Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
I never claimed otherwise. However, it still doesn't contradict what I said.
The Science of Star Trek vs the Magic of Star Wars - the 10 Year Flame War!
- Thread starter Gatefan1976
- Start date
I never claimed otherwise. However, it still doesn't contradict what I said.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
So am I. I'm simply responding to your incessant need to draw equivalence to the two, like the warp drive is magic example.
Why do you feel that way? When somebody says that to me, it usually means that I do not understand something or I don't understand it the same way as they do. It isn't meant to be an insult
. I have no problem deferring when somebody knows something that I don't know. I will not argue when I do not have an argument. 
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Erm............. I don'tSo am I. I'm simply responding to your incessant need to draw equivalence to the two, like the warp drive is magic example.
I said in the other thread ST: Scifi SW: Space fantasy.
What I -am- doing is pointing out that ST is not the holy grail of Sci-fi and does not -not- have "magic elements" in it.
That's all.
What get's done with that basic statement -also- annoys me because it becomes "you just don't get it", and it's bullcrap.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Because it is said in -wilful- ignorance OM, that's why.Why do you feel that way? When somebody says that to me, it usually means that I do not understand something or I don't understand it the same way as they do. It isn't meant to be an insult
Go back and -read- what you say, and pay attention to the tone of the language you use. You continually assume that there is something "I just don't get" about trek, and I can assure you, I -get- trek, but you refuse to accept it, no matter how many times I say it.
I -know- trek, I -know- SW, I -know- SG, a know -plenty- of other sci fi and fantasy shows as well. Some I have read far beyond just what is on the screen, simply because the stories interest me, and quite frankly, it pisses me off that you ignore that, no matter how many times I say it.
It's not the -attempt- to educate me I am annoyed with, it is the assumption that I need it. If I had a problem or question that played into a field of knowledge I did not know about, I would not be miffed if you answered, I'd be grateful.
Dude, it's because of what you keep saying over and over that I keep saying you "don't get it". Every time you claim that anything in Star Trek (save the Q) is "magic" as opposed to "improbable technology" proves you don't get it. Every time you stretch to try and find science in Star Wars proves you don't get it, and every time you compare the two as though they can be compared proves you don't get it. Then I say it directly to you...you don't quite get it.
I don't get lots of stuff, but science and Trek are not among those things.You keep claiming the same things and saying the same things. Why do you expect a different response to them? I am still not over you saying that science and religion can peacefully co-exist, and are basically the same thing (and you DID argue that). You tried in this thread to make a claim that lightsabers could be explained using scientific means. Then when it is pointed out as magic, you try to stretch into Trek and find magic in warp drive, transporters and the like, saying that they are magic instead of saying that they are technological ideas which are not really probable (and in some cases impossible like time travel and anything involving the Q or other similar beings in Trek, which I agree are magical). I see Q as being 100% magical and fantasy, but not warp drive or transporters, even though both are probably impossible. I can explain why I differentiate them in the way I do.
Okay, but you are the one who usually starts these little tete a tetes.
I say something regarding the magic and fantasy in Star Wars, then you counter with a comment about magic being in Trek (other than the Q), in an effort to make a case for BOTH of them being magic and fantasy. You are always going to lose that argument. If you say that Q is magical, I will not argue because he simply is magical. If you claim that warp drive is as magical as Q or as the Force, you are going to get an argument. I refuse to believe you do not pick your arguments and choose to have them.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Your false assumption is that I think SW -has- explained science, I never have. It's a Epic tale, in the Joseph Campbell sense in that it holds resonance with people because it the story, no matter the "furniture" used to tell it. All I have said is SW -has- inspired people to make actual tech, these are NOT the same thing dude!! "I saw SW as a kid, and now I am an engineer trying to make droids!!" That is Inspiration. People see things in TV and movies, and it -inspires- them to do stuff. This is not GF "Devil's advocate" crap, this is the actual truth.Dude, it's because of what you keep saying over and over that I keep saying you "don't get it". Every time you claim that anything in Star Trek (save the Q) is "magic" as opposed to "improbable technology" proves you don't get it. Every time you stretch to try and find science in Star Wars proves you don't get it, and every time you compare the two as though they can be compared proves you don't get it. Then I say it directly to you...you don't quite get it.
You -keep- thinking I am comparing them for "scientific accuracy", I'm not, never have, never will. Pointing out that ST has "magic bits" in it, is NOT comparing them, it is pointing out that your "bastion of Science" is just as full of shit as the next thing.
I said they could co-exist, I did not say they were the same.
No, I did not. I only brought in lightsabres to show that science can be inspired by a FANTASY work, something -you- categorically said was impossible. You made a claim, I said it was bullshit, then proved it. Lightsabres -as shown in SW- are as unlikely as Warp Drives -as shown in ST-.
How you choose to explain them to yourself is fine, but -you- are picking on SW, something that never claimed to be Sci-fi, and saying it is "magic". ALL I am doing is showing you that ST has -just as much- magic in it. Near every element that is used to achieve the storytelling of Trek, at it's most basic level is bullshit, and you -know- it.
How's this, we take out the word "magic" and replace it with "impossible"
Warp drive -as seen in ST- Impossible
Transporters -as seen in ST- Impossible
Proto black hole's being used as a power source -as seen in trek- Impossible
Artificial gravity -as seen in ST- Impossible.
You can theorise about all this all you want, but the end result, the ones shown in ST are impossible.
Call them any word you want dude, I really don't care.
Nope, I respond to false assumptions.Okay, but you are the one who usually starts these little tete a tetes.
No, I don't, and that is the root cause of your misconception. I get shirty because you don't just "make a comment", you pass judgement on the value of something because it does not fit inside your preferences, then tend to extrapolate based on that misconception.
"SW is a fantasy epic" will draw no comment from me.
"ST is superior to SW because it is rooted in science" will get comments because it is ignorant, and arrogant.
"ST is superior to SW because I like it more" will get no comment either.
Warp drive -as shown in ST- is as -improbable- as a Lightsabre -as shown in SW-.If you say that Q is magical, I will not argue because he simply is magical. If you claim that warp drive is as magical as Q or as the Force, you are going to get an argument. I refuse to believe you do not pick your arguments and choose to have them.
You are right, I do pick my arguments, but I am not motivated by the "need" to argue with people.
I think it is important to say that I LOVE Star Wars. I also love Harry Potter, Bewitched, Lord of the Rings etc. But I never once forget they are fantasy with no science. Harry Potter actually put rules on the magic which is why I like it so much. So did Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie. But shows like the Bionic Woman and the Six Million Dollar Man and even V are science fiction, however implausible the science. I can clearly explain why Wonder Woman is pure magic whilst the Bionic Woman is not.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I'm making a point about the reality of either Bluce.
I need to re-assess some things I think.
That was a good argument. I could nitpick, but you actually make a good argument for your position there and I have no issues with it.
You compared them and *implied* they were two sides of the same coin...almost convincingly, I might add...almost.
Okay, here is one where you "don't get it" in terms of science. The principle of warp drive is scientifically sound. Definitely outside of the realm of possibility using today's technology, but scientifically sound. Warping space allows for the existing Einsteinian physics models to remain intact whilst still allowing the "lightspeed barrier" to be surpassed. The "speed" achieved is directly proportional to the amount of warping, with the limit being a "fold" in space which allows the object folding space to instantaneously occupy any point in space without moving. Lightsabers violate all aspects of science and physics, and there is no way to get there. Let me give it a shot...the device we see in Star Wars generates a glowing "bolt" of plasma/matter/light which is held within a finite form by a handheld generator. Mkay, it sounds about right, but there is that pesky issue about magnetic fields and generating the plasma/energy from that little handle. If that lightsaber handle could generate the lightsword thing, then it would make an even more powerful directed energy weapon, powerful enough to slice through a space cruiser from the surface of the planet. Then, you have to explain why such compact power technology would be wasted on a dumb glowing sword.
There you go...you asked for this: You don't get it.
There is NOT just as much magic in Star Trek. Star Wars is 100% fantasy/magic with ZERO science in it. Star Trek *does* have some magic in it, but not very much. If I had to put a percentage on it, I would say about 2%. The rest of the fiction is SCIENCE fiction and not magic. By definition, that already proves that there is not as much magic in Star Trek as there is in Star Wars. Take a look at this gif...it's two Jedi using a magical force to fight with each other, with no technology involved.
Now look at this gif. We see armor "magically" appearing on Voyager.
