View Single Post
Old February 1 2009, 09:39 AM   #4
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Applied Treknology (Scotty of the Gaps)

Shaw wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
...
Gravitational fields are similar to electric fields in that any gravitationally charged object will exert a force on another gravitationally charged object...
It looks to me like your ideas are tied to a particle view of nature... specially gravity. Quantum gravity was always a house of cards because those behind the theory were attempting to make gravity a force and assumed universal time.
Kind of, but kind of not. In this theory, a "particle" is just a point of mass/energy/density of space itself. Kind of like Process Physics or something similar. It explains wave particle duality in a way that, technically, a particle is just a localized peak in a space-energy medium, while antiparticles are the corresponding troughs. This would explain virtual particles as well, and it would give you an excuse for how the main deflectors of starships are able to produce "graviton beams" without actually throwing the ship's entire mass halfway across the galaxy.

Shaw wrote: View Post
To see just how off these ideas are, one need only run this analogy game in reverse... rather than thinking of gravity as a super weak force, why not attempt to apply aspects of gravity proportionally to the rest of the model. What if electromagnetism had time dilation (proportional to it's strength) like that of gravity? Think about how much time would be effected by a simple magnet in such a model.
Subspace field theory--or rather Zephram Cochrane--figured out that time dilation only applies between multiple simultaneous events when one of the actors is within a moving gravitational field (i.e. a subspace field). In this case, the effect of time dilation is really a consequence of the the sub-space region having slightly different energy constants; in other words, it is not time that dilates, but the speed of light of in a vacuum.

Shaw wrote: View Post
The point of bringing all this up is that if you have tied Star Trek to pop science then you are dooming it to be dated.
First of all, it's WAY too late for that. Star Trek has already made references to things like Dark Matter, gravitons, anti-gravitons, string theory, "quantum singularities," (actually, quantum everything) and fog-bank nebulas whose existence violates all known laws of physics in the first place. I'm reasonably certain that the vast majority of Trek viewers are NOT physicists and aren't really going to know the difference; instead of basing it on pop science, I'd just as soon make up some kind of Trek science that is entirely fictitious and, therefore, entirely consistent with whatever new science comes out since we can simply say "Trek physics is more advanced and more correct, because it's based on discoveries in Teh FUTURE!"

Shaw wrote: View Post
If you need to use science I would suggest staying with the solid foundations...
The suggestion is noted, but the less solid the foundation, the less it's likely to overtly contradict "actual" physics. I do, however, think Trek science needs to have a foundation, or else we might end up with things like, say, a Captain using "warp particles" to pry open the event horizon of a black hole.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote