Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The worst science mistakes of Star Trek, or why any self-respecting geek should actually hate this show. Ha, "self-respecting" geek   (slate.com) divider line 192
    More: Obvious, Star Trek, geeks  
•       •       •

7635 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 May 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-16 12:05:58 PM  
The list begins and ends with Threshold.
 
2013-05-16 12:15:48 PM  
But the writer gives CREDIT for imagining a galaxy filled with planets. WTF? Like there hadn't been hundreds or thousands of SF novels with that same idea?
 
2013-05-16 12:19:57 PM  
Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.
 
2013-05-16 12:24:24 PM  

Speaker2Animals: But the writer gives CREDIT for imagining a galaxy filled with planets. WTF? Like there hadn't been hundreds or thousands of SF novels with that same idea?


Of course there were. My point (not written out as such in the article, but there) is that Star Trek popularized it, made it common among the public.

And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do.
 
2013-05-16 12:24:38 PM  
His beef w/using the transporter to fix Pulaski isn't a science error, it's a continuity/writing error.
 
2013-05-16 12:26:01 PM  
Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.  People watch it because they like the setting, characters and stories.  People like to watch stories set in the future (or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) in the same way they do ones set in Victorian England or the medieval period.  Sure, there are those demand hard science, but just because Star Trek doesn't follow it is no reason for a "self-respecting geek" to hate it.
 
2013-05-16 12:26:09 PM  
No  "Gentlemen, this computer has an auditory sensor. It can, in effect, hear sounds. By installing a booster, we can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power. The computer should bring us every sound occurring on the ship. " ?
 
2013-05-16 12:29:16 PM  

The Bad Astronomer: And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do


D'oh, I knew I should have been patient - due, the Pulaski thing was just shiatty writing. Granted, other episodes make mention/use of a function that filters out pathogens or disables weapons, but I believe Unnatural Selection was the only episode that used the transporter to change characters on a fundamental level.
 
2013-05-16 12:33:18 PM  
Its for entertainment purposes only.  Get over it and accept that.
 
2013-05-16 12:38:55 PM  
Dr. Lawrence Krauss had a much better list.  See the chapter "Impossibilities: The Undiscoverable Country"

http://www.housevampyr.com/training/library/books/Mics%20Trek/The%20 Ph ysics%20Of%20Star%20Trek.pdf
 
2013-05-16 12:39:57 PM  

DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.


which one was that?
 
2013-05-16 12:41:53 PM  

ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.

which one was that?


Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.
 
2013-05-16 12:43:24 PM  
Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.
 
2013-05-16 12:45:49 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-05-16 12:47:49 PM  
The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.
 
2013-05-16 01:09:53 PM  

dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.


Some people just want to watch the world burn...
 
2013-05-16 01:11:08 PM  
Atop the list should be "That nerds invented a holodeck and then found the time and motivation to invent other things instead of living in said holodeck having continuous sex with a platoon each of Catwomen from Newmar through Hathaway until their death from terminal glans abrasion."
 
2013-05-16 01:11:59 PM  
Science fiction, is fiction
 
2013-05-16 01:14:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.


I still wish Data would have devolved into a Tandy.
 
2013-05-16 01:17:46 PM  

Shostie: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

I still wish Data would have devolved into a Tandy.


By your command:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-16 01:20:36 PM  
Q: In which episode did Scotty miraculously fix the transporter at the last minute and save the day?
A: All of them
 
2013-05-16 01:26:06 PM  
 
2013-05-16 01:26:20 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.

Some people just want to watch the world burn...


Hey, Jean-Luc, may the Force be with you.
 
2013-05-16 01:33:19 PM  

Solon Isonomia: The Bad Astronomer: And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do

D'oh, I knew I should have been patient - due, the Pulaski thing was just shiatty writing. Granted, other episodes make mention/use of a function that filters out pathogens or disables weapons, but I believe Unnatural Selection was the only episode that used the transporter to change characters on a fundamental level.


Best ever use of the transporter was when Troi was transported minus her clothing. If ever there were an episode that needed to be on HBO or Showtime...
 
2013-05-16 01:33:53 PM  
Regarding phasers, someone clearly doesn't understand the rapid nadion effect (RNE).
 
2013-05-16 01:34:30 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.


Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.
 
2013-05-16 01:37:40 PM  
blackholes.stardate.org
"The event horizon is a field of energy surrounding the singularity. Don't worry, we'll just punch a hole through it with technobabble."
 
2013-05-16 01:38:32 PM  
"And don't even get me started on sex with a Klingon."

Not a phrase you expect to read everyday.

/Well, outside of Fark, anyhow
 
2013-05-16 01:41:12 PM  

PanicMan: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.


sharetv.org

Would like a word.
 
2013-05-16 01:44:03 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Unnatural Selection was the only episode that used the transporter to change characters on a fundamental level.


In TOS 'The Enemy Within' they took 2 James T Kirks stuck them both in the transporter and combined them to make one James T Kirk.

kkinnison: Science fiction, is fiction


Not forever...

www.macmeisters.com
 
2013-05-16 01:46:26 PM  
The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?
 
2013-05-16 01:46:58 PM  

Sliding Carp: No  "Gentlemen, this computer has an auditory sensor. It can, in effect, hear sounds. By installing a booster, we can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power. The computer should bring us every sound occurring on the ship. " ?


In all fairness, one to the fourth power isn't very much.

/in all seriousness, power amplifiers are pretty cheap.
 
2013-05-16 01:49:28 PM  

theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?



1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-16 01:49:51 PM  
Why can't they reboot with a 6 hour Das Boot-a-thon;

I hate new geeks!
 
2013-05-16 01:54:16 PM  
Welp, off to watch the new Star Trek.
 
2013-05-16 01:59:35 PM  

Mjeck: Why can't they reboot with a 6 hour Das Boot-a-thon;

I hate new geeks!


You know, I have the original, full-length version of Das Boot on DVD.
 
2013-05-16 02:03:20 PM  
Worst mistake: Not having a Captain Jar-Jar episode. Also, Janeway is obviously better than Riker.
 
2013-05-16 02:03:35 PM  

BafflerMeal: theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?


[1.bp.blogspot.com image 356x400]


Picture of JJ Abrams huh
 
2013-05-16 02:05:35 PM  

BafflerMeal: theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?


[1.bp.blogspot.com image 356x400]


Also, is that transporter signal also travelling at warp?  And how fast are the sensors?  are they warp driven sensors or are they light speed?
 
2013-05-16 02:07:30 PM  
My favorite is whenever people from Star Trek get upset that with all their technology they still haven't solved Fermat's Last Theorem.
 
2013-05-16 02:08:19 PM  

dittybopper: The Stealth Hippopotamus: dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.

Some people just want to watch the world burn...

Hey, Jean-Luc, may the Force be with you.


fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-16 02:11:10 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.

Some people just want to watch the world burn...


Let him be the King of Ashes.
 
2013-05-16 02:21:54 PM  

Majick Thise: Solon Isonomia: Unnatural Selection was the only episode that used the transporter to change characters on a fundamental level.

In TOS 'The Enemy Within' they took 2 James T Kirks stuck them both in the transporter and combined them to make one James T Kirk.

kkinnison: Science fiction, is fiction

Not forever...

[www.macmeisters.com image 331x496]


img607.imageshack.us

See also: Data's iPhone.
 
2013-05-16 02:28:51 PM  

Majick Thise: Solon Isonomia: Unnatural Selection was the only episode that used the transporter to change characters on a fundamental level.

In TOS 'The Enemy Within' they took 2 James T Kirks stuck them both in the transporter and combined them to make one James T Kirk.

kkinnison: Science fiction, is fiction

Not forever...

[www.macmeisters.com image 331x496]


Except cell phones require infrastructure; communicators didn't.

And Tablets were so low-cost and commonplace (yet low in memory) in Trek that you would apparently have only one per file, and just pass them around rather than emailing your data; iPads still costs hundreds of dollars and you people don't tend to simply give them away.

Also, having watched Deep Space Nine and Voyager, and now watching The Next Generation, I can honestly say Star Trek is a bunch of crap. But at least now I understand some of the references my friends are constantly making.
 
2013-05-16 02:31:31 PM  

RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.

which one was that?

Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.


that was real?  I thought that was a Cheetos fueled hallucination.
 
2013-05-16 02:37:50 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.


Do you know how I know you didn't read the article, or the byline on it?
 
2013-05-16 02:40:02 PM  

RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.
which one was that?
Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.

I love Star Trek and I'm somewhat geekish on knowing the minutae, but I still don't understand subspace and how it works.  Here's my thing.
Doesn't stuff in subspace travel close to Warp 10, if not seemingly faster than Warp 10?  Or does it travel at Warp 10?  How else could you get dozens of ships located hundreds of light years apart to all be at one spot due to a Borg invasion?  The news would still take months, yet everyone gets the message from Starfleet HQ or Starbase 25 in like two seconds.  That would only work if you're travelling at a ridculously high speed like Warp 10 or something close to it.
Or is it just explainable in technobabble?
Now fluidic space in Voyager...that's another weird thing.

aerojockey: My favorite is whenever people from Star Trek get upset that with all their technology they still haven't solved Fermat's Last Theorem.

That episode was made before Andrew Wiles actually solved Fermat's Last Theorem.  And I think that the writers of ST:TNG would even want to delve into higher-level mathematics like Galois transformations, eliptical functions, or the Taniyama conjecture, let alone any other kind of mathematics that might even have remotely been useful.

theresnothinglft: This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

My best guess is that if it's anything like antimatter, it would have to be transported in small amounts and in specially designed canisters or things go definitely bad.  But it's Star Trek, so anything goes?
 
2013-05-16 02:41:02 PM  

ManateeGag: RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.

which one was that?

Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.

that was real?  I thought that was a Cheetos fueled hallucination.


Yes. Yes it was real.
 
2013-05-16 02:45:20 PM  

dittybopper: You know, I have the original, full-length version of Das Boot on DVD.


I found a director's cut of that DVD in the bargain basket at the supermarket for 4$....

/score
 
2013-05-16 02:48:11 PM  
The fundamental mistake here is putting "science" in the same sentence with "Star Trek."  There is no science in Star Trek; it's fantasy with the magic horses and swords and wizards replaced by magic space ships and phasers and Vulcans.  Accept that, drink heavily enough to forget the ever-inconsistent application of technobabble solutions, stay well clear of the festering heap of Voyager, and enjoy the rest.
 
2013-05-16 03:03:32 PM  

demonfaerie: PanicMan: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.

[sharetv.org image 392x300]

Would like a word.


I'm always torn between Barclay, Garak, and DcCoy as favourite characters. McCoy was basically Dr. Grumpy Cat with bourbon.
 
2013-05-16 03:05:46 PM  

dangelder: ManateeGag: RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.

which one was that?

Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.

that was real?  I thought that was a Cheetos fueled hallucination.

Yes. Yes it was real.


I honestly wish I'd had a fever when I saw that episode because it left me with a combination of WTF, facepalm, and rageface at the same time. An episode where Neelix tries to convince everyone to exchange holo-Valentines would have been better. I couldn't even continue watching the show.
 
2013-05-16 03:10:09 PM  

KellyX: dittybopper: The Stealth Hippopotamus: dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.

Some people just want to watch the world burn...

Hey, Jean-Luc, may the Force be with you.

[fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net image 460x343]


That's going to be really confusing for people writing Professor X / Magneto slashfic.
 
2013-05-16 03:12:46 PM  
The only one of these that really bothers me, is when Spock watches Vulcan implode.
 
2013-05-16 03:13:23 PM  
The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

No, the biggest mistake of the reboot was some punk ass kid who didn't even graduate Star Fleet Academy getting command of a frikin' Starship.

We can argue, speculate and whine about the different technologies and MacGuffins they use in Trek, but what I absolutely DEMAND is a future where people act rationally, and a Starfleet that acts like responsible adults. That, and numerous other idiocies made me write off NuTrek. To me it is Idiocracy Triumphant. Another Farker put it much better a couple days ago, NuTrek is made for the Snowflakes, who think they deserve reward/power/responsibility for just showing up....
 
2013-05-16 03:19:41 PM  

Professor Science: The fundamental mistake here is putting "science" in the same sentence with "Star Trek."  There is no science in Star Trek; it's fantasy with the magic horses and swords and wizards replaced by magic space ships and phasers and Vulcans.  Accept that, drink heavily enough to forget the ever-inconsistent application of technobabble solutions, stay well clear of the festering heap of Voyager, and enjoy the rest.


This is actually the best response, and the best way to watch any similar sci-fi.  When they start to explain the "science" behind what is happening, simply let your mind hear "magic".  The writers have no idea what they're talking about, they are just making things up that sound science-y.

Often in fantasy, the magic will be explained in some fashion, Magic crystals, or spirits of the dead, or whatever. They will proclaim this is how the magic actually works. Do you listen to that and say "nuh uh, that's not how magic works"?  Of course not.  The writers are making it up, they don't know how magic works (spoiler: it doesn't, it's fake).

So goes with the "science" in Star Trek.  Consider it "future magic" and call it a day.
 
2013-05-16 03:24:46 PM  

mark12A: No, the biggest mistake of the reboot was some punk ass kid who didn't even graduate Star Fleet Academy getting command of a frikin' Starship.


Right, that type of thing never happened in the original canon...
 
2013-05-16 03:28:18 PM  
Huh. Science fiction isn't reality. Who'd a thunk it?

I don't care if I have to suspend belief to watch something (I like Clive Barker, so I'm used to it). But don't break your own rules. A group of friends who were extras in the reboot movie took me to the premier because I was the only one in the group who was actually a Trekkie, so I could point out all the mistakes (really? Cardassian ale?).
 
2013-05-16 03:31:09 PM  

FunkOut: demonfaerie: PanicMan: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.

[sharetv.org image 392x300]

Would like a word.

I'm always torn between Barclay, Garak, and DcCoy as favourite characters. McCoy was basically Dr. Grumpy Cat with bourbon.


That's not a bad list.
 
2013-05-16 03:36:34 PM  

Revek: Its for entertainment purposes only.  Get over it and accept that.


The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.
 
2013-05-16 03:43:09 PM  
My brother in law had his life saved by Star Trek

In College, he developed a rare tumor in his sinus cavity that wrapped around his optic nerve and was working its way into his brain.   No surgeon he saw, would touch it with conventional techniques

He ended up in California where a doctor used a proton laser to remove the tumor.    The Doctor is on the record as saying he went into medical research to try and develop some of the medical techniques that he saw in Star Trek

BIL is 5 years cancer free now.   His vision is slightly impaired in one eye as a result of the cancer.   He and my sister have two kids now.
 
2013-05-16 03:45:58 PM  

weiserfireman: My brother in law had his life saved by Star Trek

In College, he developed a rare tumor in his sinus cavity that wrapped around his optic nerve and was working its way into his brain.   No surgeon he saw, would touch it with conventional techniques

He ended up in California where a doctor used a proton laser to remove the tumor.    The Doctor is on the record as saying he went into medical research to try and develop some of the medical techniques that he saw in Star Trek

BIL is 5 years cancer free now.   His vision is slightly impaired in one eye as a result of the cancer.   He and my sister have two kids now.


Neat. Something that rarely happens with other big franchises like Star Wars or Doctor Who.
 
2013-05-16 03:47:01 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Except cell phones require infrastructure; communicators didn't.


Actually, there is no evidence that the communicators didn't require infrastructure, in the form of a starship with very sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters to offset the relatively weak signal of a communicator, just like a cell-site allows you to use a relatively weak and insensitive radio called a 'cell phone'.

Communicators could be fine for relatively short range communication between themselves, but you'll note that mostly they are used for communicating with the ship.
 
2013-05-16 03:49:24 PM  
Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.
 
2013-05-16 03:50:01 PM  

wjllope: dittybopper: You know, I have the original, full-length version of Das Boot on DVD.

I found a director's cut of that DVD in the bargain basket at the supermarket for 4$....

/score


The full thing is better than even the directors cut.

It is, however, best seen as intended:  Over several viewing sessions, not all at once.

/I've had the theatrical release, directors cut, and the full thing.
//I like the dubbing in the theatrical release the best.
///Sexy nurses, pussy...
 
2013-05-16 03:50:43 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.


And the dorks care about the semantics.
 
2013-05-16 03:52:46 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.


FTFA: My beef is usually when the plot relies on some error in science, or when the tech is used inconsistently. If you discover, say, a Fountain of Youth in one episode, you'd better establish why everyone in the Federation isn't young after that.
 
2013-05-16 03:53:26 PM  

dittybopper: ArcadianRefugee: Except cell phones require infrastructure; communicators didn't.

Actually, there is no evidence that the communicators didn't require infrastructure, in the form of a starship with very sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters to offset the relatively weak signal of a communicator, just like a cell-site allows you to use a relatively weak and insensitive radio called a 'cell phone'.

Communicators could be fine for relatively short range communication between themselves, but you'll note that mostly they are used for communicating with the ship.


I think that the ST:TNG Technical Manual mentioned something about the communicators being connected to the ship's computer, so that would require some sort of data relay and hence some sort of transmitter/receiver infrastructure.
 
2013-05-16 03:57:51 PM  

theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.


Oh, it gets worse. Try Earth to the Klingon homeworld with a portable transporter unit the size of a golf club bag.
 
2013-05-16 04:06:07 PM  

dittybopper: wjllope: dittybopper: You know, I have the original, full-length version of Das Boot on DVD.

I found a director's cut of that DVD in the bargain basket at the supermarket for 4$....

/score

The full thing is better than even the directors cut.

It is, however, best seen as intended:  Over several viewing sessions, not all at once.

/I've had the theatrical release, directors cut, and the full thing.
//I like the dubbing in the theatrical release the best.
///Sexy nurses, pussy...


i147.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-16 04:08:27 PM  
I particularly like how the technobabble will change from script to script (aside from "reversing the polarity of the tachyon field emitters" which had to pretty much be a setting on the turn signal stalks).
 
2013-05-16 04:08:57 PM  

RexTalionis: weiserfireman: My brother in law had his life saved by Star Trek

In College, he developed a rare tumor in his sinus cavity that wrapped around his optic nerve and was working its way into his brain.   No surgeon he saw, would touch it with conventional techniques

He ended up in California where a doctor used a proton laser to remove the tumor.    The Doctor is on the record as saying he went into medical research to try and develop some of the medical techniques that he saw in Star Trek

BIL is 5 years cancer free now.   His vision is slightly impaired in one eye as a result of the cancer.   He and my sister have two kids now.

Neat. Something that rarely happens with other big franchises like Star Wars or Doctor Who.


They obviously haven't tried reversing the polarity of the neutron flow yet. That fixes everything.
 
2013-05-16 04:11:39 PM  

FunkOut: demonfaerie: PanicMan: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.

[sharetv.org image 392x300]

Would like a word.

I'm always torn between Barclay, Garak, and DcCoy as favourite characters. McCoy was basically Dr. Grumpy Cat with bourbon.


I agree with you there, but I do have as soft spot for Dax. I think she was the only real interesting female character in star trek.

/Garak still my favorite though.
 
2013-05-16 04:13:55 PM  

timujin: Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.  People watch it because they like the setting, characters and stories.  People like to watch stories set in the future (or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) in the same way they do ones set in Victorian England or the medieval period.  Sure, there are those demand hard science, but just because Star Trek doesn't follow it is no reason for a "self-respecting geek" to hate it.


Yes, but researching the your subject before hand generally makes for a better story because you either find out some cool stuff that you can work into the story or you tweak the plot to match reality a bit better. For example, Rescue Me was a great show because Dennis Leary tried to be true to real life firefighters he knew. Even if some things are fictionalized, they did enough research and work to make it "feel" real. Skipping the research is just simple lazy writing.
 
2013-05-16 04:14:20 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.

FTFA: My beef is usually when the plot relies on some error in science, or when the tech is used inconsistently. If you discover, say, a Fountain of Youth in one episode, you'd better establish why everyone in the Federation isn't young after that.


Oh, it'll be because for some reason everyone has decided not to use it. "It ain't natural!" and so on. Or, better yet, someone who thinks like that will destroy it so no one else can use it. "Some things were not meant for mankind!" Blah blah blah.

dittybopper: ArcadianRefugee: Except cell phones require infrastructure; communicators didn't.

Actually, there is no evidence that the communicators didn't require infrastructure, in the form of a starship with very sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters to offset the relatively weak signal of a communicator, just like a cell-site allows you to use a relatively weak and insensitive radio called a 'cell phone'.

Communicators could be fine for relatively short range communication between themselves, but you'll note that mostly they are used for communicating with the ship.


Fair enough. I always assumed that they were short-range communicators with one another, and the reason the ship could communicate with them is simply because, well, it's a farking ship and has better range itself. And since, as you've said, most communications were either ground-to-ship or "local" short-range calls (either to another member of an away team or someone else on the same ship)....

I've always wondered, though, how the communicator knew who you wanted to call. I mean, yes, you said, "Riker to Data" and then it hooked you up to Data, but Data would hear you say, "Riker to Data". So either it somehow hooked you up to him before you even spoke, or it recorded and then replayed your greeting upon connection. More likely the latter, obviously, but I always thought it weird, especially since (when people didn't answer immediately) the caller would repeat the greeting, as if the person should have responded in the 0.68 seconds when they were first hearing your greeting.
 
2013-05-16 04:20:00 PM  
The one that made my brain hurt the most was the Voyager dinosaur episode.  They're trying to figure out if the alien species they've encountered in the Delta quadrant is related to dinosaurs, so Janeway goes into the holodeck and calls up a representation of a raptor-esque dinosaur.

She then says something to the effect of "Computer, show what would happen to this creature after 65 million years of evolution" and *poof* we end up with an exact match to the alien species in question.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
 
2013-05-16 04:22:34 PM  

theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?


1. The advanced transport tech was invented by future Scotty after the end of Nemesis, so we don't know what it did to the galaxy. It may well changed how people traveled in space, but we just didn't see it on screen. It's possible old Spock made him hold off on making it public knowledge until the time is right because he doesn't want to screw up the new timeline any further.

2. You can't transport through shields. That's why you don't see boarding parties happen until the shields are down generally, unless it is like Best of Both Worlds where they took the shuttle inside the Borg shield before they transported on to grab Locutus.
 
2013-05-16 04:26:04 PM  
eyeq360:
aerojockey: My favorite is whenever people from Star Trek get upset that with all their technology they still haven't solved Fermat's Last Theorem.

That episode was made before Andrew Wiles actually solved Fermat's Last Theorem.  And I think that the writers of ST:TNG would even want to delve into higher-level mathematics like Galois transformations, eliptical functions, or the Taniyama conjecture, let alone any other kind of mathematics that might even have remotely been useful.


Did he really solve Fermat's Last Theorem? I thought the Fermat margin note that started it mentioned "I have a solution that is too big to fit in the margin here", and Wiles' proof was 100 pages long. Was Fermat just being modest? Maybe Fermat never did have a solution, and he was joking? Or he had a solution and it was wrong... Also, Wiles' proof took 7 years. If Fermat spent any significant time on something wouldn't he leave some sort of evidence behind?
 
2013-05-16 04:33:00 PM  

Mad_Radhu: 1. The advanced transport tech was invented by future Scotty after the end of Nemesis, so we don't know what it did to the galaxy. It may well changed how people traveled in space, but we just didn't see it on screen. It's possible old Spock made him hold off on making it public knowledge until the time is right because he doesn't want to screw up the new timeline any further.


It gets 'confiscated by Starfleet', where, apparently, they have Top. Men. working on it - or they dropped it down a plot hole.
 
2013-05-16 04:33:29 PM  

Serious Black


They obviously haven't tried reversing the polarity of the neutron flow yet. That fixes everything.


Of course it does: if things are hosed up, doing the OPPOSITE of what you were doing should set everything straight.


rectally-extracted theory #682
 
2013-05-16 04:41:12 PM  

StopLurkListen: eyeq360:
aerojockey: My favorite is whenever people from Star Trek get upset that with all their technology they still haven't solved Fermat's Last Theorem.