Why is the Voyager gif science fiction and ObiWan and Anakin's gif magical? It's because even though Voyager's ablative armor technology is not anywhere near possible given our understandings, in Star Trek, we have replicator technology which is based partially on a branch of transporter technology which is made possible by the power generation technology of warp drive All of those have been given a science based fictional function and purpose in Star Trek. Those armor plates are materialized onto the ship using technology in a science fiction universe. If Q had put them there, it would be magic.
Better than calling them magic.
It makes a big difference. Thank you.I never said ST was "superior". I simply said it requires more than just a casual viewer seeking simple entertainment to "get it". I could sit and watch a game of cricket or lacrosse and I would be clueless because I have absolutely no idea how those games are played or what any of the rules are. I have never seen either of them played in my entire life. I might get it if I read up on the game and watched a lot more of them, and I might even understand styles and strategies and tactics if I studied and watch even more. I would have it down pat if I actually PLAYED those games myself.
Bolded = wrong. Warp drive is within the realm of future possibility, and does not violate the laws of physics. It just remains out of reach. Lightsabers fall outside the realm of scientific principles just as the Force does, and like Harry Potter's magic wand does. You are not motivated by a need to argue, no not at all. Seriously. BUT, you do enjoy arguing. Some of them are actually quite invigorating.
Others...
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I could go on as well, but thank you
Nope, nope, nope.You compared them and *implied* they were two sides of the same coin...almost convincingly, I might add...almost.
Why do you never -ASK- for clarification before going on the offense?
Yes, the -theory- is sound, but there is no catalyst known to man that could convert it from theory to reality. NONE. Todays best scientists admit that while they can understand the theory of warp drive, they -need- another element to "make it so".
Lacking that material, no matter how well you understand the theory, it is still -impossible-.
You keep thinking I am stumbling on "block A", but really, I'm not.
Yes, it allows for the physical object (the ship) to maintain a tolerable "real world" speed that circumvents the effect of G forces. It moves the -space- at speeds that we are not capable of handling on our physical forms, and not the vessel.
Again, I understand the concept.
Why can I not have a "catalyst" just like Dilithium that -allows- this breaking of physics?
Yes, Lightsabers have a "hokey jedi effect" that stops them from being planet slicing beams, but what stops ST phasers from doing the same thing? There are several examples of phasers being used as "drills" in ST, especially in TNG.
Incorrect.There you go...you asked for this: You don't get it.
SW does not explain it's tech because the story, the "epic" is more important, it is what makes it by definition Space Fantasy. ST however spends some of it's time -trying- to explain it's tech, which pushes it further into the realm of Science fiction. I have already said this multiple times. In addition, SW is what, 16 hours long in total? Maybe 50 hours including TCW and Rebels?
That's less air time than TNG dude, in the same timeframe as the 12 movies and 6 series of ST!!
That's not a figure you can ignore!!
I never made that claim!! I -have- said it's tech has just as much fantasy, yes, but not the stories.
View attachment 32407
[/quote]
Yep, that's some TK force battle going on.
If I -could- theoretically explain TK, would it be magic, or reality?
Don't say "it's not possible", cause you are about to admit that the Armour is impossible, but focus on the question. IF,IF I could explain it, would TK become reality?
So, the impossible tech, made by the impossible power generator, made a real thing?
No, the only difference is in your head.Better than calling them magic.
Wave wand = Magic
Push button, spout bullshit = Tech
And yet, you continue to say, I don't get it.
Theoretically, no.
Practically, YES.
It -always- will be, Sorry.
I -do- enjoy discussing things, yes, because it stops people from living in a "cave".Lightsabers fall outside the realm of scientific principles just as the Force does, and like Harry Potter's magic wand does. You are not motivated by a need to argue, no not at all. Seriously. BUT, you do enjoy arguing. Some of them are actually quite invigorating.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Look, I get what you're saying but you took extremes to make your point. You tried to make magic out of things based on scientific theory and science out of things that were impossible.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
How does warp drive "practically" violate the laws of physics?
Replication is impossible tech? See, this is what I mean. At the very least brush up on some of the existing science and theoretical sciences before bombing a thread with counter-arguments just to make an opposing point.
The idea behind replication is to rearrange matter at the molecular and atomic level to make something into something else. This is not "impossible". We already do it now with certain materials using chemical processes and 3D printing.
As for your "impossible power generator", you're talking about matter antimatter based energy production. Theoretically, it is possible, just not with our current technology or capabilities.
