#Nope
Spoilers A list of bad scientific errors in Discovery
- Thread starter ISS_Einstein
- Start date
Correct me if I'm wrong, as it was never a show I followed as much as Trek, but didn't they only enter things like space rifts a couple of times - I think the first episode just had them arrive in another solar system, as if the nuclear explosion propelled them there - then I seem to remember they went through a rift of some kind later in another episode. Anyway, it was a nice bit of fun as a show.
I was actually trying to make a self-deprecating joke about myself being the nerd who is treating the show like it's real (and your post breaking the illusion), but obviously that failed miserably.
I'm not exasperated in the slightest. I just disagree with your premise; not that Discovery is scientifically inaccurate, because of course it is, but in getting to the real complaint that it's more scientifically inaccurate than the majority of the franchise, which is highly debatable. But I'm not upset or frustrated or anything.
Sometimes memes are just a joke. But I also included plenty of actual commentary on your premise in both my original and subsequent posts.
Last edited:
Sorry, I really misread that - guess I have been called obsessive before a few times too 
I mostly referred to it as Philosophical Science Fiction. I was also kind of amused at how people talked about how dark scifi shows this century have been. I have never watched a scifi show that offered as much nightmare fuel as Space 1999 did and does. But yes, every week they grow through what is essentially a wormhole to another solar system. There is the odd reference to faster than light travel having been developed (the genocide inducing Quellor drive, for instance), but Moonbase Alpha doesn't have access to that tech themselves.
Again, for a Hard SF fix, if a low budget one, i would recommend you check out Star Cops. It is one of a kind. Oh, and the theme and music are by Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues (and also of Jeff Wayne's War of the World fame).
Last edited:
And neither is arguing about how scientifically accurate SF is supposed to be. Verne famously complained that H.G. Wells played too fast and loose with science, what with the anti-gravity "Cavorite" and the time machine and the invisibility serum and such. But are we really going to argue that H.G. Wells sucked compared to Verne?
Hard SF is just one category of SF, neither better nor worse than any other. No reason DISCO has to be more more hard-sf than TOS or whatever.
Bring on the glowing Greek gods and giant space amoebas.
What do you imagine when you think of stuff like deep time concepts? I don't know what you are thinking, but I think a lot of people imagine the kind of sci-fi that is obsessively devoted to hardness - but there is another example of this that is about medium on the hardness scale - Warhammer 40,000 is neither incredibly hard nor soft sci-fi, but makes use of deep time ideas like in the form of the Necrons - a race that has almost literally reasoned they will rule the galaxy by simply out-waiting all other species - Star Trek could create wonder for example by showing a species confined to a technological tomb world awaiting a time when the stars themselves have burnt out, where they can feast on the Hawking radiation of the remaining black holes for near eternity - and the USS Discovery accidentally wakes them up - talks to some ancient guardian AI. That can be Star Trek, but the writers seem to distrust viewers will come.
Yeah, I really enjoyed B5 and SG1 for their detail - it was pretty damn amazing looking back on some of it. I felt this season of Doctor Who that just aired last year was harder than previous ones - I really enjoyed it actually - so I think hardness can even vary between seasons of a show!
Last edited:
Ummmnnn...
I have as of yet seen anybody humping a mushroom in an episode.
I must have missed a show or two.
And neither is arguing about how scientifically accurate SF is supposed to be. Verne famously complained that H.G. Wells played too fast and loose with science, what the anti-gravity and the time machine and invisibility serum and such. But are we really going to argue that H.G. Wells sucked compared to Verne?
Hard SF is just one category of SF, neither better nor worse than any other. No reason DISCO has to be more more hard-sf than TOS or whatever.
Bring on the glowing Greek gods and giant space amoebas.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Yeah, I really enjoyed B5 and SG1 for their detail - it was pretty damn amazing looking back on some of it. I felt this season of Doctor Who that just aired last year was harder than previous ones - I really enjoyed it actually - so I think hardness can even vary between seasons of a show!
Doctor Who has gone through a lot of phases from pure fantasy to Hard SF. It was the most Hard SF during the Sixties and Seventies than anything we've seen in the 21st century reboot. But I agree, this past season was a bit of a callback to the shows roots.
As opposed to magic "dilithium" crystals . . .. .
And, seriously, if we're going to claim that TNG was somehow more rigorously scientific than DISCO, do I need to mention the time Barclay turned into a giant spider, but was magically fixed by Crusher's DNA technobabble . . ...
Don't get me wrong. I actually thought that episode was outrageously fun, in a goofy monster-movie kinda way, but let's not pretend that TNG was all about scientific accuracy.
Star Trek hasn't been rigorously scientific since that time the ship flew to the edge of the galaxy and suddenly people were moving styrofoam cups just by intensely squinting at them.
Or an Iconian gateway, or Borg transwarp hubs, or magical organic beings who can throw starships across galaxies, or a dozen other weird travel methods.
I mean, TNG - The Chase is one of my favorite episodes and extremely enjoyable, but it's bad genetic and evolutionary science at its worst, while ironically trying to serve as a ficto-science explanation for why all the aliens look like humans in prosthetics and they can all make baybayz together (with a little help).
Heck, nothing says rigorous scientific accuracy like green Orion dancing girls . . . .
Evolution is one topic Star Trek has always got hopelessly wrong. Along with the non explanations for all the similar forms across the galaxy, and the scientific travesty that is Genesis, it signs up fully for the idea that evolution is a straight line progression to 'greater' or 'higher' forms including an organic being becoming pure energy. It's cheerfully absurd, but hey, it's fun fantasy storytelling.
Well that's less implies the writers where actually taking shrooms when coming up with ideasAs opposed to magic "dilithium" crystals . . .. .
I mean I can I can just picture the writing team.
Writer A: right I am out of ideas, let's take shrooms.
Writer B: good idea.
2 hours later.
Writer A: Dude......what lif ike, the ship could like travel on mushrooms.
Writer B: that is awesome man and like it is some magical glowing network.
Writer A: awsome.
This series I would not be surprised if they have a weapon that fires a magic weed that makes there enemy's just chill.
And if the writers go on to LSD we get a program of just colourfull swirls and music.....o wait that's The motion picture
