"Miracle" tech in Science Fiction

[OMNI]

prtty large hole in all sci fi shows that use some form of FTL

 

[OMNI]

as fpr trek isnt it something rlating to sheilding that stops the effects of relativity? ie a warp bubble or some shit like that...

 

[OMNI]

http://space.about.com/od/Space-and-Astronomy-Star-Trek/a/Warp-Drive.htm

yep i was right its some shit about some bubble shit around the ship, shit.

google is the shit. shit.

http://space.about.com/od/Space-and-Astronomy-Star-Trek/a/Warp-Drive.htm

 

[Joelist]

Yeah. Sounds like a real Trek fanatic making up stuff never mentioned in canon to dodge the issues. With the explanation used there the TNG episode where Crusher got trapped in a warp bubble becomes impossible.

 

[Joelist]

prtty large hole in all sci fi shows that use some form of FTL

Depends on the "FTL". Space folding "jump" drives avoid the entire Einsteinian problem as well as other relativity issues because of how the travel occurs - these drives (supposedly) induce an extreme gravity delta that caused space itself to "fold" and the ship simply moves from one end of the fold to the other using normal drives - the distance between the ends is much smaller than normal because of the fold. The ump then completes and the fold "unfolds" with the ship at the other side.

Of course this type of drive creates a new issue - creating a fold without ripping the ship apart from the gravity variation. But it is actually more feasible than the others as a lot of the theory is much more developed.

 

[OMNI]

Depends on the "FTL". Space folding "jump" drives avoid the entire Einsteinian problem as well as other relativity issues because of how the travel occurs - these drives (supposedly) induce an extreme gravity delta that caused space itself to "fold" and the ship simply moves from one end of the fold to the other using normal drives - the distance between the ends is much smaller than normal because of the fold. The ump then completes and the fold "unfolds" with the ship at the other side.

Of course this type of drive creates a new issue - creating a fold without ripping the ship apart from the gravity variation. But it is actually more feasible than the others as a lot of the theory is much more developed.

blablabla technobabble speculating wildly on tv series and movie tech blabla blabla bla bla blabla.

i honestly coulndt give to shits about what is and isnt plausible in these beyond shitty sci fi movies and tv shows.

trying to fin ANY logic in these amazingly flawed entertainment shows is a complete waste of time and i think i hate you even more for trying and for making one of these retarded threads here which are more fitted for sites such as gateworld who coincidentally is flooded with these beyond aggrovating topics.

i was responding to something REAL said by ape not to this crap about making sence of and trying to see if the writers were smart enough to make it relaistic (major spoiler) 99.9999999999999999999% of the time they dont and they couldnt care less if it was realistic or not, anyway please direct your wild speculations about the realism of crappy tv shows and movies towards someone other then me.

 

[Joelist]

blablabla technobabble speculating wildly on tv series and movie tech blabla blabla bla bla blabla.

i honestly coulndt give to $#@!s about what is and isnt plausible in these beyond $#@!ty sci fi movies and tv shows.

trying to fin ANY logic in these amazingly flawed entertainment shows is a complete waste of time and i think i hate you even more for trying and for making one of these retarded threads here which are more fitted for sites such as gateworld who coincidentally is flooded with these topics.

 

[OMNI]

and im bowing out of this BS thread.

 

[Joelist]

BTW, space folding jump drives are not an invention of current TV or movies. That sort of speculation on how to beat the lightspeed problem goes back decades in science fiction literature. For example, Issac Asimov used this for his faster than light travel in the Foundation books, which he started writing back in the early 1940s.

 

[OMNI]

BTW, space folding jump drives are not an invention of current TV or movies. That sort of speculation on how to beat the lightspeed problem goes back decades in science fiction literature. For example, Issac Asimov used this for his faster than light travel in the Foundation books, which he started writing back in the early 1940s.

its still entertainment and it has no base in reality hence lobbed into the smae category.
imo if one takes life lessons, science facts etc etc from entertainment sources well there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you.

 

[SciphonicStranger]

I for one loved the whoooooshhhh from the gate in the Stargate movie. That was a great scene.

So what if the math doesn't add up.

 

[Bluce Ree]

as fpr trek isnt it something rlating to sheilding that stops the effects of relativity? ie a warp bubble or some shit like that...

Interstellar travel by warping space implies that the ship isn't moving at all but rather compressing space in front while stretching it behind. Since there's no actual movement per se, there would be no time distortion and relativity wouldn't be a factor.

 

[Bluce Ree]

its still entertainment and it has no base in reality hence lobbed into the smae category.
imo if one takes life lessons, science facts etc etc from entertainment sources well there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you.

Warping space is a real theory scientists are exploring. It's a little more complex than shoving dilithium crystals into a fancy strobing tube and mixing matter / anti-matter a-la Star Trek but they've shown it is possible mathematically. On the other hand, lots of shit works in math (i.e. exotic matter that repels gravity) that isn't necessarily reproducible in practice but it's not just the stuff of sci-fi anymore.

This is a small article you may find interesting:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godand...p-drives-possible-definitely-maybe-in-theory/

It would allow matter to travel unthinkable distances at much faster than light speeds without breaking relativity.

Yeah, you can say it ... I'm a geek. I'll shut up now.

 

[shavedape]

The reason I'm nitpicking Star Trek in this regard is because it has always been presented as being genuinely science fiction. Over the years there have been books and TV shows on the science of Star Trek. Hell, I remember back in the 90's there was a book floating around by that name (I believe) and it purported to explain all the technical details of how warp engines work and transporters transport, etc. So, my issue is if the Star Trek shows (and movies of course) are so firmly anchored in science how can they make such preposterous claims for things like the transporter?

 

[SciphonicStranger]

The reason I'm nitpicking Star Trek in this regard is because it has always been presented as being genuinely science fiction. Over the years there have been books and TV shows on the science of Star Trek. Hell, I remember back in the 90's there was a book floating around by that name (I believe) and it purported to explain all the technical details of how warp engines work and transporters transport, etc. So, my issue is if the Star Trek shows (and movies of course) are so firmly anchored in science how can they make such preposterous claims for things like the transporter?

I just know I saw Michio Kaku explain how a transporter could work on one of those Science Channel shows. Can't remember which one now though.

 

[Joelist]

The reason I'm nitpicking Star Trek in this regard is because it has always been presented as being genuinely science fiction. Over the years there have been books and TV shows on the science of Star Trek. Hell, I remember back in the 90's there was a book floating around by that name (I believe) and it purported to explain all the technical details of how warp engines work and transporters transport, etc. So, my issue is if the Star Trek shows (and movies of course) are so firmly anchored in science how can they make such preposterous claims for things like the transporter?

The thing is a lot of Star Trek tech is more fantasy tech than Science Fiction in the sense of extrapolations of current tech. The Transporter and replicator are prime examples.

As to space folding FTL, not only is it the oldest type of FTL seen in Science Fiction but Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne (IIRC) have written on it before as a potential method that is more likely than ones involving hyperspace. Doesn't mean it is of course, but it does show that not everything in Sci Fi is made up and there just for giggles.

 

[shavedape]

The thing is a lot of Star Trek tech is more fantasy tech than Science Fiction in the sense of extrapolations of current tech. The Transporter and replicator are prime examples.

I can suspend disbelief with a premise like the warp drive thing, but that does get problematic when they do the bubble while in warp to account for the time discrepancy between the ships and Earth.

The have made plenty of stupid mistakes in terms of writing (even though they've had science advisers on the various shows) like when Dr. Crusher tells Geordi that they will be okay if they hold their breath while they vent all the oxygen into the vacuum of space from the part of the ship they are in to put out a fire. As stated by a guy at NASA that would kill them instantly due to depressurizing the area much like a submarine imploding (I hope I got that right).

Plus there are other minor mistakes that you'd think the writers could have avoided if they thought them out better to begin with.

 

[Bluce Ree]

The thing is a lot of Star Trek tech is more fantasy tech than Science Fiction in the sense of extrapolations of current tech. The Transporter and replicator are prime examples.

As to space folding FTL, not only is it the oldest type of FTL seen in Science Fiction but Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne (IIRC) have written on it before as a potential method that is more likely than ones involving hyperspace. Doesn't mean it is of course, but it does show that not everything in Sci Fi is made up and there just for giggles.

YES! Stephen Hawking came to mind but I couldn't remember Kip Thorne. Thanks for that.

I recently watched a show on Discovery Science dedicated to the science of warp drive and its feasibility for real life application. They were saying that the tech for such an endeavor was 100 years away. Funny thing, though, they're always saying stuff like that is "100 years away", including time travel. I think time travel is impossible because, IMO, time is nothing more than how we perceive the progression of events and not some dimension through which we can travel but I digress.

 

[Joelist]

Even with it being more like fantasy than science the warp drive at least is not a piece of "miracle" tech in that it does not provide an instant solution to most problems like the transporter does.

 

[Bluce Ree]

I can suspend disbelief with a premise like the warp drive thing, but that does get problematic when they do the bubble while in warp to account for the time discrepancy between the ships and Earth.

I think you're misunderstanding what warp drive is. There is no violation of relativity because faster than light travel by warping space involves no movement per se. You're not actually moving faster than light. You're bending space and bringing two vastly distant points close together. The warp bubble is merely a small area of space immediately around the ship that isn't warped.

The have made plenty of stupid mistakes in terms of writing (even though they've had science advisers on the various shows) like when Dr. Crusher tells Geordi that they will be okay if they hold their breath while they vent all the oxygen into the vacuum of space from the part of the ship they are in to put out a fire. As stated by a guy at NASA that would kill them instantly due to depressurizing the area much like a submarine imploding (I hope I got that right).

Plus there are other minor mistakes that you'd think the writers could have avoided if they thought them out better to begin with.