Remember that nuclear energy was once thought impossible. Einstein himself had originally claimed it was impossible before it was discovered that bombarding uranium with neutrons would cause a chain reaction that drives itself at increasing rates to finally produce an explosion of nuclear energy.
To give you an idea, nuclear fission converts about 0.4% of rest mass into energy. Matter antimatter annihilation converts 200%, roughly 500 times more powerful. We can already create antimatter, just not very efficiently ... yet.
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
I am now really convinced that everyone needs to consider my "STEM type person-typology vs the non STEM" as a likely explanation for our inability to communicate effectively on this topic-this is the core point of this post
this is "aside":
I know NO ONE here takes me seriously on anything; because I liked nuBSG? because I am a retired soldier?--do those somehow equal I am an idiot? Or is it my- liberal- use- of punctuation;?
Whatever the reason, no matter how much info on any topic I can cite off the top of my head (read=not doing a google search and then presenting that as "what I know") that can be shown to be correct/factual, it seems to be that what I say or a few others say is somehow inferior to what other members say
that is, those STEM ppl here tend to downplay what the (assumed to be by me) non STEM ppl say
it is no reason for division, but rather, to understand that ppl are different and have varied levels of motivation based on the topic-doesn't mean someone is 'wrong or right' IN PARTICULAR when speaking on matters of fiction!
to be less fuzzy
STEM ppl--OM1, BLUCE, JIM,JOESLIST,mzzz(if still even 'here')
NON STEM me, shaved, azaliozor, gateboarder, and,guessing so far ECGORDON
thats off the top of my head and IMO
let me know if I am wrong--and know that if you are non stem that does not mean you do not know/understand science/math concepts- you just do not 'appreciate' them as much as the social sciences or liberal arts areas and vice versa
have a nice day! I am thinking of deleting this thread since it has gone WAYYYYYY off topic and is only causing silly arguments-remember the trailer?
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Are you trying to give me a heart attack?
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
There can be some science in urban fantasy. The fantasy television show Lost Girl had some science in it, but it was fundamentally a fantasy show instead of a science fiction show.
Since rural fantasy tends to mostly be stories about farmer's daughters, rural fantasy tends to only have those elements of science in it that are related to human sexuality.
Star Wars contains some superscience elements like FTL travel and interstellar spaceships, but the primary focus is the conflict of man against his fellow man. In Star Trek, the primary focus is the superscience elements, but Star Trek is written by people who know less science than an attentive middle school pupil. Star Wars is better entertainment, but there are troubling aspects like the salvation of Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.
Since rural fantasy tends to mostly be stories about farmer's daughters, rural fantasy tends to only have those elements of science in it that are related to human sexuality.
West Virginia Folk Story said:
Star Wars contains some superscience elements like FTL travel and interstellar spaceships, but the primary focus is the conflict of man against his fellow man. In Star Trek, the primary focus is the superscience elements, but Star Trek is written by people who know less science than an attentive middle school pupil. Star Wars is better entertainment, but there are troubling aspects like the salvation of Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Not the theory, the power source.
Yes, it is possible, I did not say anything about replication tech, I am talking -purely- about the energy requirements.
Yes, it is theoretically possible, so is flipping a coin a million times and having them all land heads up. The actual probability of us making a stable matter/antimatter reactor (not just producing antimatter) is so minute as to render it "virtually impossible". Then of course you have to contend with containing the power.
Yes, but Uranium is a know element on earth, we -have- the catalyst right here. Star trek uses dilithium, an unknown, made up element. This is not a question of experimentation and trial and error, it is a question of not having the material -at all-.
Yes we can, but we don't have the catalysing agent required to make it function as seen in trek. We have the material on Earth to create Fusion, yet that too we are no closer to making that a reality either.[/quote]
Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
Oh, I reject the name of this thread, it creates bias straight off the bat.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Matter antimatter annihilation doesn't violate any laws of physics. It fits in there quite well. You actually replied to my summary description comparing it to nuclear reactions below.
Uninformed assumption.
Matter antimatter annihilation isn't a throw of the dice, dude. In fact, we can make it and it has been tested. The "theoretical" part is using it as a stable energy source, which is not that far fetched. The only thing stopping us right now from using it in practical application is making it in significant quantities efficiently and controlling its flow.
You need to stop this because you're starting to sound ignorant.
*sigh*
Please stop. Just stop.
Geez, dude. I've never seen more ignorance thrown into a single thread asserted as fact as in this single post.
