What is ST's 'Galactic Barrier'?

[Admiral Griffith]

The title isn't all: What is ST's 'Galactic Barrier' and (IIRC) 'Core Barrier', and why the hell are they there?

[TheDarkling]

I only know from some non canon books so it isnt really useful but basically the Q but the barrier at the edge of the galaxy to keep a crippled superbeing from getting inside and the one at the centre is used to keep that God guy inside.

[VF5SS]

Sevspace.

[Patrick Degan]

There has never been an explanation for the Barrier. At least, none that anybody could agree upon. About the most intelligent thing written about it was from a Canadian fan-produced technical manual (glorified fanzine, but a good publication in its own right) is that the Barrier is wholly unexplainable by any stretch of conventional physics, and offered up speculation that it was obviously an artefact from some previous civilisation meant either to protect the galaxy from some outside threat or as a prison to keep any space-traversing race from traveling to any of the surrounding galaxies. It appears to affect only starships traveling at warp, so perhaps its some sort of subspace phenomena, like the Praxis Rings.

The only thing that can be said for absolute certain about the Barrier is that science fiction authour Samuel A. Peeples (writer of "Where No Man Has Gone Before") created it as a metaphor to represent the Unknown as much as using it as his McGuffin to mutate Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner. The metaphorical significance of the Barrier carries more meaning than any attempted technobabble explanation ever could, and you have to admit that even after all these years, the scene of the Enterprise sailing forward into that bizarre and mysterious ribband of energy, with Alexander Courage's music swelling in the background, remains one of the single most evocative visuals in Star Trek history.

It's still pretty damned impressive.

[Evil Jerk]

I just wonder why they don't go above or below them.

[TheDarkling]

St writer : Up? I dont follow you.

[IronicTwist]

I just wonder why they don't go above or below them.

Isn't the Milky Way many thousands of light-years thick? (I know I read an exact figure recently, but I can't seem to find it.) It could be a very long trip to the "top" or the "bottom."

Besides, ST writers like to charge straight through.

[Darth Wong]

I just wonder why they don't go above or below them.

Isn't the Milky Way many thousands of light-years thick? (I know I read an exact figure recently, but I can't seem to find it.) It could be a very long trip to the "top" or the "bottom."

Besides, ST writers like to charge straight through.

I suppose it should be noted that a luminescent wall many thousands of light years high would have been easily observed by now. Therefore, we can conclude that the ST barrier is only visible with Trekkie instruments, and consists solely of barely existent ST-subspace-technobabble glowing-energy-stuff which has a super-synergistic reaction with any Treknology passing through. You could probably lob a rock through this "barrier" without any trouble.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The title isn't all: What is ST's 'Galactic Barrier' and (IIRC) 'Core Barrier', and why the hell are they there?

The RL explanation is that GR didn't want ST going beyond the galaxy...

[Crown]

In answer to the title question; B&B's ass holes!

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'm guessing B&B thinks that the Milky Way is surrounded by a giant wall, and we're all trapped in it.

[RayCav of ASVS]

In answer to the title question; B&B's ass holes!

Even though this episode aired probably when they were still in 6th grade?

[RayCav of ASVS]

I'm guessing B&B thinks that the Milky Way is surrounded by a giant wall, and we're all trapped in it.

See above. The "Barrier" was first seen in TOS and was only seen in ST 5 after that.

[Crown]

Well obviously I didn't know what I was talking about! Mind you when you are going to bag ST you will always get good odds, that B&B are behind the fuck up, this was just a freak.

[TheDarkling]

No B&B actually caused it, how you ask?

Well the answer is simple, why else do you think they are obsessed with time travel.

[Ender]

Figuring out who is responsible for Star Trek errors are what are called "50/50/90" problems.

There is a 50% chance it was Bergeman, a 50% chance it was Braga, and a 90% chance you are correct in assuming one of them is at fault.

[Darth Wong]

No no no, don't you see? The Great Barrier in which we are all trapped is actually Darkstar's Wall of Ignorance (TM)!

[SPOOFE]

Holy hell, Darkstar's ignorance has encircled us all! We're trapped! Trapped, I tell you!

I'm gonna go put a gun in my mouth right now...

[Typhonis 1]

Shit put the gun in DS mouth

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Or maybe put the gun in DS arsehole. Well, a Magnum .357 for best result

[SirNitram]

Or maybe put the gun in DS arsehole. Well, a Magnum .357 for best result

Kinetic enema.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Or maybe put the gun in DS arsehole. Well, a Magnum .357 for best result

Kinetic enema.

On the second thought, gun *must* be ineffective since DarkStar's arsehole is protected by selective KE shielding.

[SirNitram]

Or maybe put the gun in DS arsehole. Well, a Magnum .357 for best result

Kinetic enema.

On the second thought, gun *must* be ineffective since DarkStar's arsehole is protected by selective KE shielding.

Then we will travel to the Star Wars Galaxy, get a blaster rifle, and give him a plasma enema.

[Eleas]

Kinetic enema.

On the second thought, gun *must* be ineffective since DarkStar's arsehole is protected by selective KE shielding.

Then we will travel to the Star Wars Galaxy, get a blaster rifle, and give him a plasma enema.

It is only "plasma" if there is some sort of statement in play identifying it as such. I would like to understand just why you fellows so vehemently
disagree with this idea. So, here's my full argument, and please show where you think the faults are:

As I have stated before, Star Trek is a phenomenon largely restricted to television. Not only is television resolution poorer than film, but it is also true that television involves smaller screens, different aspect ratio, and other factors. It is drama, and the visual department will alter certain things when visual dramatic effect is called for.

