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

[Overmind One]

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

I don't recall ANY time he ever did. But I also do not see where that is relevant. Star Trek is not about Captain Kirk or any of the characters or even the "core cast" (including Enterprise herself). Star Trek is a universe.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I don't recall ANY time he ever did. But I also do not see where that is relevant. Star Trek is not about Captain Kirk or any of the characters or even the "core cast" (including Enterprise herself). Star Trek is a universe.

Star trek is the -journey-

 

[Overmind One]

This is why this topic is not worth discussing.

Why does it bother you so much to openly declare that Star Wars fans are really not that scientifically oriented? It's the truth. Ask a Star Wars fan what a MITOCHONDRION is, and they will explain the function of the fantasy "midichlorians" in the prequels (if they answer the question at all, given that the prequels are despised). You yourself are an example. Just discuss the Star Wars part then.

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

Midichlorians are allegedly sentient, and they "possibly conceived on their own" to create Anakin. Mitochondrions are actual organelles in animal cells. Did you get them mixed up? Even so, mitochondria do not promote healing or help with digestion. They provide energy for cellular processes, and the cells do those things.

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

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

I do notice it. But I also stand by it. Star Wars fans are not as scientific as Star Trek fans. That is not a guess, it's a fact. As far as specifics of what they don't know (like biology), that's a guess. My nextdoor neighbor is a Civil Engineer and a huge Star Wars fan and he does not know what the mitochondria do or what they are. I read posts online which support my guess. I read your posts in this thread on the other scientific stuff in the topic. Are you better at biology or chemistry ?

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

I have said twice in the past two pages that I love Star Wars. The flame war is about Star Wars fans claiming that Star Trek is as magical as Star Wars or that any aspect of Star Wars is science fiction. It did not start here, it has been raging for more than 10 years now.

 

[Bluce Ree]

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.

Ok, I get what you're trying to say but you're looking at it all wrong. You don't contain energy, you direct it, channel it, harness it. The question is how to control the flow of energy, not contain it.

We use nuclear power to provide electricity to homes, power nuclear subs, etc. Not everything nuclear is an automatic bomb. Same with matter antimatter annihilation. The flow would be controlled and directed. It's not like we'll just take a bunch of particles, toss them into a tube with our eyes closed and hope for the best.

Watch the video from the link both OM1 and I provided. They can already control the flow of antimatter particles using magnetic field. This isn't a fantasy or just theory anymore.

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

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

Ok. I wasn't implying your grammar sucked but I get you.

Ok.

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"?

Either you're completely misunderstanding what you're reading or he's on drugs.

 

[YJ02]

I don't recall ANY time he ever did. But I also do not see where that is relevant. Star Trek is not about Captain Kirk or any of the characters or even the "core cast" (including Enterprise herself). Star Trek is a universe.

oh I know

but I do find it interesting that the one of the most recognized characters of TOS NEVER used hard science, yet hardcore fans of the show (the hard science fans) say they like the show because of the hard science in it-that is, the stuff that one of the main characters never used

 

[Gatefan1976]

Why does it bother you so much to openly declare that Star Wars fans are really not that scientifically oriented? It's the truth.

No, it is an -assumption-, and that's offensive.
All star trek fans a lefty libbural tosswads who can't see that we are more likely to blow each other up than achive warp drive. They just have no concept of reality. It's just the truth.

Ask a Star Wars fan what a MITOCHONDRION is, and they will explain the function of the fantasy "midichlorians" in the prequels (if they answer the question at all, given that the prequels are despised). You yourself are an example. Just discuss the Star Wars part then.

All I was doing was answering your question in context.

Midichlorians are allegedly sentient, and they "possibly conceived on their own" to create Anakin.

Assuming facts not in evidence, as usual.

Mitochondrions are actual organelles in animnal cells. Did you get them mixed up?

No, it's called context, something you repeatedly show you have no concept about. That's not a bad thing, it just means that you explain yourself very badly, and that's OK.

Even so, mitochondria do not promote healing or help with digestion. They provide energy for cellular processes, and the cells do those things.

It's a parallel example, not a literal interpretation. I am only speaking about Midicholrians and trying to explain the difference to a brick wall.

I do notice it. But I also stand by it. Star Wars fans are not as scientific as Star Trek fans. That is not a guess, it's a fact.

Would you like some ruby red slippers to go along with that?
Or are you going to tell me that due to the technology of the time, they were not actually ruby red, but a different shade of red to feel better?

As far as specifics of what they don't know (like biology), that's a guess. My nextdoor neighbor is a Civil Engineer and a huge Star Wars fan and he does not know what the mitochondria do or what they are.

He's a civil engineer FFS!! WHY does he have to know what a geek attempt to equate a fantasy construct to a real thing that "looks somewhat similar" Do you tell him his plumbing looks like GNDN conduits?

I read posts online which support my guess.

LOL!!!!

I read your posts in this thread on the other scientific stuff in the topic. Are you better at biology or chemistry ?

I am a layman at both.

I have said twice in the past two pages that I love Star Wars. The flame war is about Star Wars fans claiming that Star Trek is as magical as Star Wars or that any aspect of Star Wars is science fiction. It did not start here, it has been raging for more than 10 years now.

No, it isn't, I already said, second post of Joe's first attempt to bring this crap under some kind of control that SW is a fantasy.
Oh, and Q.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, I get what you're trying to say but you're looking at it all wrong. You don't contain energy, you direct it, channel it, harness it. The question is how to control the flow of energy, not contain it.

Yes, that is more correct

We use nuclear power to provide electricity to homes, power nuclear subs, etc. Not everything nuclear is an automatic bomb.

Yes, but we can actually contain and direct the energy at this point, we cannot contain a M/AM explosion -yet-, and -we may never be able to- beyond the nanogram level we can now.

Same with matter antimatter annihilation. The flow would be controlled and directed. It's not like we'll just take a bunch of particles, toss them into a tube with our eyes closed and hope for the best.

I know that dude, but there is only one scientific method we know of to contain that much force to direct it, gravametrics making a "magnetic bottle", and of all the 4 core forces of the universe, Gravity is the one we understand the least.

Watch the video from the link both OM1 and I provided. They can already control the flow of antimatter particles using magnetic field. This isn't a fantasy or just theory anymore.

Yes, I understand how they control it on a micro scale, can we do it on a level that can power something -useful-?

Ok. I wasn't implying your grammar sucked but I get you.

Hope not! She may be 93, half blind and half deaf, but she is still 100% bitch when she wants to be

Either you're completely misunderstanding what you're reading or he's on drugs.

Look him up, Lawrence Krauss.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, that is more correct

Yes, but we can actually contain and direct the energy at this point, we cannot contain a M/AM explosion -yet-, and -we may never be able to- beyond the nanogram level we can now.

*sigh*

That's not how it works.

I know that dude, but there is only one scientific method we know of to contain that much force to direct it, gravametrics making a "magnetic bottle", and of all the 4 core forces of the universe, Gravity is the one we understand the least.

Yes, I understand how they control it on a micro scale, can we do it on a level that can power something -useful-?

You're misunderstanding what antimatter is. The particles, no matter the volume, can be contained in a magnetic field. That's it. There's no theoretical mystery. And it doesn't even take that many particles to generate a relatively enormous amount of energy. You're under the impression that it would take a warehouse full of antimatter particles to generate the energy needed for space travel or to power the exotic technology discussed here. Nothing can be further from the truth. You need to understand how much energy is released from a single particle annihilation and scale it from there.

Hope not! She may be 93, half blind and half deaf, but she is still 100% bitch when she wants to be

Look him up, Lawrence Krauss.

Then you're completely misunderstanding.

 

[Gatefan1976]

*sigh*

That's not how it works.

Then enlighten me
As far as I know, if you cannot contain, funnel and use an energy source, it's all but useless for stable energy production. The walls of a car's combustion chamber will not hold the energetic release of a stick of TNT.
The Magnetic containment fields we are capable of producing cannot hold enough M/AM to make a M/AM explosion a viable power source.
What am I getting wrong here?

You're misunderstanding what antimatter is. The particles, no matter the volume, can be contained in a magnetic field. That's it.

With the strength of the magnetic fields we can make?
With the strength of any magnetic field we may be capable of producing?

There's no theoretical mystery. And it doesn't even take that many particles to generate a relatively enormous amount of energy. You're under the impression that it would take a warehouse full of antimatter particles to generate the energy needed for space travel or to power the exotic technology discussed here. Nothing can be further from the truth.

If I thought that, I would not have used the term "nanograms" would I?
Sheesh.

You need to understand how much energy is released from a single particle annihilation and scale it from there.

A shitload!!!

Then you're completely misunderstanding.

Hmm, OK.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/star-trek-movie-science/

What did I misunderstand?
(please include diagrams and small words, I'm a dumb Star Wars fan)

 

[Bluce Ree]

Then enlighten me
As far as I know, if you cannot contain, funnel and use an energy source, it's all but useless for stable energy production. The walls of a car's combustion chamber will not hold the energetic release of a stick of TNT.
The Magnetic containment fields we are capable of producing cannot hold enough M/AM to make a M/AM explosion a viable power source.
What am I getting wrong here?

