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

[Overmind One]

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.

I hate them because they are a money pit for grant money. Their work could be done at a much smaller, more efficient facility with far fewer useless eaters on staff than CERN has at the moment. What has happened to NASA because of SpaceX needs to happen in physics.

 

[Gatefan1976]

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?

You cannot contain it on a level that is USEFUL

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

I am wondering If I am arguing with someone who does not know the difference between theory and fact.

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.

What am I pulling from my ass?
YOU, I will give the benefit of the doubt here, but I -honestly- do not know what you and OM are getting your knickers in a twist over.
Everything we are discussing here is, to a degree -theoretical-. It's NOT real, and even todays -best physicists- say that the core principle that drives Trek -all but unlimited power generation-, is a pipe dream. Every technical advance in trek that you guys are arguing -relies- on that power source. Shields, Engines, Holographics, Replication, Teleportation, they ALL need the power source that even theoretically we may never achieve, and may not even be possible!
Like any fan of Trek, I'd love for it to be possible, but taking my fan shades off, I cannot help but notice that damn near every "hard science" site says that the tech of trek is simply not possible outside the realm of theory.

 

[Gatefan1976]

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.

CERN, and such places as it are where we will move closer to turning theory into reality.

 

[Overmind One]

You cannot contain it on a level that is USEFUL

I am wondering If I am arguing with someone who does not know the difference between theory and fact.

Yep, that would be yourself you are talking about. OF COURSE we cannot yet contain antimatter in a manner like Star Trek because the technology is in it's infancy. Why are you even trying to demand to see examples of technology which has not even been developed and put into practice yet??? It does not make sense. Today, antimatter is used at CERN and other labs (since the late 1950s) in experiments. Please do not ask to see working transporters or force fields or phasers either.

What am I pulling from my ass?

"Dilithium is made up"
"Warp drive is magic"

YOU, I will give the benefit of the doubt here, but I -honestly- do not know what you and OM are getting your knickers in a twist over.

Im twisted over the fact that you chose to argue science and your knowledge within it is very thin. Instead of being informed or in learning mode, you have chosen to argue your point within science and you are unfamiliar with hard scientific principles or theory. Nobody says that makes you stupid.

Everything we are discussing here is, to a degree -theoretical-. It's NOT real, and even todays -best physicists- say that the core principle that drives Trek -all but unlimited power generation-, is a pipe dream. Every technical advance in trek that you guys are arguing -relies- on that power source. Shields, Engines, Holographics, Replication, Teleportation, they ALL need the power source that even theoretically we may never achieve, and may not even be possible!
Like any fan of Trek, I'd love for it to be possible, but taking my fan shades off, I cannot help but notice that damn near every "hard science" site says that the tech of trek is simply not possible outside the realm of theory.

This is an example of ass pulling of facts. The "unlimited power generation" is not in Star Trek. ALL power sources within Star Trek are limited. Every system in every starship is limited. The Dilithium can be recrystallized in TNG-era Trek, but not before that. Still there is the plasma and the antimatter which is not generated on the ship. And the second bolded proves you are unaware of the theory behind matter/antimatter reactors because if you were, you would know that the science says it IS theoretically possible. We are moving towards it as a reality right now and the antimatter containment system at CERN as well as the development of crystalline Dilithium in earth labs is also progressing. Articles have been posted in THIS thread proving that, yet you are still here claiming it "may not be possible". Then, you claim that "damn near every hard science site says...". Really? What hard science sites? I am familiar with a large number of them and I belong to many of them. I want to verify what you are saying. Where are your links?

 

[Bluce Ree]

You cannot contain it on a level that is USEFUL

Wtf are you talking about? Do you realize you're asking questions that don't make sense or do you think we're just being arrogant and harsh on you?

If I ask you, "What part of sandwich is Australia on and do they the?", should I get upset and assume you're being arrogant because you don't have an answer for me or refuse to accept my question as coherent?

I am wondering If I am arguing with someone who does not know the difference between theory and fact.

