What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I see you put a lot of thought into that.
Spock's Brain
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1912/carrel/lecture/
Interesting. That article reminds me of the head transplant done to a chimpanzee in history. Chimp was still paralyzed but alive.
It's why the blood in Into Darkness bothers me very little because there are actual blood based therapies, plasma based therapies, platelet based therapies, all currently utilized.
They don't revive the dead.
That's some dad news right there my friend
I am going to assume you mean "the dead," and the film is rather explicit that they froze Kirk before he was completely dead (insert mostly dead joke here), preserved higher brain functions, and used the blood based therapy (that thing about Khan that refuses to die) to repair the body from the radiation damage.
The transporter is a better cure for death.
That's some dad news right there my friend
I am going to assume you mean "the dead," and the film is rather explicit that they froze Kirk before he was completely dead (insert mostly dead joke here), preserved higher brain functions, and used the blood based therapy (that thing about Khan that refuses to die) to repair the body from the radiation damage.
The transporter is a better cure for death.
I did mean 'dead', and fixed it. It appears, however, you beat me to quoting it before I could fix, leading to a few chuckles that I really needed today because my dealings with somebody today has shown he's a complete douche.
INTO DARKNESS was the worst of the movies, by far. And the magic blood was only one small thing against a LOT of other problems with the film.
I understand, more than you know.
Fair enough. Not sure which of our opinions will fall under controversial though
As much as I don't agree with the view, I do suspect that the blood treatment in INTO DARKNESS is more a reflection of people not buying in to the movie as a whole. I also think that much of the tech you list is kind of taken for granted and baked in to Trek's premise, vs. feeling tacked on.
I got into JJ trek, because I understood it without a huge leap of faith. Maybe his Red Matter wasn't exactly on target but it's not that far fetched.
I don't always write in the Trek sandbox but at times even when a story goes far into the deep end of the pool, it still has some basis taken from a White Paper. Not that white papers are fact, just years ahead of their time.
Today there are great minds still debating what makes a black hole possible to exist in an expanding universe. To write some of the analysis into a story is going to go zoom... right over their heads, because it's not widely known public theory.
Then you get into some of the neutrino studies out of the Cern particle accelerator and maybe we can correct the laws of physics in the future.
There is very little in Star Trek that wasn't written about before Trek. I'm not saying that as a knock on Trek. It's probably the reason 30 years latter the News reports another Star Trek creation comes to life.
...It's completely crackers. Unless it's something like strange matter, in which case just call it... strange matter. And you certainly wouldn't be able to carry it around in a giant syringe.
There really aren't... we've understood how a black hole could exist for decades. Stephen Hawking's PhD thesis was, in part, on how this could happen, and it was submitted in 1966.
Such as...?
[
And yes debates through white papers are a basis for grant money. Make a good case for Quasiparticles and the university could receive a study grant.
Faster than light speed for one, oscillation effect on matter for another.
And yes debates through white papers are a basis for grant money. Make a good case for Quasiparticles and the university could receive a study grant.
Fans do like to simplify things to make their points. “Magic blood.” “Crying child.” “Cadet to Captain”.That's some dad news right there my friend
I am going to assume you mean "the dead," and the film is rather explicit that they froze Kirk before he was completely dead (insert mostly dead joke here), preserved higher brain functions, and used the blood based therapy (that thing about Khan that refuses to die) to repair the body from the radiation damage.
The transporter is a better cure for death.
Tuvix had it coming, Janeway did nothing wrong.
Black on one side, white on the other...Fans do like to simplify things to make their points. “Magic blood.” “Crying child.” “Cadet to Captain”.
What I'm talking about is creating Science fiction from science theory because it gives a hint of plausibility plus if you're incorporating the theory into science fiction tales, even a failed one, you stand a chance of that theory finally being achieved. Because "they" (short alien being) are working on it.
A decade passes and...
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-broke-the-speed-of-light-with-pulses-inside-hot-plasma
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Theory has a specific meaning in science and it's not just "random idea that might or might not turn out to be wrong", and theories evolve over time in response to new discoveries. "Incorporating them into science fiction" has nothing to do with whether there's a chance of your theory being "achieved".
That's reads as an application of a phenomenon we've known about for decades where interference patterns between waves can seem to move much faster than the waves themselves. Also nothing to do with neutrinos and CERN per your earlier post.
Sorry, I'm not wishing to sound negative, but it really sounds as though you don't really understand scientific methodology. These things you're describing don't increase the likelihood of warp drive any more than salad being green makes increases the likelihood of there being little green men.
More thought than you, apparently.
I'm not sure what your point is? The procedures described in the article don't really tally with being able to talk your surgeon through your own brain surgery as he/she performs it?
I repeat, Star Trek is full of silly science. You just have to go with it and it's certainly not something new.
Last edited:
Isn't deriding the Kelvinverse for being the way it is a little like a professional swimmer deriding his kid's wading pool for being too shallow? One's introduction to swimming need not be "dad throws you into the deep end and you gotta paddle or die". And even adults like to play/sit in the shallow end sometimes.
And if you're gonna have a story/characters that for non-Lit readers, exists only in the span of 3 two hour films, you can't deepen them too much AND have all the science AND all the philosophical quandaries, at least not enough to make everyone feel like they've watched a whole series, with its deep worldbuilding dives, and long pauses for thought, and big questions.
And if you're gonna have a story/characters that for non-Lit readers, exists only in the span of 3 two hour films, you can't deepen them too much AND have all the science AND all the philosophical quandaries, at least not enough to make everyone feel like they've watched a whole series, with its deep worldbuilding dives, and long pauses for thought, and big questions.
Similar threads
- Locked