That episode was made before Andrew Wiles actually solved Fermat's Last Theorem.  And I think that the writers of ST:TNG would even want to delve into higher-level mathematics like Galois transformations, eliptical functions, or the Taniyama conjecture, let alone any other kind of mathematics that might even have remotely been useful.

Did he really solve Fermat's Last Theorem? I thought the Fermat margin note that started it mentioned "I have a solution that is too big to fit in the margin here", and Wiles' proof was 100 pages long. Was Fermat just being modest? Maybe Fermat never did have a solution, and he was joking? Or he had a solution and it was wrong... Also, Wiles' proof took 7 years. If Fermat spent any significant time on something wouldn't he leave some sort of evidence behind?


He found a proof for it though probably not Fermat's.

Or so I'm told.
 
2013-05-16 04:46:06 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.


Genesis.

Season 4, I think?
 
2013-05-16 04:51:09 PM  
 
2013-05-16 04:52:18 PM  

Sliding Carp: No  "Gentlemen, this computer has an auditory sensor. It can, in effect, hear sounds. By installing a booster, we can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power. The computer should bring us every sound occurring on the ship. " ?


Well, that's a math fail right there.
 
2013-05-16 05:05:20 PM  

Mad_Radhu: theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?

1. The advanced transport tech was invented by future Scotty after the end of Nemesis, so we don't know what it did to the galaxy. It may well changed how people traveled in space, but we just didn't see it on screen. It's possible old Spock made him hold off on making it public knowledge until the time is right because he doesn't want to screw up the new timeline any further.

2. You can't transport through shields. That's why you don't see boarding parties happen until the shields are down generally, unless it is like Best of Both Worlds where they took the shuttle inside the Borg shield before they transported on to grab Locutus.


These points don't apply to Abram's universe because he rewrote it.  It would have been more compelling if Abram's writers stuck to the original points regarding the transporter:
1.  Thing fails half the time until next gen and later, then it's fairly reliable.
2.  40,000 Km max range (I might be wrong with this number but it seriously wasn't any further than the earth to the moon)
3.  Transporter signal can't go through shields or most dense metals.  It definitely can't go through ionized atmospheres unless it's convenient for the plot or you have pattern enhancers on you.
4.  How the hell does it beam a Q onboard in Voyager and yet they can't stop said Q with a lvl 10 force field?  (ok i digress there)

In Abrams universe the Transporter (as of the first episode in the reboot) had a range of 6  billion KM (Saturn to earth) minimum (I'm reading that they teleport from the Qo'nos to Earth which has to be several thousand light years).  This means at close range it will definitely have the power to penetrate shields.  This is especially true if the beam is anything like normal light in that it loses power with the square of the distance from the source.

IMO just from what JJ did in the reboot with the transporter he is better off shelving it at 2 and starting over again.  It is impossible to have any compelling plot argument after the transporter becomes the main method of travel.  All privacy and economy break down.  Starships are useless and travel is instant.  Travel might as well happen between galaxies too since a suitcase sized unit can get between stars several lightyears apart.


I'll shut up now cause I'm still going to see Startrek into darkness tomorrow night and want to keep from spoiling it for myself.
 
2013-05-16 05:07:31 PM  
OO big edit to above:  Earth to saturn is 1.4 billion KM.  The point's still valid though and they coulda beamed from vulcan onto nero's ship.
 
2013-05-16 05:27:44 PM  

dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.


6/10

you may get some bites. But it was pretty obvious.
Try harder next time
 
2013-05-16 05:30:19 PM  
The daftest thing about the barrier at the edge of the galaxy is that it appeared to be two dimensional - a ring rather than a sphere.  That means you could just fly over or under the damn thing.
 
2013-05-16 05:31:53 PM  
I also never understood why they chose to make Warp 10 an asymptotic limit.  Once you hit Warp 9 you're just add lots of decimal places and it becomes meaningless.
 
2013-05-16 05:42:46 PM  
My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.
 
2013-05-16 05:46:52 PM  

fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.



I accept your solution.  Problem solved.
 
2013-05-16 05:49:55 PM  
I'd like to point out here, due to all of the talk about the ReTrek's transporters, that when Roddenberry was developing TNG, his original plan was to have the transporters work over interstellar distances and to do away with starships altogether. Thankfully, he was talked out of this.
 
2013-05-16 05:51:56 PM  

PanicMan: Ehem, it's called Barclay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.


I like to think that they named it Barclay's-a-Stupid-F*ckup Disease. Nobody on that ship liked Barclay.

/Also very pleased that the list started off with 'Threshold'
 
2013-05-16 05:52:54 PM  

The Bad Astronomer: Of course there were. My point (not written out as such in the article, but there) is that Star Trek popularized it, made it common among the public.


What?  No it didn't.  Star Trek was made in 1966, and other planets (populated earth-like ones, at that) around other stars had been a staple of science fiction since the 1920s.  There was even an entire subgenre based on the idea (space opera).

Star Trek didn't really create much that was new, it mostly tapped into existing popular SF tropes.  Nothing wrong with that, it's how TV usually works.
 
2013-05-16 05:53:20 PM  

fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.


Did you forget that there is still a lot of empty space inside solid rock?
 
2013-05-16 06:01:31 PM  

dittybopper: The biggest science mistake in Star Trek is midichlorians.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-05-16 06:06:20 PM  
Annnd back from the movie.  I rather enjoyed it.
 
2013-05-16 06:06:26 PM  
KellyX: [fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net image 460x343]

Dammit
 
2013-05-16 06:08:11 PM  

demonfaerie: FunkOut: demonfaerie: PanicMan: Pocket Ninja: Which was the episode where a bunch of the crew began to devolve and turned into giant spiders and stuff like that?

That's my favorite.

Ehem, it's called Barklay's Syndrome!  Named after the best Star Trek character ever.

[sharetv.org image 392x300]

Would like a word.

I'm always torn between Barclay, Garak, and DcCoy as favourite characters. McCoy was basically Dr. Grumpy Cat with bourbon.

I agree with you there, but I do have as soft spot for Dax. I think she was the only real interesting female character in star trek.

/Garak still my favorite though.


Garak and the Doctor.
 
2013-05-16 06:09:30 PM  

IC Stars: fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.

Did you forget that there is still a lot of empty space inside solid rock?


Sure, but you're bound to have atoms attempting to be in the same space. Or is the human body going to be squeezed into the little pockets where there is empty space? And wouldn't the same problem still exist with air?
 
2013-05-16 06:12:53 PM  
Kinda surprised dick face hasn't come in to shiat all over... *shrugs*
 
2013-05-16 06:21:12 PM  

Ned Stark: StopLurkListen: eyeq360:
aerojockey: My favorite is whenever people from Star Trek get upset that with all their technology they still haven't solved Fermat's Last Theorem.

That episode was made before Andrew Wiles actually solved Fermat's Last Theorem.  And I think that the writers of ST:TNG would even want to delve into higher-level mathematics like Galois transformations, eliptical functions, or the Taniyama conjecture, let alone any other kind of mathematics that might even have remotely been useful.

Did he really solve Fermat's Last Theorem? I thought the Fermat margin note that started it mentioned "I have a solution that is too big to fit in the margin here", and Wiles' proof was 100 pages long. Was Fermat just being modest? Maybe Fermat never did have a solution, and he was joking? Or he had a solution and it was wrong... Also, Wiles' proof took 7 years. If Fermat spent any significant time on something wouldn't he leave some sort of evidence behind?

He found a proof for it though probably not Fermat's.

Or so I'm told.


Unless Fermat had knowledge of Modular Forms and Elliptic Curves, no. There's a video of Wiles' proof on Youtube that explains how he found the proof. It's not a direct proof, but a consequence of two other proofs.
 
2013-05-16 06:23:07 PM  

kkinnison: Science fiction, is fiction


Your comma usage is offensive. You should be in front of The Hague.
 
2013-05-16 06:33:45 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.


Some people don't understand the meaning of the word "fiction", apparently. Usually BadAstronomy is above this kind of crazy and deals with actual science, but not always...
 
2013-05-16 06:39:25 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Annnd back from the movie.  I rather enjoyed it.


me too. it was exciting.
 
2013-05-16 06:47:41 PM  
Holy crap, you greasy nerds.  The transporter swaps you with the matter (air) at your destination. When you beam down Chewbacca, you beam up the air that he's going to displace.
 
