The Science of Star Trek vs the Magic of Star Wars - the 10 Year Flame War!

[Overmind One]

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.

100% of the erroneous part of his comments are coming from the fact that he is not really that up on hard science. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a fact. The element Lithium is not made up, so Dilithium at the most basic level conveys a diatomic isotope form of regular Lithium. This was inspired by the three forms of Hydrogen used in nuclear interactions (Hydrogen, Di-Hydrogen and Tritium). Antimatter particles, as you said, are actually quite easy to produce. Quite a large number of anti-protons are created in hydroelectric generators and even as the result of atmospheric lightning discharges. The issue is containing antimatter in a non-polarized field of some sort. Enough of it to sustain a controlled reaction (mediated by crystalline dilithium). I bet he does not know that Hydrogen is classified as a metal?

This just goes to show why Star Trek is different than Star Wars. In Star Wars, the epic story drives it completely. And I love it. But it is not at all science fiction and there is no science in it. Star Trek fans can easily see that Star Wars is fantasy and not scifi, but Star Wars fans do not get to turn to Star Trek and call it magic because they do not understand the science in Trek. No Trekkie ever uses the word "technobabble". Might as well call fuel cells "thingamajigs" or laser generators "doohickeys".

NOTE TO GATEFAN: Its way way okay not to know the hard science in Trek! It means absolutely nothing at all, except in the context of this argument. No insults intended and no "superior" or "inferior" implied.

 

[Overmind One]

Oh, I reject the name of this thread, it creates bias straight off the bat.

Okay, then I will change it. What do you suggest?

 

[Gatefan1976]

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.

Sigh.
I did not say it did.

Uninformed assumption.

No, it's not.

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.

The Theoretical is making a containment vessel.

You need to stop this because you're starting to sound ignorant.

I'm sorry, I'm not quoting Wiki.

*sigh*

That is not the Diltithium of ST, and you know it.

Please stop. Just stop.

Yes, just stop.

Geez, dude. I've never seen more ignorance thrown into a single thread asserted as fact as in this single post.

Tell me, enlighten me on what substance on Earth (not ones with the same name, but not the same properties) that can produce the containment field required to hold Fusion, let alone a stable Matter/Antimatter explosion and use it as a power source.
Don't tell me I am stupid, SHOW me and I'll back off.

 

[Overmind One]

That is not the Diltithium of ST, and you know it.

YES, it damned well is. Specifically, the crystalline form of it (which does not occur naturally on earth, but is thought to exist on very cold planetary bodies rich in Hydrogen like perhaps Titan or one of Neptune's moons or on Uranus. Dilithium is Dilithium. A gaseous solution of it is already used in industry (L02) or Dilithium Oxide. Dont like Wiki? Then how about the US National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST)?

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=12057-24-8

You really need to realize that you are just not going to win this one without being able to debate the hard science of it. You need to check the net before claiming that Dilithium is "made up" and also please brush up on antimatter particles and magnetic containment (that will give you an idea of the type of power needed to contain subatomic particles of any type)

Tell me, enlighten me on what substance on Earth (not ones with the same name, but not the same properties) that can produce the containment field required to hold Fusion, let alone a stable Matter/Antimatter explosion and use it as a power source.
Don't tell me I am stupid, SHOW me and I'll back off.

Substances do not generate fields stronger than what is needed for atomic cohesion. Only a device which amplifies the natural fields can do that (excitation). A magnetic field powerful enough to contain plasma wont work on antimatter because the fields are polarized. But a non polarized field might do it. Regardless of how it would ACTUALLY be done, the science of how to do it already exists and there is nothing magical about it.

 

[Overmind One]

For shits and giggles....

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ould-cut-mars-travel-from-6-months-to-6-weeks

Star Trek fans will definitely get a kick out of this: researchers are working on a fusion impulse engine that runs on real "dilithium crystals" to cut the travel time to Mars from six months to just six weeks.

