The Genesis Device, Ultimate Trek DeusEx?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-03-26 12:59pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
SirNitram wrote:And why do you think it'll work through shields? Trekkie decoder ring?
*sniggers* Hey, classic...

Yea, if any ship was stupid enough to be running with shields down, the Genesis Device might do it harm. But baring that, thier is no evidance at all, that the GD will pass throgh shields, infact very weak shields may be able to stop it.

There's been signifigant hypothesizing on the Genesis Device before. The leading theory I've seen is it's like a specialized transporter/replicator, the Protomatter onboard boosting the output. If this was correct, it has no chance against Imperial ships, for both shields, unfamiliar electrical fields, and dense materials all screw up Treknology like the Transporter.

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-03-26 01:32pm

Let's look at what Genesis does.

Carol in TWOK wrote:-What
exactly IS Genesis? Put simply,
Genesis is a procedure whereby
the molecular structure of any
given matter can be restructured
-- changed -- into anything else
of identical mass.

- Unleashing, almost instantan-
eously, what we call the Genesis
effect. Particulate matter is
reorganized and electrified --
with life introduced results.
Instead of a dead moon, a living
breathing planet, capable of sus-
taining whatever life forms we
see fit to deposit on it

Ignoring the innate silliness, what is being described here?

First - The genesis effect reorganises atoms (and possibly does a little nuclear chemistry on the side) to make new ones. Presumably the Fed's first foray into replicator tech.

Second - It terraforms a planet in a few days. It is designed to mess about with the light elements C, O, N, H, S and all their little playmates which go to make up earthlike life. The lighter the atoms, the better it works.

So, therefore Genesis reorganisises rock to liberate all the elements it needs and then spins them into dirt, water, oxygen, nitrogen, carbondioxide and makes several primitive lifeforms (like reality show hosts). It builds the biosphere from the "ground up" so it starts with soil microbes and bacteria.

Note that starship hulls are not made of rock with all the juicy potentially organic lego blocks locked up inside. The genesis effect is likely to create a "bubbling" effect as it attempts to extract light elements from the hull. When this doesn't occur the reaction will probably shut down.

The hulls of ISDs are made of 'neutronium' and very unlikely to contain the elements the Genesis effect is looking for. Worst case scenario, it leaves an odd mark on the hull (Assuming it got through shields).

Now those dorky 'bio-ships'? They are so fucked

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-03-26 01:36pm

Duh! Reorganises atoms to make new molecules is what I ment to say in the first point.

<Bangs head repeatedly>

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-03-26 03:25pm

Just to nitpick: Saying the hull is 'made of' neutronium when it's only a component that's 'impregnated' in it is rather misleading. Needless, that passage does suggest it would be boned against the dense metals of Imperial tech(And lends further credence to the Treknology fails to dense materials theory).

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-03-29 09:05am

the molecular structure of any
given matter can be restructured
-- changed -- into anything else
of identical mass.

Any matter can be restructured into anything else of identical mass. What part of this are you guys not understanding? There is nothing in those passages to point to denser materials being more resistant.

It isn't 'farming out' certain molecules from the rock, it is completly transforming it into an equal mass of stuff that wasn't there before.

In other words, dworkins theories are in no way based on what is said or known about the the effects of the Genisis device.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-03-29 11:28am

Scrubula wrote:
the molecular structure of any
given matter can be restructured
-- changed -- into anything else
of identical mass.
Any matter can be restructured into anything else of identical mass. What part of this are you guys not understanding? There is nothing in those passages to point to denser materials being more resistant.

It isn't 'farming out' certain molecules from the rock, it is completly transforming it into an equal mass of stuff that wasn't there before.

In other words, dworkins theories are in no way based on what is said or known about the the effects of the Genisis device.

I'm not seeing the arguement either. The quotation says "any given matter", and this somehow translated to "denser materials like ISD hulls will be unaffected"?

JohnnyRock30 · Post by **JohnnyRock30** » 2005-03-29 07:43pm

Trekdestroyer wrote:Let's look at the facts:
The Genisis Device is a device that makes barran worlds teem with animal and plant life. Would someone please explain to me what about this thing says 'weapon' to the feddies? It makes planets for crying out loud, not blow stuff up! Is there anyone who can give me an answer?