Bye. Enjoy your thread full of "How do you kaflurb the magooka baloo?"

Love ya brother and I have a lot of respect for you but I'm feeling really bad watching you twist around in this thread trying to sound coherent by hodge podging terms and non-sequiturs on matters a bit beyond your knowledge base, which I know you could easily overcome and effectively argue (if even from a layman's POV) if you actually did a little reading.

 

[Overmind One]

Wtf are you talking about? Do you realize you're asking questions that don't make sense or do you think we're just being arrogant and harsh on you?

If I ask you, "What part of sandwich is Australia on and do they the?", should I get upset and assume you're being arrogant because you don't have an answer for me or refuse to accept my question as coherent?



Bye. Enjoy your thread full of "How do you kaflurb the magooka baloo?"

Love ya brother and I have a lot of respect for you but I'm feeling really bad watching you twist around in this thread trying to sound coherent by hodge podging terms and non-sequiturs on matters a bit beyond your knowledge base, which I know you could easily overcome and effectively argue (if even from a layman's POV) if you actually did a little reading.

"How do you kaflurb the magooka baloo?"

 

[Overmind One]

Okay, the argument of science in Star Trek is going nowhere with the Star Wars participants here. What about Star Wars science? The concept of the midichlorians is really sort of inventive, even if totally lost on Star Wars fans.

Midichlorians in the Star Wars prequels are a sentient community of symbiotic organelles which help convey the Force. The number of them within an individual increases their Force powers. I hope I got this right.

This concept was inspired by the real life symbiotic organelles in multicellular organisms called mitochondria. It is believed that mitochondria were once independent organisms, but evolution within animal cells has made them organelles which are dependent on their hosts for food and reproduction. They have their own DNA which is independent of the organism's DNA, but mitochondria cannot live outside of host cells. The mitochondria provide energy for the cells and they fuel the cellular reproductive process.



The fans of Star Wars likely do not generally know much about biology or mitochondria (my guess?), so a Midichlorian has no meaning for them. Besides that, they DESPISE the prequels. Other than that, I want to know if any Star wars fans have any science-y feelings about anything in Star Wars, or if any of the magical things within it "bother" them?

 

[Overmind One]

CERN, and such places as it are where we will move closer to turning theory into reality.

It is past the theory phase. We are in applications now. The issue is containment of large amounts of antimatter. It is very easy to generate antihydrogen, antiprotons and anti-electrons (positrons). It's not so easy to "build" atoms from those subatomic particles just yet but that is coming along. Beams of anti-hydrogen were fired in an accelerator CERN last year:

http://press.web.cern.ch/press-rele...first-beam-antihydrogen-atoms-hyperfine-study

What is needed to move towards the matter/antimatter reactors in Trek:

• Antimatter fuel (must be an anti-atom. you cannot have an efficient reaction with just anti-protons or positrons)
• Antimatter containment devices (magnetic, force neutral)
• Flow regulation device (magnetic constrictors? dilithium? other mediating material or device?)
• Matter fuel (for the other side of the reaction). Plasma is used in Trek for this.
• Reactor containment (the reaction can't blow apart the reactor!)

This is before we can even talk about how the heat and other radiation is used for stuff like engines and systems. But the power output would be off the scale as far as what is available today, even in today's most advanced fission reactors.

None of this shit is imaginary or magical, and all of it is theoretically possible and within the laws of physics.

 

[Joelist]

Plus Star Wars fans got angry over the whole Midichlorian concept, feeling there was zero need for a biological explanation of how the Force operates.

I'm not counting the ones who for some weird reason want to call Star Wars Science Fiction - most of its fans know full well it is fantasy and are fine with that. It's one reason the new film has gone over well with the fans - it utterly ignores the prequels and everything they introduced.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Plus Star Wars fans got angry over the whole Midichlorian concept, feeling there was zero need for a biological explanation of how the Force operates.

