unfortunately, again many people who don't understand will take incomplete theories and call them fact. I have seen it many times...

"Even when separated, they still cannot be discussed in two dimensions "

I understand. I have seen it done by dropping three dimensional objects onto a 2D plain, (i said kinda 2D in the first place not absolutely 2D) but yeah, thats why I repealed the argument.  I don't have adequate understanding of the theory to significantly explain my thoughts

"you can most assuredly determine whether things have remained the same. The speed of light has remained the same for the entire age of this universe for instance."

I disagree, but I believe this is for obvious reasons, not because I have scientific "facts" which i can provide to show otherwise.


Just to be clear, I do pick and choose theory that I believe. You should to.  However I do not believe that what I choose to disbelieve effect things like my understanding of cellular Biology.  Just because someone has made a theory that is based in science does not mean that it is correct. Infact, if you do accept someone elses theory without your own experimentation to test it yourself, you place faith in that persons scientific abilitys.  Faith is not a dirty word in science. You have faith in plenty of things that does not imply religon.  So don't confuse faith in the truthfulness of something, with religion.

posted on April 30th, 2010, 1:33 am

Where is mimsot when you need a science debate settled

Same place most people go when the diatribes with no sources come out:  20' pole etc...

posted on April 30th, 2010, 1:44 am

please, no evidence...no sources.  I get enough of that in real life, I'd rather not sort through evidence and sources, links and such.  I've had enough of," My guy's credentials are better!" or "My source is more creditable!"

Blah, Blah, Blah...

posted on April 30th, 2010, 1:58 am

Heh, Dom I believe we have reached an Impass.  Suddonly I find that we, once again come to an evolution vs. Creation Argument, which I think is clear that neither one of us  are willing to change our opinions on. 

So, I will specifically aviod areas of your statements which may lead to said argument.  Debate is useless unless someone is wiling to change their mind or conceded.  I really want to talk about it with you(again  ) but unfortunatly I don't have the time, or a good reason to do so atm.

That's fine, as you wish ^^ ,  just please don’t say things about physics unless you are absolutely certain – that’s after all the reason I started posting, to correct your statements

please, no evidence...no sources.  I get enough of that in real life, I'd rather not sort through evidence and sources, links and such.  I've had enough of," My guy's credentials are better!" or "My source is more creditable!"

Blah, Blah, Blah...

This is what science is about mate  Can't argue stuff if all it is is that you believe or have faith that it is correct

"unless one happens to be a flat earther." Unfortunately, there are examples of this today(which is exactly what I'm talking about  ) I know I"m gonna regret this, but take Global warming for example 

Yeah, we’ll definitely regret it – along with the rest of the world sadly . But that's for another discussion of course. Feel free to open one - the debate is quite interesting if everybody sticks to the science.

And again I agree with you.  Unfortunately, again many people who don't understand will take incomplete theories and call them fact. I have seen it many times...

I’m sure you mean hypothesis, and not theory however. All theories by their nature are incomplete – but a theory is firmly grounded and specific in what it describes. A hypothesis can be both untested and not specific.

Just to be clear, I do pick and choose theory that I believe. You should to.  However I do not believe that what I choose to disbelieve effect things like my understanding of cellular Biology.  Just because someone has made a theory that is based in science does not mean that it is correct. Infact, if you do accept someone elses theory without your own experimentation to test it yourself, you place faith in that persons scientific abilitys.  Faith is not a dirty word in science. You have faith in plenty of things that does not imply religon.  So don't confuse faith in the truthfulness of something with religion.

Heh, I discriminate plenty – but not with hyper well founded theories. If one does, they just don’t have enough knowledge on the subject. I’ve got a physics major sitting next to me who can inundate me with information about any of these subjects, but I’m versed enough to know where I stand. I don't think I can even begin to discuss the last set of arguments, because it is in all honesty very naiive with respect to how scientific research is discussed and done (I don't mean this in a derogatory sense, it just becomes clear that you aren't in a lab or have a lot of background in this, which makes it difficult to discuss the aspects that are in question).

posted on April 30th, 2010, 4:44 pm

man you guys make long posts, usually i read long posts so i have the right to write equally long posts back, but this thread just goes too far. 



keep on dropping the knowledge my brothers.

you posts will be assimilated into the collective one day 

posted on May 1st, 2010, 1:41 am

"That's fine, as you wish ^^ ,  just please don’t say things about physics unless you are absolutely certain – that’s after all the reason I started posting, to correct your statements "


I will say what I like whether you think it is correct(or it is correct) or not.  I am an American!!! As far as I know that means I still have the freedom of speech!!!    I, mean...err... my entire point was that we can't be absolutely certain of something... yeah...   Ignore that...long day...

"Can't argue stuff if all it is is that you believe or have faith that it is correct "
I agree, though I generally use the word opinion rather than faith, but whatever floats your boat. Arguing opinion against opinion is indeed useless, though it is not unheard of for someone to challenge "facts".


"I’m sure you mean hypothesis, and not theory however. All theories by their nature are incomplete – but a theory is firmly grounded and specific in what it describes. A hypothesis can be both untested and not specific."

Too true.  However, people do sometimes confuse scientific law with incomplete theory(which, as you said, is always the case with theory)


As for the last point, its true that I have no scientific Degree, however that doesn't mean that I don't know plenty of Science. That being said, I also know very well where where I stand.  This is, of course is the reason I think we disagree on many points, because we stand very far apart.   The sad thing is that it seems that you believe that my Religious nature makes me less adequate for Scientific debate.(please correct me if I am wrong about that ) 

I"m not sure whats naive about my last statements, however, like I said, its useless to argue opinion. I will still know I"m right, and you will still know you are.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 2:00 am

As for the last point, its true that I have no scientific Degree, however that doesn't mean that I don't know plenty of Science. That being said, I also know very well where where I stand.  This is, of course is the reason I think we disagree on many points, because we stand very far apart. Cheesy  The sad thing is that it seems that you believe that my Religious nature makes me less adequate for Scientific debate.(please correct me if I am wrong about that )

I"m not sure whats naive about my last statements, however, like I said, its useless to argue opinion. I will still know I"m right, and you will still know you are.

It does mean however that you are not exposed to the environment, which makes a world of difference  . Incidentally I do not come into the debate with any preconceived notion about your "religious nature" - it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and it should not have a bearing on the statements That being said, many quite famous and influential scientists have been or are of a particular faith or are agnostic - as long as that is kept separate from their research they do not run into any issues.

The one thing that I find very problematic is your notion of opinion - you offer no proof, and claim there is none, yet you hold the opinion that gravity is a reality, but not so with other theories. Then again, I have met people who refuse to believe in atoms, yet absolutely believe that when they turn the microwave on, it'll heat up their soup  . Again, remember, there is fundamentally no difference between a law and a theory. It is merely called a law because there is so much proof over the centuries that in the vernacular we like to call it such to illustrate its prominence (and you are thus missusing the word). It's a fairly useless distinction - otherwise we'd be calling things like relativity the "law of relativity" as well. Incidentally, the theory of gravity is also incomplete of course, and yet your feet still touch the ground