General Order 24

[Wyrm]

Oh, wait since this Trekkie wont take any thing unless it is stated, how are you sure it is a main sequence star? Is it stated in the episode or something? Thanks for the info.

Servo is right. There are no yellow supergiants. They're either big and bloated like Betelgeuse, or more compact and blue like Sandulek.

But there's a further reason to suspect the Bajoran sun is not a supergiant. The Bajorans presumably evolved on Bajor. This means that their sun had to have survived at least long enough for the Bajorans to evolve from the first primitive life forms to the full fledge Bajorans.

Now, consider: although it is an offense against evolution as we know it, The Chase does establish that basically all humanoid life in the Milky Way has a common origin (much like the yeast of Nivan's Known Space gives all life in the galaxy a common biochemical base, only Nivan did it right). Bajorans are one of these humanoid life forms, and this happened about 4 billion years ago. This means the Bajoran sun has been burning for about 4 billion years.

The sun is predicted to have a lifespan of about 10 billion years, so the fact that the Bajoran sun is still burning indicates that it is no heavier than 1.35 solar masses (lifetime is proportional to the inverse cubed of the star's mass; a star twice as heavy as the sun lasts only about 2 billion years). If I recall correctly, supergiants begin at about 10 solar masses, so Bajor is no supergiant.

[ShadowSonic]

So what would a more scientifically accurate line in "In Purgatory's Shadow" have been like?

"The bomb will cause the sun to explode", not "nova" or "supernova"? Would it have been simpler to just say "It will make the sun explode"?

Geez, as much as I like DS9 I do wish the writers would just "Keep it simple, stupid". Trek would come off as lowbrow if they just use terms like "the star will explode" instead of "the technobabble bomb will make the star go supernova/whatever".

I mean, we don't need an explanation of exactly how the Death Star fires it's weapon, or what exactly the superlaser does. Just that the Death Star is a huge battlestation and it had a big gun that blows shit up, including planets.

[ShadowSonic]

Uhm, I mean that Trek WOULDN'T come off as lowbrow if they just said "the bomb will make the star explode", rather than "nova" or "supernova".

[Darth Servo]

Yes, but the writers have 40 minutes of air time to fill each week. Thats a lot of hard writing.

[ShadowSonic]

Well, there was plenty of other stuff going on in that particular episode, that changing the "supernova" line to "the star will explode" wouldn't affect much.

But the 40 minute thing is an important part of it. It's also one of the main reasons we're left with a rather one-note or 2D interpretation of Trek Aliens, because going in-depth for all their cultures would probably take up all the 40 minutes they had.

B5 was a little better, but only a little, in that regard. They still had some 2D or shoehorned-races-into-caricatures stuff.

This is why I think that even if they had gone with the John Ford Klingons for Trek, we wouldn't be any better off because they still wouldn't have been able to go as in-depth as the books had. Because books and TV are different mediums.

For example, J.G. Herztler's book on the TNG Klingons gave them more depth and stuff than the TV series had, because a book can do that better than a TV show can.

[Patrick Degan]

Geez, as much as I like DS9 I do wish the writers would just "Keep it simple, stupid". Trek would come off as lowbrow if they just use terms like "the star will explode" instead of "the technobabble bomb will make the star go supernova/whatever".

I mean, we don't need an explanation of exactly how the Death Star fires it's weapon, or what exactly the superlaser does. Just that the Death Star is a huge battlestation and it had a big gun that blows shit up, including planets.

The truly sad thing is that this used to be one of the primary writing rules for Star Trek: show, don't tell, and keep it simple.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Look's like he's a classic model Trekkie, no numbers and no limits fallacies.

[bz249]

also, what is this argument talking about?

DS9: By Inferno's Light - "A Changeling has rigged the runabout Yukon with trilithium, tekasite, and protomatter, which if detonated inside the Bajoran sun, would induce a supernova, destroying Bajor, DS9, and the Klingon fleet in one fell swoop."

Any way to refute this? I was thinking how many planets are in that star system, since if it only takes out one planet out of a star system, it doesnt compare to the sun crusher

It can't be a supernova by definition, since only a supermassive star can produce a supernova. Once again, Star Trek gets its terminology wrong. It can produce a nova, but one thing most people don't realize is that a nova is just a giant solar flare. The star isn't actually exploding; it's just throwing off a lot of gas from its outer layers. In fact, a well-shielded ship could probably survive a nova, and the actual intensity at the point of impact would be much less than a direct hit with a nuclear weapon.

It can't go to a nova either. The nova is very similar to scaled-down version Type Ia supernova. The nova happens in the accretion disc of white dwarf (while the Ia is happening in the accretion disc of a neutron star). So the star may go kaboom from that ship, but this would not be a nova neither a supernova.