Well the Genesis device transmutes matter. Last time I checked, rediculously dense armor was still matter. The crew of the DS is made up of matter. I would think that it would kill every living thing on the DS "in favor of it's new matrix". That is if the Fed's could get the DS's shielding down, which is a whole other pickle!

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-03-29 08:43pm

The inability to deferentiate between a brochure claim and what actually happens never ceases to amaze me.

Think. What does the genesis device actually do? Claiming that it can affect dense elements equally as well as those it was designed to work on is a no limits fallacy.

As for taking the word of a scientist giving a brief abstract to non-scientists as the final word is up there with the 'no-lasers' idiocy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-29 09:29pm

Natorgator wrote:Wouldn't it take shitloads of energy to rip apart atoms from their molecular bonds and rearrange them? If so could the energy overwhelm an ISD's shields?

You realize that you are ripping atoms out of their molecular bonds and rearranging them every time you light a match, right?

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-03-30 11:26am

The inability to deferentiate between a brochure claim and what actually happens never ceases to amaze me.

Think. What does the genesis device actually do? Claiming that it can affect dense elements equally as well as those it was designed to work on is a no limits fallacy.

As for taking the word of a scientist giving a brief abstract to non-scientists as the final word is up there with the 'no-lasers' idiocy.

What actually happens is exactly what the scientest describes, where is the contradiction here? It is said to work on any matter, and from all evidence, that's exactly what it does. That is not a no-limits fallacy. Prove it doesn't or wouldn't work on some form of matter and you might have a point.

I'll certainly take the movie explanation over your completly made up interpretation.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-03-30 12:59pm

I don't think that is the way it works.

You're asking him to prove a negative, and assuming that the scientist says "reorganize all matter" when he says "reorganize matter". Has it not occurred to you that certain materials are not naturally occurring in a starship and may resist reorganization the same way certain materials cannot be transported?

Find where Carol Marcus says "reorganize all forms of matter" and you might have a point. Even then, she may be speaking in the context of naturally occurring elements.

Brian

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-03-30 01:28pm

Scrubula wrote:What actually happens is exactly what the scientest describes, where is the contradiction here? It is said to work on any matter, and from all evidence, that's exactly what it does. That is not a no-limits fallacy. Prove it doesn't or wouldn't work on some form of matter and you might have a point.

I'll certainly take the movie explanation over your completly made up interpretation.

I must of missed the bit in TWOK (and TSFS) where the Genesis effect produced a huge lump of easily mined heavy metals and rare earths. Oh right, that only happened in the delusional trekkie version.

The GE is seen to reorganise light elements to terraform a planet. Why light elements? Because that's the stuff of life.

A spaceship hull is unlikely to have any of those elements lying arround on the top. And Impregnated neutronium armour? What can Genesis do?
Turn it into more Impregnated neutronium?

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-03-30 04:39pm

You're asking him to prove a negative, and assuming that the scientist says "reorganize all matter" when he says "reorganize matter". Has it not occurred to you that certain materials are not naturally occurring in a starship and may resist reorganization the same way certain materials cannot be transported?

Find where Carol Marcus says "reorganize all forms of matter" and you might have a point. Even then, she may be speaking in the context of naturally occurring elements.

the molecular structure of any given matter can be restructured --changed -- into anything else of identical mass.

Reading comprehension is your friend.
So given the quote, and the witnessed effects of the device, is there a good reason you think it wouldn't work on a SW ship hull? Or is it as it seems and your arguements essentially boil down to "SW ships are so uber!!! No Trek device could possible work on them!!!"

Any examples of other 'matter rearranging' type devices/weapons that would be comparable not working on SW armor? They seem weak enough to rupture when hit by asteroids and other ships, so why do you think that this device will just fizzle out? Size-wise even the largest Imperial ship doesn't even come close to being the size of an entire planet, at least not in the movies.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-03-30 05:21pm

Scrubula wrote: Reading comprehension is your friend.
So given the quote, and the witnessed effects of the device, is there a good reason you think it wouldn't work on a SW ship hull?

As the witnessed effects don't incorporate any heavy metals-yes?
And you're still assuming since the lady in the commercial said it was so, it must be so.

