Cary L. Brown said:
Dennis, you just used terms that have real meaning in a way that demonstrates you're not sufficiently conversant in what they actually mean.
Starship Polaris said:You use microscopic machines to form molecular bonds turning the two pieces of metal into a single piece.
Cary, you're clearly very well-versed in the specifics of your field of expertise, but IMHO you're not really seeing the forest for the trees.
What I think that I and others are trying to say is that sometimes -- sometimes
-- Trek was forced to resort to showing things onscreen that were woefully contemporary in order to save money. The terrible American Tourister luggage in TOS is a prime example. And I think the scenes of people sitting on hulls and welding two pieces of something together and having it look so very much like it does today
stirs in many of us a disconnect as it relates to a society that (a) controls gravity, (b) travels at a thousand times the speed of light, and -- perhaps most fantastically of all -- (c) possesses transporter technology. Any ONE of these things does indeed border on the unbelievably advanced as they relate to the commonplace nature of the way they're portrayed in Trek
I don't question your authority on the subject of welding and the various types of bonds, but I still contend that there's no way in hell that starships will be built in such a manner as welding in the 23rd century. The scientific advancements in the last hundred years arguably surpass everything learned in the previous 5,000. That rate of invention and creation and scientific discovery will, by most accounts, only increase as we proceed along the pathways of time. Dennis may have misspoken, but his general approach is valid -- a society that sees such fantastical technologies as routine elements of their existence will almost certainly have moved beyond welding as we know it today. IMHO -- specifics aside.
Terminology can sometimes be misleading, too. The same or similar term could be used in the future as today and yet have morphed into a definition that's very different. Will starship crews or even society in general really call things "computers" in nearly 300 years? I doubt it. And I can't believe, for instance, that the nomenclature on the starship hulls is "painted" on in the same manner that we describe painting today. Why? They would simply have better and more flexible & efficient ways of achieving the same thing than we do today.
I can say, though, that it's heartening to know we agree on what we've seen so far of this new Enterprise. I am definitely going to reserve judgement until I see more.