This is topic Location of Andor ($$$) in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2281.html

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
OK, it was stated that Andor and Vulcan are neighboring star systems, correct? It's generally accepted that Vulcan is in the trinary system of 40 Eridani, AKA Omicron 2 Eridani. So using a nifty little Java applet I've found, I've done a little star-surfing. The closest stars to "Vulcan" that aren't actually between us and it are LP 656-38, at 5.6 LY, and Wolf 1450, at 6.6 LY. I don't have much info on 656-38, but Wolf 1450 is a main-sequence star, like ours. However, it's considerably cooler, being a type-M, as opposed to our type-G. Its surface temperature is a bit over half of our sun's. Might this explain the insectoid appearance of the Andorians?

Just random theorization. Let's not even get into the location of Qo'noS.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
non-canon sources have always said andor was Epsilon Indi.. id be interested to see how far it is from Sol and 40 Eridani
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
Main-sequence M stars are poor choices for inhabited planets. They're cooler, dimmer, and smaller than Sol, which means planets have to be much close to be in the habitable zone... close enough that they'd probably be tidally locked (like the Moon; one side permenantly facing the star). That makes for very high winds, since the temperature difference between always-day and always-night will be extreme.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I'm pretty sure Epsilon Indi is nowhere near being a "neighbor" of 40-Eridani.

Of course, if Andor is not Epsilon Indi, it makes a lot more sense of the TOS line that mentions Epsilon Indi's inhabitants w/o mentioning the Andorians.

But, then, there's also no canonical evidence that Vulcan is at 40-Eridani. The best we've gotten is the 40-Eridani-A shipyard on a dedication plaque.
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Epsilon INDI? Um... no. Some maps have marked Epsilon Eridani, but Roddenberry and astronomers agreed that it was too young to have life-supporting planets. The 40-Eridani trinary is far more likely.

Ryan makes a good point. Perhaps, then, it's LP 656-38. Anyone got any good info about that particular star?
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Epsilon INDI? Um... no. Some maps have marked Epsilon Eridani, but Roddenberry and astronomers agreed that it was too young to have life-supporting planets. The 40-Eridani trinary is far more likely.

I agree. Luckily, the dwarf stars wouldn't be more than bright points in the sky, so it's acceptable to have missed them in all of the Vulcan scenes we've seen.

Epsilon Indi is supposed to be Andoria's star, not Vulcan's. I don't know enough about it to comment on it's appropriateness. The problem with naming aliens after well-known (read: bright) stars is that they are almost invariably unsuitable for life by virtue of being too young. Unless, of course, we're wrong in our age calculations.
 


Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
 
Unfortunately, what we know about Vulcan doesn't really fit any of the closest stars to Earth. If you look at their data, the only one with a star close to the sun's stats is Alpha Centauri. The only other G-type star within a dozen light years is Tau Ceti, and it's less than half as luminous as the sun. 40 Eridani, by the way, is only about a third as luminous as Sol.

quote:
Main-sequence M stars are poor choices for inhabited planets. They're
cooler, dimmer, and smaller than Sol, which means planets have to be
much close to be in the habitable zone... close enough that they'd
probably be tidally locked (like the Moon; one side permenantly facing
the star). That makes for very high winds, since the temperature
difference between always-day and always-night will be extreme.

An additional problem is that visible light isn't the only product of stars; you have to take into account its output across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on the spectral class, you could be baked by infrared or fried by UV even if the visible light level is tolerable.

As for the relative placement between stars, you might want to check out this site:


projectrho.com

It's a data site for space based RPG, but the person has done a map, based on the sun, of the stars going out to about 25 l.y. The view is from above, with the galactic center to the top. Gives you a good idea of the directional relationships between the stars. 40 Eridani and Epsilon Indi, BTW, are nowhere near each other.

BTW, here's a thought. the 40 Eridani system (a trinary) is some 16 light years from Earth. Remember Scotty's line at the end of TMP: "We can have you back on Vulcan in four days, Mr. Spock?"
They would have had to put the pedal to the metal for that; that works out to wf 11.35 old scale, or 8.9 TNG scale. If they could do that do get home, why were they piddling around at warp 7 to get to V'Ger?

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Woodside Kid ]


 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
Who says that the ST galaxy is identical to our galaxy?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Other galaxies have an Earth?

