NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that there is any chance at all for another Star Trek series to come out? Or do you think that there will just be more movies?

Slim or none.

And they are making another Star Trek film. A prequel. Chance of that being good: slim or none.

Do you think that there is any chance at all for another Star Trek series to come out? Or do you think that there will just be more movies?

God... I hope not. they really F-ed it up with 'Enterprise' and 'Voyager'.

the next movie doesn't sound that great either. Focusing on Kirk and Spock's days in the Academy? WTF since Spock was supposed to have Graduated years before Kirk (he was serving with Chris Pike when Kirk Graduated. but I guess that's another "we now make it officially Non-Cannon" mentality of the Roddenberry estate.

There will be one more movie. If it's good, it might make enough money to warrant another. If it isn't, it will tank and the franchise will die.
There will never be another series.

It's gotten to the point that the only ones who watch Star Trek are Trekkies, and there simply is not enough of them.

Star Trek peaked with First Contact and Deep Space Nine

It's been all downhill from there...and the prequel will SUCK, mark my words.

It was about 20 years between The Original Series and The Next Generation...with four movies on the tail end of that timeframe.

We're going to need at least a decade, and some new blood in the writing pool, before we see anything approaching good again.

That said, if they make anything approaching the awesomeness of DS9 again...I'll be first to tune in. :)

*kills Picard with a lightsaber*

Here's a general question I'll throw out there...

...how many more viewers might ST attract if they stopped going BACKWARDS in time (Enterprise, the Prequel), and moved foward a couple of centuries from where we left off in the TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe??

I know I'M curious about future adventures...I'm tired of retreading old ground and messing with continuity. Let's see something NEW!

I liked the two part enterprise in the mirror universe. If they make another star trek (which they will eventually, because the franchise is so huge), then it should be based there.

Of course it'll probably be more next generation type crap.

Honestly they need to cool off and let the franchise rest. More importantly get rid of Braga. I suggest a plastic barrel, concrete, and very deep water.

Here's a general question I'll throw out there...

...how many more viewers might ST attract if they stopped going BACKWARDS in time (Enterprise, the Prequel), and moved foward a couple of centuries from where we left off in the TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe??

I know I'M curious about future adventures...I'm tired of retreading old ground and messing with continuity. Let's see something NEW!

I agree... but they need to get rid of two technological items first.

1) the Holodeck. seriously... WTF! since it's been established that money doesn't exist in the future, what's stopping someone from spending 24 hrs in that damn thing. the fact that they have that Holo Addiction crap now...

2) Replicators. overused and overpowered.
"We need this part"
"fine, replicate it"

Voyager only had 80+ Torpedoes... and never, in the entire series, did they keep count of their Torpedo reserves. The TOS had it right. Replicators were only for FOOD. nothing else... and even then, the supplies that allowed the Replicators to work could run out.

The future? I say the next series has to be away from the All Powerful Federation. completely isolated.

so I'll consider watching an experimental Voyage. a ship crewed with members of the Romulan, Klingon, and Federation. basically, an expansion of the planet from Star Trek V.

or perhaps a series baised on the Romulan Empire. Not Klingon. to much like the Federation now. but the Romulan viewpoint of the Galaxy.

hmmm let them wait 20 years to make another series. There be enough innovations in that time to allow for better ideas (e.g. the borg werent possible in TOS because it was the 60s, however with TNG 20 years later...). Also I would like if the universe was expanded, say they invented the uber warp drive and could travel to other galaxies, but the federation would get dissipated as a result and they would be up against a lot more different and powerful races. They should probably read Peter F Hamilton as well, a wealth of ideas in his books.

I agree... but they need to get rid of two technological items first.

1) the Holodeck. seriously... WTF! since it's been established that money doesn't exist in the future, what's stopping someone from spending 24 hrs in that damn thing. the fact that they have that Holo Addiction crap now...

2) Replicators. overused and overpowered.
"We need this part"
"fine, replicate it"

Voyager only had 80+ Torpedoes... and never, in the entire series, did they keep count of their Torpedo reserves. The TOS had it right. Replicators were only for FOOD. nothing else... and even then, the supplies that allowed the Replicators to work could run out.

The future? I say the next series has to be away from the All Powerful Federation. completely isolated.

so I'll consider watching an experimental Voyage. a ship crewed with members of the Romulan, Klingon, and Federation. basically, an expansion of the planet from Star Trek V.

or perhaps a series baised on the Romulan Empire. Not Klingon. to much like the Federation now. but the Romulan viewpoint of the Galaxy.

I don't think they need to get rid of the holodeck or the replicator, but they do need to tone them down a bit...especially the holodeck.

Reading the TNG tech manual makes replicators make sense, but I'm not about to try and spout it off from memory, it'll be wrong. :p

An experimental voyage would be interesting...perhaps a long-term expedition to the Andromeda galaxy?

Then again, the Milky Way could still work if a new propulsion breakthrough is made that puts Earth right next door to the Dominion homeworld and vice versa. There's still plenty of empty space in the galaxy that they didn't use that could have some new friends/enemies in it.

I don't like the idea of an "alien" themed show...it wouldn't attract a wide enough audience without the "human" element.

There's lots of potential there...and yet we got "Enterprise" :rolleyes:

Methinks they killed it on purpose. :mad:

1) the Holodeck. seriously... WTF! since it's been established that money doesn't exist in the future, what's stopping someone from spending 24 hrs in that damn thing. the fact that they have that Holo Addiction crap now...



The holodeck will be the last invention ever made.

2) Replicators. overused and overpowered.
"We need this part"
"fine, replicate it"

Voyager only had 80+ Torpedoes... and never, in the entire series, did they keep count of their Torpedo reserves. The TOS had it right. Replicators were only for FOOD. nothing else... and even then, the supplies that allowed the Replicators to work could run out.

That never bothered me in principle. If you can replicate earl grey tea, why not a machine part?

The future? I say the next series has to be away from the All Powerful Federation. completely isolated.

so I'll consider watching an experimental Voyage. a ship crewed with members of the Romulan, Klingon, and Federation. basically, an expansion of the planet from Star Trek V.

or perhaps a series baised on the Romulan Empire. Not Klingon. to much like the Federation now. but the Romulan viewpoint of the Galaxy.

I agree it needs to get away from the federation. That's overdone. So if not something in the mirror universe, something from an outside viewpoint would be cool too.

Or, put it in the future and have the federation become all dystopian and evil.