[ShadowSonic]

So I'm right, a more appropriate line would've been "The Star will explode" instead of "The Star will go supernova".

[Darth Wong]

So I'm right, a more appropriate line would've been "The Star will explode" instead of "The Star will go supernova".

More like "the star will exhale". It is not exploding. It is only throwing off gas from its outer layers. It's an emission, not an explosion. The word "explode" implies that the central body of the star is actually disrupted, and that's not what's happening.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Clearly, in the Trek-verse, the term "supernova" has taken on a colloquial meaning that differs substantially from our current meaning. This is yet another example of why Trek dialogue cannot be relied upon for generating estimates of their capabilities. And that the typical SF officer is not as scientifically capable as they pretend to be.

[Darth Ruinus]

oh god, he just said the the Federation could duplicate the Sun Crusher by loading up sufficient proton torpedoes on a Fed ship and shooting their suns, we'll i figure im going to reply as "then why didnt you do that to solve every other war they've had?"

[CaptHawkeye]

oh god, he just said the the Federation could duplicate the Sun Crusher by loading up sufficient proton torpedoes on a Fed ship and shooting their suns, we'll i figure im going to reply as "then why didnt you do that to solve every other war they've had?"

phsaahahaha. Another favorite Trekky rule of debate. Invent amazing superweapons and technology that can suddenly ice the Empire in the blink of eye!

I imagine his rebuttle will be something like "lol, those enemies weren't dangerous enough!"

[ShadowSonic]

Well, not that I agree with this guy (from what I'm hearing he's a bit of a nutter) but I think blowing up entire solar systems to solve perimeter actions or even wars is a tad drastic for anything less than an absolute last resort.

Besides, if the Feds did unleash weaponry like Genesis or their version of Soran's Trilithium Warhead, they'd be risking the other power responding with their own superweapons, and if the war is going so badly that they had to resort to such weaponry in the first place, the guys they're fighting must have weapons either as effective or even more effective.

Anyways, it's not like the Death Star or Sun Crusher were meant as ordinary weapons of war, they were meant as terror weapons or doomsday weapons to go "Look at what WE can do, dummies! Keep in line or else!" on any of their opponents.

Or in the case of the Sun Crusher, it was something made by the Imperial Remnants (was it? Can't remember) to force the New Republic to give in, because the Imperials couldn't win by any other means. It was a last-resort superweapon type thing.

But anyways, that's just my own assumption for why the Feds don't go around using these superweapons things, even though we know they exist in Trek (Blowing up Stars, wiping out planets, etc).

And also, the writers don't want to use them because if the Feds have all these weapons then there's no tension when they fight anyone because we know they have these superweapons to beat anyone with. So that's why they always have the explanation of "It was outlawed" or something...

[Ritterin Sophia]

Besides, if the Feds did unleash weaponry like Genesis or their version of Soran's Trilithium Warhead, they'd be risking the other power responding with their own superweapons, and if the war is going so badly that they had to resort to such weaponry in the first place, the guys they're fighting must have weapons either as effective or even more effective.

Genesis is stated to be lost technology, unlike the Death Star and isn't Trilithium supposed to be significantly rare.

Anyways, it's not like the Death Star or Sun Crusher were meant as ordinary weapons of war, they were meant as terror weapons or doomsday weapons to go "Look at what WE can do, dummies! Keep in line or else!" on any of their opponents.

Yes they were, and the Death Star was also intended to be Sector Command for the Imperial Fleets, can't remember if that was in the DESB or ISB.

Or in the case of the Sun Crusher, it was something made by the Imperial Remnants (was it? Can't remember) to force the New Republic to give in, because the Imperials couldn't win by any other means. It was a last-resort superweapon type thing.

Tarkin comissioned it's construction at the Maw Installation, so no it wasn't intended as a wepaon of last resort.

But anyways, that's just my own assumption for why the Feds don't go around using these superweapons things, even though we know they exist in Trek (Blowing up Stars, wiping out planets, etc).

Lost technology isn't appropriate in a Versus debate.

And also, the writers don't want to use them because if the Feds have all these weapons then there's no tension when they fight anyone because we know they have these superweapons to beat anyone with. So that's why they always have the explanation of "It was outlawed" or something...

You're violating SoD, DON'T1

[ShadowSonic]

What's SoD?

[Darth Wong]

What's SoD?

Suspension of Disbelief. You can't argue about what would "really" happen unless you assume that there is some kind of self-consistent reality here, and that means you have to pretend that this is a real universe with meaningful rules, not the arbitrary creation of some author's whims or a reflection of his inadequacies. If it is so badly written that you cannot do this, then you cannot argue about what would realistically happen because there is no "real" in that context.