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]


 
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
 
No, I meant that there could be differences between our and the ST milky way. For example:
The 40 Eridani system is 16 light years away from Earth in our galaxy but maybe 10 light years in ST, Epsilon Indi could be older in the ST galaxy, etc.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]


 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
No, I meant that there could be differences between our and the ST milky way.

Well, I'm sure our *real* galaxy also isn't populated with Klingons, Ferengi, Cardassians, Vulcans, Romulans, and the Borg, so ...
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
I dont see that 16 LY is too far away for Vulcan.

(If a sector is 20 LY/3, then Vulcan could still be in the same sector as Earth, and be 16 LY away or on the egde of a neighboring sector).

[I've just watched 'Amok Time' and it actually says Vulcan is in sector 3. Depending on how the sector system works, that could border sector 1 and be 16 LY away just like the '40 Eridani' theory says]

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]


 
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
If there were differences between the two galaxies, than Star Trek would not be science fiction -- it would be fantasy. Science fiction is about extrapolating on the present day knowledge, not changing what everybody knows. We don't know if there are Borg around, but we do know where the stars are.

Which brings up an interesting side issue -- if we're to treat "Enterprise" as science fiction, then we must assume that the Eugenics Wars took place later than 1992 in its timeline -- otherwise, "Enterprise" stops being an extrapolation and becomes a fantasy. That's probably why Arthur C. Clarke kept changing his 2001 universe in the subsequent books, to keep it science fiction. Hmm...maybe Braga actually knows what he's doing...

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Yeah, weve played that game before..
Its just like any piece of fiction, we have to use our suspension of disbelief to believe that events that didnt happen happened.. and to further that, that events that wont happen will happen. The latter is a little more difficult because the fun of extrapolating what might happen is what makes speculative fiction (read: 'science fiction') more involved than conventional fiction.
But it makes it harder to maintain the illusion as new knowledge comes to pass.
And believing that we live in a similar, but slightly different universe than the one we watch is one way of explaining why its not really happening.

Although i question people who watch a TV show and need their own existence explained to them in the context of the show, rather than people who are more secure and watch the show and try to justify the show in relation to their own existence.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
and i dont think its too far fetched to watch sci-fi based on an alternate version of what we know..

for example, there is a lot of science fiction built around different outcomes of world war II..

I beleive that the Eugenics wars happened in 1992 in the ST universe and i dont live in the ST universe, so they didnt happen here.
its not that difficult a concept to grasp

the thrust of enterprise should be that it could originate in our timeline or the ST timeline.. basically, whether or not the eugenics wars happened and evolved to the ENT universe or our universe evolved into the ENT universe, they would both be the same.
 


Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
Different outcomes of WWII could just as well be historical speculative fiction. Science fiction has to explain or suggest why WWII came out differently, thorough time travel, aliens, etc. Even if it's only like this:

"The Germans won. Don't ask me how, or why. Maybe some alien force influenced it. Maybe some time travellers entered the picture. In any case, this is what happened afterwards..."

If things happen for no reason, not even one implied in the story, then it's fantasy.

TOS would still be science fiction because in its time, it could not know what would happen in 1992 (especially given the huge technological progress of its era). However, a show that still says they happened in 1992 just to maintain consistency is a bit more fantasy.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Ah! Mais non, mon ami.

The Star Trek Universe is not the real one. It is a fictional one where anything is subject to change at the will of the writers of the shows. NOTHING about it has to be the same as ours, but much of it does in order for us to be able to relate to it. Science fiction is merely fiction with some element of science contained within it. It does not necessarily have to be an extrapolation as you say, although that sort of prophetic writing is the most common and popular form of sci-fi. For the most part Trek is this form of sci-fi, though it can and has (as in the case of the Eugenics Wars, et al) diverged from real-life.

-MMoM
 


Posted by Nyrath (Member # 728) on :
 
Hi, this is the webmaster of the Project Rho starmapping site (which is NOT an RPG site, BTW)

Gene Roddenberry said that Vulcan was 40 Eridani.
(for a more in-depth discussion of this, go here) It is 16.4 light years from the Sun.

Andoria is "a close neighbor" of Vulcan.

There are only two stars within seven light years of 40 Eridani: BD-3�1123 and Epsilon Eridani.