Or, put it in the future and have the federation become all dystopian and evil.

I think DS9 proved that when the show strays from "Roddenberry's Vision", and does so in a consistent manner, then we get better stories and more well developed characters and chemisty between characters.

Some would say heresy...but I don't want the star of the show to be some abstract morality, I want captivating stories and believable characters...things we've seen far less of as time goes on.

I think DS9 proved that when the show strays from "Roddenberry's Vision", and does so in a consistent manner, then we get better stories and more well developed characters and chemisty between characters.

Some would say heresy...but I don't want the star of the show to be some abstract morality, I want captivating stories and believable characters...things we've seen far less of as time goes on.

I loved DS9. Rather than just a show about the future, it was a show that mirrored our own world, with a potential future as the backdrop.






I say they scrap it. Start over. Reanimate the series, focusing more on the "human" aspects, rather than the technobabble.

THIS is heresy.

I liked the two part enterprise in the mirror universe. If they make another star trek (which they will eventually, because the franchise is so huge), then it should be based there.

Of course it'll probably be more next generation type crap.

Next Generation was the only decent iteration, and even then, most of it was campy shit.

I think DS9 proved that when the show strays from "Roddenberry's Vision", and does so in a consistent manner, then we get better stories and more well developed characters and chemisty between characters.

Some would say heresy...but I don't want the star of the show to be some abstract morality, I want captivating stories and believable characters...things we've seen far less of as time goes on.

Yea. I liked DS9 the best of all the series.

God... I hope not. they really F-ed it up with 'Enterprise' and 'Voyager'.

the next movie doesn't sound that great either. Focusing on Kirk and Spock's days in the Academy? WTF since Spock was supposed to have Graduated years before Kirk (he was serving with Chris Pike when Kirk Graduated. but I guess that's another "we now make it officially Non-Cannon" mentality of the Roddenberry estate.

They never said it was going to be about their days at the Academy. That is an internet rumor which has been refuted.

It will most likely focus on their days during the 5 year mission.

Oh and Roddenberry's estate has nothing to do with this. The crap that came out was Rick Berman fucking up the series. He isn't having a hand in this movie because Paramount won't let him touch Star Trek anymore.

Yea. I liked DS9 the best of all the series.

Ditto

They can have a series take place 10 years following DS9. What happens if the Romulans learn about Garak and Sisco's deception? The Romulans need to be the focus of a series.

1) the Holodeck. seriously... WTF! since it's been established that money doesn't exist in the future,
Wtf? Since when? Everywhere uses fucking money.

2) Replicators. overused and overpowered.
"We need this part"
"fine, replicate it"
So they have a matter manipulator, I fail to see your problem.

Voyager only had 80+ Torpedoes... and never, in the entire series, did they keep count of their Torpedo reserves. The TOS had it right. Replicators were only for FOOD. nothing else... and even then, the supplies that allowed the Replicators to work could run out.
1) It doesn't make any sense for them to only work for food.
2) Maybe you didn't pay attention in Voyager but they had replicator rations because they were running low on whatever.

God... I hope not. they really F-ed it up with 'Enterprise' and 'Voyager'.

the next movie doesn't sound that great either. Focusing on Kirk and Spock's days in the Academy? WTF since Spock was supposed to have Graduated years before Kirk (he was serving with Chris Pike when Kirk Graduated. but I guess that's another "we now make it officially Non-Cannon" mentality of the Roddenberry estate.

disagree entirely. well, not entirely... enterprise was shit, but voyager got it just right for me.

i think enterprise showed that going backwards in technology and in the whole 'utopia' concept, as well as taking a more 'gung-ho' attitude, was really the wrong direction. more like TNG and VOY is what we need. not going back in time again


i desperately hope there will be a new franchise. i can't really see how there couldn't be, to be honest, if they stick with their loyal fans (of which there are millions). what they did extra wrong in enterprise was dropping the Star Trek moniker alltogether and trying to reach out to a new audience and leaving their old audience behind.

The future? I say the next series has to be away from the All Powerful Federation. completely isolated.


no, no, no!!

disagree entirely. well, not entirely... enterprise was shit, but voyager got it just right for me.

i think enterprise showed that going backwards in technology and in the whole 'utopia' concept, as well as taking a more 'gung-ho' attitude, was really the wrong direction. more like TNG and VOY is what we need. not going back in time again
The real problems with Enterprise were trying to be "the prequel that explains all the discrepancies in future series" and the deus ex machina time travel.

no, no, no!!

I agree. Without the whole optimistic for the future of humanity thing, there's isn't much to make non-trekies like myself interested.
They have to do something to make us be able to ignore those ludicrous uniforms.

I think DS9 proved that when the show strays from "Roddenberry's Vision", and does so in a consistent manner, then we get better stories and more well developed characters and chemisty between characters. not just DS9, but TOS. in Roddenberry's vision, there was no Klingon/Romulan Empire and no fighting in the series. the 'great enemies" of the Federation was added at the insistance of the studio.

They never said it was going to be about their days at the Academy. That is an internet rumor which has been refuted.

It will most likely focus on their days during the 5 year mission.

Oh and Roddenberry's estate has nothing to do with this. The crap that came out was Rick Berman fucking up the series. He isn't having a hand in this movie because Paramount won't let him touch Star Trek anymore.here (http://imdb.com/title/tt0796366/plotsummary)
and yes, while it doesn't take place at the academy, I did mean they were fresh out of the academy, my bad. but it still doesn't explain the discrepencies that will arrise between this movie and TOS. the same with First Contact and TOS.

the comment about the Roddenberry estate is the labeling of what is cannon and what is not. they even admitted the Animated series as cannon after years of denying it's existance.

Wtf? Since when? Everywhere uses fucking money.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Don't tell me you don't use money in the 23rd Century.
Kirk: Well we don't.

It was only after they changed the Ferengi from the bad ebil race to intergalactic traders that they suddenly have money again.

So they have a matter manipulator, I fail to see your problem.it's a deus ex machina.

TOS:
We need to trade with this planet for a rare material used to repair our Warp Engines.

TNG:
We need to replicate this part and our warp engines will be repaired.

to simple, to quick, to easy. a ship, isolated in the far reaches of space never ran out of parts, torpedoes and supplies because of their 'replicators'.