2013-05-16 06:54:27 PM  

Mikey1969: I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.

Some people don't understand the meaning of the word "fiction", apparently. Usually BadAstronomy is above this kind of crazy and deals with actual science, but not always...


Next up : why several alternate Earths from "Sliders" are totes impossible.
 
2013-05-16 06:55:06 PM  

BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.


Bashir or Holographic?
 
2013-05-16 06:55:41 PM  

fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?


Who?
 
2013-05-16 06:58:26 PM  

BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?


Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.
 
2013-05-16 07:02:16 PM  
Good article, Phil.

The one I really have a problem with is when people go 'out of phase', like the TNG episode with Geordi and Ensign Ro.  Apparently, they were out of phase with the walls and people, but not with the floor or artificial gravity.  As soon as they went out of phase, they should have been spat out into the emptiness of space with the first velocity or course change.

timujin: Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.


To be fair, Star Trek worked harder at making the science at least sound right than the other two.  Star Wars doesn't explain any science, and Firefly... well, I'm still trying to figure out how that engine works, and why the catalyzer on the port compression coil is so damned important.

And please, don't tell me you can break atmo and land after losing your primary buffer panel.  The space shuttle Columbia lost its primary buffer panel and we all know how that ended.

/might be a nerd
 
2013-05-16 07:02:58 PM  

FunkOut: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.


Balding Crabby Man > Smirky Arab Boy

Garak pawns them all.
 
2013-05-16 07:04:35 PM  

demonfaerie: FunkOut: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.

Balding Crabby Man > Smirky Arab Boy

Garak pawns them all.



Man, I slipped that one right under the radar.  Geronimo!
 
2013-05-16 07:05:53 PM  

dittybopper: Communicators could be fine for relatively short range communication between themselves, but you'll note that mostly they are used for communicating with the ship.


This raises an interesting question, are there examples when communications with the ship are down (not infrequent) where the away team communicates with eachother via communicators?

I'm almost certain I can hear in my head an exchange between Riker and Laforge where Riker is saying to a remotely located Laforge that he can't get the ship to respond.
 
2013-05-16 07:06:11 PM  

BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?


www.geeksofdoom.com


FunkOut: Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.


www.treksinscifi.com

What episode is this from??
 
2013-05-16 07:08:11 PM  
i feel like there is a HUGE difference between what Star Trek was/is and what people pretend it is.

Star Trek was always more fiction than science.  It was really just space-fantasy.  Especially the original series.
 
2013-05-16 07:15:46 PM  

fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?


Holographic.

/Snark Trek
 
2013-05-16 07:17:33 PM  

fusillade762: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

[www.geeksofdoom.com image 533x406]


FunkOut: Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.

[www.treksinscifi.com image 850x649]

What episode is this from??


"Doctor Bashir, I Presume"

that's Zimmerman, not the holo doc
 
2013-05-16 07:17:33 PM  

fusillade762: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

[www.geeksofdoom.com image 533x406]


FunkOut: Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.

[www.treksinscifi.com image 850x649]

What episode is this from??



It's from a Voyager episode near the end IIRC.

Also, Bashir is not a 'smirky arab boy'

Ronald D. Moore commented "In my mind, Julian was of Sudanese (like Sid), Indian, or Pakistani extraction, but that the family's roots were probably in England, hence the accents."
 
2013-05-16 07:18:31 PM  

fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.


It's also possible that the transport effect has a tendency to push matter away from the area being transported to, but that air has a much higher likelihood of being able to be moved than rock does.  Thus creating an 'attempted concurrent spacial location problem' for rock, but not for air.

I was always more impressed with the precision of where their feet ended up, and that they weren't constantly materializing and then dropping an inch or three.  Not to mention materializing upside down or at an angle.

/would have written periodic gags with Wesley materializing stuck in a tree or standing over a puddle
//'attempted concurrent spacial location problem' was a fancy phrase for 'car accident' I heard once
 
2013-05-16 07:20:00 PM  

FunkOut: Mikey1969: I_Am_Weasel: Does Slate realize that IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION TELEVISION SHOW!?

Fiction!  Television!  You know.  Fox News.

Some people don't understand the meaning of the word "fiction", apparently. Usually BadAstronomy is above this kind of crazy and deals with actual science, but not always...

Next up : why several alternate Earths from "Sliders" are totes impossible.


Lol, that was nice. Thank you...
 
2013-05-16 07:25:15 PM  

NkThrasher: //'attempted concurrent spacial location problem' was a fancy phrase for 'car accident' I heard once


Sounds like the stuff they use for aircraft like "controlled flight into terrain" or "runway incursion".
 
2013-05-16 07:50:14 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Except cell phones require infrastructure; communicators didn't.


Well, fine... satphones, then.  Which do require some infrastructure in orbit, but the communicators needed the ship, so it's a wash.
 
2013-05-16 07:52:47 PM  

BafflerMeal: fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.


I accept your solution.  Problem solved.


Yeah... let's say that such an air-removal field would be sparkly, and there would be a funny high-pitched noise as the air is moved out of the way.
 
2013-05-16 07:57:15 PM  
BafflerMeal:

Also, Bashir is not a 'smirky arab boy'

Ronald D. Moore commented "In my mind, Julian was of Sudanese (like Sid), Indian, or Pakistani extraction, but that the family's roots were probably in England, hence the accents."


Oh, but he smirky/
 
2013-05-16 07:59:37 PM  

FunkOut: BafflerMeal:

Also, Bashir is not a 'smirky arab boy'

Ronald D. Moore commented "In my mind, Julian was of Sudanese (like Sid), Indian, or Pakistani extraction, but that the family's roots were probably in England, hence the accents."

Oh, but he smirky/


It's like, how much more smirky could this doctor be?  And the answer is none.  None more smirky.
 
2013-05-16 08:00:01 PM  

Uncle_Sam's_Titties: fusillade762: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

[www.geeksofdoom.com image 533x406]


FunkOut: Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.

[www.treksinscifi.com image 850x649]

What episode is this from??

"Doctor Bashir, I Presume"

that's Zimmerman, not the holo doc


No, that's an EMH, just not the Voyager EMH.  The blue on the uniform is the indicator as Zimmerman, being an engineer, would have gold on his.
 
2013-05-16 08:13:58 PM  

unyon: timujin: Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.

To be fair, Star Trek worked harder at making the science at least sound right than the other two. Star Wars doesn't explain any science, and Firefly... well, I'm still trying to figure out how that engine works, and why the catalyzer on the port compression coil is so damned important.


That is fair and perhaps why people get their knickers in a twist when they don't or when they mess up.  But it also kind of makes my point.  Star Wars is easily twice as popular (based on number of fans) as Star Trek and, as you wrote, they don't even try to explain the science most of the time.  Hell, when they do, like with midichlorians, that's what makes for the twisty knickers.

And please, don't tell me you can break atmo and land after losing your primary buffer panel. The space shuttle Columbia lost its primary buffer panel and we all know how that ended.

My only thought is that they had a secondary buffer panel.  And hopefully a tertiary, since the damned things apparently just pop off.

/might be a nerd

Might?
 
2013-05-16 08:51:05 PM  

Eddie T. Head: Uncle_Sam's_Titties: fusillade762: BafflerMeal: fusillade762: BullBearMS: /Garak still my favorite though.

Garak and the Doctor.

Bashir or Holographic?

Who?

[www.geeksofdoom.com image 533x406]


FunkOut: Smirky Arab Boy or Balding Crabby Man.

[www.treksinscifi.com image 850x649]

What episode is this from??

"Doctor Bashir, I Presume"

that's Zimmerman, not the holo doc

No, that's an EMH, just not the Voyager EMH.  The blue on the uniform is the indicator as Zimmerman, being an engineer, would have gold on his.


aw shiat... shiat shiat shiat shiat shiat. honestly baby, this kind of thing has never happened to me before!


/hangs head in shame
//walks away
///puts episode on to confirm you are actually correct
//you probably are
/slashies
 
2013-05-16 08:57:06 PM  
www.slate.com
This whole scene was stylized and in Spock's memory; we're not actually seeing Vulcan as Spock saw it in that moment, but as how he imagined it would look like being eaten alive by the artificial plot black hole.
 
