That depends on what you mean by "you" -- your katra or the vessel holding your katra.Well... You don't actually visit the other side of the galaxy...
Spoilers A list of bad scientific errors in Discovery
- Thread starter ISS_Einstein
- Start date
Approach and ask anyone with a British high school level knowledge of biology if you don't want to hear it from me. Giving a fungus an Earth genus makes it an Earth fungus; it means it evolved solely on Earth, and is related to humans, but not alien. It's secondary school science the show is getting wrong, not anything particularly complicated.
We're arguing that it is just as fictional. "Subspace" does not exist and has no real world analogue. And adding "quantum" onto stuff doesn't make it any more real science - it's just a word that sci-fi likes to use (incorrectly) to mean "futuristic". Hence quantum torpedoes. This misuse has even bled back into the real world, so people talk about a "quantum leap forward" in a field; well a quantum leap is one of the smallest movements of an object possible, which isn't at all what they mean.
Now taking a real life example of an interconnected natural network and projecting that into an unseen dimension of spacetime? Sure, that's fictional, but it's also an interesting extension of a contemporary theory, and I'd rather that than just another bunch of scientific sounding words prefaced by 'quantum' or 'tachyon'.
that depends how Earth-centric UFP science conventions are and how xenobiology develops as soon as extraterrestrial life forms get mixed into the the system.
And it is not without precedence. Eurocentric naming conventions led to misnoming in the past
I don't know if DSC ever said "Our story lines and plots must be taken seriously and thus must be more realistic than TOS." Instead, I think they just want to be a modern-looking version of Star Trek told with a 21st-century voice. That 21st-century voice does not necessarily mean "more scientifically realistic plots and story devices."
I mean, they already had the mirror universe, which immediately precludes scientifically realistic plots (and I'm not talking about the science of parallel universe in general, just the propensity of Star Trek to always find its way to that particular universe where some things diverged so greatly while so many other things didn't).
Last edited:
Yeah, we know that in America, too. So I don't need to hear it from you, a Brit or an American.But, science fiction often uses human nomenclature (be it slang, scientific, English, Latin, Greek or Swahili) for alien plants, animals minerals, so again I'm not really sure why it matters.
Bingo. If we can have planets named Vulcan and Romulus, I think Stamets can use Earthling lingo to describe a space fungus without it somehow being an insult to our intelligence . . ...
And where copper-blooded lifeforms can successfully crossbreed with iron-blooded lifeforms who evolved on a completely different planet . . .
Gravity is a killer for Star Trek as well - you'd need every single planet to have identical gravity for all of these very similar humanoids. Even a minor variation in gravity would not lead to super-strength but radically different physical forms.
Indeed. Star Trek has often operated within a thin frame of scientific plausibility, even for the 60s. The idea that Discovery is somehow more guilty of scientific inaccuracy than other incarnations of Star Trek is laughable to me.
Diamond time tacos.
Quantum flux coupler. Pulse phase resequencer. Tech tech tech. If we can tech the tech then the tech will tech.
“Make it so”
“Make it so”
That's why its probably not nearly as mundane as an actual parallel universe would be. Its clearly something entirely different, IMHO, and far more intriguing besides.
Not if they were transplanted from other worlds. Example: would a human under +/-10% gravity still look fairly human after 5000 years?
Old Star Trek proverb: "You can't win an argument with a Klingon."
Caveat-unless you're Data.Old Star Trek proverb: "You can't win an argument with a Klingon."
No - partly because changing gravity changes *everything* - air pressure, water boils at a different temperature etc. That's before you get into all the other environment factors - so I wouldn't worry about what humans look like after 5000 years on an alien planet because they'd likely die out pretty quickly.
First, the aliens who transplanted them wouldn't do it so they die quickly. The body adjusts to some changes, but you must assume the aliens adjusted the body to except the gravity change. Would those adjustments involve a physical appearance change so a human would still look human-like, or would they look like squids just because of a little gravity change, for example. Remember, the ultimate goal of the aliens is to spread the human race to other worlds.
Yep, so don't go to Tibet or move to Denver. You'll soon be dead like all the other people who thought they could live where the air is a bit thinner than sea level. I mean, who can survive in a place where water boils at 95 degrees celsius? And adding 10% more weight? Everyone knows that even slightly overweight human beings all die before they can reproduce.
Last edited:
Plus we're looking at it from the wrong end anyway, and doubly so.
1) Humanoids across the Trek galaxy didn't diverge from one form to fit all environments. Rather, superaliens used a superability to pervert the products of various environments into biped sapients, as a vanity project. The viability of this superability can be debated, but the mechanism would certainly leave all the biped sapients superbly adapted to their environment, without natural evolution having any say on whether they ought to be biped sapients. Not only is this not bad science, it's the one type of behavior we would expect of a totally alien species, without knowing anything about it besides the sapience bit.
2) Planets in the Trek galaxy would be terraformed many times over. We have seen the construction of duplicate Earths and of "impossible" planets; ensuring a rough one gee pull would be well within the means of the civilizations responsible for these deeds. And it wouldn't depend on the vanity of one species, either: any upstart culture that was well adapted to Class M environments would enjoy a built-in advantage there, and would further promote the converting of planets into Class M environments.
Timo Saloniemi
1) Humanoids across the Trek galaxy didn't diverge from one form to fit all environments. Rather, superaliens used a superability to pervert the products of various environments into biped sapients, as a vanity project. The viability of this superability can be debated, but the mechanism would certainly leave all the biped sapients superbly adapted to their environment, without natural evolution having any say on whether they ought to be biped sapients. Not only is this not bad science, it's the one type of behavior we would expect of a totally alien species, without knowing anything about it besides the sapience bit.
2) Planets in the Trek galaxy would be terraformed many times over. We have seen the construction of duplicate Earths and of "impossible" planets; ensuring a rough one gee pull would be well within the means of the civilizations responsible for these deeds. And it wouldn't depend on the vanity of one species, either: any upstart culture that was well adapted to Class M environments would enjoy a built-in advantage there, and would further promote the converting of planets into Class M environments.
Timo Saloniemi