1) It doesn't make any sense for them to only work for food.in a way, it does.
2) Maybe you didn't pay attention in Voyager but they had replicator rations because they were running low on whatever.watch it again. Nelix offered to be the cook to reduce the power drain (from a recyclable source mind you) the replicators used. now how many episodes actually showed them without the 'whatever' they need to run the replicators. Replication technology was UNHEARD of in that quadrant.

disagree entirely. well, not entirely... enterprise was shit, but voyager got it just right for me. I thought so to... untill they could make and maintain contact with the federation. when they started getting 'missions' from them... that killed it for me.

i think enterprise showed that going backwards in technology and in the whole 'utopia' concept, as well as taking a more 'gung-ho' attitude, was really the wrong direction. more like TNG and VOY is what we need. not going back in time again

i desperately hope there will be a new franchise. i can't really see how there couldn't be, to be honest, if they stick with their loyal fans (of which there are millions). what they did extra wrong in enterprise was dropping the Star Trek moniker alltogether and trying to reach out to a new audience and leaving their old audience behind.if there is a new franchise, it has to be though of very carefully.

and one thing they are doing to leave the old audience behind is all this "rewriting" the series to make it scientifically correct.

*shoots Kirk with a pistol and drives away*

not just DS9, but TOS. in Roddenberry's vision, there was no Klingon/Romulan Empire and no fighting in the series. the 'great enemies" of the Federation was added at the insistance of the studio.
And in "Roddenberry's vision," what would they have done in the show?

It was only after they changed the Ferengi from the bad ebil race to intergalactic traders that they suddenly have money again.
Lack of mentioning money does not mean it doesn't exist.

it's a deus ex machina.

TOS:
We need to trade with this planet for a rare material used to repair our Warp Engines.

TNG:
We need to replicate this part and our warp engines will be repaired.
Replicators cannot replicate everything and cannot replicate things exactly as they would exist. Replicating a generic part is the natural progression of generic item production. Though, I will give you TNG abused it the most.

to simple, to quick, to easy. a ship, isolated in the far reaches of space never ran out of parts, torpedoes and supplies because of their 'replicators'.
Logical person's note: Star Trek, especially TNG and TOS, ran in a "new week, new problem!" format with no underlying storyline or plot. How much time went by between episodes? Days? Weeks? Months? They were not "isolated in the far reaches of space," they were exploring but were always within fairly easy traveling distance of the nearest star base. A fact they like to bring up fairly often.


in a way, it does.
watch it again. Nelix offered to be the cook to reduce the power drain (from a recyclable source mind you) the replicators used. now how many episodes actually showed them without the 'whatever' they need to run the replicators. Replication technology was UNHEARD of in that quadrant.
Replicators are matter rearrangers. They can work from anything, which is why you they were taking up donations of stuff to feed the replicators. They just have to have the correct matter in order to make stuff.

One thing I wished that they would try is to take the action off of just one ship/crew and have short story arcs and then shift to a new ship, even an alien ship after the conclusion of an arc. And I really wish that they had done more in there movie era between 2 and TNG, that's something like 80 years that was just skipped, a whole ton of stuff could have taken place then and by shifting from ship to ship you could create a real sense of danger for the crew, they might all die at the end of the arc.

Replicators are matter rearrangers. They can work from anything, which is why you they were taking up donations of stuff to feed the replicators. They just have to have the correct matter in order to make stuff.

To be technical replicators build matter from the ground up from energy.

To be technical replicators build matter from the ground up from energy.
Matter has to exist to make matter.

Matter has to exist to make matter.

Law of Equivalent Exchange LOL!

Matter has to exist to make matter.

No it doesn't. Matter and energy are the same thing.

No it doesn't. Matter and energy are the same thing.
That sounds highly dubious for any number of reasons.

That sounds highly dubious for any number of reasons.

It may sound dubious but it is regardless correct:

Definition

Colloquially and in physics, matter is easy to define. Matter is the stuff which things are made of and consists of chemical substances. These are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. In this way, matter is contrasted with energy.

In physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter. Physicists generally do not use the word when precision is needed, prefering instead to speak of the more clearly defined concepts of mass, energy and particles.

A possible definition of matter which at least some physicists use [1] is that it is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions. These are the leptons, including the electron, and the quarks, including the up and down quarks of which protons and neutrons are made. Since protons, neutrons and electrons combine to form atoms, atoms, molecules and the bulk substances which they make up are all matter. Matter also includes the various baryons and mesons. Things which are not matter include light (photons) and the other gauge bosons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

You might want to check the sentence after that one, skippy.

You might want to check the sentence after that one, skippy.

Yeah, it says atoms are made up of electrons et al, and atoms are generally a requisite for the term matter to be applied.

Do I need to use smaller words?

No, but you need to read your own source material. The sentence after your highlighted one will suffice.

I'm guessing reading comprehension wasn't a point of major study for you. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

Yeah, it says atoms are made up of electrons et al, and atoms are generally a requisite for the term matter to be applied.

Do I need to use smaller words?
No, but you need to read your own source material. The sentence after your highlighted one will suffice.

To be technical replicators build matter from the ground up from energy.
Not quite. IIRC, they work somewhat like transporters. The way a transporter works is that everything including your mind is stored on a computer, the information is sent to another site and you are replicated. The original you is then destroyed to prevent a duplicate.

Replicators work the same way except they take one form of matter and convert it into another form.

Not quite. IIRC, they work somewhat like transporters. The way a transporter works is that everything including your mind is stored on a computer, the information is sent to another site and you are replicated. The original you is then destroyed to prevent a duplicate.

Replicators work the same way except they take one form of matter and convert it into another form.

That would take a massive amount of energy, and is an unnessicary step. To do that you have to break down the source matter into energy (which they're capable of) and then recombine it into another form from the ground up. Again possible but wasteful. Why go through the effort when you can go straight from energy to matter? With a stored pattern in the computer you could pop out anything you had on file as long as you had power.

Which makes Voyager's whole "replicator energy" thing incredibly stupid. Though building matter would take a tremendous amount of power, too much to be realistically viable.

I say they scrap it. Start over. Reanimate the series, focusing more on the "human" aspects, rather than the technobabble.

THIS is heresy.

Yeah. Many people turn away from sci-fi and Star Trek in particular because of all the pseudo-scientific gobbledegook.

Matter has to exist to make matter.

Einstein would disagree.

Transporters and replicators don't even work the same way...

Also, I take it Khelgar read his own source as he shut up about matter being energy.

You should quit while you're very far behind, because this discussion is very obviously way beyond you.