A team from the University of Huntsville in Alabama said it is focusing on deuterium, a stable isotope of hydrogen, and Li6, a stable isotope of lithum, as fuel, according to a report on BusinessInsider.

"The fusion fuel we're focusing on is deuterium (and) Li6 in a crystal structure. That's basically dilithium crystals we're using," said team member and aerospace engineering PH.D. candidate Ross Cortez.

They added this is the kind of engine needed to propel humans outside low-Earth orbit and to Mars and beyond.
- See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...from-6-months-to-6-weeks#sthash.oWyHKN3W.dpuf

Star Trek +1

 

[Bluce Ree]

The Theoretical is making a containment vessel.

Oh, for the love of ...

http://singularityhub.com/2011/06/11/scientists-trap-antimatter-for-more-than-16-minutes-video/

I'm sorry, I'm not quoting Wiki.

Ok.

http://webmineral.com/data/Dilithium.shtml#.Vo9jcXUrLHw

That is not the Diltithium of ST, and you know it.

Yes, sure. In ST, dilithium was a rare element in the periodic table. In real life, it is a molecule made up of two lithium atoms. Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.

However:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ould-cut-mars-travel-from-6-months-to-6-weeks

Tell me, enlighten me on what substance on Earth (not ones with the same name, but not the same properties) that can produce the containment field required to hold Fusion, let alone a stable Matter/Antimatter explosion and use it as a power source.

Nothing holds fusion or an explosion. You might as well ask what kind of container can hold a nuclear explosion. If you mean containing antimatter, see the top of this reply and this:

http://home.cern/about/engineering/storing-antimatter

Don't tell me I am stupid, SHOW me and I'll back off.

Already done, more than once.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm simply pointing out that you're asserting misinformed nonsense. Let me give you an example you'll understand for you to see what I am seeing:

"Yes, a nuclear bomb is possible but in what would you carry the explosion?"

 

[Gatefan1976]

YES, it damned well is. Specifically, the crystalline form of it (which does not occur naturally on earth, but is thought to exist on very cold planetary bodies rich in Hydrogen like perhaps Titan or one of Neptune's moons or on Uranus.

Does not exist on Earth, might exist somewhere else. No proof it exists anywhere.

Dilithium is Dilithium. A gaseous solution of it is already used in industry (L02) or Dilithium Oxide.

NOT ST Dilithium.

Dont like Wiki? Then how about the US National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST)?

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=12057-24-8

Bunch of so called scientists looking for grant money

You really need to realize that you are just not going to win this one without being able to debate the hard science of it. You need to check the net before claiming that Dilithium is "made up" and also please brush up on antimatter particles and magnetic containment (that will give you an idea of the type of power needed to contain subatomic particles of any type)

SHOW ME we can contain the energy.
Not a theory, not something "we might have in a few hundred years".

Substances do not generate fields stronger than what is needed for atomic cohesion. Only a device which amplifies the natural fields can do that (excitation).

Right.

A magnetic field powerful enough to contain plasma wont work on antimatter because the fields are polarized. But a non polarized field might do it. Regardless of how it would ACTUALLY be done, the science of how to do it already exists and there is nothing magical about it.

So, you don't know how it could work, or if it is even possible, correct?

 

[Overmind One]

Does not exist on Earth, might exist somewhere else. No proof it exists anywhere.

NOT ST Dilithium.

Huh? That is a nonsensical statement. Dilithium is an isotope of an actual real life element. It is an isotope of element 3 in the Periodic Table. There is no "Star Trek Dilithium". There is Dilithium, used in Star Trek. Specifically crystalline Dilithium. Only that form is not found in nature on earth naturally. But it could probably be created in a lab of the near future.

Bunch of so called scientists looking for grant money

SHOW ME we can contain the energy.
Not a theory, not something "we might have in a few hundred years".

More nonsense? Dude, if any of it was real right now we would be using it. . There are already plans for the aerospace plane. There are computer models for it which have been used in flight simulations and virtual materials testing at Boeing and Northrop Grumman. But no prototypes exist. You still need to see a working prototype in order to accept that the science for them is sound?

So, you don't know how it could work, or if it is even possible, correct?

Please see above. You don't get it dude! I’m not just saying that to bust your balls or shut you down, but your arguments are just not valid with regard to the science.

 

[Overmind One]

Oh, for the love of ...

http://singularityhub.com/2011/06/11/scientists-trap-antimatter-for-more-than-16-minutes-video/



Ok.

http://webmineral.com/data/Dilithium.shtml#.Vo9jcXUrLHw



Yes, sure. In ST, dilithium was a rare element in the periodic table. In real life, it is a molecule made up of two lithium atoms. Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.

However:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ould-cut-mars-travel-from-6-months-to-6-weeks



Nothing holds fusion or an explosion. You might as well ask what kind of container can hold a nuclear explosion. If you mean containing antimatter, see the top of this reply and this:

http://home.cern/about/engineering/storing-antimatter



Already done, more than once.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm simply pointing out that you're asserting misinformed nonsense. Let me give you an example you'll understand for you to see what I am seeing:

"Yes, a nuclear bomb is possible but in what would you carry the explosion?"

You got the link about the dilithium drive I posted too!

 

[Gatefan1976]

Oh, for the love of ...

http://singularityhub.com/2011/06/11/scientists-trap-antimatter-for-more-than-16-minutes-video/

I am not denying the existence of Antimatter. I am asking if we can -use- it.

Ok.

http://webmineral.com/data/Dilithium.shtml#.Vo9jcXUrLHw



Yes, sure. In ST, dilithium was a rare element in the periodic table. In real life, it is a molecule made up of two lithium atoms. Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.

Does it have the properties of ST dilithium?
If the answer is no, it's not Tomato-tomahto, it is a separate thing, like calling Pot plant's "tomatoes" is not the same thing as growing tomatoes.

However:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ould-cut-mars-travel-from-6-months-to-6-weeks

"Real Dilithium"
"Basically Dilithium"
"long way off"
"potentially the payoff"
= Not ST dilithium.
Sorry.

Nothing holds fusion or an explosion. You might as well ask what kind of container can hold a nuclear explosion.

If you cannot contain your energy source, such as Petrol, Steam and even fission, it's useless as a power source.
I'm not ragging on people -trying- to make it work, quite the opposite, I hope they get it to work, but it is still -theoretical-.

If you mean containing antimatter, see the top of this reply and this:

http://home.cern/about/engineering/storing-antimatter

What am I supposed to be responding to?

Already done, more than once.

No, you post theories, not realities.
If I theorise that a human may some day be able to control their -natural bio-electric field-, does that make it "more likely'?
I HAVE A THEORY!!!

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm simply pointing out that you're asserting misinformed nonsense. Let me give you an example you'll understand for you to see what I am seeing:

"Yes, a nuclear bomb is possible but in what would you carry the explosion?"

No, I asked what you would use to -use- the energy release in a practical manner.
These are not the same thing dude.

 

[Overmind One]

I am not denying the existence of Antimatter. I am asking if we can -use- it.


Does it have the properties of ST dilithium?
If the answer is no, it's not Tomato-tomahto, it is a separate thing, like calling Pot plant's "tomatoes" is not the same thing as growing tomatoes.

"Real Dilithium"
"Basically Dilithium"
"long way off"
"potentially the payoff"
= Not ST dilithium.
Sorry.


If you cannot contain your energy source, such as Petrol, Steam and even fission, it's useless as a power source.
I'm not ragging on people -trying- to make it work, quite the opposite, I hope they get it to work, but it is still -theoretical-.

What am I supposed to be responding to?



No, you post theories, not realities.
If I theorise that a human may some day be able to control their -natural bio-electric field-, does that make it "more likely'?
I HAVE A THEORY!!!

No, I asked what you would use to -use- the energy release in a practical manner.
These are not the same thing dude.

So now, you have forgotten that we are talking about science FICTION and you are asking us to show you an actual antimatter containment field or an actual crystal of dilithium or post links to actual examples of warp drive engines? NONE of the stuff in Star Trek exists in real life...yet. But science says that much of it SHOULD be possible, and much of what was only science fiction in Star Trek TOS is actual scientific fact today. No amount of time is going to allow science to give us the Force or a lightsaber because physics and science has no path to get us there, even theoretically.

 

[Gatefan1976]

So now, you have forgotten that we are talking about science FICTION and you are asking us to show you an actual antimatter containment field or an actual crystal of dilithium or post links to actual examples of warp drive engines? NONE of the stuff in Star Trek exists in real life...yet. But science says that much of it SHOULD be possible, and much of what was only science fiction in Star Trek TOS is actual scientific fact today. No amount of time is going to allow science to give us the Force or a lightsaber because physics and science has no path to get us there, even theoretically.

No, I have -never- forgotten that we are talking about FICTION.

 

[Bluce Ree]

SHOW ME we can contain the energy.

Dude, seriously. What energy do you want to contain? Are you sure you're even asking the right questions here?

How do you "contain" an electrical current? (note the word "current")
How do you "contain" a nuclear reaction?
How do you "contain" energy from igniting gasoline?

Energy is released, not contained, via a reaction. Gasoline contains stored energy. Plutonium contains stored energy. Matter and antimatter contain stored energy. They release the energy through a chain reaction.

You're asking questions that make no sense. Your questions are in essence equivalent to this:

"SHOW ME a glurb mot burg traglabam."

 

[Bluce Ree]

... and you are asking us to show you an actual antimatter containment field ...

Already exists. I posted it up there.

http://home.cern/about/engineering/storing-antimatter

 

[Bluce Ree]

If you cannot contain your energy source,

You're not illiterate. Did you bother to read the CERN link at all or did you just skim over it and assume it was just theoretical nonsense?

I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with someone who barely knows Antimatter from Aunty May.

such as Petrol, Steam and even fission, it's useless as a power source.
I'm not ragging on people -trying- to make it work, quite the opposite, I hope they get it to work, but it is still -theoretical-.

What am I supposed to be responding to?

Ok. You must be doing this on purpose to bust my balls now. I refuse to believe I'm arguing with someone having the IQ of a rusted bucket. You're usually well read when you come in and argue a topic. This time, it feels like you're just pulling things straight from your ass and making things up as you go along.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Already exists. I posted it up there.

http://home.cern/about/engineering/storing-antimatter

Dude, that's a atomic particle, and it is a good start, but it in -no way- says we can do it on a functional level.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Dude, that's a atomic particle, and it is a good start, but it in -no way- says we can do it on a functional level.

Geezus Krist. Please don't be this stupid. Read the article. It's about *containing* the damn things, which you've been asking over and over and over and over again in this thread.

I'm really hoping there's a "taa-daaa!" moment at the end of this thread with you admitting you're just pulling our legs for the f*ck of it. I KNOW you're smarter than this.

 

[Overmind One]

Dude, that's a atomic particle, and it is a good start, but it in -no way- says we can do it on a functional level.

Antimatter has already been contained for 16 minutes:

http://singularityhub.com/2011/06/11/scientists-trap-antimatter-for-more-than-16-minutes-video/

Bluce already posted it. Please read it.

 

[Overmind One]

You say you want to see a REAL antimatter containment system? Here it is at CERN. It's the one that was used to contain antimatter for 16 minutes.:

 

[Bluce Ree]

You say you want to see a REAL antimatter containment system? Here it is at CERN. It's the one that was used to contain antimatter for 16 minutes.:

View attachment 32411

Note the use of magnetic fields to contain the antimatter, much like in ST.

I know you're not a big supporter of CERN but I'm hoping that maybe things like this may help you see the value of what they do.