There are several possible options:

A. There are shortcuts in physics . . . it simply involves better use of the physical laws. For instance, you could either get to space via chemical rocket, nuclear rocket, ion powered rocket, laser (see Scientific American's "Flagships of the Space Fleet" from 1999), magnetics, or any other such thing. Just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's probably more than one way to destroy a planet.

B. Since you guys claim that Star Wars has subspace physics (and, by extension, effectively claim that Star Trek science and Star Wars science would have the same properties), then it is clear that there *are* what we might consider to be shortcuts in physics, since such things are used all the time on Star Trek to get massive amounts of work done at little cost to the ship.

Do the math. But everyone I know or have ever talked to knows quite well that SW use lasers. My position is perfectly consistent, and is consistent with all canon SW. As for "working on assumptions", that is incorrect. I am working from the canon, and attempting to build hypotheses that fit with that the canon shows us and tells us. Further, Conservation of Energy is maintained, in spite of our ignorance as to how this occurred. Work from there. You might figure it out.

I think most warsie debaters are part of a sad little group, living in the shared delusion of overwhelming superiority. If anyone disagrees or dares to paint Star Wars as less powerful or Star Trek as more powerful, you believe that their arguments are instantly wrong, and consider any counterargument, no matter how stupid, as proof. You're willing to ignore any evidence which doesn't fit within your biases, twisting it to suit theories instead of changing theories to suit facts. Oh well. Based on the behavior as presented on this site, there are very few people on SD.net with whom would wish to have any dealings offline.

As for it being a "cowardly attempt to avoid criticism", that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. By that reasoning, any website (including StarDestroyer.Net in the years before the message board) is a cowardly effort to avoid criticism.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

On the second thought, gun *must* be ineffective since DarkStar's arsehole is protected by selective KE shielding.

Then we will travel to the Star Wars Galaxy, get a blaster rifle, and give him a plasma enema.

It is only "plasma" if there is some sort of statement in play identifying it as such. I would like to understand just why you fellows so vehemently
disagree with this idea. So, here's my full argument, and please show where you think the faults are:

WTF?

As I have stated before, Star Trek is a phenomenon largely restricted to television. Not only is television resolution poorer than film, but it is also true that television involves smaller screens, different aspect ratio, and other factors. It is drama, and the visual department will alter certain things when visual dramatic effect is called for.

Please, Eleas. Are you saying that poor FX in Star Trek can be used as excuse for Trek technology? I've seen this kind of claim before in Wayne Poe's hate mail page, and believe me, I don't wanna be the one who made that claim.

There are several possible options:

A. There are shortcuts in physics . . . it simply involves better use of the physical laws. For instance, you could either get to space via chemical rocket, nuclear rocket, ion powered rocket, laser (see Scientific American's "Flagships of the Space Fleet" from 1999), magnetics, or any other such thing. Just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's probably more than one way to destroy a planet.

But it is. Nobody said that there is only one way to destroy a planet.

The problem is that which way is more likely than another, which theory makes more sense, and which theory has a LOT more speculation.

B. Since you guys claim that Star Wars has subspace physics (and, by extension, effectively claim that Star Trek science and Star Wars science would have the same properties), then it is clear that there *are* what we might consider to be shortcuts in physics, since such things are used all the time on Star Trek to get massive amounts of work done at little cost to the ship.

Are you saying that, because Star Wars also has subspace physics, it also means that Star Wars also use "physic shortcuts" ala Star Trek? Far as I'm concerned, none of SW tech is described to use such Trek-like "physic shortcuts", both in canon and official sources.

Do the math. But everyone I know or have ever talked to knows quite well that SW use lasers. My position is perfectly consistent, and is consistent with all canon SW. As for "working on assumptions", that is incorrect. I am working from the canon, and attempting to build hypotheses that fit with that the canon shows us and tells us. Further, Conservation of Energy is maintained, in spite of our ignorance as to how this occurred. Work from there. You might figure it out.

How can it consistent with all canon SW when all onscreen, CANON evidence shows that SW lasers do NOT behave like real lasers?

I think most warsie debaters are part of a sad little group, living in the shared delusion of overwhelming superiority. If anyone disagrees or dares to paint Star Wars as less powerful or Star Trek as more powerful, you believe that their arguments are instantly wrong, and consider any counterargument, no matter how stupid, as proof. You're willing to ignore any evidence which doesn't fit within your biases, twisting it to suit theories instead of changing theories to suit facts. Oh well. Based on the behavior as presented on this site, there are very few people on SD.net with whom would wish to have any dealings offline.

No. Can't you see the problem? DarkStar was ass-raped NOT because he disagrees nor he dares to paint Star Wars as less powerful or vice versa.
-He propose theories which are more complex and have LOT more speculation than the theories he challenges (can you say Occam's Razor?)
-He claim that he has evidence which in reality just his interpretation of facts
-He is dishonest and inconsistent in his theory (ie. if he can claim that no projectiles have been fired at the drones due to lack of evidence, why doesn't he admit that they don't have selective KE shielding either, due to lack of evidence?)
-and worst of all, he couldn't see his own defeat while *everyone else* can.

It is DarkStar who use stupid counterargument as proof, ignore any evidence which doesn't fit within his biases, and twisting it to suit theories instead of changing theories to suit facts.

As for it being a "cowardly attempt to avoid criticism", that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. By that reasoning, any website (including StarDestroyer.Net in the years before the message board) is a cowardly effort to avoid criticism.

How so? Please explain.




Dear God, Eleas, I can't believe if you are really SERIOUS on this posting. Are you just kidding? Please tell me you're just kidding. PLEASE tell me you're just kidding.