[Darth Ruinus]

This guys argument is centered solely on the whole "Lucas said the EU is seperate from his universe!!!!" claim, which i keep trying to explain is just talking about timelines and or merchandising chains, oh and he brought backup, but still, Trek back up is much like the Grunts in Halo, they go down fast, but there are lots of em.

Anyways thanks for the help so far guys.

[Darth Wong]

This guys argument is centered solely on the whole "Lucas said the EU is seperate from his universe!!!!" claim, which i keep trying to explain is just talking about timelines and or merchandising chains, oh and he brought backup, but still, Trek back up is much like the Grunts in Halo, they go down fast, but there are lots of em.

Anyways thanks for the help so far guys.

The filmed historical records of WW2 are separate from the written ones too, but that doesn't mean they don't both refer to the same war.

[Ritterin Sophia]

This guys argument is centered solely on the whole "Lucas said the EU is seperate from his universe!!!!" claim, which i keep trying to explain is just talking about timelines and or merchandising chains, oh and he brought backup, but still, Trek back up is much like the Grunts in Halo, they go down fast, but there are lots of em.

Every time a Trektard takes that damnable quote out of context, I reply with: "The quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not." -Leland Chee, maintainer of Lucasfilm's Star Wars Holocron in response to that very quote.

I'd suggest you do the same.

[Darth Ruinus]

I have, various times, he just quips back with "Who's word would to you take? Lucas' or Chee's?" I always return with "What Lucas says in an interview is not official, besides if it was, why dont you provide me with a website officially claiming the EU to be non-canon?"

He, big shocker, never responds, and goes on to state the same quote again and say "amazing how you edit Lucas' words to suit your argument.

This Trekkie just wont give up.

[bz249]

Clearly, in the Trek-verse, the term "supernova" has taken on a colloquial meaning that differs substantially from our current meaning. This is yet another example of why Trek dialogue cannot be relied upon for generating estimates of their capabilities. And that the typical SF officer is not as scientifically capable as they pretend to be.

They have some problems with the visuals too. I dont't know why their writers (and this holds for some other sci-fi too) failed to realize how big are the stars. The radius of our Sun is roughly 700.000km, so if the exploding outer shell is escaping with lightspeed, it will doubles the size of the Sun in 2.3 seconds. The blue supergiants which could really produce a supernova are way bigger. So no Alderaan style rapidly expanding ring, but a seemingly slow process of gas exhalation and brightening.

[ShadowSonic]

I have, various times, he just quips back with "Who's word would to you take? Lucas' or Chee's?" I always return with "What Lucas says in an interview is not official, besides if it was, why dont you provide me with a website officially claiming the EU to be non-canon?"

He, big shocker, never responds, and goes on to state the same quote again and say "amazing how you edit Lucas' words to suit your argument.

This Trekkie just wont give up.

Slightly off-topic, I can understand why Lucas has said the EU is canon, whereas Paramount has said that their Trek Novels aren't (even though they're great). We're probably never going to see any more Wars movies, and any TV shows will either be set in the past or in the gap between Revenge of the Sith and a New Hope, so the future is wide open for all those novels to whatever they like after Endor.

Hell, to the casual fan (who make up the majority of all fanbases) they probably aren't even aware of the EU, they just think of only the 6 movies when they thinks of Star Wars.

With Trek, they've made around, what, 700 TV episodes? And they'd want to make more once someone half-competant takes over production, and so their Trek novles can't be considered canon unless they plan on referencing them in the shows that'll probably be set in the same timeframe, or they move it ahead to the 25th century like the gap between TNG and TOS. And if they tell stories off all the major stuff that happened between TOS and TNG they'd still have to reference the novels. So the easy way out for them is to just say the novel aren't canon.

And the same thing to the casual Trek fans over the novels, they likely don't know they exist.

So I can understand the difference in Lucas accepting the novels while Paramount doesn't.

Me, I just wish the EU hadn't made the New Republic suck just becuase they couldn't think of anything else to do with it. It would've made for a better EU if both the New Republic and the Imperial Remnant were accepted by the galaxy, and had to find ways of co-existing rather than there always being one power controlling everything. Opens more grey areas and possibilities, IMO.

[Lord Pounder]

Your talking crap. If your a representative of the average fan base and you say you are and you know about the EU how can you say the rest of your fellows won't. It doesn't take much to be aware of the existance of the EU, just walk into a book shop and in the Sci-Fi section your bound to find a few of the latest EU books. Same goes for Star Trek.

[ShadowSonic]

I know about what happens in the EU becuase of you guys here , not because I read all those novels at Chapters. I've never really felt motivated to read either the Wars or Trek novels that much.