Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
03-01-2011, 05:55 PM
maybe they lived at the bottom of the ocean like aquatics, and after they left millions of years of underwater volacnos and tectonic shifting buried any remnants of their civilization.

after heading out into space and the millions of years that passed, they evolved to not be aquatic anymore.

/thread
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
03-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
Those residents you talk about are obviously morons. It's just physically impossible.
wow... you completely missed his point... and stubbornly stuck to your 'all evidence can't be gone' statement...

that, right there, is proof that something is wrong with you (i won't guess or say what, but something is, at least in my opinion, and you're free to disregard it)

op, take his advice and RELAX ABOUT IT

and another thing... those 'morons', the chemists and metallurgists... they are VERY experienced in their fields, and they know more about the subject than you seem to
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
03-01-2011, 06:02 PM
Space Dinosaurs. they came from earth millions of years ago. end of story. You don't like it? Well they don't like it either but that's how it is.

Too bad.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
03-01-2011, 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
An advanced civilization would never be able to have all the evidence lost on it.

1) Advanced civilizations would likely never limit themselves to living only on a small portion of the available land. The thing so would be ridiculous. That's like humans only living in California when everything else is available.
They'd have cities around the globe.

2) Not all of the earth has been destroyed by tectonic movements and the like.. Some of the earth has been untouched for millions of years. Yes, since the dinosaurs. It's impossible that all of the cities and stuff would be destroyed because not near all of the earth's land has.

3) Advanced civilizations will most likely NOT have houses made of mud but instead of steel and other metals which WOULD leave evidence on land. They wouldn't be in perfect shape or anything but there would be some minute amounts of evidence at least. Like globs of certain elements and mineral sand very specific patters.
Ancient cities don't last long because they were made of mud, rocks and even grasses.


Now, if for some reason this WARP CAPABLE civilization didn't leave the freakin' "now under the tectonic plate" peninsula and only made their buildings and tech out of mud then maybe it's possible. But that's just stupid and completely implausible.
just to back this up..

1 - 100% agree, a species capable of leaving the atmosphere should be able to move freely about its own globe. why limit and crowd yourself in one area?

2 - while sedimentary rocks account for only 5% of the earth's crust by volume, its important to note that sedimentary rocks, as in the ones likely to contain fossil and archalogical evidence, can only be layed down at the very top layers of that crust (which is between 3 to 30 miles thick across the globe). even today evidence and remains of pre-historic human settlements built from mud can be found in those rocks, also, in regards to tectonic movements, well things havnt really moved that much since the end of the age of dinosaurs as this late cretaceous map shows and for ancient cities to be buried under tectonic plates since then they would all have had to have been built right on tectonic boundries.. and thats generally dangerous.. as i'm sure anyone living on or near the "ring of fire" will attest to so i cant buy the idea that all evidence is buried/destroyed, or that a large land-mass "sunk into the sea"

3 - ancient cities built in stone by humans have lasted massive amounts of time already, not in a "liveable" condition but certainly in enough of an order to be spotted and located.. ancient sites in jungles, deserts, even buried under lava for thousands of years have been found. given that i dont think the fossil and archalogical evidence could have been completely destroyed as explained above, we should have seen it by now, and if not then definately by the time of star trek..

frankly it doesnt add up, the only plausable location for any of this would be antartica, which we cant map well now due to it being under the ice cap (there were no ice caps in the cretaceous) but by the time of star trek they've got the technology to map like that, and would have..

as vulcan as this is, its only logical that the Voth would have to have developed a high level of sentience off of earth..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
03-01-2011, 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceFork
Space Dinosaurs. they came from earth millions of years ago. end of story. You don't like it? Well they don't like it either but that's how it is.

Too bad.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...30#post3399530
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
03-01-2011, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shingi
just to back this up..

1 - 100% agree, a species capable of leaving the atmosphere should be able to move freely about its own globe. why limit and crowd yourself in one area?