BD-3�1123 is a pathetic Spectral Class M star, with a practically zero chance of habitable planets.

Epsilon Eridani is a K, which while dim, could possibly have a habitable planet.

So Epsilon Eridani could be Andoria, except this doesn't explain where the Vulcan monastary is located.

As another data point, 40 Eridani is 19.44 light years from Epsilon Indi (that is, a little farther than the 40 Eridani-Sun distance)
 


Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Point in the First: Isn't all fiction speculative?

Point in the Second: Trek diverged from our universe even in the present when (in TrekVerse) a giant nuclear weapons rocket (looking exactly like a Saturn IB) almost wiped out mankind thanks to our friendly neighborhood time traveling Starfleet officers. So has Star Trek been fantasy ever since "Assignment: Earth"?

Point in the Third: If these two major species are within twenty light years of each other, shouldn't we have detected them by now by the waste heat produced by their civilization? We've should've seen episodes of "I Love T'Lucy" and "The Ed Sullivok Show" by now. A civilization that's had warp drive for approximately 1,500 years by 2001 AD should've produced some evidence of their existence to us right off the bat. And don't give me any of that, "maybe they covered it up" bullshit. You try to cover up the waste heat produced by an entire interplanetary society. It ain't easy.

[Edited for grammer and one hell of a run-on sentence]

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]


 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Why the obsession with divergent timelines? What's wrong with the good ol' "it's like reality but has fictional stuff in it" mindset that works for every other television series set in the present day?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I agree. That mindset served me well during Homicide. "Hey, our homicide division isn't nearly THAT good!"
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
That's a fine description of it, as well. So long as you're not saying that everything that has happened in real life has happened in trek. I'm so sick of people saying "well, since the 90's came and we had no Eugenics Wars, then they couldn't have still happened in the 90's in trek."

Things have happened in the 'history' of trek that haven't and won't happen in ours.
 


Posted by Nyrath (Member # 728) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:
Point in the First: Isn't all fiction speculative?

Point in the Second: Trek diverged from our universe even in the present when (in TrekVerse) a giant nuclear weapons rocket (looking exactly like a Saturn IB) almost wiped out mankind thanks to our friendly neighborhood time traveling Starfleet officers. So has Star Trek been fantasy ever since "Assignment: Earth"?

Point in the Third: If these two major species are within twenty light years of each other, shouldn't we have detected them by now by the waste heat produced by their civilization? We've should've seen episodes of "I Love T'Lucy" and "The Ed Sullivok Show" by now. A civilization that's had warp drive for approximately 1,500 years by 2001 AD should've produced some evidence of their existence to us right off the bat. And don't give me any of that, "maybe they covered it up" bullshit. You try to cover up the waste heat produced by an entire interplanetary society. It ain't easy.



[1] Depends on the definition and the context of the word speculative. But science fiction with no science in it is an oxymoron. Without the science to provide structure, it reverts to fantasy.

[2] There is no correlation between divergent history and a re-arrangement of the structure of the galaxy. In any event, it is a rather drastic solution to the problem. Why not merely postulate that Gene was mistaken, and Vulcan wasn't located at 40 Eridani after all?

Since we haven't seen orbiting nuclear platforms nor any hit of the Eugenic wars, Star Trek has entered the genre of "alternate history science fiction". But it does not make it "fantasy".

[3] Oh, my, where shall I start?
I LOVE LUCY is waste radio waves, not waste heat. SETI studies have shown that TV broadcasts are too faint to be detected by neighboring stars. The best one can hope for is the focused radio noise of the DEW line radars set up to detect Soviet nuclear missile attacks. Waste heat cannot be detected over interstellar distances unless one is dealing with a Dyson sphere or something of that magnitude. It has not been shown that Vulcan has had warp drive for 2000 years, the Romulans could have been kicked out of Vulcan on generation slower than light vessels. If the Vulcans had invented warp drive technology 2000 years ago, by now they would have ships that would make V'Ger look like a rubber raft.

And your points one and three are in contradiction. Either one says it is just all fantasy or one tries a scientific justification. But you cannot have it both ways.
 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I find the distinction made here between science fiction and fantasy very unsatisfactory.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nyrath:
Why not merely postulate that Gene was mistaken, and Vulcan wasn't located at 40 Eridani after all?

