Question regarding terms used in StarTrek

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-15 02:36pm

In Star trek they use terms that is based in real life but when used in Star trek it is used incorrect.

Like neutronium, it is based on neutron stars but when see or hear about it is described wrong.

Should we accept it as it would be real neutronium or something different and they just call it neutronium and use the information we see/hear on screen in discussions.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-09-15 04:51pm

I think the writers of star trek are trying to murder the English language with their physics textbooks.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-15 06:06pm

a vast majority of the terms in star trek are either made up or butchered versions of real life terminology. isoton for example, has no real counterpart irl. though unless what's presented in trek somehow contradicts the real world definition of said item, i see no reason we couldn't take it at face value for the definition. of course contradictions are many, so. . . .*shrug*

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-09-15 07:00pm

You rarely use what they have on screen since what they makes little to no sense.

Though at times when they do say something accurate you rate this to what you've seen and weigh because of how Suspension of Disbelief works.

Usually Dialogue can be preverted but it does and can have some value....just mostly people prefer visual.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-15 07:29pm

Darth_Zod wrote:a vast majority of the terms in star trek are either made up or butchered versions of real life terminology. isoton for example, has no real counterpart irl. though unless what's presented in trek somehow contradicts the real world definition of said item, i see no reason we couldn't take it at face value for the definition. of course contradictions are many, so. . . .*shrug*

Well, iso means one, so technically it's "one ton"...though this makes no sense, since they thought a 25 isoton torpedo would blow up a small moon.
Unless they weren't referring to the yield, but rather the weight, and this torpedo is made of 25 tons of antimatter...LOL

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-09-15 10:58pm

Even that is useless though as isoton = one ton is bad form and cannot be used that way, except as a joke; see Wong's asteroid destruction calculator.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 05:57am

If you assume that Treknology is the same as real-life terminology, you have no choice but to conclude that the characters are blithering idiots. If you assume that the characters have some vague notion of what they're talking about, you have no choice but to assume that the language has significantly changed. I'd favour a combination of the two approaches; either way, you can't take the term "solid neutronium" seriously on any level because it's self-contradictory.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-16 09:34am

Another ex, in TOS their antimatter doesn’t act like antimatter.

It can be deactivated, it is dangerous to start up cold. Should we ignore this or accept it as not antimatter but something else that they have named antimatter.

And in Voyager antimatter can be used on humans to change their genome from salamander back to humans. I try not to think too much when watching Voyager after the event horizon debacle but its canon.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-09-16 10:34am

I try to kid myself into believing the truth that language evolves and that which is spoken by Humans of the 24th century would be as different as middle english is to British English now... Obviously the fact that they all speak and use language that we use knocks that idea on its ass but these little discreprancies could be explained away via that route.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-09-16 12:30pm

I agree with Mike that it has t oimply a change in the meaning of the words; these people successfully crew very complicated pieces of machinery in a hostile and unforgiving environment (vacuum of space ain't friendly); Geordi, much as we like to make fun of him, has never failed to repair arguably the most complicated vessel of them all, the flying bomb AKA Enterprise D. So while terms like "solid neutronium" mean nothing to us, it clearly means something to them.
THis radical change in terminology could perhaps be explained by the Vulcans; remember much of Federation technology is based originally on Vulcan science, and terms may have crossed meanings, been revised, been re-revised and so on until it makes no sense to us in the 21st century.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-16 02:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:I'd favour a combination of the two approaches; either way, you can't take the term "solid neutronium" seriously on any level because it's self-contradictory.

Isn't a Star Destroyer's armor made of neutronium? And is quite solid?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 05:01pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I'd favour a combination of the two approaches; either way, you can't take the term "solid neutronium" seriously on any level because it's self-contradictory.
Isn't a Star Destroyer's armor made of neutronium? And is quite solid?

