Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Isn't Galactic Barrier the proper name of this phenomenon? Perhaps it should move to "Galactic Barrier"? --Harry 20:12, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following info:
- In truth the barrier was put in place by the Q to keep out O, adangerous entity with the power of a Q but none of the moral restraints and the bonus of being insane thus making him more powerful then Multiple Qand it itook the power of the entire Q continuum to stop him
As I have said on several other pages, this info is not canon. However, if someone knows the book it comes from, it can be edited and added to the article as a brief apocrypha note. --From Andoria with Love 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- It comes from the Q Continuum trilogy of novels. Pardon me for ranting, but I would like Mike Okuda and team to revisit the energy barrier effect if there's a future opportunity to remaster the episode (considering the increasing definition of TV, HD someday will look pitiful). 1. to be effective, the barrier has to completely enclose the galaxy, not the rim, but remain invisible optically, which leads to, 2., what makes the barrier visible? Spock said deflectors detected it, but sensors did not. I would surmise that the sensor beams weakly illuminate the barrier in the areas they're sweeping, but the deflector beam, which is aimed at the ship's heading, is getting feedback, while at the same time brightly illuminating the barrier. 3. Rather than show a single narrow bright area from left to right, I would, as the ship gets closer, add more such narrow bright beams, randomly rotating at different rates and reversing at different times between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation, around the focal point where the deflector is hitting. When the Enterprise is within the barrier, the barrier is brightly lit in reaction to the ship's energy field, and pockets of dense energy begin passing through the bridge, two hitting Dehner and Mitchell, another causing an instrument panel to erupt. Sorry. GCapp1959 09:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "Energy - negative, densitiy - negative" spoken by Spock indicate that his instruments did not read any of that information. Spock would say 'negative' meaning 'no' throughout TOS... it doesn't mean 'negative energy'. "Deflectors say there's something there, sensors say there isn't." is what Spock said. I'm correcting. - Chad Hart – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
Getting past the barrier Edit
If the barrier was so tough to cross, why bother? Just leave the galaxy along the Z axis and bypass it. It was only shown on screen as a thin band. Someone appears to have falled for the same error that Khan did in TWOK: 2D.--Will 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Talk pages discussions should pertain to the contents of the article, not to comments on how good the Star Trek writers are. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not follow you. This is about the episode which the article entails. Some theories explaining why the barrier was a barrier are needed.--Will 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. Why would you say otherwise?--Will 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- No where in your original statement do you ask for an alternative explanation. All you do in it is state the problems with how it was shown on screen, even adding a joke about TWOK (jokes are good, but in this case it did nothing to make me think you were trying to get an alternative explanation). By doing it that way, you make it look as though you are simply nitpicking, which is not useful, rather trying to expand the article, which is useful. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is simple, you speculated. Just because you can't see the barrier, does not mean it is not there. On screen evidence would suggest the barrier was invisable till you get close, after all we can't see it from earth, and the outer barrier is the same too. --TOSrules 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that is a really good explanation. The galaxy is after all many light years in height. If they were near the middle ("vertically" speaking), then they could have been close enough to the barriers at the sides of the galaxy to see them, and not those at the top and bottom. It is not perfect, but it is good enough. Of course, this could only be added to the article as background speculation, as TOSRules said. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It still needs to be addressed somehow.Will 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just added a background note based on this discussion. You think that is enough? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Mostly. However, I think if you look at the scene visually from the side, you will find there is something missing. I would have troubles believing that explaination.Will 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Image deleted, please post unrelated images on external image hosting sites.
The image shown at the right shows why I suspected there might be a problem with the theory that portions of the barrier might have been too far away. You will note that the barrier, depending on where you are, is closer to you along the Z axis than if you approached it by going to the rim. Hence, the shortest route to the barrier would be to increase or decrease you position along the Z axis.--Will 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that we don't actually know where in the galaxy the Enterprise was, or even the orientation (for all we know, it was facing "up" and going through that edge), I don't think this is a problem. Even your shape of the barrier is complete conjecture, it may not match the visible matter of the galaxy precisely, and may be an elipsoid, or something. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to create a cross section of the galaxy. However, my artistry is non-existant.Will 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal of Orion's Arm Edit
This paragraph was silly and based on a single person's theories. I don't think most fans ever wonder if the E was leaving just Orions arm. Its clearly stated they were leaving the galaxy, especially in "By any other name". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
TOS vs. TOS-R images Edit
Why are we using both on this page? TOS for the arrival picture and the Remastered one for the departure. Shouldn't this be consistent? Which one needs to be changed? – Topher 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- We're using both because there really isn't any need to "hide" one effect in favor of the other. I see this article has been changed by now, but that doesn't mean that every "TOS-non-R" effect shot needs to be replaced on every page. -- Cid Highwind 10:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right. But, if the difference is "huge" and actually commented on in the article background, we include the old version only in the background as in the cases of Cestus III and Class J starship. As to not make the in-universe part confusing. If there is a better looking remastered image, its preferrable to replace an old effect with a new one that to replace a new effect with an old one. No discussion is needed. But the replacing shouldn't be taken up as a mission by anyone, like Cid said. --Pseudohuman 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not on a mission, just had a curiosity. I seem to recall when TOS-R first came out, most of the time the new effects were going into the main part of the article and the old ones being put down into the background section in order to show the differences. I believe this was to not confuse the fan who has not seen the remastered versions yet and to continue to use our large database of pictures. Has this practice continued or are all the old effects doomed to no-link limbo? – Topher 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not explained why the Enterprise could not simply go above or below the barrier, as the visual effects would seem to indicate is a possibility. One explanation is that, just as the barrier itself wasn't visible until the Enterprise was close enough, the top and bottom of the barrier are still too far away to be seen in any of the on-screen shots. This would be especially true of the top and bottom of the galaxy, which would still be many light years away.
- Presumably, improvements in shielding technology prevented a repeat of the esper incidents later on after TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Another possibility is that the ESP effect is not widespread along the entire barrier. Yet another alternative is that the ships passed the barrier later on at such a high warp velocity that the effect was averted; the Enterprise entered the barrier in 2265 at the speed of only warp 1 and it can be assumed that the old Valiant wasn't much faster than that.
Yes, yes, lots of speculation there — Morder 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)