Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by USS Triumphant, Aug 23, 2017.
Much of Trek has basis in real scientific theories.
I enjoy it just fine. I don't need an entertainment property to make me feel smart.
Yep. They've even admitted it was non-sense over the years.
Much of our current technology that we use every day has come from Star trek. Tablets, Cell phones, 3d printers, hyposprays, bio beds. Even warp drive uses actual scientific principles and theories.
Personally the real science behind trek is something I enjoy much better than Star Wars which to me is just magic.
Well, no. Surprised people still buy into this stuff...
I don't have all day, so I looked up one...
But, a communicator really isn't a cell phone to begin with. As a communicator can work across vast distances with no infrastructure required.
That's sad if you think so, I suggest you start with the basics with Laurence Krauss' works.
Trek communicators are more analogous to military communications devices, not consumer-level cell phones.
Watching Trek for character development is pretty pathetic, lmao
So is deceiving one's self into buying the hype about its scientific accuracy.
Which popular science literature on Star Trek tech have you closely acquainted yourself with?
Well, some of the scientific aspects of Star trek have been (and continue to be) studied - like Warping Spacetime to travel long distances; and the feasibility of actual teleportation; BUT those things as they are presented and said to work in the Star Trek universe ARE NOT based in reality (IE Waoping Spacetime with no real relativistic effects on the people in the ship; the fact that the ship can accelerate to relativistic speeds in an instant - yet there are no G force effects because of the near magical inertial dampers that never fail in any way and seem to work even when every other system (and power) is down.)
Star Trek is fun and internally consistent (for the most part) science fantasy - it has never been 'hard' science fiction.
You mean technical manuals and the like? I have a shelf full of them. They're non-sense.
That's a shame you think that way. Some of my favorite episodes of trek are the character dramas (Duet, Darmok, All Good Things.., and Living Witness to name a few)
Some light can be shed on reading books such as the Whitfield book. That will show a lot of evidence that Roddenberry and the production people were not sitting around discussing the technology from an advancement of science perspective.
The Transporter came about to save money, since having a shuttle land every week was too expensive.
A communicator came from the military walkie talkies.
Warp drive was to not have episodes in a row of them just sitting on the ship, waiting to get to the next planet.
Phasers were to seem more advanced than a laser gun in things like Buck Rogers.
I think sometimes people forget this is an entertainment franchise. Complete with katras, ESPer super mutants and Protomatter.
But his point is - there's very little character development (IE their views and personalities don't change/advance much) - And no Picard stating he was almost an Archaeologist is really 'character development' in that sense.
TOS and TNG very much held the character's personalities as static throughout their run. You had some actual character development on DS9 and ENT (can't speak for VOY as I thought the series writing was horrible, and didn't watch it much past "The 37's")
No, Katras, ESPer super mutants and Protomatter are all real. The stuff I mentioned isn't.
Indeed. For those interested in such things, Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek is a good overview of how the science and tech depicted in Trek is pretty much impossible in the way in which it is depicted.
Separate names with a comma.