Conservation of Momentum Is NOT a Law in Trek!

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-05 01:25am

That tears it. I was thinking about the episode where the Doomsphere finally does its thing (best looking planet destruction I've seen). No, I'm not talking about the Doomsphere itself. I'm talking about the battle between the Reptilians and the Enterprise at the end. Each guy hit by the Xindi weapon gets lifted off his feet and tossed back two or three meters as if yanked by a cable. That combined with the "anomalies" that make rocks and containers suddenly move, stop moving, or change direction or speed. We know that certain "laws" of physics aren't constant in Trek. Gravitational constants, the speed of time, conservation of mass. Now, the fact that conservation of mass isn't a law (as demonstrated by the various applications of mass lightening) might be enough to account for these things while still conserving momentum.

But the Xindi weapons apparently don't involve any kind of relative mass lightening. The MACOS getting knocked about by the Xindi weapons don't have impulse engines that let them mass-lighten themselves. And if they were mass-lightened (either by the Xindi weapons or some malfunction in the ship's systems), they'd weigh less in the ship's gravity. But no. They land just as hard as if their weight were normal.

And the rocks. Even if they were mass-lightened, they wouldn't suddenly change direction the way they did. These "anomalies" are explained as being caused by the big Xindi spheres strewn about the Delphic expanse. So apparently conservation of momentum is not a fundamental law of physics. It's an effect that has causes, and those causes can be removed or altered. Momentum is conserved under most conditions, but apparently conditions can be created in Trek where it isn't conserved.

I think the above examples are about as unequivocal a contradiction of real world physics as warp drive. They may as well openly state that C of M isn't a certainty just as they openly state that they're traveling faster than light.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-05 01:27am

That is nothing new really. TV show SFX are meant to be eye candy not a documentary on laws of physics.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-05 01:40am

"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-05 01:42am

evilcat4000 wrote:That is nothing new really. TV show SFX are meant to be eye candy not a documentary on laws of physics.

Yeah, but generally we try to default to the real laws of physics when explaining how things work in sci-fi. Only after they fail to explain a given event do we mention things like "funky Star Trek chain reaction" or "subspace" or "mass-lightening."

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-02-05 03:32am

Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?

Yes, so say Paramount who are in charge of what is and is not canon.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-05 04:07am

TheDarkling wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?
Yes, so say Paramount who are in charge of what is and is not canon.

I think at this point, given that the fanbase cares more about the franchise than Paramount ever will, that we can define for ourselves what is and is not 'legitimate Star Trek'.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-05 05:26am

Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?

It's not the same timeline, but I'm not sure why divergent events (and hence multiple timelines) must therefore mean different laws of physics. Especially since the TNG timeline did interact with the ENT timeline. We've seen CofM violated elsewhere in Trek too. TNG "Unnatural Selection" depicts telekinesis, as do several Voyager episodes focusing on Kes' abilities. And while I don't know TNG as well, I wouldn't be surprised if Trelane or Apollo or the Organians broke it too.

OT - "Incubus" was on Sci-Fi early Thursday morning (around 12:30). It was the all-Esperanto movie Shatner did. Fucking weird, but I kinda like it.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-02-05 08:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?

Yes. It's no worse than anything else we've gotten since TNG got started. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't still suck.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-06 09:50pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?
Yes. It's no worse than anything else we've gotten since TNG got started. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't still suck.

He's not referring to how lousy it is. He hates TNG and still considers in canon, I think. He's referring to how it blatantly contradicts much of the history of TOS and TNG, and the fact that Roddenberry said, "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek." Even without the latter, the former makes it impossible to consider them all one canon.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-07 11:47am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:"Enterprise" is legitimate Star Trek?
It's not the same timeline, but I'm not sure why divergent events (and hence multiple timelines) must therefore mean different laws of physics.

Strawman fallacy; if something is clearly written with total disregard for continuity, then the question is why ANYTHING from it should be considered accurate, not why particular parts of it should be assumed valid while others aren't.

Especially since the TNG timeline did interact with the ENT timeline.

You could say the same thing about the TNG timeline and a typical fanfic.

We've seen CofM violated elsewhere in Trek too. TNG "Unnatural Selection" depicts telekinesis, as do several Voyager episodes focusing on Kes' abilities.

Telekinesis does not necessarily violate conservation of momentum. Try again.

And while I don't know TNG as well, I wouldn't be surprised if Trelane or Apollo or the Organians broke it too.

See above.

OT - "Incubus" was on Sci-Fi early Thursday morning (around 12:30). It was the all-Esperanto movie Shatner did. Fucking weird, but I kinda like it.