I'm not counting the ones who for some weird reason want to call Star Wars Science Fiction - most of its fans know full well it is fantasy and are fine with that. It's one reason the new film has gone over well with the fans - it utterly ignores the prequels and everything they introduced.

I did not mind the Midichloran concept. How else could one say that one person was stronger in the Force than another, if there was no way to quantify one's ability with the Force?

 

[Joelist]

I remember only too well the reaction at the time, and it was not positive.

Really you don't need a precise scientific reason why one person is stronger in the Force than another. The evidence of their strength is apparent in what they can do. And in a fantasy world exact "why" explanations are secondary to how it operates within the narrative. It's like devising a microbiology explanation for why Merlin was the most powerful wizard in the legend of Arthur - none is needed.

 

[YJ02]

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

"Trek-Wars"

or

"The danger of being over zealous and uber geeky;a cautionary tale"

 

[YJ02]

What you are not acknowledging is that Star Trek inspired the further work on warp drive theory. Just like it inspired the Bluetooth headset, the flip cellphone, the Tablet, flat screen displays, reconfigurable (menu driven) screens and even transparent aluminum (yes, it exists now). Star Wars cannot inspire science. No fake soapfi can, and neither can fantasy.



NASA is not the pinnacle of the scientific world dude. The best scientists are in the public sector, not at NASA wasting public resources on manmade global warming models or watching the private companies perform their paid experiments on the International Space Station which they only partially administer (and own). NASA does noit get to say what is possible or not. Only science does, and the best of science is not working at NASA.



I will not argue with anyone regarding transporters, but PERSONALLY, I think they are nonsense not because of the technology of disassembling matter in a controlled fashion and reassembling it, but because of the trans-physical properties of living beings like neuroelectric energy and the higher brain functions. I think that energizing the brain tissue would have the same effect as electrocution and that all existing neurochemical activity would be lost in the transport. That is just MY personal thought on it. The body NEVER gets a "reboot" from the moment of conception. It stays "on" continuously for the entire length of your life without ever really "rebooting". It only goes into a less active sleep state (forgive my computer thinking on this ). Transporting a being with a living brain would kill it IMO.



There it is. The red bolded marks you as somebody who really does not know or care about the differences. Relax, you are in the majority. Star Trek fans are way more picky, and about the same picky things we pick out in Star Trek. I don't always just want to be entertained. Sometimes I want to be challenged. Sometimes I want to be inspired. You can get all of that in Star Trek, but only entertainment from Star Wars. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.

there are more stories/shows/movies that can "inspire" or "challenge" then just trek

and inspiration and challenge need not be only from tangible or visible on screen things-the intangible/unseen, or things left "just because" without on screen explanation, can equally challenge a person in other ways/fields

just because we all don't get woodies from watching the hum and glow of the nacelles in Trek doesn't mean we are not provoked to thought by other, non scientific elements
---again,an appreciation of diff personality/aptitude types is needed here to get what I am saying--but a problem with STEM ppl is that they tend to believe there is only ONE personality/aptitude type and that every one is a "STEMy" just to different levels or degrees of competency

*****would you have wanted your history or english comp teacher teaching you physics or chemistry in HS/college?

probably not--they were most likely not qualified to do so as the physics and chem teachers were not qual'd to teach comp or history

none of that however, means that any one of those teachers were better then any other-they were all specialists in their chosen fields. fields which their typologies/aptitudes led them to choose to spec. in.****

 

[YJ02]

can anyone tell me when we saw Kirk-HIMSELF-use any hard science? Not 'command' someone to do it, but to carry out the procedure on his own

 

[YJ02]

Im twisted over the fact that you chose to argue science and your knowledge within it is very thin. Instead of being informed or in learning mode, you have chosen to argue your point within science and you are unfamiliar with hard scientific principles or theory. Nobody says that makes you stupid.

Shall we just leave you and BLUCE to it then?

