Spoilers A list of bad scientific errors in Discovery

Trekkies are so kinky

 

I was just going to unhelpfully add that I for one do not care one lick for scientific accuracy in my space shows (sorry), as they are not documentaries. The whole scifi part is a backdrop, just like zombies are a backdrop in TWD. It's context for the stories; something the characters can interact with. Trek is fun because of the aforementioned woosh and pew pew and alien hybrids and fungus aliens and red angels and social commentary. I love the characters and the plots and the politics and the action. I don't care whether sound carries in space or that it's impossible to catch an alien virus.

 

You can happily speculate that life forms are borrowing energy from another universe and thus performing miracles, thus making it all add up just perfectly. (That is to say, you're happy to handwave it away with some vague pseudoscience). You're explaining technobabble with more technobabble, miracles with more miracles. Surely someone so scientific as yourself would see that Occam and his razor might apply here?

However the idea that DSC has some sort of replicators a bit earlier than we previously thought is a bridge too far?

You do realise the self replicating mines added layers to the story telling, moral complexity and political allegory of the series?

Seems to me I can let the question of how their batteries work slide, that's the whole point of setting it in a fantasy universe, you can get away with this stuff and focus on the things that matter.

Any scientific explanation how McCoy can walk around with Spocks' soul inside him?

How about an alternate universe which keeps on creating perfect duplicates of the main characters in ways which serve as dramatic counterpoint?

 

My theory is that place isn't an actual universe, but a funhouse holographic projection of the prime universe of sorts for some advanced beings' amusement/study. Like the TNG Enterprise's holodeck sometimes specific people are allowed in to see what will happen, and sometimes characters get out, but its not exactly a 'real' place with a real history. Probably what Squire Trelawny's parents do for work, maybe, or fun.

 

It's the Matrix!

 

Drama...it's a hell of a drug

But, seriously, we cannot apply strict scientific aspects to every facet of Star Trek on screen, otherwise, the whole concept breaks done. Let's face it, this isn't just a documentary style presentation of another world. It is also designed to entertain.

 

Erm..Delta Vega is in the same system as Vulcan, 40 Eridani A. It can be seen here
from the surface of Vulcan in Yesteryear. It's just that close.

 

Which it could be pointed out is pretty scientifically implausible in itself...

 

true, but that's a Yesteryear problem

 

Which means it is not new to Star Trek

 

No, the point being made was that DSC isn't veering away from some scientifically grounded background which trek has inhabited thus far.

Whether 40 Eridani A is in a different system to Vulcan or is so close they should impact the point still stands. There's a clear instance of past trek being completely scientifically inaccurate in either scenario which, taken alongside literally hundreds of others, makes the question of scientific inaccuracy being a valid criticism of DSC look pretty spurious.

 

just to be clear, 40 Eridani A is the name of the system than consists of Delta Vega and Vulcan and is not the twin planet, which is Delta Vega

 

Erm what evidence is there that Delta Vega is that planet?

 

bad science. one planet that close to Vulcan is bad enough, two planets so close you can almost see landmarks on their surface with the naked eye is...even for Star Trek standards...a bit much.
Memory Alpha strongly indicates it's the same planet, probably for that reason.

Then, of course, 40 Eridani A might just be the weirdest system ever depicted in the franchise and all of the system's planets might fit nicely in the distance between Earth and Mars

 

It shows up in the Theatrical cut of TMP as well.

 

Vulcan needs no moon.