Shatner's a strange dude.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-02-07 11:57am

Just dump "Enterprise" into the trash compactor.
It is totally un-canon AND horrible.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-07 11:41pm

Metrion Cascade wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:That is nothing new really. TV show SFX are meant to be eye candy not a documentary on laws of physics.
Yeah, but generally we try to default to the real laws of physics when explaining how things work in sci-fi. Only after they fail to explain a given event do we mention things like "funky Star Trek chain reaction" or "subspace" or "mass-lightening."

Maybe Star Trek follows the same policy as Andromeda where dialogue is more accurate than SFX. This seems likely given the unrealistic SFX.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-02-11 09:38am

These days, most if not all physical laws in Trek are nothing more than physical opinions.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-12 05:33am

evilcat4000 wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:That is nothing new really. TV show SFX are meant to be eye candy not a documentary on laws of physics.
Yeah, but generally we try to default to the real laws of physics when explaining how things work in sci-fi. Only after they fail to explain a given event do we mention things like "funky Star Trek chain reaction" or "subspace" or "mass-lightening."
Maybe Star Trek follows the same policy as Andromeda where dialogue is more accurate than SFX. This seems likely given the unrealistic SFX.

Did anyone else notice the shot in "Twilight" where the Xindi ships could be seen flying out from behind a moon? I'd guess they were a couple thousand miles long by that shot.

Anyway, DW, you are right about the physics. I'd say "First Contact" is canon and hence the physics of the past must be the same as canon Trek, but nothing that happens after that point in ENT is canon.

So CofM is not a law in ENT, but that doesn't speak for the rest of Trek.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-12 07:56am

Usualy I view trek SFX as computer game graphics. It simplifies things.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-12 09:37am

evilcat4000 wrote:Usualy I view trek SFX as computer game graphics. It simplifies things.

For a long time, there was an excuse - SFX were more expensive and harder to pull off. You needed to make physical models and such. CGI has fixed that for the most part, so now it's a matter of creativity and scientific accuracy. I thought the Xindi Death Star attack in "Twilight" was fucking excellent. And DET.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-12 11:01am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Usualy I view trek SFX as computer game graphics. It simplifies things.
For a long time, there was an excuse - SFX were more expensive and harder to pull off. You needed to make physical models and such. CGI has fixed that for the most part, so now it's a matter of creativity and scientific accuracy.

We never considered this before. Why start now?

I thought the Xindi Death Star attack in "Twilight" was fucking excellent. And DET.

I swear, this site has given Trekkies the biggest case of penis envy I've ever seen. Your races suck and aren't powerful. Accept it.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-02-13 12:48am

Durandal wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Usualy I view trek SFX as computer game graphics. It simplifies things.
For a long time, there was an excuse - SFX were more expensive and harder to pull off. You needed to make physical models and such. CGI has fixed that for the most part, so now it's a matter of creativity and scientific accuracy.

We never considered this before. Why start now?

Are you saying we should take dialogue over visuals?

I thought the Xindi Death Star attack in "Twilight" was fucking excellent. And DET.
I swear, this site has given Trekkies the biggest case of penis envy I've ever seen. Your races suck and aren't powerful. Accept it.

Excellent as in well-done visually. Nice to look at. I'm not saying the XDS is anywhere near the scale of the DS. Alderaan, with its shield, popped like a hymen on prom night in less than half a second. Earth's debris wasn't even moving at half a planetary diameter per second, and the magma being pushed up probably did more killing than the explosion. And the Xindi are not canon anyway.

And yes, I would most certainly send the Q, the Prophets, or the Organians up against any Wars race.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-13 01:28am

Metrion Cascade wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Metrion Cascade wrote: For a long time, there was an excuse - SFX were more expensive and harder to pull off. You needed to make physical models and such. CGI has fixed that for the most part, so now it's a matter of creativity and scientific accuracy.

We never considered this before. Why start now?
Are you saying we should take dialogue over visuals?

It sounded like you were using cheap effects budgets to dismiss visuals, which is something we don't do.

omegaLancer · Post by **omegaLancer** » 2004-02-13 03:34am

Okay I going out on a limb here, but recently I readed a paper showing that Momentum can be siphon from the Vacuum of empty space, an effect similar to the Casimir effect.

Maybe it would be possible to do the reverse. Shunt momentum into empty space via electrical fields...

Check out http://focus.aps.org/story/v13/st3 for a brief summary of the effect.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Conservation of Momentum Is NOT a Law in Trek!

Conservation of Momentum Is NOT a Law in Trek!

Momentum From Nothing