Any examples of other 'matter rearranging' type devices/weapons that would be comparable not working on SW armor?

Fire. Nuclear explosions. Chemical Explosions. See Mike's comment about matches.

They seem weak enough to rupture when hit by asteroids

Seen where?

and other ships

Seen where?

so why do you think that this device will just fizzle out?

Because those are completely different mechanisms? Because you have yet to show the above? Because Nemesis has never been shown to work on heavy metals?

Size-wise even the largest Imperial ship doesn't even come close to being the size of an entire planet, at least not in the movies.

And as Nemesis never did anything to a planet, this is relevant because of?

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2005-03-30 07:06pm

Batman wrote:<snip>

I think he's talking about the Genesis device and not Nemesis. I may be wrong................

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-03-30 07:20pm

Enigma wrote:
Batman wrote:<snip>
I think he's talking about the Genesis device and not Nemesis. I may be wrong................

Well, except for that rather embarrasing typo, so was I...

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2005-03-30 07:43pm

Batman wrote:
Enigma wrote:
Batman wrote:<snip>
I think he's talking about the Genesis device and not Nemesis. I may be wrong................
Well, except for that rather embarrasing typo, so was I...

No worries, in cases like these always blame the Joker.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-03-30 07:46pm

Enigma wrote: No worries, in cases like these always blame the Joker.

Good man. Carry on
*takes Enigma off The List*

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-04-01 02:43pm

As the witnessed effects don't incorporate any heavy metals-yes?
And you're still assuming since the lady in the commercial said it was so, it must be so.

Um, the witnessed effect incorporated a starship, I'd say that qualifies as heavy metals.
It wasn't a 'commercial. IIRC it was more of a Starfleet Technical Briefing kinda thing. Besides, do you have any evidence as to why we should think that she's not being forthright about this technology that she is highly knowledgable on? Actual evidence, not just your own random speculation?

Fire. Nuclear explosions. Chemical Explosions. See Mike's comment about matches.

All of which, if of a high enough yeild, would indeed affect the ISD. So, no reason to assume that a device that can molecularly rearrange entire planets can't do so to any SW ship it encounters.

Seen where?

Seen where?

Um, IIRC, from the movie and novelization. Going into the asteroid field was at best seen as extremely hazardous, and at worst tanamount to suicide. Didn't one of the ISD's blow up in the asteroid field?

And I seem to recall a certain SSD plowing into the DSII and both were damaged or destroyed.

And as Nemesis never did anything to a planet, this is relevant because of?

Really? I could of swore that it created a planet. Does that qualify as 'anything' to you?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-04-01 04:12pm

Scrubula wrote:
As the witnessed effects don't incorporate any heavy metals-yes?
And you're still assuming since the lady in the commercial said it was so, it must be so.
Um, the witnessed effect incorporated a starship, I'd say that qualifies as heavy metals.

Where, pray tell, did we ever see Reliant do anything beyond go 'kablooey'?
Not that we have any evidence of Fed starships incorporating heavy metals, mind you. Here's a hint: Iron is not a heavy metal.

It wasn't a 'commercial.
IIRC it was more of a Starfleet Technical Briefing kinda thing.

And you know that because? It was a short rundown of the project intended to sell it to Starfleet brass, who likely don't know shit about the subject.
Yes it WAS a commercial.

Besides, do you have any evidence as to why we should think that she's not being forthright about this technology that she is highly knowledgable on? Actual evidence, not just your own random speculation?

I. Do. Not. Need. Any. Visuals over dialogue, especially dialogue from a sales pitch video intended for an audience that has no clue about the subject in the first place. Visuals showing Genesis affecting Neutronium, please.

Fire. Nuclear explosions. Chemical Explosions. See Mike's comment about matches.
All of which, if of a high enough yeild, would indeed affect the ISD. So, no reason to assume that a device that can molecularly rearrange entire planets can't do so to any SW ship it encounters.

Happily ignoring shields and that no heavy metals were ever manipulated in the first place. Genesis rearranged a nebula.

Um, IIRC, from the movie and novelization. Going into the asteroid field was at best seen as extremely hazardous, and at worst tanamount to suicide. Didn't one of the ISD's blow up in the asteroid field?

No.

