Cary L. Brown said:
This is an argument that, you may notice, all the guys who have backgrounds in science and technology are rejecting... but those who are mainly in it for the "entertainment" but don't really get into the science seem to like.
Why then would one expect the means of construction not also to be completely different?
Really? Well, I don't know about the other guys, but my background is that I got my Ph.D. in physics in 1995 and have been gainfully employed in research in basic physics since then. So the statement that "guys who have backgrounds in science and technology are rejecting . . ." is flat out wrong.
As for the rest, this post
captures the points I was trying to make.
The difference in appearance, construction materials, construction methods and so on between the most advanced things we have now and Kirk's Enterprise should be many times greater than the differences in all those things between the airplanes of the Wright brothers (debut in the early 1900s) and the stealth fighter (debut in the late 1990s). Surely a 240 year difference should show greater advances than a 90 to 100 year difference.
Technological progress has been exponential during the 20th century and if things like warp drive and transporters are to come into existence (as they have in Star Trek) that exponential rate of change must continue. Thus, the welding in the teaser is woefully antiquated.