doubleofive said:
A friend of mine makes a very convincing argument that ST3 is anti-science and actually undermines ST2 in significant ways.
Yeah, it definitely is unscientific in a number of ways (Excelsior slowing down when the engines fizzled, regenerated Spock aging in surges along with the unexplained protomatter, etc.), but that doesn't detract from the experience for me. Star Trek II is very unscientific as well: how does the Genesis device account for the gravity of an existing planetary body, or its proximity to its star (which would dramatically affect the viability and type of life that would exist)? How could the Reliant not realize that an entire planet (Ceti Alpha 6) was missing from the solar system, or confuse Ceti Alpha 5 with it? You'd think if Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, with would have pushed 5 closer to the star (which would justifiably account for a hotter environment). But then, that doesn't mean it assumed the orbit of the 6th planet in the system, which would be further from its sun. How could Carol Marcus not only pack an unrealistic Genesis device into a tiny package, but even drill out beautiful caves and tunnels in a day, faster than a corps of Starfleet engineers? Nebula dust is not so dust to be like flying through a fog--it only looks dense when you're viewing it from millions+ lightyears away. Plus they don't move like they have weather patterns or flash like strobe lights. Nebulae don't exist in solar systems because they are either unformed matter (while a solar system has indeed already formed, and the existing gravity would have pulled it into some other form), or are created from supernovae. Yeah, and silly me, I'm the kind of person that always thinks of these sorts of scientific problems. I could easily let them disrupt my enjoyment, but I don't. As for undermining ST2, I think SilverWook put it pretty well.
No disrespect to you or your friend. I just feel compelled to come to TSFS's defense! :)