I too like the idea that the Doomsday Machine was constructed to destroy the Borg. It lends credence to it's builders inspiration. Here we had been conceiving of an escalating stalemate between two strategic equals (much like the Cold War the message of the episode intended to convey). To suddenly have the irresistable and unstoppable force of the Borg as the weapon's target seems to validate the builder's cause. The constructors suddenly seem less like madmen, and more like tragically flawed and desperate engineers vainly assembling a last ditch effort to conquer an unbeatable foe. I'm not sure that rationalizing the Doomsday Machine's purpose is a good thing, but if nothing else it is interesting.
Hey, wasn't this post about where the Borg came from? I'm liking the Swedish theory, although Iceland might be more appropriate (see Bj�rg)
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, so thats where all that helium went. *runs out and buys some earplugs*
As for the Doomsday Machine's neutronium skin...it might actually explain how it was so easily disabled, if there was some kind of mechanism controlling the intense gravity field then it would have been inside the maw, so then a detonation inside the thing could have damaged that mechanism and caused the skin to collapse in on itself. Power source? Well I assume a not-so-micro singularity would do the trick. Also with all that intensely focused gravity you could probably fashion a pretty nifty means of propulsion...graviton spatial impeller or something. I think that ties up most of the problems.
Never let science get a good writer down (or a really bad one)
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for the Doomsday Machine's neutronium skin...if there was some kind of mechanism controlling the intense gravity field then it would have been inside the maw, so then a detonation inside the thing could have damaged that mechanism and caused the skin to collapse in on itself.
Except for the trifling on-screen detail that it doesn't collapse in on itself. It just goes from blue to gray (how Civil War...).
quote:Power source? Well I assume a not-so-micro singularity would do the trick.
I've heard of singularities being used as power sources before on Star Trek, but I've never understood how the heck you're supposed to use such a thing as a power source. Seems like all it would do is suck matter in.
A naked singularity is a singularity without an event horizon. In other words, it is a point in space in which general relativity predicts would have infinite density which is observable from the outside.
quote:Also with all that intensely focused gravity you could probably fashion a pretty nifty means of propulsion...graviton spatial impeller or something.
Well, my friend and I thought if you had an object with so much mass and the kind of almost limitless power it would take to keep it from collapsing a crude bent-space warp field somewhat feasible. I don't know what a "graviton spatial impeller" is.
quote:Never let science get a good writer down (or a really bad one)
That's where we disagree. I think it's possible to deal with plausible science and still be dramatic. Sometimes the science itself could suggest a story.
For instance, a planet killer with that much gravity could just INHALE a gas giant's mass...theoretically it could also suck up a STAR. That would have made for a cool sequence. And it wouldn't even HAVE to attack planets to be deadly. It's gravitational force alone would disrupt orbits with catastophic results. So, even deactivited it would be a menace. Furthermore, if you can somehow drop the a neutronium object's mass below that 1 sun bottom limit (say, it's starved for power and you trick it into consuming some of its own mass), it would explosively decay back into protons and electrons. A mini nova wa-VOOM!
But, this would require Star Trek to have a real science advisor on the show and not leave it to the art dept. guys to fill in what blanks they can in whatever free time they have after naking this week's props.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: Except for the trifling on-screen detail that it doesn't collapse in on itself. It just goes from blue to gray (how Civil War...).
So it was collapsing very slowly. I said the mechanisum could have been damaged, not destroyed.
quote: I've heard of singularities being used as power sources before on Star Trek, but I've never understood how the heck you're supposed to use such a thing as a power source. Seems like all it would do is suck matter in.
You'd think so, but since we've seen 2 races use black holes as a power source then it must work somehow.
quote: A naked singularity is a singularity without an event horizon. In other words, it is a point in space in which general relativity predicts would have infinite density which is observable from the outside.
I know what a singularity is.
quote: Well, my friend and I thought if you had an object with so much mass and the kind of almost limitless power it would take to keep it from collapsing a crude bent-space warp field somewhat feasible. I don't know what a "graviton spatial impeller" is.