The flow of gasoline is controlled using valves that release an exact measure into the cylinders to produce just enough of an explosive force to push the cylinder down. The flow of matter and antimatter would be controlled in the same manner, using magnetic fields. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand or why you seem to believe this is some exotic capability destined for the distant future.

With the strength of the magnetic fields we can make?
With the strength of any magnetic field we may be capable of producing?

*sigh*

If I thought that, I would not have used the term "nanograms" would I?
Sheesh.

Here we go again. You said:

"... we cannot contain a M/AM explosion -yet-, and -we may never be able to- beyond the nanogram level we can now."

If you meant what I said then you wouldn't have written that statement.

A shitload!!!

Then you understand that containing a sufficient number of particles is not an issue.

Hmm, OK.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/star-trek-movie-science/

What did I misunderstand?
(please include diagrams and small words, I'm a dumb Star Wars fan)

Clearly, everything as is evidenced by your entire discourse here.

 

[Gatefan1976]

The flow of gasoline is controlled using valves that release an exact measure into the cylinders to produce just enough of an explosive force to push the cylinder down. The flow of matter and antimatter would be controlled in the same manner, using magnetic fields. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand or why you seem to believe this is some exotic capability destined for the distant future.

It's not difficult to understand, I am wondering if we can produce a magnetic field that can do the job with enough material to make it functional, because -from what I am reading, we cannot produce a strong enough field to contain the energy needed to produce anything like a warp engine, or run a power grid.

*sigh*



Here we go again. You said:

"... we cannot contain a M/AM explosion -yet-, and -we may never be able to- beyond the nanogram level we can now."

If you meant what I said then you wouldn't have written that statement.

Sorry, I meant -usable-

Then you understand that containing a sufficient number of particles is not an issue.

Particles, no, energy release to be worthwhile, yes.

Clearly, everything as is evidenced by your entire discourse here.

Not based on what I linked.

I don't think we're any closer to warp drive—it was and is still a wild idea. Applying what we know about general relativity, the idea of faster-than-light travel is possible in principle. You can expand space behind you and contract it in front of you and therefore quickly go from one place to another across the galaxy. But the amount of energy required is just unfathomable. So while getting to exoplanets fast is still far-fetched, getting to them slow is no more far-fetched than it was before. I think that's the way we're going to do it eventually—we're not going to be building warp drives anytime in the near future.

Exactly what did I misunderstand?

 

[Bluce Ree]

It's not difficult to understand, I am wondering if we can produce a magnetic field that can do the job with enough material to make it functional, because -from what I am reading, we cannot produce a strong enough field to contain the energy needed to produce anything like a warp engine, or run a power grid.

Sorry, I meant -usable-

The energy needed comes from annihilating a sufficient number of particles. The magnetic field is only used to keep the particles suspended. The field strength is not a hurdle.

Particles, no, energy release to be worthwhile, yes.

I'll repeat.

"Then you understand that containing a sufficient number of particles is not an issue."

I gather a second round at that sentence will clarify its meaning.

The problem is not containing them, it's producing them. We cannot do that efficiently yet but it won't be long as we already know *how* to make them.

Remember that quantum computing was just a theory only a decade ago. We went from A all the way to Z in a short period of time.

Not based on what I linked.

Exactly what did I misunderstand?

The principles of everything you've been trying to argue. All that quote says is "it's possible but we can't do it now". You went past that and attempted to argue the basic principles of antimatter containment and its energy release, none of which is anywhere in that quote.

 

[Jim of WVa]

 

[Gatefan1976]

The energy needed comes from annihilating a sufficient number of particles. The magnetic field is only used to keep the particles suspended. The field strength is not a hurdle.

So what holds the "energy release" if the magnetic field is only there to suspend the particles?

I'll repeat.

"Then you understand that containing a sufficient number of particles is not an issue."

I gather a second round at that sentence will clarify its meaning.

Not really, no.
I am not being obtuse here, I do not get how we can contain and direct the energy release if it is not the magnetic field doing it.

The problem is not containing them, it's producing them. We cannot do that efficiently yet but it won't be long as we already know *how* to make them.

Remember that quantum computing was just a theory just a decade ago. We went from A all the way to Z in a short period of time.

Yes, but we understood the premise for Fusion -decades- ago, but we still cannot do it.

The principles of everything you've been trying to argue. All that quote says is "it's possible but we can't do it now". You went past that and attempted to argue the basic principles of antimatter containment and its energy release, none of which is anywhere in that quote.

What got me is the notion that the energy requirements are "unfathomable".

 

[Overmind One]

So what holds the "energy release" if the magnetic field is only there to suspend the particles?

Not really, no.
I am not being obtuse here, I do not get how we can contain and direct the energy release if it is not the magnetic field doing it.

Yes, but we understood the premise for Fusion -decades- ago, but we still cannot do it.