That never bothered me in principle. If you can replicate earl grey tea, why not a machine part?

well, yeah, since it replicated a cup and such anyway

Transporters and replicators don't even work the same way...

Also, I take it Khelgar read his own source as he shut up about matter being energy.

You should quit while you're very far behind, because this discussion is very obviously way beyond you.

Isn't it funny how TPH somehow thinks that he can disprove Einstein's mass–energy equivalence by simply saying "nuh uh!"

Specifically to point:

The concept of mass–energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass.

IE matter can come from energy. For a very simple example, there's the photovoltaic devices such as solar cells. Which is exactly how solar power works. Specialized materials that absorb photons (energy) into their atomic structure and emit electrons (particles with mass) which are then harnessed for power.

In that situation that's exactly what happens, an atom is bombarded by photonic energy and gives off electrons.

The inverse is true when you run electrons (which have mass) through certian materials, which then give off photons, which is the principle behind how lasers work.

By the way, a point about Replicators and why they're immensely impractical.


Let's look at Anti-matter, a gram of which explodes when exposed to regular matter with the force of a small nuclear bomb. How much matter could you make with that immense power? About two grams, even if you controlled the power with almost 100% efficiency. Now I'm not sure how the delta-v of warp engines works out, but it'd be a hell of a lot more practical to just carry the needed supplies over replicating it because it takes an immense amount of power.

Isn't it funny how TPH somehow thinks that he can disprove Einstein's mass–energy equivalence by simply saying "nuh uh!"

I always thought this was pretty elementary stuff. Clearly I was wrong.

I think he's reverting back to his high school physics when he was taught about the Law of Conservation of Mass (or Matter as some call it). The name is somewhat misleading as the high school level classes usually don't dwelve into the fact that energy still has an equivilant mass.

which is why most actual scientists call it simply the law of conservation, or the conservation of matter-energy.

Which is to say that the universe CAN lose mass. It can also GAIN mass. However given that every piece of mass has an equivalent energy value, and every joule of energy has an equivalent mass value, it is proper to say that the sum total of all matter, and the matter value of all energy remains the same.

Or conversely, that the sum total of all energy, and the energy value of all matter remains the same.

Either/or

It really is pretty simple stuff, and as I said, is the whole principle behind photoelectric effect, and how solar panels work.

Isn't it funny how TPH somehow thinks that he can disprove Einstein's mass–energy equivalence by simply saying "nuh uh!"

I think he's reverting back to his high school physics when he was taught about the Law of Conservation of Mass (or Matter as some call it). The name is somewhat misleading as the high school level classes usually don't dwell on the fact that energy still has an equivilant mass.

It wasn't until I had my first Physics class at Purdue that I learned what my stupid high school teachers neglected. Most people don't take physics in college unless they have to.

By the way, a point about Replicators and why they're immensely impractical.


Let's look at Anti-matter, a gram of which explodes when exposed to regular matter with the force of a small nuclear bomb. How much matter could you make with that immense power? About two grams, even if you controlled the power with almost 100% efficiency. Now I'm not sure how the delta-v of warp engines works out, but it'd be a hell of a lot more practical to just carry the needed supplies over replicating it because it takes an immense amount of power.

How I always assumed they worked, in my own head. Instead of storing it as energy, the ship just stored something very dense, and simple. Like lead. The lead is then "fed" into the replicator, converting to energy, and then back to mass (or matter rearrangement) on an ad hoc basis. Rather than storing food and parts and tools and everything else, just store several tons of lead, or rock, or something very dense and simple, then use it as "fuel" as you go.

How I always assumed they worked, in my own head. Instead of storing it as energy, the ship just stored something very dense, and simple. Like lead. The lead is then "fed" into the replicator, converting to energy, and then back to mass (or matter rearrangement) on an ad hoc basis. Rather than storing food and parts and tools and everything else, just store several tons of lead, or rock, or something very dense and simple, then use it as "fuel" as you go.

I think you'd be better off drawing off the antimatter fuel for the engines. Otherwise you waste some energy breaking down the matter and then rebuilding it. The whole thing is preposterous, but that seems the most sensible way as I see it.

If you're going to haul around a bunch of dense matter to fuel the replicators you might as well just haul rations. Though there is something to be said for the ease of refueling with your method.

In what way to photovoltaic cells make matter.



And since Khadgar can't read his own source:

Sweet zombie jesus, you really don't know when to quit do you? Atoms are made up of electrons, neutrons and protons. Know what electricity is? A stream of electrons.

Give it up, no matter how much you stamp your feet and declare yourself right you're not going to defy a century of physics.

IE matter can come from energy. For a very simple example, there's the photovoltaic devices such as solar cells.
In what way to photovoltaic cells make matter.


And since Khadgar can't read his own source:
These are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. In this way, matter is contrasted with energy.

And I also demand to know where I said matter can't be converted to energy or vice versa.
I said matter is not energy.


On Star Trek, based on Voyager, they have to have matter to make other things.

In what way to photovoltaic cells make matter.

I've already described it to you. But if you want the technical definition:

The photoelectric effect is a quantum electronic phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from matter after the absorption of energy from electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays or visible light. The emitted electrons can be referred to as photoelectrons in this context.

Is there really an argument going on about accepted laws of physics?

Jesus shit.

For our Pantless Hero: E = mc^2

And I also demand to know where I said matter can't be converted to energy or vice versa.

K.

Matter has to exist to make matter (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12931102&postcount=30).

And I also demand to know where I said matter can't be converted to energy or vice versa.
I said matter is not energy.


Ask and thou shalt receive. Also, matter is energy, in the same way a lego block house is still lego blocks.


Matter has to exist to make matter.

No it doesn't. Matter and energy are the same thing.

E = mc^2 == M = mc^2 ? yes : no

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "equal"

What is this 'M' you're talking about?


In other words, don't make up things.

I assume M means matter and m means mass.

For our Pantless Hero: E = mc^2
E = mc^2 == M = mc^2 ? yes : no

These are made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. In this way, matter is contrasted with energy.
Again, how does it make matter? Your source just said it causes electrons to 'emit' from matter. It's transcribing energy.
A solar cell or photovoltaic cell is a device that converts light energy into electrical energy.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "equal"

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of things apparently. :rolleyes:

E = mc^2 == M = mc^2 ? yes : no
What is this 'M' you're talking about?


In other words, don't make up things.

Accidental capitalization.
Also, don't be an ass.

