Destructionator XIII wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:
Non-answer, therefore irrelevant spam.
You're unbelievably stupid and I hate you. Do us all a favor and permanently lock your account. Right now. Click the profile in the upper right, fill in a bunch of gibberish in the email field, and hit submit. Spare the rest of us from your long-winded idiocy. Have you ever made a single post that was worth reading?
Enjoying your little temper-tantrum?
The square/rectangle analogy isn't a difficult one to grasp, especially since I've explained it in every fucking post I've made in response to your vomit. I particularly like it because it also reflects the specific situation with your stubbornness.
But, you're so fucking stupid you haven't seen it the first three times. Am I explaining it poorly? Oh fuck, one more time. Elemental transmutation is rearranging atoms on a subatomic level, because elements are defined by the way their protons - which are subatomic particles - are arranged. If there's groups of two, you have helium atoms. If there's groups of six, you have carbon atoms.
If you rearrange those groups of six protons, you won't have carbon anymore. Similarly, if you disintegrate those nucleuses, you won't have carbon anymore. That's a specific description of the same general idea.
Rearranging subatomic particles is the rectangle.
Disintegration is a square. It's a special type of rectangle, but still fits the definition of rectangle in every way.
Subatomic reorganisation is a chemical process, as occurs with the formation or dissolution of molecular compounds. But to forcibly change one element into another requires overcoming the strong nuclear force and that is possible only with a nuclear
reaction. Particularly where disintegrating stable isotopes of carbon or oxygen to produce elemental hydrogen
would be concerned. The two processes are
treated as different in the study of the physical sciences. Is that simple and brief enough for you to grasp?
Elapsed time for the process is uncertain, given how presentation videos will often depict such events in time-lapse fashion for viewer convenience.
[...]From these events, it's clear that the cascade chain reaction referred to by Seteyik is involving the entire mass of Epsilon 119 down to its core and within a very brief time interval, indicating a quite different principle than that underlying Genesis is in effect.
Your stupidity knows no limits.
Look who's talking.
You can't even stay consistent with your own bullshit.
Again, look who's talking.
First, you don't know if the time is accurate, but then, the times allegedly not matching up is one of the two pillars of your conclusion! (BTW, we know Genesis was indeed in a very brief time interval, because we watch it happen at the end of the film! It goes from nebula to orange blob in under a minute...)
Elapsed time from the detonation of the Genesis device to the initial coalescence of the planet from the material of the Mutara Nebula comes in at exactly 1.27. How do I know this? I just popped my copy of the movie into the DVD player, selected the scene, and timed it. You may also wish to note that the planet we see at the end of that interval is still
cooling and hasn't even formed an atmosphere, which means the Genesis wave is nowhere near finished with the creation of a class-M world at that point (we have the additional complication that we're certainly seeing an abbreviated sequence, given that it would take Kirk a lot longer than a minute and a half
to run from the bridge, climb down fifteen levels from C-deck —past which the turbolifts were inoperative due to battle damage— and reach engineering in time to watch Spock die and it is during all his run that the coalescence of the Genesis planet is taking place). By contrast, the Carol Marcus presentation video shows the entire
process, from impact and detonation on surface of a dead world to full class-M biosphere complete with liquid oceans, in a time-lapse sequence lasting exactly 51 seconds, as per the timing of the YouTube clip.
The other pillar is that it went down to the core. That's shaky too. Genesis was plunged into the planet in the presentation, and omnidirectional when we see it blow up at the end. So, yeah, that'd hit the whole thing too.
Strawman Fallacy. I said NOTHING
about the Genesis device penetrating to the core of the target planet shown in the simulation. Perhaps you were so anxious to type out your pathetic little "gotcha" that you conflated my discussion of the Genesis wave with the discussion of the energy reactions on Epsilon 119 initiated by Seteyik's device.
No, sunshine, it doesn't work that way around here. You made a claim, now back it up with evidence or concede the point. I grow tired of your bullshit.
No, shithead, I answered this in previous posts.
I'm not responsible for your fantasies.
Stofsk made a comment on the topic too. (Note that I don't repeat what other people said either. I don't have that insatiable urge to break up every single post into individual lines and vomit screens of shit after each one, regardless of if it's been addressed or is relevant. I compose posts with the assumption that the reader has bothered to read the posts above them.)
And Vympel made much the same objections as I've made, which you also tried to just handwave away. And people get quoted in these debates for purposes of context. Especially for the benefit of those who are coming into the thread late or don't have the time to plough back through multiple pages of argument.