2013-05-16 08:57:10 PM  

Eddie T. Head: No, that's an EMH, just not the Voyager EMH. The blue on the uniform is the indicator as Zimmerman, being an engineer, would have gold on his.


Damn, son.  I tip my hat.
 
2013-05-16 08:57:44 PM  
I miss Star Trek 2.0
That was actually a lot of fun.  It gave a new perspective on TOS.  The stock market game was pretty interesting, too.
 
2013-05-16 09:04:46 PM  
aggh... god.. choking on my own rage here
 
2013-05-16 09:09:03 PM  
Perhaps I'm using a different definition of successful breeding than the Bad Astronomer.
 
2013-05-16 10:00:08 PM  

unyon: timujin: Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.

To be fair, Star Trek worked harder at making the science at least sound right than the other two.  Star Wars doesn't explain any science, and Firefly... well, I'm still trying to figure out how that engine works, and why the catalyzer on the port compression coil is so damned important.


I'd argue that Firefly was "harder" than the other two for the simple fact that they didn't have FTL. Not to mention aliens, transporters, etc.
 
2013-05-16 10:05:36 PM  
The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.
 
2013-05-16 10:08:20 PM  

unyon: Good article, Phil.

The one I really have a problem with is when people go 'out of phase', like the TNG episode with Geordi and Ensign Ro.  Apparently, they were out of phase with the walls and people, but not with the floor or artificial gravity.  As soon as they went out of phase, they should have been spat out into the emptiness of space with the first velocity or course change.

timujin: Right... because people watch Star Trek (or Star Wars or Firefly or Battlestar Galactica) because they're looking for hard science.

To be fair, Star Trek worked harder at making the science at least sound right than the other two.  Star Wars doesn't explain any science, and Firefly... well, I'm still trying to figure out how that engine works, and why the catalyzer on the port compression coil is so damned important.

And please, don't tell me you can break atmo and land after losing your primary buffer panel.  The space shuttle Columbia lost its primary buffer panel and we all know how that ended.

/might be a nerd


The thing that bothers me about Firefly is that it apparently all occurs in the same solar system.  A solar system with way too many planets to be plausible and where somehow both China and America managed to get to at some point.
 
2013-05-16 10:35:29 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The thing that bothers me about Firefly is that it apparently all occurs in the same solar system. A solar system with way too many planets to be plausible and where somehow both China and America managed to get to at some point.


It's actually a solar system with too many suns ;)  One primary that is orbited by planets as well as other stars that in turn have their own planets:

http://www.fireflywiki.net/Firefly/FireflyUniverse

fusillade762: I'd argue that Firefly was "harder" than the other two for the simple fact that they didn't have FTL. Not to mention aliens, transporters, etc.


Maybe yes, maybe no.  See the above link for clarification.  Well, not exactly clarification, but further explanation at least.
 
2013-05-16 10:46:30 PM  
 
2013-05-16 11:51:32 PM  

0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.


Except when it doesn't (Star Trek II). Though of course they seem to think they're geniuses for considering it.

Oh, also, this scene from "All Good Things" comes to mind:

www.startrek.com

And I'm sure the Defiant attacked from above or below a number of times, but I can't find any pics.
 
2013-05-17 12:11:57 AM  
At this point in time, I'm not sure if I'm more angry at the bad writing, the bad science, or the fact that you guys only seem to whine for hundreds of posts bout Star Trek. Because in the pony threads, you run detractors out by sheer force of hidden sexual desire.
 
2013-05-17 12:50:09 AM  

0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.


No, not always. Just watch the phaser banks fire. Perhaps because they appear oriented in the same plane on the view screen it gives the illusion they're always in the same plane during combat, but the cutaway scenes of the phasers firing shows a pretty wide arc of fire. Watch the Federation fight the Borg for instance.
 
2013-05-17 01:23:12 AM  
The thing that bothers me about Firefly is that it apparently all occurs in the same solar system.  A solar system with way too many planets to be plausible and where somehow both China and America managed to get to at some point.

I think they all got there at the same time, and the cultures may well have been well on their way to merging well prior to leaving earth-that-was.  The solar system is a multi-solar system, with red dwarfs orbiting a central white sun.  Each of those systems has planets and moons, which is where the 'dozens of planets and hundreds of moons' numbers come from.  So it's solar systems inside a solar system.
 
2013-05-17 01:28:10 AM  

fusillade762: IC Stars: fusillade762: My problem with the transporter is the fact that two particles of matter can't exist in the same space at the same time. In WoK Bones is worried about being transported into solid rock, but being transported into air (yes, air is still matter) would be just as disastrous. If it were possible, that is. The signal would just bounce off. The only way the transporter could work is if they put a force field around the landing area and pumped all the air out first.

Did you forget that there is still a lot of empty space inside solid rock?

Sure, but you're bound to have atoms attempting to be in the same space. Or is the human body going to be squeezed into the little pockets where there is empty space? And wouldn't the same problem still exist with air?


If it did happen, you'd explode.
 
2013-05-17 01:35:43 AM  

0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.


When they encounter one another, they do it intentionally. It's like getting into an elevator: you just turn around and face the door. There's no law or external reason to do so: you just do. You could walk in and just stop, facing the crowd within, but you don't; it's a social no-no.

Same thing in space. You meet someone, you do so "face to face". Which means upright.

In combat, now, that's a whole 'nother beast.
 
2013-05-17 01:39:53 AM  

fusillade762: I'd argue that Firefly was "harder" than the other two for the simple fact that they didn't have FTL. Not to mention aliens, transporters, etc.


That was it's charm.  Other than location, culture, and language, it didn't feel like either technology or people had actually changed very much at all.
 
2013-05-17 02:18:23 AM  

theresnothinglft: Mad_Radhu: theresnothinglft: The biggest mistake in the reboot is that the transporter was able to teleport people onto a moving starship at warp and at across great distances.  Say like beaming from Saturn to Earth in the case of the end of that reboot.  This revelation instantly makes starship travel obsolete.

Worse the transporter also shows they can remotely manipulate objects on a quantum level.  In no way is the transporter a 1 shot fire all the atomic goo signal at the target location and it assembles itself correctly.  This goes to ask why they didn't just lock onto the red matter and transporter it into an unstable state.  Also why didn't they just transport the core of one of those torpedos on Nero's ship outside of its casing?

And even better yet, if the transporter is all that great then why does the scanner technology suck to the point where they can't tell if a room is a cargo bay or not from 6 billion miles off?

1. The advanced transport tech was invented by future Scotty after the end of Nemesis, so we don't know what it did to the galaxy. It may well changed how people traveled in space, but we just didn't see it on screen. It's possible old Spock made him hold off on making it public knowledge until the time is right because he doesn't want to screw up the new timeline any further.

2. You can't transport through shields. That's why you don't see boarding parties happen until the shields are down generally, unless it is like Best of Both Worlds where they took the shuttle inside the Borg shield before they transported on to grab Locutus.

These points don't apply to Abram's universe because he rewrote it.  It would have been more compelling if Abram's writers stuck to the original points regarding the transporter:
1.  Thing fails half the time until next gen and later, then it's fairly reliable.
2.  40,000 Km max range (I might be wrong with this number but it seriously wasn't any further than the earth to the moon)
3.  Transporter signal can't ...


You are going to rage with the fire of a thousand suns after watching the movie.

Let me spoil it for you: Chekov DOESN'T fire the gun at the end of the movie.
 
2013-05-17 02:31:54 AM  

0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.


Here's the thing I've learned while playing space sims.  While you might approach another ship from an oblique angle, unless you manage to attack them unawares they will orient themselves to be facing you, as that is the direction their weapons generally face.  Regardless of your relative position to the rest of the universe, you will appear to be on the same plane in relation to each other.

While they might not explicitly refer to this alignment in Star Trek, I give them the benefit of the doubt that it takes place.
 
2013-05-17 02:55:06 AM  
One thing I always hated about Star Trek is how the crew of the various ships can miraculously come up with ways to do things or technologies which are better than the existing ways or technologies. Like how one engineer on the Enterprise can somehow figure out how to make their engines more efficient while all of Starfleet Research, many people whose job it is to figure those things out, can't. Then instead of having to do lots of testing and get approval from the higher ups for such a change, they just say "What the hell, screw safety and established methods, make those changes and fire up those engines."
 