No, it isn't. Read the ICS; it says that the armour is impregnated with neutronium. This obviously implies that little pellets of neutronium are somehow affixed into the interstitial voids of the base metal's crystal lattice. A tiny blob of neutronium would act like a pellet while remaining internally fluid, like any atomic nucleus.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2004-09-17 11:33am

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I think the writers of star trek are trying to murder the English language with their physics textbooks.

No, waidda minute. Trek writers actually *read* physics textbooks?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-17 11:35am

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I think the writers of star trek are trying to murder the English language with their physics textbooks.
No, waidda minute. Trek writers actually *read* physics textbooks?

they clearly used cliff notes versions as opposed to the actual book itself.

Rihannsu Science Officer · Post by **Rihannsu Science Officer** » 2004-09-17 06:36pm

I think that "isoton" might mean "equal to a ton" but while we use the terms ton, kiloton, megaton, etc. to refer to explosive force of TNT, e.g. a "1 megaton" bomb has an explosive force equivalent to one megaton of TNT, an "isoton" might refer to the explosive force of a nuclear weapon with one ton of U-235, or plutonium, or something like that. It certainly doesn't mean one ton of TNT. Does anyone here think a 50 isoton quantum torpedo could do nearly the kind of damage seen in the canon films if it were only as powerful as 50 tons of TNT? And could the Borg's 5 million isoton weapon REALLY be, as derisively described in one of the "Hate Mail" exchanges, a 5 megaton bomb? The Borg are more advanced than the 24th century Federation (a bit slower, but more technologically advanced) and WE can build weapons vastly more powerful than 5 megaton bombs TODAY.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-17 09:22pm

And could the Borg's 5 million isoton weapon REALLY be, as derisively described in one of the "Hate Mail" exchanges, a 5 megaton bomb? The Borg are more advanced than the 24th century Federation (a bit slower, but more technologically advanced) and WE can build weapons vastly more powerful than 5 megaton bombs TODAY.

In the DS9 episode A Time to Stand, O'Brian says:

Ninety isotons of enriched ultritium should take out the entire storage facility and anything else within eight hundred kilometers.

So 5 million isotons cant be 5 megaton.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-09-18 02:29am

Rihannsu Science Officer wrote:I think that "isoton" might mean "equal to a ton" but while we use the terms ton, kiloton, megaton, etc. to refer to explosive force of TNT, e.g. a "1 megaton" bomb has an explosive force equivalent to one megaton of TNT, an "isoton" might refer to the explosive force of a nuclear weapon with one ton of U-235, or plutonium, or something like that. It certainly doesn't mean one ton of TNT. Does anyone here think a 50 isoton quantum torpedo could do nearly the kind of damage seen in the canon films if it were only as powerful as 50 tons of TNT? And could the Borg's 5 million isoton weapon REALLY be, as derisively described in one of the "Hate Mail" exchanges, a 5 megaton bomb? The Borg are more advanced than the 24th century Federation (a bit slower, but more technologically advanced) and WE can build weapons vastly more powerful than 5 megaton bombs TODAY.

In "Peagusus" it was stated that it would take the entire torpedo complement of the Enterprise-D to destroy a 2 KM asteroid. Does not seem like very high yield weapons.

Rihannsu Science Officer · Post by **Rihannsu Science Officer** » 2004-09-18 04:59am

About 5M Isotons =/= 5 Megatons, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to get across.

Riker is not a scientist or an engineer, he is ill equipped to know how much firepower is necessary to blow up an asteroid. The Romulans could melt a part of it with disruptors to seal the E-D in, presumably a more powerful phaser discharge such as that from the E-D would have gotten them out, fried a large chunk of the asteroid if they weren't worried about cave-ins. I find it hard to believe more than a few volleys of torps would be needed to destroy the asteroid, but I don't know what the asteroid was made of. Quantum torpedoes, unavailable to the E-D, would be even more useful.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Question regarding terms used in StarTrek

Question regarding terms used in StarTrek

I got an idea.

Re: I got an idea.

Re: I got an idea.

Who knows...