Apparently, you only see what you want to see.
Look who's talking.
1) Engineering projects are built off existing science. In the real world, there's often two or more people who come up with something, independently, at about the same time. This especially happens in science and mathematics.
Even if one specific design is lost (like the Saturn V), there's still other machines built on the very same principles (like the Space Shuttle - both use LH2 rockets).
But nowhere near the same capabilities, sunshine. Nothing we've got now could do a direct-burn transorbital injection flight to the moon carrying the tonnage a Saturn V could handle easily. That the Space Shuttle and Saturn V use LH2 engines in no way speaks to the comparative capabilities of the two machines. Not in the least.
2) Funders like to see returns on their investments. Even communist governments like to see progress in their projects. A simple "we're working on it" isn't good enough - they want to see details.
It's an extraordinary claim with no evidence that nothing about the project would be sent back to Earth. This doesn't mean they can build another one at the drop of a hat, but nobody is claiming that.
3) We actually see a derivative work of Genesis, proof positive that something of the project survived. Of course, you'll ignore this, since your logic is invariably either circular or broken. Even if you're too stubborn to accept the on-screen evidence, Wolfe's statement ought to be admissable.
1) Wolfe's statement is not admissible. For all we know, his reasoning when no farther than "DURR... PROTOMATTER = GENESIS". Or he was simply tossing out a quick, glib statement without really thinking the matter through. Because of these uncertainties, observed evidence is the superior standard for objective evaluation. Seteyik's device does not produce the same physical effects as Genesis, and has a far faster reaction time upon what is an Earth-sized electron degenerate mass (which is also why your bloviations about subatomic reorganisation are inoperative: that process would not be possible given the material state of the carbon and oxygen in the body of Epsilon 119).
2) The Federation Council and the Starfleet General Staff were the only bodies, as far as the actual canon evidence presented shows us, which had any knowledge of Project Genesis. We get nothing from any scene, any line of dialogue, in either TWOK or any subsequent film or television episode to support your contention that parallel Genesis research had
to be taking place elsewhere than Regula I. That is what we see and, as far as the evidence goes, that is the reality in the Star Trek
world, like it or not. I'm still waiting for you to provide actual evidence from canon sources
that says otherwise. Do you think you can manage that one, sunshine?
3) It is your assumption entirely that Seteyik's device is derivative of Genesis and on the same broken logic used by RHW (which, BTW, he didn't even bother to state in the actual filmed script for "Second Sight"), assuming equivalence by way of one point of commonality i.e. the use of protomatter. The visual evidence presented, however, belies that assumption entirely.
Mike Wong on his methodology page wrote:
Axes teh question: "What do you think the author was trying to say?"
No, it really doesn't. You look at what's on the paper or on the screen and talk about it. Sometimes, some behind the scenes knowledge is fun and adds to it, but it doesn't rely on reading the author's mind.
Mr. Wong says this over and over and over and over again. But, it's just not true.
Really, that's all that needs to be said here, since that entire page talks about author intent as the highest authority, which simply isn't the case.
That is not at all what that page is talking about. It's talking about why authorial intent is valueless
as an authority.
I think Stofsk said it in this thread too - even if it were about author intent, the subjectiveness (the core of Mike's attacks against "literary analysis") comes from guessing it. If the author flat-out says something, in no uncertain terms, where's the uncertainty? Wong's argument is author intent is bad because it is ambiguous and wishy-washy (note his hilarious style of saying "Case closed." at the end of the green text).
Because the author, in this case Robert Hewitt Wolfe, did NOT say it in the actual episode "Second Sight". Nor has any other screenwriter for any other television episode or film in the various Star Trek
series. And according to Paramount, canon for Star Trek
is what's shown on screen, period —excepting material that the studio has actually decanonised, like just about every episode of TAS except "Yesteryear". Also, the device Wolfe and the other two writers created for "Second Sight" reacts very differently than does Genesis. That is the evidence that has to be dealt with, no matter what RHW has to say on the matter after-the-fact or off-the-cuff.
It actually reminds me of a TNG episode, Pen Pals. They are all having a chat on the prime directive. Pulaski is arguing blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah... on reading the writer's mind.
Aside from that though, spending time attacking Wong's strawman is a pretty big waste of time, so fuck it.
No, you strawmanning Mike's statements is the waste of time here. Along with your endless handwaving and you acting like a pissy little bitch in this thread, which is growing most tiresome.