Don't see any value in watching to deeep fan boys going back and forth over who loves Trek the most

would be like an rifle manufacturer and a gun shop owner discussing why there SHOULD be gun controls

 

[Gatefan1976]

Okay, the argument of science in Star Trek is going nowhere with the Star Wars participants here. What about Star Wars science? The concept of the midichlorians is really sort of inventive, even if totally lost on Star Wars fans.

This is why this topic is not worth discussing.

Midichlorians in the Star Wars prequels are a sentient community of symbiotic organelles which help convey the Force. The number of them within an individual increases their Force powers. I hope I got this right.

No, they are not sentient, they are more like bacteria that promote healing, or efficient digestion.

This concept was inspired by the real life symbiotic organelles in multicellular organisms called mitochondria. It is believed that mitochondria were once independent organisms, but evolution within animal cells has made them organelles which are dependent on their hosts for food and reproduction. They have their own DNA which is independent of the organism's DNA, but mitochondria cannot live outside of host cells. The mitochondria provide energy for the cells and they fuel the cellular reproductive process.

That is certainly a workable -theory- for force aptitude, sure.

The fans of Star Wars likely do not generally know much about biology or mitochondria (my guess?),

Your "guess" it what is offensive, what will it take for you to notice that?

so a Midichlorian has no meaning for them. Besides that, they DESPISE the prequels. Other than that, I want to know if any Star wars fans have any science-y feelings about anything in Star Wars, or if any of the magical things within it "bother" them?

No, the magic stuff does not bother me, why should it?
What exactly, besides anything Jedi related to you have issues with?

 

[YJ02]

Your "guess" it what is offensive, what will it take for you to notice that?

BINGO!!!

In so many areas!!!
again--the STEM typology at work!!

 

[Gatefan1976]

I remember only too well the reaction at the time, and it was not positive.

Really you don't need a precise scientific reason why one person is stronger in the Force than another. The evidence of their strength is apparent in what they can do. And in a fantasy world exact "why" explanations are secondary to how it operates within the narrative. It's like devising a microbiology explanation for why Merlin was the most powerful wizard in the legend of Arthur - none is needed.

That is true Joe, but there are several -story/legend- theories about why he could do what he did. One for example is that Merlin travels backwards through the timestream, which explains his prescience.
It's a question of what a person needs to make the story work -for them-.

 

[YJ02]

Kirk would probably get like a 30% on this test (if he didn't reprogram the scenario instead that is!! )

Will leave out Spock since he isn't human

so, Sulu? Checkov?Scott? would probably have gotten like a 60%

<<I got a 20%!!!! "REFLEXIVE response" for me all the way baby!!and proud of it. I know I am no STEM person >>>

what did you get?

(it does not ask for names, zip codes, etc,etc)

http://www.thebestschools.org/stem-intelligence-test/

 

[Gatefan1976]

Wtf are you talking about?

Bluce, how does an -internal combustion- engine function?
My "knowledge" may be a bit thin here, but it relies on containing the explosive force of burning refined petroleum to produce energy that is used tor drive pistons, which are connected to a drive shaft, which is connected to the wheels to provide motion.
What use is a power source that blows your "combustion" chamber to bits?
That's not a power source, that's a bomb.

Do you realize you're asking questions that don't make sense or do you think we're just being arrogant and harsh on you?

No, I think I might be explaining myself badly sometimes.

If I ask you, "What part of sandwich is Australia on and do they the?", should I get upset and assume you're being arrogant because you don't have an answer for me or refuse to accept my question as coherent?

1: I am not upset.
2: None of my questions would be that grammatically messed up

Bye. Enjoy your thread full of "How do you kaflurb the magooka baloo?"

Ok.

Love ya brother and I have a lot of respect for you but I'm feeling really bad watching you twist around in this thread trying to sound coherent by hodge podging terms and non-sequiturs on matters a bit beyond your knowledge base, which I know you could easily overcome and effectively argue (if even from a layman's POV) if you actually did a little reading.

Did you know that the person I am using as a source is a physicist?
The same physicist that wrote "the Science of Star Trek"?