Unfortunately, I'm thinking that this is increasingly more likely. If Enterprise is just now reaching P'Jem after nine weeks, then either that spy equipment is very powerful or the Vulcan/Andoria region is relatively close to P'Jem and farther from Earth.

Combined with Terra Nova being the only inhabitable planet within 20 light years of Earth, it starts to fit a little better. If that comment was absolutely literal, then none of the "traditional" alien homeworlds can be correct. The bad part is we have no idea where Vulcan is, if it isn't at 40 Eri. The good part is that if we're farther out, we can essentially invent any star we need, wherever we need it, and claim it hasn't been discovered yet.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I think that those distinctions are very subjective, and there is often a very fine line between them. For instance, Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series is about legendary warriors who ride dragons and fight a menacing lifeform on the planet Pern, but the dragons were actually originally genetically engineered by colonists from Earth. Science or Sci-Fi?

Most of the time it just depends on when you're reading it, do you feel that there's some scientific element? It's the same with say, 'historical fiction.' How much history has to be in it to be called that? Is any story set during a historical time period 'historical fiction'?

See, it's, as I said, very subjective.
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
I find the distinction made here between science fiction and fantasy very unsatisfactory.

In the History of Science Fiction course I took last semester, they repeatedly emphasized that the defintions are so loose that very few people can agree. Some say that there isn't a difference, others say it is a difference in "feel" more than anything else. Some say that science fiction has to be about a scientific idea, others say it has to only be in a scientific context. The one we went with was that science fiction is any story in which the story cannot exist without elements of either speculative science or unrealized applications of real science. By that definition, a show like CSI isn't science fiction, though it relies heavily on science, because it only uses "real" science. A hard scifi story might use only real science, but it is always applied in ways it is not currently applied. A soft scifi story (like Star Trek) might invent thigns which we currently believe to be impossible, but in the pretense that it is merely an elaboration of current science. Fantasy, on the other hand, assumes that science is fundamentally wrong in that the laws of physics may not apply, as with magic. Star Trek already borders closely with fantasy by this standard, with omnipotent noncorporeal beings, the Vulcan katra, and so on.

Personally, I don't really care what you call it. Jurassic Park is considered mainstream, but it's certainly also science fiction. Star Trek is considered science fiction, but most of its stories could be "transplanted" into fantasy or even historical settings. I say, "screw it." If a story is good, I'll read/watch it regardless of what it's classified as.
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Terra Nova was probably not the only habitable planet within twenty light-years. It was probably the only one that wasn't in a system that was already inhabited. And there were probably others that could have been inhabited, but not easily. Alpha Centauri, for example. We know people ended up living there. But it probably required something special like domes, or something.

To put it simply, it was probably the only habitable uninhabited system where the colonists could just plop down and start living at any time.
 


Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
[1] Depends on the definition and the context of the word speculative. But science fiction with no science in it is an oxymoron. Without the science to provide structure, it reverts to fantasy.
[2] There is no correlation between divergent history and a re-arrangement of the structure of the galaxy. In any event, it is a rather drastic solution to the problem. Why not merely postulate that Gene was mistaken, and Vulcan wasn't located at 40 Eridani after all?

Since we haven't seen orbiting nuclear platforms nor any hit of the Eugenic wars, Star Trek has entered the genre of "alternate history science fiction". But it does not make it "fantasy".

[3] Oh, my, where shall I start?
I LOVE LUCY is waste radio waves, not waste heat. SETI studies have shown that TV broadcasts are too faint to be detected by neighboring stars. The best one can hope for is the focused radio noise of the DEW line radars set up to detect Soviet nuclear missile attacks. Waste heat cannot be detected over interstellar distances unless one is dealing with a Dyson sphere or something of that magnitude. It has not been shown that Vulcan has had warp drive for 2000 years, the Romulans could have been kicked out of Vulcan on generation slower than light vessels. If the Vulcans had invented warp drive technology 2000 years ago, by now they would have ships that would make V'Ger look like a rubber raft.

And your points one and three are in contradiction. Either one says it is just all fantasy or one tries a scientific justification. But you cannot have it both ways.


I don't see how my first and third points are contradictory.

With my second point, I was merely pointing out that synching universes is not merely a product of real life catching up to Trek predictions. They did something at the time the episode was produced that was divergent from the 'real' universe. By someone's previously stated definition, that would make it fantasy, which it most definitely is not. Personally, I'm with Ryan (I think it as Ryan, can't be bothered to double check) in saying 'Fuck it' and judging it on its merits as an episode and not its catagory.

My third point is still rather scientifically accurate. By 'waste heat', I was using the term as it applies from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I will admit it was a rather general use of the term. But I used it specifically for generality as I was referring to any waste energy produced by a civilization. Perhaps I should've used 'waste energy' at the time, but it didn't occur to me until just now. Anyway, my point stands that if they were so close, if anybody were so close, we would've heard 'em by now.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]


 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
On the subject of Vulcan being 40 Eri, I trust the writers of "Enterprise" would have no reason to be for or against such a claim. It would make no difference to them or to their stories.

In contrast, we know that the tech people, who are in the habit of giving us all these cool "no difference" factoids in the form of obscure computer screen readouts or dedication plaques or whatnot, do have an interest in preserving "Trek lore". Okuda tries to work the cubed warp-speed factor into "Enterprise" even though it's a losing battle, since he thinks it's part of the original Trek mythos. I'm sure he's making a similar attempt with the 40 Eri thing, and he's more likely to succeed there since no plot demands are hampering that effort.

As for Andor's identity, I can see pros and cons in the Epsilon Indi idea. The systems *are* rather proximate, even if there are other systems (like Sol!) in between. Contact between them would be trivially easy with starships of NX-01's caliber, and supposedly Vulcans have had ships like that for some time already. And both systems have K-class stars that thus might be of strategic interest to the other party (a home away from home), thereby promoting contact.

Then again, Epsilon Indi was never associated with Andorians in any episode, even though the star was mentioned. In fact, the Triacus folks (Gorgan's ancestors) were said to have operated there.

But the omissions of the earlier shows could easily be rectified in ENT. One could even innocuously have an Andorian refer to the Triacus pirates that so burdened and influenced his society's distant past, or something.

Timo Saloniemi
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
A couple of points to think about:

Humans havent been 'out there' too much. Maybe us being between Vulcan and Andor isnt such a big deal, just because up until 9 weeks previous we were not a serious interstallar civilization thet would notice them or be noticed by them.

Possibly, since we werent exploring the sector aggressively, we were only carrying on trade and relations with he few planets the Vulcans told us to (Go to Draylax they say, and we skip over the ones they say 'oh, you dont need to go to Andor'). Remember we dont even have detailed maps of the species of our own sector at this point, the Vulcans do though.

Terra Nova might have been the only uninhabited Earth like planet. Or maybe it wasnt, but it was the only one the Vulcans chose to inform us about (other inhabitable worlds could have existed, but belonged to other governments the Vulcans didnt want us to offend by taking their future colony, or setting up shop too close for them to be comfortable)

The Vulcan Monastery could have been close to Andor on the other side of Terra Thats why they didnt just monitor it from Vulcan itself.. remember the Vulcans and the Andorians have the ability to quickly cross these distances that we did not until recently. I think that saying Andor and Vulcan are 'close to each other' could refer to a difference of a lot more light years than the non-warp-5 capable humans would consider 'close'
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timo:
In contrast, we know that the tech people, who are in the habit of giving us all these cool "no difference" factoids in the form of obscure computer screen readouts or dedication plaques or whatnot, do have an interest in preserving "Trek lore". Okuda tries to work the cubed warp-speed factor into "Enterprise" even though it's a losing battle, since he thinks it's part of the original Trek mythos. I'm sure he's making a similar attempt with the 40 Eri thing, and he's more likely to succeed there since no plot demands are hampering that effort.

I'm not sure. I would assume Okuda was responsible for the "40 Eridani Fleet Yards" plaque... I'd have to think that were they at Vulcan they would be called the "Vulcan Fleet Yards." Personally, I'd rather Vulcan not be at 40 Eridani, because that gives us more freedom to custom-build the system.
 


Posted by Nyrath the nearly wise (Member # 728) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:

I don't see how my first and third points are contradictory.

My third point is still rather scientifically accurate. By 'waste heat', I was using the term as it applies from the Second Law of Thermodynamics <> Anyway, my point stands that if they were so close, if anybody were so close, we would've heard 'em by now.



Your first point says: All this stellar distance information is pointless because Enterprise is fiction and all fiction is speculative.

Your third point says: All this stellar distance information is pointless because it yields results that are scientifically contradictory.

My point is that you can use one argument or the other, but not both. The two arguments contradict each other. The third point cannot yield scientifically contradictory results because speculative fiction is pointless, that is, it has no science to yield scientific results.


Well, of course you ment "waste heat" in reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How could you not?

However I disagree on it being scientifically accurate. My point still stands: unless the civilization has evolved to a Type Two, it isn't going to be detectable at any range at all. (You do know what a Type two is, don't you?)
Have you read this?
 


Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nyrath the nearly wise:

Your first point says: All this stellar distance information is pointless because Enterprise is fiction and all fiction is speculative.

Your third point says: All this stellar distance information is pointless because it yields results that are scientifically contradictory.

My point is that you can use one argument or the other, but not both. The two arguments contradict each other. The third point cannot yield scientifically contradictory results because speculative fiction is pointless, that is, it has no science to yield scientific results.


Well, of course you ment "waste heat" in reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How could you not?

However I disagree on it being scientifically accurate. My point still stands: unless the civilization has evolved to a Type Two, it isn't going to be detectable at any range at all. (You do know what a Type two is, don't you?)
Have you read this?


My first point was that the term 'speculative fiction' was rather redundant. Nothing more.

And yes I know what a Type Two Civilization is. No technological society could be maintaining a closed loop system, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. Whether, waste heat, greenhouse gases, radio or television waves, there would be some evidence of 'bleed-off' which would be detectable. We've been listenting to the sky for thirty some odd years now (not sure about the number, but the point is made). If Vulcan is seven some light years away and has been technological enough to produce an interstellar traveling offshoot race, then there would've been some evidence of their existence.

Frankly, I've forgotten my original point from way back when, as its almost 3 in the morning and my BAC is not zero, but if Vulcans were there, we would know it - for whatever that's worth.

And please don't insult me by implication.
 


Posted by Nyrath the nearly wise (Member # 728) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:
My first point was that the term 'speculative fiction' was rather redundant. Nothing more.

And yes I know what a Type Two Civilization is. -- snip --
And please don't insult me by implication.



On your first point, I stand corrected. It wasn't clear from the context.

On the second, yes, I know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, and I too would like an avoidance of insult by implication.

Just returning the favor...
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
I consider 'speculative fiction' to be the better term when referring to scenarios about future societies, just because the 'science' isnt always the star.
Some stories very definitely have science as the star and achieve dramatic effect very well, some science fiction from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that was done with the actual orbital physics and propulsion equations in mind and featured very little dialogue or character-focus, but had a plot and were enlightening to say the least, but Star Trek uses science not as the focus, but as a storytelling tool to further the plots. Roddenberry wanted to show us the future of humanity, not the future of science. He wanted to speculate about a society where many of the negative aspects we live with today had been removed and mankind could face the universe as an intelligent, honorable group. Thats why the characters of Star Trek are so appealin g but the science of Star Trek doesnt stand up to much scrutiny. 'Speculating' refers to inferring the possibility of how humans would evolve when certain variables of our current world are removed, and the science is very much secondary.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
It's a TV show. Is it really neccessary to squash people's attempts to place fictional elements in our real galaxy? We all know they're not really there ... I mean, c'mon ...
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Might I recommend the Internet Stellar Database for searching the locations, positions, and classifications of real stars in our galaxy. It's very convenient and has an easily readable format.

Example:

Here's a list of all stars that are between 18 and 22 light-years from Sol. These would be candidates for the location of Terra Nova.

http://www.stellar-database.com/Scripts/find_neighbors.exe?ID=100&minLY=18&ly=22

There are three G-type stars in this region - 82 Eridani, Delta Pavonis, and Xi B�otis.

Moving on, there are eight stars that are within 10 light-years of 40 Eridani... but 7 of them are Type M or below. The eight is Epsilon Eridani, which is closer to Earth and therefore unlikely to be the location of Andor.

http://www.stellar-database.com/Scripts/find_neighbors.exe?ID=175600&ly=10

Hope you guys find this helpful.
 


Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
 
Is this a good time to say that T'pol said Andoria (NOT Andor) is the planet of the Andorians?
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
On the second, yes, I know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, and I too would like an avoidance of insult by implication.

I don't believe I implied that you didn't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics was. Actually, I thought it was rather obvious from your previous post that you know quite well what it is.

quote:
Well, of course you ment "waste heat" in reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How could you not?

How could I imply that you didn't know what it was with a quote like that?

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]


 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Is this a good time to say that T'pol said Andoria (NOT Andor) is the planet of the Andorians?

Actually, it's been referred to as both on DS9. So either is correct. For some reason, the majority of fans seem to prefer "Andor."
 


Posted by Nyrath the nearly wise (Member # 728) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:
[QB]How could I imply that you didn't know what it was with a quote like that?/QB]

The way you did it.

You said

quote:
By 'waste heat', I was using the term as it applies from the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The implication is that had I know of the Second Law of Thermodynamics I wouldn't have posted what I did.
 
Posted by Nyrath the nearly wise (Member # 728) on :
 
The Star Trek Technical manaul gives Epsilon Indi as the primary star of Andoria (aka Andor).

Epsilon Indi is mention in ST:TOS "And the Childen Shall Lead" as the location of the people who killed the invading warriors of Triacus.

It does seem a bit odd that they are refered to as "The inhabitants of Epsilon Indi" rather than "The Andorians".
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
That Technical Manual also claims that UFP Headquarters is located lightyears from Earth in the form of a ringed Space Station which contains a synthetic ecosystem including parks, lakes and canals, and a 'sky.'

I don't know how credible the location is. Or maybe I do!
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Actually, it's been referred to as both on DS9. So either is correct. For some reason, the majority of fans seem to prefer "Andor."

Probably because it was called Andor in both fan and licensed circles for a good thirty years before anybody ever even thought of the word "Andoria."
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Yes. But either one is perfectly acceptable.

Earth, Terra, Sol III, etc...
Quo'nos, Kling, Klingon, the Klingon Homworld, etc...
Vulcan, Vulcanis, etc...
Andor, Andoria, etc...
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I still want to meet whoever thought "Kling" was a good idea, and shake their hand.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I take it you mean the reference in 'Heart of Glory' to the "Traitors of Kling"?

Kling was never given a specific meaning ... it could be like the "Heroes of Bastogne" or something similar. Kling could be the site of a famous battle in ancient Klingon history ...
 


Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Kling: The site of a historic battle involving Klingons on the rim of a black hole in Uranus. It was a bloody battle...a bloody battle indeed.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]


 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I always liked to think Kling wasn't a place, but a badly-translated Klingon term for Klingons in general. A Klingon saying "the traitors of Kling" would be like a human saying "the traitors of Man".
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I think Kling is a good name for the Klingons' home planet. At the time the episode was filmed, that's what the term was supposed to refer to. And, for what it's worth, the Starfleet Headquarters star chart from "Conspiracy" (TNG) shows it as Kling as well.
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Its Qo'noS.. not Quo'noS.
The Klingon Q is rarely (if ever) followed by a u

Thats how Elmer Fudd would say it
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
You could stick Kronos on there too, even if it is just a more readable version of Qo'noS.

"I think Kling is a good name for the Klingons' home planet."

Indeed. Please Mim, if you have any children, let your wife pick the names.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Well, really. If you have places called Andor and Tellar, then why does Kling sound out of place? Klingons----Kling. Saying Kling sounds silly is like saying 'Klingons' or 'Klingonese' sound silly. It's all from the same base word. Qo'nos was pulled out of somebody's ass. Kling actually makes sense considering that the people that come from there are called Klingons.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Yes, and we Humans live on Huma.
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
And the winner is Snay!

Lets review what we've learned today, kids:

But the Mim kid thinks that wouldnt make any sense?
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, in fairness to MIM ... humans are also known as "Terrans" and Earth as "Terra"
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Yeah, but where's Andor(ia)?
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
So, just to be fair, should we declare that "Kronosian" is a valid alternative to "Klingon", and just no-one says it?
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Not to extend this into the realm of scary people who are scary, but isn't Klingon a closest-fit English version of the actual name in Klingon?
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Yes.. the Klingon word is
'tlhIngan'

the Klingon letter 'tlh' is, at the beginning of a word, most easily pronounced 'KL' by English and Standard speakers (depending on where the accent of the word is, 'tlh' when it occurs at the middle or end of a word can also be pronounced 'th' or 'x'

'-ngan' is a Klingon suffix which is equivalent to adding '-ian' to English words..
terangan is a Human ('tera' meaning Earth)
romuluSngan is a Romulan
etc..