Well my friend, neither do I, it's called "MAKING IT UP" its some new fangled technique that a few obscure science fiction writers are using these days, perhaps it just slipped past you.
But I'm sure with a rather basic knowledge of the english language and if you get stuck, a dictionary, you may be able to decypher what a "graviton spatial impeller" might actually do.
quote: That's where we disagree. I think it's possible to deal with plausible science and still be dramatic. Sometimes the science itself could suggest a story.
And some people couldn't spot subtle sarcasum if it walk up and bout them a bunch of flowers.
quote: For instance, a planet killer with that much gravity could just INHALE a gas giant's mass...theoretically it could also suck up a STAR. That would have made for a cool sequence. And it wouldn't even HAVE to attack planets to be deadly. It's gravitational force alone would disrupt orbits with catastophic results. So, even deactivited it would be a menace. Furthermore, if you can somehow drop the a neutronium object's mass below that 1 sun bottom limit (say, it's starved for power and you trick it into consuming some of its own mass), it would explosively decay back into protons and electrons. A mini nova wa-VOOM!
Maybe so, but it didn't.
quote: But, this would require Star Trek to have a real science advisor on the show and not leave it to the art dept. guys to fill in what blanks they can in whatever free time they have after naking this week's props.
quote:So it was collapsing very slowly. I said the mechanisum could have been damaged, not destroyed.
Yes, but Spock said, "Power level zero." "It's quite dead." so that's debateable.
quote:Well my friend, neither do I, it's called "MAKING IT UP" its some new fangled technique that a few obscure science fiction writers are using these days, perhaps it just slipped past you. But I'm sure with a rather basic knowledge of the english language and if you get stuck, a dictionary, you may be able to decypher what a "graviton spatial impeller" might actually do.
I simply said, "That's where we disagree. I think it's possible to deal with plausible science and still be dramatic," and, "I don't know what a 'graviton spatial impeller is," as that term was used without further explanation. I don't believe these merited the ungentlemanly tone of response they received.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: Yes, but Spock said, "Power level zero." "It's quite dead." so that's debateable.
and of course 23rd century sensors are omnipotent and infallible.
quote: I simply said, "That's where we disagree. I think it's possible to deal with plausible science and still be dramatic," and, "I don't know what a 'graviton spatial impeller is," as that term was used without further explanation. I don't believe these merited the ungentlemanly tone of response they received.
I wasn't trying to coin a new term; I just strung a series of apparently relevant words together that I assumed anyone with grounding in English could figure out for themselves.
I could have written a 10 page essay on the physics of spatial distortion propulsion based on the gravitic funnelling of super massive netronium based quatumalloytranstie matrices powered by Class B binary, cyclical singularities encased in a multi-spatial vetrixing chamber....but of course it would all have been a load of dingo’s kidneys.
Hands up anyone who would even bother to read such an over extraneous and pointless essay!
The bottom line is the thing was big, powerful ancient, greatly advanced and very mysterious, so it really doesn't matter a great deal exactly HOW it moved because it obviously did...
posted
I wouldn't sweat this neutronium inertia thing too much. Mastery of gravity is the cheapest trick in the box for Trek races - even a Pakled ship or a 1996-vintage Earth rocket has perfectly functioning artificial gravity aboard. And gravity control is reliable, the last thing to go when the ship is falling apart around you.
Just use one of 'em subspace fields to negate the inertial mass of the ship, and another (spiced with gravitons) to contain the neutronium, and then do the remaining magic of negating the gravitational mass of the thing by turning your trusty old artificial gravity device on reverse.
As for the power source, just let one of your magical gadgets leak a bit, and use the resulting localized gravitational pull to create a perpetual-motion machine. You know, the time-honored model where gravity pulls one side of a conveyor belt down, while the other side is in a no-gravity or inverted-gravity zone and thus rises effortlessly. The Star Trek version of thermodynamics is full of loopholes like that.
posted
Black holes radiate Hawking radiation, I believe, and the power emitted is, um...inversely proportional to the size of the hole.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Heaven's no. But we're talking about the insidiously cute collective of clones known as the Bj�rg.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
