|
|
Post by String on Jan 22, 2018 19:23:47 GMT -5
There's a whole series of books devoted to debunking the "science" of Star Trek. Warp drive, the transporter, shapeshifting: all fantasy elements dressed in sci-fi drag with no hard science behind them. I love Trek, but I don't pretend it's premised on anything but imagination. Cei-U! I summon the popped balloon! Debunking.....such a strange little word. To debunk implies that you want to bunk something instead? But I digress. Perhaps my phrasing on the matter was lax so let's try another avenue. I've always enjoyed how the science of Trek could be more plausible than the science of Wars. For as many books that may seem to discredit Trek science, there are those that would seek to find such plausibility for it. One example would be The Physics of Star Trek by noted physicist Lawrence Krauss. Within it, he details the actual scientific limitations of creating such technology like warp drive and the transporter. He also postulates ideas on how such technology could possibly overcome such limitations. By no means does he give actual details on how to do so, instead provides the basis for the intellectual exploration of how one could possibly do it. Then there's books like Star Trek Science Logs by Andre Bormanis, also another noted physicist and former main science adviser to three Trek spinoff series, wherein he details many of the scientific concepts that served as springboards for the show's writers and producers for their stories. (Where you see, Duragizer, in most cases, the story needs of the show supersedes the known science like where one can have cracks in the event horizon. We are still a one-hour TV drama show after all). Reading such books over the years about how such Trek tech could maybe work based on the science that we do know has long been satisfying and enlightening for me, especially in light of what we know, what we think we know, and what may indeed be possible. And isn't that where all science truly begins? |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 22, 2018 20:23:49 GMT -5
"Debunking" was probably the wrong word, yeah. The Physics of Star Trek was one of the books I had in mind. You and I had vastly different reactions to that book, though, as I thought Krauss did an excellent job of explaining why, barring an enormous shift in our fundamental understanding of the universe, stuff like the warp drive and teleporter will never, ever happen.
Cei-U!
I summon the big ol' paradigm shift!
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jan 22, 2018 21:51:09 GMT -5
And I don't think any of the Trek movies are as good as Star Wars. I think I might even say that the worst Star Wars movies are better than the best Star Trek movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 28, 2018 13:47:31 GMT -5
When they're at their best I like them both very much, but I think the original Star Trek tv show with Kirk and Spock and the gang is probably the one that's left the deepest impression on me since I saw it at an early age. OTOH, I still go to see all the new Star Wars movies when they come out (haven't managed to get to the current one yet but I will as soon as I can), while I gave up on new Star Trek product long ago, whether it's movies or tv series. And I don't think any of the Trek movies are as good as Star Wars. I think I might even say that the worst Star Wars movies are better than the best Star Trek movies. I haven't tried any of the Star Wars tv shows, though.Mmmmh... Here's where I suspect you stopped watching Star Wars movies after The Empire Strikes Back!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 29, 2018 1:24:50 GMT -5
When they're at their best I like them both very much, but I think the original Star Trek tv show with Kirk and Spock and the gang is probably the one that's left the deepest impression on me since I saw it at an early age. OTOH, I still go to see all the new Star Wars movies when they come out (haven't managed to get to the current one yet but I will as soon as I can), while I gave up on new Star Trek product long ago, whether it's movies or tv series. And I don't think any of the Trek movies are as good as Star Wars. I think I might even say that the worst Star Wars movies are better than the best Star Trek movies. I haven't tried any of the Star Wars tv shows, though.Mmmmh... Here's where I suspect you stopped watching Star Wars movies after The Empire Strikes Back!!! ha ha! I can see why people would scratch their heads at this comment of mine, since the Star Wars prequels were pretty big failures, artistically, while the Star Trek films were at least competently made, for the most part. So perhaps it would be more a accurate statement of my feelings on the subject to say that I think there was a certain ambition at the core of even the worst of the Star Wars films, bad as they were, while even the best of the Star Trek films strike me as little more than recreations of whatever it was we liked about the various tv series. Does that make any more sense? Not that Star Wars itself hasn't been a cynical attempt to cash in on the magic of the first two or three movies. But I think it still meant something to Lucas when he made the prequels. Unfortunately, his creative touch seems to have abandoned him in the years that passed after the last of the original trilogy, and he wasn't able to come up with a finished piece of work that was worthy of those earlier films. Worse, he was (IMO) reduced to imitating other popular films of the time - for instance, I suspected at the time that he decided to emphasise the love story between Anakin Skywalker and the Princess because of the record-breaking box-office success of James Cameron's Titanic a few years before. However, the first of the sequels, though a far better movie than any of the prequels, felt much less ambitious and more like a just a competent recreation and remixing of various elements from the first movie, so maybe the distinction I'm making between the two franchises is no longer valid. I'll have to see how the current one plays out to me whenever I get to it. |
|