E = mc^2 == m = mc^2 ? yes : no

M in that equation means "Mass", which nearly everything has (but not photons), including the elementary particles that make up everything, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

What is this 'M' you're talking about?
Accidental capitalization.
Also, don't be an ass.

E = mc^2 == m = mc^2 ? yes : no

Theory of special relativity:

The total amount of mass and energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity theory, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.


Matter and energy are merely different expressions of the same underlying thing.

Your premise is that if today I wear a blue shirt and tomorrow I wear a white shirt, that I have changed into a different person. It's silly.

Accidental capitalization.
Also, don't be an ass.

E = mc^2 == m = mc^2 ? yes : no

Energy is matter according to E = mc^2, you cannot just replace E with m to get a correct equation....

Your premise is that if today I wear a blue shirt and tomorrow I wear a white shirt, that I have changed into a different person. It's silly.
That is made of pure win:p

Then why bother with the constant if it is irrelevant?

....what the fuck? Do you not know how math works?

Energy is matter according to E = mc^2, you cannot just replace E with m to get a correct equation....
Then why bother with the constant if it is irrelevant?

Equivocal and "same" are not the 'same.'

Equivocal and "same" are not the 'same.'

Once again I think you have a severe misapprehention as to the definition of "equal"

Energy is matter according to E = mc^2, you cannot just replace E with m to get a correct equation....


How do you expect him to know Mass doesn't equal Mass times the speed of light squared? It's perfectly valid.. if you live in a fantasy universe of infinite mass.

Then why bother with the constant if it is irrelevant?
I just said it isn't irrelevant.

Equivalent is not the 'same' as "same."

So if I have two apples and you have two apples this is not the same as the two of us together having 4 apples?

If I make 100 dollars a day for five days, this is not the same as having made 500 dollars?

If I have 10 dollars and you take half, this is not the same as you taking 5 dollars?

2x != x. 2x can therefore not be the same thing as x.

considering != means "not equal to" yes, congratulations in proving that 2x doesn't equal x means that 2x is not the same thing as x.

However it's not E !=mc^2, it's E=mc^2

I just said it isn't irrelevant.
Then how are mass and energy the same thing.
Equivalent is not the 'same' as "same."

2x != x. 2x can therefore not be the same thing as x.

Accidental capitalization.
Also, don't be an ass.

E = mc^2 == m = mc^2 ? yes : no

Let's try this another way..


6=2*3

You're trying to say

6=6*3

That's stupid, on a variety of levels.

Then how are mass and energy the same thing.
Equivalent is not the 'same' as "same."

2x != x. 2x can therefore not be the same thing as x.

:headbang:

How do you expect him to know Mass doesn't equal Mass times the speed of light squared? It's perfectly valid.. if you live in a fantasy universe of infinite mass.
My unstoppable force will kick your infinite mass' ass.

Which was my point...


This all stems from you not reading your wikipedia cite where it says after the part you highlighted that, and I quote, "In this way, matter is contrasted with energy."

I assume you know what contrasted means.

You're not even trying to make sense now are you?

Let's try this another way..


6=2*3

You're trying to say

6=6*3

That's stupid, on a variety of levels.
Which was my point...


Matter and energy are the same thing
This all stems from you not reading your wikipedia cite where it says after the part you highlighted that, and I quote, "In this way, matter is contrasted with energy."

I assume you know what contrasted means.

This all stems from you not reading your wikipedia cite where it says after the part you highlighted that, and I quote, "In this way, matter is contrasted with energy."

I assume you know what contrasted means.

Yes, and my white shirt can be contrasted from my blue shirt. And thus while I wear my white shirt, I may have different properties from my blue shirt (I look different, for one).

However it doesn't change the fact that regardless of whether I have my white shirt on, or my blue shirt on, I am still the same person. My blue shirt wearing self may have different properties than my white shirt wearing self, but it's still me regardless, I'm just dressed differently.

When mass-energy is expressed as mass, it will have different properties than when it is expressed as energy. As such we may contrast those differences and realize that mass-energy expressed as mass behaved differently than mass-energy behaving as energy.

When I wear my blue shirt i look different than when I wear my white shirt. I have different observable properties when I have my blue shirt on than when I have my white shirt on. My appearance when I wear my white shirt can be contrasted to my appearance when I wear my blue shirt.

But I'm still the same person, regardless of whether I have my blue shirt on, or my white shirt on.

The same for mass energy, it is still what it is, regardless of whether it looks like mass at a particular time, or energy. mass-energy expressed as mass may have different properties than when it is expressed as energy, just as I look different in my white shirt as opposed to my blue shirt. But it's still the same thing, it just looks different depending.

My unstoppable force will kick your infinite mass' ass.

But F = ma.;)

But F = ma.;)
Stop raining on my paradoxical parade.

Stop raining on my paradoxical parade.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html :p

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html :p

You're wasting your time. He'll just claim that's proof that it's impossible to convert energy to matter, even though his own assertion of how Replicators work requires matter energy conversion, which is only possible if they're made up of the same base particles. You, I, and everyone else with above a fifth grade education probably already knows that.

You're wasting your time. He'll just claim that's proof that it's impossible to convert energy to matter, even though his own assertion of how Replicators work requires matter energy conversion, which is only possible if they're made up of the same base particles. You, I, and everyone else with above a fifth grade education probably already knows that.

It's amazing how TPH has somehow become such an expert on so many subjects despite a complete and total ignorance as to everything about those subjects

It's amazing how TPH has somehow become such an expert on so many subjects despite a complete and total ignorance as to everything about those subjects

The kicker is, he's bitching that I didn't read my source because he read, but didn't understand my source!


Oh and his bit about disproving Einstein's theory of relativity by altering the equation is fucking comedy gold and I don't think he even realizes why it's hilarious.

Wow. Physics arguments...out of nowhere....Brain hurts...:p

You're wasting your time. He'll just claim that's proof that it's impossible to convert energy to matter, even though his own assertion of how Replicators work requires matter energy conversion, which is only possible if they're made up of the same base particles. You, I, and everyone else with above a fifth grade education probably already knows that.
I figured, so I'll stop.:p

Wow. Physics arguments...out of nowhere....Brain hurts...:p

It's not an argument. In an argument you have two sides, here we have a side and the side of fantasy physics.

You're not even trying to make sense now are you?

Debate politics with him and you will see it's his defense mechanism.

Star Trek could have another series under the following circumstances:

-Ron Moore, J. Michael Straczynski and DC Fontana compose the writing team.

-The series is set in the time period at or around the first 6 feature films, with extra special care taken to preserve continuity (as much as possible).

-Technobabble is kept to an absolute minimum. (This is why I chose the writers I did) Storytelling will revolve around characters, not technology.

-Minimal references to the U.S.S. Enterprise except for occasional cameos/crossovers, which are good things, if done properly.

-The adventures of U.S.S. Excelsior under the command of Hikaru Sulu would be an excellent possibility. (George Takei had been advocating this for quite some time) This would also enable the character of Tuvok to be used once more, with special care to preserve continuity with ST:Voyager.

-No androids. Data was cool. Leave it at that. If it's tried again it will almost certainly suck.

Possible storylines or multi-episode arcs could include: First Contact with betazoids, Cardassians, Bajorans, Trill. Adjusting to the new peace with the Klingons in a universe where animosity is still high. A war with the Romulans. Terrorism (Maqui, anyone?).

-Another possibility for a setting would be Enterprise-B, although it would be weaker without popular and recognizable characters like Tuvok and Sulu. It could deal with many of the same issues, however.

I'd watch that.

Yes, and my white shirt can be contrasted from my blue shirt.

Thanks wasn't talking to you.

The kicker is, he's bitching that I didn't read my source because he read, but didn't understand my source!
This is over since you admit don't know what contrast means.

Best science discussion ever.

This is over since you admit don't know what contrast means.

:D It's cute, you still don't understand the article do you?

But F = ma.;)

Well........

And in "Roddenberry's vision," what would they have done in the show?Exploration.

Lack of mentioning money does not mean it doesn't exist.even TNG says they outgrew then need for monetary incentives and that the only incentive was to "better" themselves.


Replicators cannot replicate everything and cannot replicate things exactly as they would exist. Replicating a generic part is the natural progression of generic item production. Though, I will give you TNG abused it the most.


Logical person's note: Star Trek, especially TNG and TOS, ran in a "new week, new problem!" format with no underlying storyline or plot. How much time went by between episodes? Days? Weeks? Months? They were not "isolated in the far reaches of space," they were exploring but were always within fairly easy traveling distance of the nearest star base. A fact they like to bring up fairly often.exactly. in TOS, you had the Captain being responsible for his actions. IF Kirk felt he had to enter the neutral zone, he couldn't contact Starfleet for options, no, he had to make the decision himself and take the consequences. in TNG, how many "strange new worlds" did they explore? it's always going to Starbase ## or Outpost ## or negotiating a treaty with ##

as one article put it.
TOS was about exploration.
TNG was about Beniegn Imperialism
DS9 was about Avery Brook's Browline
and Voyager was an attempt to get back to exploration and first contact.

m=mc^2 is a perfectly valid statement in computer programming

::nods::

:D

m=mc^2; is a perfectly valid statement in computer programming

::nods::

:D

Fixed it for you. :D

nice... but some points to ponder
-The series is set in the time period at or around the first 6 feature films, with extra special care taken to preserve continuity (as much as possible).it should take place after ST VI: but before Generations. tho I would rather it take place after TNG (after all, you can't have Federation shattering storylines. you know the Federation pulls through.

-Minimal references to the U.S.S. Enterprise except for occasional cameos/crossovers, which are good things, if done properly.agreed

-The adventures of U.S.S. Excelsior under the command of Hikaru Sulu would be an excellent possibility. (George Takei had been advocating this for quite some time) This would also enable the character of Tuvok to be used once more, with special care to preserve continuity with ST:Voyager. mmm... maybe not. he'ld be to old. but having him as Admiral...

Possible storylines or multi-episode arcs could include: First Contact with betazoids, Cardassians, Bajorans, Trill. Adjusting to the new peace with the Klingons in a universe where animosity is still high. A war with the Romulans. Terrorism (Maqui, anyone?). interesting. but a war with the Romulans... to what extent. you know the federation and the Romulan Empire will survive. you know the sacrifice of the Enterprise C will seal the Klingon Federation treaty. so you really can't have any Federation impacting storylines.

TOS, focused on the ship and crew.
TNG altered that focus to the Federation
Voy tried to bring it back to Ship Focus but ended up pulling in the Federation.


Perhaps a different approach. kinda more like 'Outer Limits' and 'Twilight Zone'. where each episode is a seperate story, with their own ship, crew, etc. One episode can focus on the diplomatic corps, another with a Deep Space Explorer (to the Delta quadrant perhaps?) One can be a story of a voyage set in the TOS timeline, another in TNG. You can even have episodes focusing on the Mirror Universe, Romulan Empire, or even Klingon Empire of any time period. (even explaining the caste change between the two races of Klingons. )

Fixed it for you. :D

w00t! thankya

Perhaps a different approach. kinda more like 'Outer Limits' and 'Twilight Zone'. where each episode is a seperate story, with their own ship, crew, etc. One episode can focus on the diplomatic corps, another with a Deep Space Explorer (to the Delta quadrant perhaps?) One can be a story of a voyage set in the TOS timeline, another in TNG. You can even have episodes focusing on the Mirror Universe, Romulan Empire, or even Klingon Empire of any time period. (even explaining the caste change between the two races of Klingons. )

Now that's a damn fine idea... The production value would be relatively low, but CGI and resuse of common starship designs would alleviate that to an extent.

hmmmmmmmmmm.......... You should pitch that to Paramount.

Exploration.

even TNG says they outgrew then need for monetary incentives and that the only incentive was to "better" themselves.
I don't remember that.



exactly. in TOS, you had the Captain being responsible for his actions. IF Kirk felt he had to enter the neutral zone, he couldn't contact Starfleet for options, no, he had to make the decision himself and take the consequences.
1) Kirk was pointed out by everyone in the series as a maverick and making up shit as he goes over rules.
2) TNG is set 80 years after TOS. Technology advanced a good deal.


TNG was about Beniegn Imperialism
Yet they managed to run around doing the "explore new shit this week" thing often enough.

Star Trek could have another series under the following circumstances:

-Ron Moore, J. Michael Straczynski and DC Fontana compose the writing team.


Whatever. Just !Brannon Braga ...


-The adventures of U.S.S. Excelsior under the command of Hikaru Sulu would be an excellent possibility. (George Takei had been advocating this for quite some time) This would also enable the character of Tuvok to be used once more, with special care to preserve continuity with ST:Voyager.

Is Sulu going to be losing his shirt to impress all the alien boys? I don't think I could handle that.

Is Sulu going to be losing his shirt to impress all the alien boys? I don't think I could handle that.
It's about damn time they went ahead and just had a homosexual captain. It seems that, outside of the trill, they try to ignore the fact that homosexuality exists in star trek. (even though we all know what was going on between kirk and spock;) )

Personally, I enjoyed every series besides TOS, and would definitely get behind Captain Sulu (Perhaps in more ways than one...)

Is Sulu going to be losing his shirt to impress all the alien boys? I don't think I could handle that.

Epic lulz, but that is a good point. Follow those people we are familiar with who we knew got their own command. Excelsior is a good place to start because they often got tangled up with crazy Kirk escapades and they tie into Voyager with Tuvok.

It's not an argument. In an argument you have two sides, here we have a side and the side of fantasy physics.

And I'll have a side of steak, please. :p

I don't remember that.first contact. when he's explaining his society to the 21 century girl.



1) Kirk was pointed out by everyone in the series as a maverick and making up shit as he goes over rules.because they couldn't call for the Federation for every decision that needed to be made.
2) TNG is set 80 years after TOS. Technology advanced a good deal.agreed. but TNG was so Tech heavy, including Voy. that one can argue that they were already assimulated.

Yet they managed to run around doing the "explore new shit this week" thing often enough. not that often.

There be enough innovations in that time to allow for better ideas (e.g. the borg werent possible in TOS because it was the 60s, however with TNG 20 years later...).

Weren't possible during the 60's? The Cybermen appeared on the screens in '66.

Do you think that there is any chance at all for another Star Trek series to come out? Or do you think that there will just be more movies?

What's the point with Gene Roddenberry dead? The franchise went into the shitter with others at the helm.

Oh yeah, by the way -

'CANON' not 'cannon'.

It seems that, outside of the trill, they try to ignore the fact that homosexuality exists in star trek. (even though we all know what was going on between kirk and spock;) )


I would've guessed Kirk and McCoy, if anyone. :p

Anyway, I'm a fan of the original series and wouldn't mind Shatner or Nimoy making appearances in future movies. That would be pretty cool, actually. They weren't in the most recent one.

Do you think that there is any chance at all for another Star Trek series to come out? Or do you think that there will just be more movies?

What is the chance this thread will get subtly 'jacked and we're gonna argue about Babylon 5, Star Wars, Harlan Ellison and the Sci-Fi channel?

Well, Shatner at the very least is going to reprise his role as Kirk...not as young Kirk, but as an older Kirk. How exactly, I don't know. It's probable that Leonard Nimoy will do the same.

Also, supposedly, the guy who is going to play the younger Spock is the guy who could melt brains or something(I never watched that crap) on Heroes. Slader...Slater...something like that.

Well, Shatner at the very least is going to reprise his role as Kirk...not as young Kirk, but as an older Kirk. How exactly, I don't know. It's probable that Leonard Nimoy will do the same.

The only person confirmed is Nimoy as older Spock.

The only person confirmed is Nimoy as older Spock.
Oh?

Well, don't look at me. I got my information from my father...though he's usually right on this stuff. Where he gets his info is beyond me.

Well, Shatner at the very least is going to reprise his role as Kirk...not as young Kirk, but as an older Kirk. How exactly, I don't know. It's probable that Leonard Nimoy will do the same.

Also, supposedly, the guy who is going to play the younger Spock is the guy who could melt brains or something(I never watched that crap) on Heroes. Slader...Slater...something like that.

Sylar (Zachary Quinto) and yes, he is slated to be Young Spock.

IMDB.com is your friend.

Oh?

Well, don't look at me. I got my information from my father...though he's usually right on this stuff. Where he gets his info is beyond me.

Well, the younger guys have confirmed. But the only confirmed returning actor that I know of is Nimoy. Probably because Nimoy really has nothing besides Spock, which is why he looks like he does all the time - sad and ragged. He probably stays up all night wishing he had never accepted the role.

But the only confirmed returning actor that I know of is Nimoy. Probably because Nimoy really has nothing besides Spock

He will always have his poetry and singing careers to fall back on...

I'm sure you have heard of the old saying, " Absense makes the heart grow fonder ". Star Trek will be back as soon as it will generate more money. It may have to wait for a while until a new generation of trekkies grow up but I have no doubt it will be back.

I'm sure you have heard of the old saying, " Absense makes the heart grow fonder ".
Absense? Is that like absinthe or is it a knew technologically advanced work out machine: ab-sense?

(Apparently it means "existence")

Star Trek will be back as soon as it will generate more money. It may have to wait for a while until a new generation of trekkies grow up but I have no doubt it will be back.
Generate more money? Every single Star Trek series ever made is currently in syndication - even Enterprise. It is obviously generating money. They just have to think of something new and exciting to do.

Sylar (Zachary Quinto) and yes, he is slated to be Young Spock.

IMDB.com is your friend.
IMDB is annoying.

Well, the younger guys have confirmed. But the only confirmed returning actor that I know of is Nimoy. Probably because Nimoy really has nothing besides Spock, which is why he looks like he does all the time - sad and ragged. He probably stays up all night wishing he had never accepted the role.
Well, I'm sure Nimoy has something good in his life. Or at least I hope he does. He's a neat guy.

Well, I'm sure Nimoy has something good in his life. Or at least I hope he does. He's a neat guy.
He had alot of stuff back in the day, but lately it is mostly voice acting.

Star Trek peaked with First Contact and Deep Space Nine

It's been all downhill from there...and the prequel will SUCK, mark my words.

It was about 20 years between The Original Series and The Next Generation...with four movies on the tail end of that timeframe.

We're going to need at least a decade, and some new blood in the writing pool, before we see anything approaching good again.

That said, if they make anything approaching the awesomeness of DS9 again...I'll be first to tune in.

My thoughts exactly.

He had alot of stuff back in the day, but lately it is mostly voice acting.

Which he's really good at, when you think about it. He has a fantastic voice and I love it whenever he's voice acting for something.

I'm a little more optimistic about the next movie. For one thing, Zachary Quinto is an excellent actor.

Anyway, someone suggested that rather than a whole new series, Star Trek could do several mini-series - they have the universe pretty well developed as it is, and could do interesting things that a regular show wouldn't be able to do (such as actually kill the captain).

Star Trek Enterprise was the best, TNG the second best. Maybe? It was a whilr between enterprise and the one before it. Probably be on oN Sci-Fi.

