He didn't say 'punch it'.
So.....What's Your Theory on the Anomalies?
- Thread starter Eric Bean
- Start date
I assume that scene ends with a scientist walking in and saying "What mysteries? Here is list of all the elements and things that help create stars and why they function the way the do. " We then get a nice technobabble explanation for the stars and the red stuff.
Jason
You say potato, I say '"Woah, what the heck is that thing over there!?" while I use the edit function.
^ Let's call the whole thing off
I’d be up for that. I know they tried with real science with the mycelial network but something that actually sounded like science would have been better
Does an increase in [TECH] acids levels make you more open to the secrets of the stars?
Can. Michael. Move. Rocks.
Truth is stranger than fiction.I’d be up for that. I know they tried with real science with the mycelial network but something that actually sounded like science would have been better
Agreed. But it didn’t sound like truth - it sounded like magic
But transporters are fine?
There is so much "magic" in Star Trek that the spore network just gets filed away as another one of Trek's amazing discoveries that doesn't mean squat.
That could be cool. But it depends an awful lot on the creativity of these writers.
It was based on real science in the same way that space faring star unicorns would be based on real science because there is real science about horse physiology and behaviour.I’d be up for that. I know they tried with real science with the mycelial network but something that actually sounded like science would have been better
I’m not knocking the mycelial network btw.But transporters are fine?
There is so much "magic" in Star Trek that the spore network just gets filed away as another one of Trek's amazing discoveries that doesn't mean squat.
Once I’d finished scoffing and I looked it up online I was like “huh it’s a real thing - good for disco”.
I only meant that it came across like a fantastical thing relative to other Trek tech. The transporter and warp drive etc. have been explained ad nauseum in Star Trek (and I love them for that!) whereas the spore stuff seemed a little too far out there at first.
I shouldn’t have to look things up dagnabbit
If there is not a realistic space faring Star unicorn in season 2 I am done with Discovery.
No.
It does what science fiction does and extrapolate upon current scientific discoveries.
I found it understandable enoughI’m not knocking the mycelial network btw.
Once I’d finished scoffing and I looked it up online I was like “huh it’s a real thing - good for disco”.
I only meant that it came across like a fantastical thing relative to other Trek tech. The transporter and warp drive etc. have been explained ad nauseum in Star Trek (and I love them for that!) whereas the spore stuff seemed a little too far out there at first.
I shouldn’t have to look things up dagnabbit
The transporter is magic, no matter what technobabble is spouted to explain it. We just accept it as part of the world building because "the future!" So, I'm willing to enjoy it as part of the world building.
I know what Stamet's book is about. It is about information transfer via fungal network. It has no real connection to what happens in Discovery. Spore drive is not meaningful extrapolation of real science any more than my unicorn example was.
Unicorns cannot live in space. Spore drive has more meaning (in my opinion). But, regardless, the spore drive is an issue from a canon POV and the sooner it is ditched the sooner people can gripe about other canon issues.
Space unicorns can. It's based on real science because Hubble telescope took photos of Horsehead Nebula. And Mushrooms cannot teleport anything.
Yes. I really hope they ditch it soon and I can forget it ever happened. Dodgy science aside, it was a really unwise move to introduce this sort of superdrive in a prequel.
Similar threads