The most correct pronunciation of the word 'Klingon' hasnt occured since their first appearance, 'Errand of Mercy' where it sounded more like 'Klingan'.. later appearances it has very often been pronounced Kling-ON with more of an accent on the later syllable (saying it with a Terran accent)

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]


 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
And what does 'thlI' mean?
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Well, according to the John M. Ford Klingons (in The Final Reflection, 'kli' or 'klin' was the fighting spirit of the Klingon people.. ('He is full of the klin, that one') so 'tlhIngan' would mean 'those who are of the fighting spirit' which, in those novels, the Klingons believed only they posessed and other species lacked, making the Klingon race superior.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
That was a great book.
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
'twas

Even though TNG Klingons are very different from the Klingon culture as we saw it there, I still think there could be some way to reconcile the two histories (perhaps at the same time explaining the forehead issue-- i think FutureGuy had given gene-morph capability to Klingon at some point in his Temporal Cold War, and the traits carried on into the 2260s but were bred out after that.. meaning that Kor, Kang and Koloth just closed their eyes and made their foreheads go away and come back at will.. lol.
 


Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
The thing about "The Final Reflection" was that John Ford, like GR, never liked how the Klingons were portrayed in TOS. He came up with a highly detailed civilization for the Klingons for his book, based on both family and honor. When Ron Moore was asked to re-design Klingon culture for TNG, "The Final Reflection" was one of the sources he used. That's why "new" Klingon society values honor above all else. Yes, the book is quite different from TNG, but the core ideas are there.

Personally, I like Ford's version better than TNG, but then again I like TNG's version better than TOS's version, which pretty much made the Klingons a bunch of honorless, one-dimensional, intergalactic troublemakers.
 


Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Need i point out that all of that is non-canon?

What I'm saying is that Americans come from America, Canadians come from Canada, Mexicans come from Mexico, etc... Andorians come from Andor/ia, Tellarites come from Tellar, and Klingons come from Kling. I don't see anything 'silly' about it.

-MMoM
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Um.. except that canonically Klingons come from Kronos. Its the name of their homeworld. My sources are 'Broken Bow' [ENT]; 'The Undiscovered Country'; and a few DS9 eps too.

I was talking about a very well written novel. I didnt say that anything I said was or was not canon.. so i didnt need you to point it out. And next time don't.

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]


 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
You know, Ford has written other books that don't involve characters from a TV show that you should seek out.
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
"What I'm saying is that Americans come from America"

True. In that most people when they say "American" mean "US citizen", and "America" mean "The United States of North America".

And humans don't come from "huma". While we're at it, the Dutch don't come from Dutcha either. And French and France only have the first two letters in common. Although I am happy to remain Englishan. Or Britianan.

"Saying Kling sounds silly is like saying 'Klingons' or 'Klingonese' sound silly."

"Klingons" does sound silly. It really, really does. The only reason you don't think it does it that you've become desensitised to it.

Come on, if there was an alien race introduced in Enterprise called "Grab-ons", you'd laugh and call R&R silly monkeys.

I really want to meet the person who came up with the name Klingon and just say "honestly, was that the best you could do? Or was it a choice between Klingon and Arsemunchers?"
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
and people from France arent called Francians
people from Japan arent called Japanians
and where do the F'Talligatri'itese people come from? oh well
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
My understanding is that Roddenberry named the Klingons after a friend of his named "Clingan".

I'd also point out that the Danes are from Denmark, the Welsh are from Wales, and that Letts are from Latvia. Also, the moons of Jupiter are considered "Jovian".

Need any more examples?
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
No, I think we've made Mim cry enough.

Besides, the argument wasn't over the feasability of the Klingon Homeworld being called "Kling", because it could have been quite easily (and almost was).

No, our argument was:

1/ It's called Kronos/Qu'onos.
2/ "Kling" sounds really silly.

Tim: Really? While I suppose we should be glad he didn't have a friend called "Niggerhater", or something charming like that, it still doesn't mean that "Klingon" is not a silly name. Because it is.
 




© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3