I'm a little more optimistic about the next movie. For one thing, Zachary Quinto is an excellent actor.
Well he certainly looks the part:

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/quintospock.JPG

I'm just waiting to see who they cast as Kirk. A relative unknown, methinks.

As to the future of Star Trek, I'm all in favour of more DS:9-esque shenanigans; the best series by far.

However, the idea that some posters have put forward of having a series from a non-Federation POV sounds ace. Romulan or Cardassian, probably.

Ferengi, perhaps.

I think they need to go back to social commentary as they did in the beginning. Say a super conservative group takes over and rules by narrow religious beliefs.

And they have to go into the future with a little imagination. I haven't seen a prequel that was worth watching. Especially when the writers don't have a clue what happened in the previous shows.

Well he certainly looks the part:

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/quintospock.JPG

Holy carp! It's Leonard Nimoy all over again!


I'm just waiting to see who they cast as Kirk. A relative unknown, methinks.

Hopefully. I always hope for relative unknowns in movies I really want to see because that way the movie isn't about the "big stars."

As to the future of Star Trek, I'm all in favour of more DS:9-esque shenanigans; the best series by far.

However, the idea that some posters have put forward of having a series from a non-Federation POV sounds ace. Romulan or Cardassian, probably.

I like the idea of the Outer Limits type serial show, personally.

Ferengi, perhaps.

No! The Ferengi were one of the worst species ever designed...so pathetically stupid. First you have your horrible "they're monsters!!!!" bias in the first few episodes they're shown in, then you turn them into ultracapitalists who hate women...I can't stand them.

Maybe if they were reengineered realistically...but who am I kidding? None of the Star Trek species were ever realistic.

The only thing worse than the Ferengi are the practically one dimensional Romulans. They try to flesh them out as humanesque Vulcans but it always comes out to imperialist fascists.

No! The Ferengi were one of the worst species ever designed...so pathetically stupid. First you have your horrible "they're monsters!!!!" bias in the first few episodes they're shown in, then you turn them into ultracapitalists who hate women...I can't stand them.
I never understood how the Ferengi could survive in a galaxy almost entirely devoid of money...

Anyways, not all the Ferengi characters hated women. Certainly Ferengi society was depicted as being incredibly chauvinist, but Quark's brother/friend/dude who worked at the bar was always nice to his girlfriend.

And Quark himself was a fantastic character.

The only thing worse than the Ferengi are the practically one dimensional Romulans. They try to flesh them out as humanesque Vulcans but it always comes out to imperialist fascists.
Aren't the meant to be imperialist fascists though?

If they were going to go down the route of focusing on a non-Federation society, I reckon the Cardassians would be the most fun. Always liked the storylines involving them, especially the eps revolving around Garak or Gul Dukat.

Interesting analysis on crew deaths....

http://www.clicktracks.com/insidetrack/articles/kirk_analytics.php?source=nws072007

Which he's really good at, when you think about it. He has a fantastic voice and I love it whenever he's voice acting for something.

Totally. I even watch those lousy 70s 'supernatural' documentaries they show on the History Channel occasionally, just because he makes those hokey stories sound almost plausible. :p

I never understood how the Ferengi could survive in a galaxy almost entirely devoid of money...
I think only the Federation was supposed to be devoid of money...but I honestly don't see how that could work. How could a moneyless economy work? Are they really able to provide for everyone so easily?

I honestly think that's one of the stupidest things about Star Trek, the naive idealism. I loved it as a kid, but as an adult I'm just not buying it anymore. If only I could get my hands on the license...I tell ya, I could reimagine Star Trek to be something a lot better.

Anyways, not all the Ferengi characters hated women. Certainly Ferengi society was depicted as being incredibly chauvinist, but Quark's brother/friend/dude who worked at the bar was always nice to his girlfriend.

And Quark himself was a fantastic character.

Rom, Quark, and the guy who was played by the guy who played Weyoun, Shran, and a bunch of other people were the only decent Ferengi. I love Quark, though...Armin Shimmerman is a fantastic actor.

Aren't the meant to be imperialist fascists though?

Perhaps, but the huge problem is the fact that their culture is depicted as uniform, as is the culture of the Ferengi, the Vulcans, the Klingons, and every other damned race in Star Trek, which is absolutely ludicrous. Just look at humanity: we've got hundreds of cultures! Surely they should as well!

But no...like everything else it's dumbed down and simplistic...


If they were going to go down the route of focusing on a non-Federation society, I reckon the Cardassians would be the most fun. Always liked the storylines involving them, especially the eps revolving around Garak or Gul Dukat.
I agree. In fact, there are plenty of stories just waiting to be written when it comes to the rebuilding of the Cardassian Union. Remember, at the end of DS9 they were so devestated by the Dominion War--when they had barely recovered from the war with the Klingons just a few years before--that it is simply ripe for stuff. Plus, one of the only truly alive and--I hate to use the word but it's what I've got--human characters in all of Star Trek--Elim Garak--could be brought back to be a major star.

Totally. I even watch those lousy 70s 'supernatural' documentaries they show on the History Channel occasionally, just because he makes those hokey stories sound almost plausible. :p
He's just great at what he does.

I agree. In fact, there are plenty of stories just waiting to be written when it comes to the rebuilding of the Cardassian Union. Remember, at the end of DS9 they were so devestated by the Dominion War--when they had barely recovered from the war with the Klingons just a few years before--that it is simply ripe for stuff. Plus, one of the only truly alive and--I hate to use the word but it's what I've got--human characters in all of Star Trek--Elim Garak--could be brought back to be a major star.
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Prakesh. Its mission: to explore burnt old worlds; to seek out new homes and new habitations; to boldly go where no Cardassian has gone before...

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Prakesh. Its mission: to explore burnt old worlds; to seek out new homes and new habitations; to boldly go where no Cardassian has gone before...

Oh bwahahaha.

It'd probably have a format similar to DS9 in that it's set on a stationary--more or less--object rather than a starship, so that actually could not work. Your title phrase there, I mean.

Absense? Is that like absinthe or is it a knew technologically advanced work out machine: ab-sense?

(Apparently it means "existence")


Generate more money? Every single Star Trek series ever made is currently in syndication - even Enterprise. It is obviously generating money. They just have to think of something new and exciting to do.

That is true but I don't think that the last movie made as much money as the producers wanted it too. I think they believe that after a period of time without any new ST series more people will regain or develop a desire to see new ST shows.