Despite popular opinion, Abrams was not the ruiner of Star Trek.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
He did mess registry numbers up though.
Admit it, y'all were taking bets on when I would say that.
I bet $0514 on it.He did mess registry numbers up though.
Admit it, y'all were taking bets on when I would say that.
TELEVISION shows. Whole reason for being? COMMERCIALS. Always keep that in mind. FIRST. 
Entertainment for the masses. Never intended to be especially accurate when it comes to science. It simply wasn't an important goal.
Something being able to evade the transporter's screening process. Let's expand on that for a moment. Approaching a planet. Ship's sensors say Class M, atmosphere near Earth norms, nothing to indicate a problem. No environmental suits needed. Landing party beams down. And are promptly all killed because something was able to influence the ship's sensors to give false readings. Heck, with superior technology/abilities, the entire planet could be an illusion and the team could be beamed into open space without protective suits.
Considering what the show depicted, every single mission had risks. Big ones. 'Routine', itself, was a story conceit. Reality, with those conditions existing, and the potentials involved, would be very different.
Entertainment for the masses. Never intended to be especially accurate when it comes to science. It simply wasn't an important goal.
Something being able to evade the transporter's screening process. Let's expand on that for a moment. Approaching a planet. Ship's sensors say Class M, atmosphere near Earth norms, nothing to indicate a problem. No environmental suits needed. Landing party beams down. And are promptly all killed because something was able to influence the ship's sensors to give false readings. Heck, with superior technology/abilities, the entire planet could be an illusion and the team could be beamed into open space without protective suits.
Considering what the show depicted, every single mission had risks. Big ones. 'Routine', itself, was a story conceit. Reality, with those conditions existing, and the potentials involved, would be very different.
Transporter - yes.
Humanoid aliens - yes.
Artificial gravity - no.
Warp drive - certainly not.
The last two are legitimate scientific problems to be solved for any kind of extended space travel / exploration, no? Heck, they're problems we're actually working on solving now.
Will we have magic gravity that works like a sound stage? Probably not. But someone will come up with something. (Jazz hands!)
I'm an optimist. It's the Trekkie in me.
Au contraire.
My point was (among other things) that all of the elements I mentioned, including the ones in dispute here, were introduced into the show without these elements being supported scientifically in any way, shape, or form when they were introduced.
I wasn't just talking about artificial gravity generally, because scientifically sound means did exist to produce it at the time, i.e. by rotation or linear acceleration. I was referring to the particular method employed in Star Trek, left completely unspecified during TOS, the famous "gravity is down to point eight" background chatter notwithstanding, under which "down" is evidently perpendicular to the long axis of the starship. There wasn't (and isn't) any scientific basis for the operation of such a type of artificial gravity.
At the time TOS was made, faster than light travel was believed to be theoretically impossible.
It's still not proven to be even theoretically possible today, although there have been theoretical breakthroughs that have opened up at least mathematically tenable lines of inquiry.
---
If millennia unfold without humanity developing practical FTL, regardless of whether it's "theoretically possible" or not, the only alternative for interstellar travel will be slower than light travel. There's been more than a little science fiction written under which that premise holds.
There are no milk runs in spaceTELEVISION shows. Whole reason for being? COMMERCIALS. Always keep that in mind. FIRST.
Entertainment for the masses. Never intended to be especially accurate when it comes to science. It simply wasn't an important goal.
Something being able to evade the transporter's screening process. Let's expand on that for a moment. Approaching a planet. Ship's sensors say Class M, atmosphere near Earth norms, nothing to indicate a problem. No environmental suits needed. Landing party beams down. And are promptly all killed because something was able to influence the ship's sensors to give false readings. Heck, with superior technology/abilities, the entire planet could be an illusion and the team could be beamed into open space without protective suits.
Considering what the show depicted, every single mission had risks. Big ones. 'Routine', itself, was a story conceit. Reality, with those conditions existing, and the potentials involved, would be very different.
Well, blue milk runs. But that's in another franchise.
Then who delivers the milk?
Similar threads