2 - while sedimentary rocks account for only 5% of the earth's crust by volume, its important to note that sedimentary rocks, as in the ones likely to contain fossil and archalogical evidence, can only be layed down at the very top layers of that crust (which is between 3 to 30 miles thick across the globe). even today evidence and remains of pre-historic human settlements built from mud can be found in those rocks, also, in regards to tectonic movements, well things havnt really moved that much since the end of the age of dinosaurs as this late cretaceous map shows and for ancient cities to be buried under tectonic plates since then they would all have had to have been built right on tectonic boundries.. and thats generally dangerous.. as i'm sure anyone living on or near the "ring of fire" will attest to so i cant buy the idea that all evidence is buried/destroyed, or that a large land-mass "sunk into the sea"

3 - ancient cities built in stone by humans have lasted massive amounts of time already, not in a "liveable" condition but certainly in enough of an order to be spotted and located.. ancient sites in jungles, deserts, even buried under lava for thousands of years have been found. given that i dont think the fossil and archalogical evidence could have been completely destroyed as explained above, we should have seen it by now, and if not then definately by the time of star trek..

frankly it doesnt add up, the only plausable location for any of this would be antartica, which we cant map well now due to it being under the ice cap (there were no ice caps in the cretaceous) but by the time of star trek they've got the technology to map like that, and would have..

as vulcan as this is, its only logical that the Voth would have to have developed a high level of sentience off of earth..
I like you man. You're like that other guy. You're smart and likely very handsome.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
03-01-2011, 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
It's the safest assumption. There's no logical reason why an intelligent species would ignore 90%+ of the globe. You cannot make the safest assumptions based on what ifs but only what you know. Scientifically speaking it's considerably less likely that a species would ignore a huge portion of the globe or use mud huts when they're capable of so much more.
Actually, judging by the various species we've seen in Trek that are far more Ecologically-minded then Mankind has been (Vulcans, for example), that's not the safest assumption at all, it's crass egotism to assume that because we've done it, others must have as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
Some grounds on this Earth as basically undisturbed too and have been for millions of years. Any giant freakin' future cities would leave decomposed patterns that would be very unique and impossible in nature as well as the possibility that they'd decompose into things that would also be impossible to exist naturally in nature.
Again, we cannot assume that they would build large cities like we have. Look at some of the most significant centers of science and technology on Earth, Silicon Valley, Los Alamos, Oxford, and Cambridge, none of them are major cities with towering high-rises of steel and glass. The idea that advanced civilization = large artificial settlements is an unfounded one. they could be just as advanced with only a few major research centers and more green habitations.

And again, we're not talking about decay & erosion over any small time period relative to our experiences. At the time of the Voyager episode, the Voth have been in that region of space for twenty million years, and that's no guarantee that they went straight from Earth to the Delta Quadrant either, the Dinosaurs we know of went extinct ~65 Million years ago. The Voth could have evolved between 67 and 66 Million years ago, been aware of the impending disaster, and evacuated just a tad more than 65 Million years ago.

That would have had them wandering the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Quadrants for 45 Million years, then settling down in the Delta Quadrant.

In the meanwhile, the evidence of their Technological civilization has had 65 million years to decay through chemical, biological, and geographic forces.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
03-01-2011, 06:13 PM
Have there been any examples in Trek of warp capable species that simply choose not to expand across their planet?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
03-01-2011, 06:15 PM
The difference between me and many other people is that I base my assumptions on realistic to this world stuff. Not fictional things.

Seeing that Star Trek attempts to be based in the real world and tries to use real science I'll continue doing that for Star Trek.

For other things I'm opposite if it fits.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
03-01-2011, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
The difference between me and many other people is that I base my assumptions on realistic to this world stuff. Not fictional things.

Seeing that Star Trek attempts to be based in the real world and tries to use real science I'll continue doing that for Star Trek.

For other things I'm opposite if it fits.
If you want to discuss Trek logically, you have to do both. Seeing as how there is a huge amount of Trek background info that has been created through the various movies and shows, then any assumptions you make regarding Trek should be based both on what makes sense in the RL that Trek is based on as well as the established background info.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM.