It actually has been mentioned. In the Voyager episode 'The Omega Directive,' Janeway mentions that she felt like "Einstien with the atom bomb, or Marcus with her creation of the Genesis device.' I have made the change to reflect that.

Nebula? Star? Planet?Edit

The Genesis device didn't have to create a sun, the nebula was within the regula system, I think they say that in the movie. Also the movie is a little vague on if the Genesis planet was made from the nebula, or the shockwave hitting Regula 1. The note on the bottom needs to be changed to reflect this. --TOSrules 00:12, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

right -- the star was there all along. definitively A nebula is usually a cloud that forms around a star.
typically, as the clouds rotate, they can condense into planets. whether the planet was there before or after the detonation is questionable, but the star definitely already existed (otherwise the nebula probably wouldn't have been as illuminated as it was.
BTW, i think the bottom note, added by someone who was unaware that nebulae form around stars, should be removed or restated. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:21, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
It isn't "fanboy speculation" (and the pejorative appellation was hardly necessary, thank you very much) to think the Genesis Planet might be Regula, terraformed by the Genesis Device. It's much more consistent with the explanation of how Genesis works -- and Regula was nearby -- than the wholesole creation of the planet. In fact, in the 23 years I've been watching this film, it never occurred to me that it happened any other way, and that goes for every -- and I repeat every -- fan of the film I've talked to about it. We may not have seen the sun before, but there was an obvious huge light source, so it's not exactly a stretch to think there might have been one there. (Or are we to assume that every planet we ever see without seeing its star -- which is almost all of them, by the way -- has no sun?) To me, it's far more speculative to assume that Genesis created a sun and and whole new planet than it simply did what it was supposed to do and terraformed a "moon or other dead world" which was right there to be terraformed. (BTW, I added only the note about the planet, starting with "Or, it could have been . . . ", not the star.) -- DNJimerson
It's Regula, not Regulus. Regula was probably suppose to be Regulus, I suspect they thought Regulus was the plural of Regula. but given other refs to Regulus, Regula has to be a different system. --TOSrules 23:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) hehe, I see you've since corrected
Actually, I changed it back. I had it right the first time, but for some reason, it didn't look right to me for a moment. --DNJimerson 03:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Actually a nebula is an interstellar gas cloud where stars are formed This gas then condenses and the central points of the highest mass in any given region can eventually become stars (though lesser bodies such as brown dwarfs can also form). Planets generally form from the remaining material still orbiting the newly born star. Once nuclear fusion starts in the star the new stellar wind begins to blow the remaining material away and the heavier elements such as iron condense into solid form first while lighter elements such as methane condense further out which is why you have rocky ironcored planets towards the interior as opposed to gas-giants which are further out with their huge atmospheres. While the recently discovered exoplanets around other star systems do have gas giant planets in close to their parent stars the theory still stands as they believe the "hot Jupiters" formed further out from the parent star and then spiraled in closer. --Capt. Jeff Pierce 08:47 PM, 8 Feb 2006 (UTC)
I have today removed "It is never explained why the Genesis wave created, not only a planet from the nebula, but a yellow sun at just the correct distance. The explaination and demonstration of the device never mentions star creation, only terraforming" from the article to conform with the above discussion and conclusions. The current note is both accurate and adequate without the pejorative tone. Aholland 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys are all nuts. Completely nuts. You just redefined a nebula out of fanboy zeal or ignorance. A nebula is the leftover material from an exploding star. That leftover gas makes stars. A nebula doesn't rotate around a star. That would be an accretion disk. There is no way there was a sun in there. There's no way the planet was the Regulus asteroid. The planet formed very unmissably from the center of the explosion. Just admit you precious movie was made by flawed people who wrote for drama and not scientific accuracy. -- 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Debates of the scientific accuracy of Genesis aside, are you seriously saying a nebula can't have a star inside it? Where do you think stars come from in the first place? -- Kingfisher 18:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see a sun in the nebula? I didn't I'd think you would if it was that close. You know, a big bright glowing ball of gas. And even if we speculate that there was, I still don't see what's wrong with the old sentence as opposed to the new which speculates in it. That's fanboyism.– 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do nebulae glow? Hydrogen and helium don't glow by themselves. All that glowing gas? It's because it's reflecting the light of a nearby star. And where's the speculation you speak of? All the article mentions is that things are uncertain. Your statement, on the other hand, blatantly speculates that the Genesis device created a star, when there was no evidence for it in the movie. And kindly improve your attitude, rather than throwing around snide comments and unsubtle put-downs. -- Kingfisher 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the specualtion? That sentence gives 3 (speculated) options as to how the planet formed. You could be clear on the sun part, but not the planet. The other sentence may implicate Genesis with the star, but it makes speculation about the planet. So both of them speculate. Obviously the only reason the new one makes you happy is because it tries to make the source seem infoulable. Lets face it, movies can be inconsistent. I don't see anywhere where I put someone down. I just called them on their bad definition. -- 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be that part where you called the editors here "nuts, completely nuts", or resorting to using comments of "fanboyism". Whether you targeted anyone in particular or not is a non-issue, it was a general put down. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to an edit war, the page has been protected until this matter is resolved. --From Andoria with Love 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The only way to resolve it is to get a direct judgment from Paramount, in the form of on-screen Trek material pertaining to the situation. On the whole, Paramount has tended to decidedly not do such things, due to the completely rational concern about real science telling them point blank that they're wrong, or that so and so explanation they gave is impossible. Therefore, perhaps the better course would be to inquire of real astrophysicists just what Genesis would've had to do to cause a star to be swiftly formed, and whether it's remotely feasible within the framework of science fiction. If it's not, then a star was near the nebula (and lighting Reliant and Enterprise in the scenes beforehand) already. --ChrisK 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Wave Novels Edit

While they're not officially canon, I wonder if it might be relevant to at least have some mention of the Genesis wave set of novels. In addition to the references in the novels, I think there may also be a comment in them in regards to the above discussion about the star and/or planet creation. --umrguy42 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominion War Genesis Device Edit

Why didn't the Federation just use a Genesis device against a Cardassian colony, and threaten the founders that their new homeworld would be next if they didn't capitulate?

The Federation did not have the location of the new Founder homeworld (if you remember, on their trip there the Jem'Hadar piloted the Defiant and scrambled the Defiant's sensor logs). In addition, the Federation are the "good guys", which tends to mean not committing intentional acts of genocide (or xenocide). --OuroborosCobra talk 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Edit

I would like to nominate this paragraph for deletion:

It is unclear if the technology of Genesis was at one time covered up or classified, as the only mention since Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was in VOY: "The Omega Directive", in which Kathryn Janeway mentions "Marcus and her Genesis Device" as a comparison to other technologies deemed dangerously powerful. She was however, recording an encrypted log entry, so the matter may still be classified and known only to Captains-and-above.

It's also unclear if the Setlek III masacre or the pathfinder project were classified. — Vince47 17:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded that paragraph. And simplified it. Now it lists only the facts. -- sulfur 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're the man! — Vince47 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.