And I seem to recall a certain SSD plowing into the DSII and both were damaged or destroyed.

Wrong again. Executor blew up after crashing into DSII. Internal expolsions. Try again. Oh, and DSII was apparently unharmed. I suggest you finally take the time and watch the movies.

And as Nemesis never did anything to a planet, this is relevant because of?
Really? I could of swore that it created a planet. Does that qualify as 'anything' to you?

As there was no planet to begin with, no.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-04-01 06:27pm

Ugh, what an idiot. You do know, CuntScrub, that when the nebula fell down into a planet it was a net decrease in energy? So fuck you and your ignorant 'It must be energetic!' bullshit.

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-04-02 10:24am

Um, IIRC, from the movie and novelization. Going into the asteroid field was at best seen as extremely hazardous, and at worst tanamount to suicide. Didn't one of the ISD's blow up in the asteroid field?

No.

Empire Strikes Back script says

Before him are the hologram images of twenty battleship
commanders. One of these images, the commander of a ship that
has just exploded, is fading away quickly.

Learn something about he 'verse your going to rabidly wank to before you start posting your meaningless drivel please.

And you know that because? It was a short rundown of the project intended to sell it to Starfleet brass, who likely don't know shit about the subject.
Yes it WAS a commercial.

Briefing, summary, commercial, call it what you want to. Without any evidence that the doctor was lying your speculation that she was is meaningless. The fact that it did exactly what she said it could, three times, is proof that she was being honest when describing it's abilities.

I. Do. Not. Need. Any. Visuals over dialogue, especially dialogue from a sales pitch video intended for an audience that has no clue about the subject in the first place. Visuals showing Genesis affecting Neutronium, please.

Yes. You. Do. Need. Some. Evidence....if you expect your point to be taken as anything beside speculative opinion. Your protest that you do not need and lectures on debates from me, yet to the contrary you continually show that you do.

Did you know that SW armor aren't make from neutronium, they are impregnated with it. It's not an alloy, it's seperate metals.

Wrong again. Executor blew up after crashing into DSII. Internal expolsions. Try again. Oh, and DSII was apparently unharmed. I suggest you finally take the time and watch the movies.

WTF? The executor was destroyed after crashing into the DS, but I"m wrong in saying... "And I seem to recall a certain SSD plowing into the DSII and both were damaged or destroyed."
And, you need to watch teh movie again, as it is clearly visible that the SSD penetrates into the DSII's hull. That, outside of your little fantasy world, equals 'damage'.

Batman, naysaying and childish insults do not make your posts valid or compelling. I suggest you start providing some evidence along with your wild speculation from now on. But, you seem rather dense, therefor I look forward to laughing at your next worthless post.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-04-02 10:31am

Scrubula wrote:
Learn something about he 'verse your going to rabidly wank to before you start posting your meaningless drivel please.

Funny, we don't see a ship exploding in the film, nor do we see "twenty battleship commanders" in the film. So why are you referencing a script again? Is it because you have seen SW so little you can't remember a scene for yourself?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-04-02 10:38am

Scrubula wrote:
Um, IIRC, from the movie and novelization. Going into the asteroid field was at best seen as extremely hazardous, and at worst tanamount to suicide. Didn't one of the ISD's blow up in the asteroid field?

No.
Empire Strikes Back script says
Before him are the hologram images of twenty battleship
commanders. One of these images, the commander of a ship that
has just exploded, is fading away quickly.
Learn something about he 'verse your going to rabidly wank to before you start posting your meaningless drivel please.

That ISD did not "blow up." You can see in the damn movie (remember visuals trump everything else) that the bridge got hit by an asteroid. The captain and bridge crew were killed as a result. The ship doesn't stop functioning just because the bridge is gone.

Scrubula · Post by **Scrubula** » 2005-04-05 02:41am

That ISD did not "blow up." You can see in the damn movie (remember visuals trump everything else) that the bridge got hit by an asteroid. The captain and bridge crew were killed as a result. The ship doesn't stop functioning just because the bridge is gone.

Batman method rebutall:
Proof that the ship we see getting it's bridge destroyed is the same one the faded commander was on?

Regardless, considering that my whole point was that the asteroids were a threat to the ships and could indeed damage/destroy them, I thank you for suppoorting my assertion.