What got me is the notion that the energy requirements are "unfathomable".

Black bolded: theoretically, we can use some of the energy from the reaction itself to assist in powering the containment field. Sort of like noise canceling earphones work. One of the issues in making any nuclear reaction sustainable is the amount of power used to control it. If it takes more power to control the power source than it produces, it's pointless.

Blue bolded: We can indeed use fusion energy and we have used it since 1955....in thermonuclear devices (hydrogen bombs). The fuse for a thermonuclear bomb is a fission bomb. This is what fusion looks like today:

We need to contain that release of energy and make it look like this:

 

[Gatefan1976]

Black bolded: theoretically, we can use some of the energy from the reaction itself to assist in powering the containment field. Sort of like noise canceling earphones work. One of the issues in making any nuclear reaction sustainable is the amount of power used to control it. If it takes more power to create the power source than it produces, it's pointless.

Yes, I get this, that's not my issue.

Blue bolded: We can indeed use fusion energy and we have used it since 1955....in thermonuclear devices (hydrogen bombs). The fuse for a thermonuclear bomb is a fission bomb. This is what fusion looks like today:

YES, Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, I get that bit, no problems, my point is, in 60 years, despite how rapidly we have advanced in other techs we are no closer from turning this:
View attachment 32414

INTO this:

View attachment 32415

Yes, I want them to get there, I am trying to wrap my head around what we can do to contain and funnel the energy output to usable levels.

 

[Overmind One]

Yes, I get this, that's not my issue.

YES, Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, I get that bit, no problems, my point is, in 60 years, despite how rapidly we have advanced in other techs we are no closer from turning this:
View attachment 32414

INTO this:

View attachment 32415

. If you have watched the video, you would know that the plant you see in the screensnap of the YouTube video IS a fusion reactor. A real one. Thermonuclear reactions in bombs are sustained only as long as there is sufficient hydrogen to fuse into helium (which is proportional to the amount of deuterium or tritium used in the casing). The reaction can be "boosted" too. Imagine a mini reaction in a chamber and then you have an idea of how they are going to do this. A nano-sized thermonuclear explosion might appear as a match being ignited.

Yes, I want them to get there, I am trying to wrap my head around what we can do to contain and funnel the energy output to usable levels.

Before you can do that, you have to understand what "usable" means in the context of the reaction. A giant h-bomb explosion would release much less total energy than a sustained fusion reaction in a basketball sized reaction chamber running for a decade. The Sun is a sustained fusion reaction as all stars are. It is contained by it's own mass and energy. If we knew the equation of how that system is balanced, we would have our answer. What I am getting from you throughout this thread is that you do not seem to recognize the actual pieces of science of the future tech seen in Star Trek which exist today. You speak of "usable levels" and a need to create some sort of uber-magnetic field on a massive scale to get "usable" energy. That is a misconception.

 

[Overmind One]

One point that should be made when defining science fiction and differentiating it from fantasy is that science fiction is on a path which started in the present real life world. Science and scientific theory provides a path to get to the fictional tech of the future. That is why you cannot throw fantasy in with it. Doing that throws us off the path and into a dreamworld where everything is possible and a wizard can just command the fusion reaction to sustain itself using a spell. In Fantasy, who the hell needs fusion? You can wave a wand or snap your fingers and create a roaring fire.

 

[Bluce Ree]

So what holds the "energy release" if the magnetic field is only there to suspend the particles?

Not really, no.
I am not being obtuse here, I do not get how we can contain and direct the energy release if it is not the magnetic field doing it.

Antimatter particles annihilate on contact with normal matter. Given that, it greatly limits how to contain the particles. The solution is magnetic containment, which literally suspends them in empty space so they're not touching anything. The magnetic field plays no function in the energy generated.

Annihilation releases the stored energy. Controlling the flow of particles lets you control the amount of energy released. That energy can then be channeled in a variety of ways to provide heat, power technology, etc.

The problem is not with containment or controlling the energy, it's making the particles efficiently and in sufficient quantity, which is limited by our current capabilities for now.

 

[Overmind One]

Yes, I get this, that's not my issue.

YES, Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, I get that bit, no problems, my point is, in 60 years, despite how rapidly we have advanced in other techs we are no closer from turning this:
View attachment 32414

INTO this:

View attachment 32415

Yes, I want them to get there, I am trying to wrap my head around what we can do to contain and funnel the energy output to usable levels.

Actually, our fusion weapons do not use any antimatter (black bolded). The fission bomb that starts the reaction can be a plutonium bomb or some other fissionable material. The fusion reaction is fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium (like the sun does). The fusion within stars is fusing normal matter into heavier elements of normal matter. When we are able to contain a fusion reaction, they are likely to use this same principle and not antimatter.