2013-05-17 03:41:31 AM  

Befuddled: One thing I always hated about Star Trek is how the crew of the various ships can miraculously come up with ways to do things or technologies which are better than the existing ways or technologies. Like how one engineer on the Enterprise can somehow figure out how to make their engines more efficient while all of Starfleet Research, many people whose job it is to figure those things out, can't. Then instead of having to do lots of testing and get approval from the higher ups for such a change, they just say "What the hell, screw safety and established methods, make those changes and fire up those engines."


4.bp.blogspot.com

I'm done re-kafoobling the energy motron ... or whatever.
 
2013-05-17 03:52:54 AM  
"OK, this one breaks my own rule about ignoring tech mistakes..."

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-17 06:22:41 AM  

unyon: Good article, Phil.The one I really have a problem with is when people go 'out of phase', like the TNG episode with Geordi and Ensign Ro.  Apparently, they were out of phase with the walls and people, but not with the floor or artificial gravity.  As soon as they went out of phase, they should have been spat out into the emptiness of space with the first velocity or course change.


Also why aren't they "out of phase" with the air around them? I can sort of see the artificial gravity still working on them potentially, but then if it did it should push them through the floor.
 
2013-05-17 07:02:38 AM  
The inconsistency in being able to use the transporter to fix all sorts of genetic and other microscopic problems can probably be explained by the rarely-overtly-described philosophy that one lives one's natural life as given without, generally, seeking to prolong it or improve it beyond combating or repairing external conditions.

This is most obvious in any episode that touches on genetic modification. Improving one's physical body in that way is extremely taboo - at least in Starfleet - and it would not be a stretch to imagine that that taboo applies to any improvement, including the use of transporters to "reset" one's aging process (and we assume such a thing is possible). It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."

Whether that philosophy actually makes sense is never really argued. While certainly it helps prevent a race to improve one's self or one's children, it also seems shortsighted. Humanity is going to evolve one way or another (and really, this sort of this "corrective" philosophy might even hamper natural evolution), why not take the reins ourselves?
 
2013-05-17 07:29:48 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: I've always wondered, though, how the communicator knew who you wanted to call. I mean, yes, you said, "Riker to Data" and then it hooked you up to Data, but Data would hear you say, "Riker to Data". So either it somehow hooked you up to him before you even spoke, or it recorded and then replayed your greeting upon connection. More likely the latter, obviously, but I always thought it weird, especially since (when people didn't answer immediately) the caller would repeat the greeting, as if the person should have responded in the 0.68 seconds when they were first hearing your greeting.


It wouldn't have to know.  I see them more as radios, than devices like cellphones.

With a simple radio, you pick a specific frequency or channel for a specific purpose, and it gets monitored continuously.  When I want to keep tabs on the distaffbopper at the mall,  we pick a common FRS radio channel and we both monitor it.  When I call her, she hears it immediately, and vice versa.

Likewise, I have a more powerful VHF radio at home, that I keep on the "calling frequency" (146.520 MHz) of the most commonly used ham radio band (2 Meter Band).  Because I have a bigger antenna that is higher up, I can talk to people using handheld radios much farther than the handhelds could talk between themselves.

That's what I imagine is going on with the communicators.  They pick a specific "channel" for different purposes (command, away teams, etc.) and it all gets monitored from the ship.  In fact, that's all Lt. Uhura did:  Work the radios.
 
2013-05-17 09:21:37 AM  
The first season of Enterprise is Worst Trek for scientific mistakes.  I re-watched it recently and they weren't just doing the usual Trek pulling-shiat-out-of-thin-air technology thing, they were making BASIC ARITHMETIC ERRORS.  I've already suppressed the memories of watching the show, but there were two or three episodes where I stopped and said "what the hell?" because the mistake was so glaring.
 
2013-05-17 09:57:28 AM  

Niveras: The inconsistency in being able to use the transporter to fix all sorts of genetic and other microscopic problems can probably be explained by the rarely-overtly-described philosophy that one lives one's natural life as given without, generally, seeking to prolong it or improve it beyond combating or repairing external conditions.

This is most obvious in any episode that touches on genetic modification. Improving one's physical body in that way is extremely taboo - at least in Starfleet - and it would not be a stretch to imagine that that taboo applies to any improvement, including the use of transporters to "reset" one's aging process (and we assume such a thing is possible). It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."

Whether that philosophy actually makes sense is never really argued. While certainly it helps prevent a race to improve one's self or one's children, it also seems shortsighted. Humanity is going to evolve one way or another (and really, this sort of this "corrective" philosophy might even hamper natural evolution), why not take the reins ourselves?


It seems to go back to all the nastiness they had with the Augments. Basically, Kahn has probably replaced Hitler in the future when it comes to Godwin'ing a conversation about genetic augmentation.
 
2013-05-17 10:35:51 AM  

Professor Science: There is no science in Star Trek; it's fantasy with the magic horses and swords and wizards replaced by magic space ships and phasers and Vulcans.


No. It's "Wagon Train" in space.

At least, that's how it was pitched.
 
2013-05-17 10:46:22 AM  

fusillade762: 0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;
When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.
Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.

Except when it doesn't (Star Trek II). Though of course they seem to think they're geniuses for considering it.

Oh, also, this scene from "All Good Things" comes to mind:

[www.startrek.com image 320x240]

And I'm sure the Defiant attacked from above or below a number of times, but I can't find any pics.


Perhaps there are some established flight corridors just like we have for airplanes? Or some automatic course correction to assure optimal alignment with regard to magnetic fields and whatnot? Or the ships' navigation systems automatically negotiate a common plane upon approach as a form of interstellar etiquette or perhaps for mutual safety (even bad guys usually want their ship to get out unharmed)?

Related: the Enterprise E in a plane of two-dimensional beings:
2.bp.blogspot.com

On the other hand, the creatures in Encounter at Farpoint do move in parallel with the E's Z-axis.

You'd almost think they don't want to overcomplicate these things unless the plot calls for it.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:30 AM  
Can we convert people who think fantasy should treated as reality into Soylent Green??
 
2013-05-17 11:00:28 AM  

unyon: The thing that bothers me about Firefly is that it apparently all occurs in the same solar system.  A solar system with way too many planets to be plausible and where somehow both China and America managed to get to at some point.

I think they all got there at the same time, and the cultures may well have been well on their way to merging well prior to leaving earth-that-was.  The solar system is a multi-solar system, with red dwarfs orbiting a central white sun.  Each of those systems has planets and moons, which is where the 'dozens of planets and hundreds of moons' numbers come from.  So it's solar systems inside a solar system.


JESUS FARKING CHRIST, Y'ALL. There is exactly and precisely ONE Solar system in all the universe, and that's all there ever will be, forever and ever and ever.

Sol is the proper name for our local star, and the system of planets, moon, and assorted debris is named after it as 'the' Solar system. In this context, 'Solar' is always capitalized.

Specific systems around other stars are named similarly, i.e. the Vegan system, the Rigellian system, the Eta Carinid system.

The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.

Goddamn, this I'd the very first thing that tells me somebody doesn't know WTF they're talking about and can be ignored on all subsequent points.
 
2013-05-17 11:37:12 AM  

timujin: they will orient themselves to be facing you, as that is the direction their weapons generally face.


Which is kind of stupid, when you think about it.
Even old sailing ships had a few guns that could turn around in any direction, not to mention battleships with their swiveling turrets.
 
2013-05-17 12:00:20 PM  

Befuddled: One thing I always hated about Star Trek is how the crew of the various ships can miraculously come up with ways to do things or technologies which are better than the existing ways or technologies. Like how one engineer on the Enterprise can somehow figure out how to make their engines more efficient while all of Starfleet Research, many people whose job it is to figure those things out, can't. Then instead of having to do lots of testing and get approval from the higher ups for such a change, they just say "What the hell, screw safety and established methods, make those changes and fire up those engines."


Gore-Tex was made when Robert Gore got mad. They were playing with PTFE (which Robert had also developed as Teflon), trying to make a thread of it into something soft, but the process of getting it into something that could be used as a fabric was non-existent at that point... everything they did seemed to indicate that PTFE would be too hard, too brittle, and just plain not work as a textile. In a fit of rage, Gore took a small cylinder of PTFE (about the dimensions of a glue stick) and gave it a good, hard yank, trying to pull it apart in two... what he got from the uncareful, rapid application of force was a restructured ptfe (in between the parts he was holding) that was soft, thin, and able to be used in a fabric. His dad (Wilbert, iirc), and a woman (can't remember her name) had been working on the project for years, but the big break was a biatch fit. So ya, occasionally one good engineer can solve a problem that has vexed entire teams of well-qualified people (sometimes even including themselves) pointing in that direction for years. Frankly, history is littered with inventions that happened by accident, by necessity, or rapidly resulting from the work of just a couple people who found a solution that thousands were searching for. Ceteris Paribus, that's the most believable part of the Star Trek inventions construct.
 
2013-05-17 12:08:14 PM  

AdrienVeidt: The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.


That never occurred to me before, but it makes complete sense for the reasons you mentioned.

Goddamn, this I'd the very first thing that tells me somebody doesn't know WTF they're talking about and can be ignored on all subsequent points.

So my description of a fictional stellar system is inaccurate because of stellar nomenclature?  Boy, you went from corrective criticism to dickwad at FTL speed.  Besides, the white giant at the centre of the Firefly stellar system goes unnamed through the series.  This system is humanities new home.  How are we to know that they didn't call it Sol 2?
 
2013-05-17 12:18:42 PM  

0Icky0: timujin: they will orient themselves to be facing you, as that is the direction their weapons generally face.

Which is kind of stupid, when you think about it.
Even old sailing ships had a few guns that could turn around in any direction, not to mention battleships with their swiveling turrets.


As do most of the ships I've seen in science fiction, that's why I used the word "generally".  They have some that point in directions other than straight ahead, but primary batteries that don't.  Perhaps there are design constraints that require a single orientation, I dunno.
 
2013-05-17 12:56:30 PM  

unyon: AdrienVeidt: The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.

That never occurred to me before, but it makes complete sense for the reasons you mentioned.

Goddamn, this I'd the very first thing that tells me somebody doesn't know WTF they're talking about and can be ignored on all subsequent points.

So my description of a fictional stellar system is inaccurate because of stellar nomenclature?  Boy, you went from corrective criticism to dickwad at FTL speed.  Besides, the white giant at the centre of the Firefly stellar system goes unnamed through the series.  This system is humanities new home.  How are we to know that they didn't call it Sol 2?


This is the internet. If you get one trifling detail wrong your entire argument is automatically invalid (and my hair is a bird).
 
2013-05-17 01:14:53 PM  

unyon: AdrienVeidt: The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.

That never occurred to me before, but it makes complete sense for the reasons you mentioned.

Goddamn, this I'd the very first thing that tells me somebody doesn't know WTF they're talking about and can be ignored on all subsequent points.

So my description of a fictional stellar system is inaccurate because of stellar nomenclature?  Boy, you went from corrective criticism to dickwad at FTL speed.  Besides, the white giant at the centre of the Firefly stellar system goes unnamed through the series.  This system is humanities new home.  How are we to know that they didn't call it Sol 2?


In all honesty, the FireFly star system is laughably implausible. Any system of 4 stars orbiting another won't remotely have enough orbital stability for any of the daughter stars to keep planets, much less enough for 30 'Earths'. Add in the spectacular amounts of radiation that would likely come from a white giant - whatever that is - and any such planets would be sterile rocks.

It's just a spectacularly dumb workaround to not have warp engines, imho. I loved FF as much as any other, but it ain't *remotely* Science fiction just because it's set in space.
 
2013-05-17 01:24:37 PM  
However, if we allow for the white giant to be Sol2, the proper name would then be Solar2 system. But more likely, they'd reference against the local star by saying Solar2-DaughterStar system.

And to the guy on the first page, in Trek subspace is another universe 'beneath' ours where distance tracks to ours at a smaller ratio. One mile in our universe = ten feet in subspace, or whatnot. There's no one subspace, since there's an infinitude of universes of which about half will have such ratios; you just pick one that's easy to hack into with the ratio you want.
 
2013-05-17 01:40:34 PM  

mark12A: No, the biggest mistake of the reboot was some punk ass kid who didn't even graduate Star Fleet Academy getting command of a frikin' Starship.

We can argue, speculate and whine about the different technologies and MacGuffins they use in Trek, but what I absolutely DEMAND is a future where people act rationally, and a Starfleet that acts like responsible adults



This.
 
2013-05-17 01:56:05 PM  

AdrienVeidt: In all honesty, the FireFly star system is laughably implausible. Any system of 4 stars orbiting another won't remotely have enough orbital stability for any of the daughter stars to keep planets, much less enough for 30 'Earths'. Add in the spectacular amounts of radiation that would likely come from a white giant - whatever that is - and any such planets would be sterile rocks.


They actually found a planet in a quad-star system in real life, so it isn't THAT implausible. If a lot of those stars are dwarfs and there is a large separation between them, when you combine the habitable zones being closer in with the smaller gravitation effects of the dwarfs on their neighbors, stable orbits could probably work out that don't have crazy seasons. Since you never really see multiple suns in the sky on Firefly, it seems like there is a pretty big separation between the stars of the system, so the other suns are just bright stars in the sky. The bigger scientific issue seems to be that the stars seem to have colors that don't really match up with stellar lifecycles, like the blue dwarf sun or the white giant.
 
2013-05-17 02:14:21 PM  

AdrienVeidt: It's just a spectacularly dumb workaround to not have warp engines, imho. I loved FF as much as any other, but it ain't *remotely* Science fiction just because it's set in space.


It's more of a futurist fiction then science fiction.

But "science fiction" as a genre has always included fantasy stories about space.
 
2013-05-17 02:19:25 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.


In other news, the long and contentious battle over the respective definitions of geeks and nerds has apparently been categorically resolved.

Good to know.
 
2013-05-17 02:27:54 PM  
Didn't know about that one Radhu. Most interesting, but they do stress how close it is to it's parent binary, meaning the other pair act as one big planet farther out, gravitationally speaking. The FF system is a central star with four independent stellar system orbiting it, a drastically more complex super-system that simply isn't gonna have 30 terraformable planets in it. That's 7.5 Earths in each one!

And no, Science Fiction does not include space opera, dammit. Asserting that setting = genre is just dumb. May as well say Blazing Saddles and Leaving Las Vegas are Westerns.
 
2013-05-17 03:04:53 PM  

AdrienVeidt: Didn't know about that one Radhu. Most interesting, but they do stress how close it is to it's parent binary, meaning the other pair act as one big planet farther out, gravitationally speaking. The FF system is a central star with four independent stellar system orbiting it, a drastically more complex super-system that simply isn't gonna have 30 terraformable planets in it. That's 7.5 Earths in each one!

And no, Science Fiction does not include space opera, dammit. Asserting that setting = genre is just dumb. May as well say Blazing Saddles and Leaving Las Vegas are Westerns.


Dude. The earliest science fiction movies where shooting a man to the moon in a farking cannon and hitting the moon IN THE EYE!

flavorwire.files.wordpress.com

/scifi as a genre includes fantasy. deal with it.
 
2013-05-17 03:08:15 PM  

RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.

which one was that?

Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.


Worse, they evolve into newts.

So apparently this guy was repeatedly reproducing while being selectively killed by predators, just so quickly that nobody could see it happening.
 
2013-05-17 03:10:26 PM  
eyeq360:
Or is it just explainable in technobabble?

Technobabble to one degree or another.  You could assume that the dimensions below the ones we experience are "subspace" and those above us are "hyperspace" although I'm not sure if anyone is using those terms to describe such things and yes there are more than 4 dimensions.

The Warp drive is basically an  Alcubierre_drive with some standard scifi bits bolted to it to hide the fact it's your basic space-time cruncher.
 
2013-05-17 03:10:33 PM  
I am dealing with it, by telling you you're wrong. We used to classify black folks as subhuman monkeys, but we don't any longer because they were wrong. What do you gain by being wrong about classifying stories that have dick-all to do with science as science fiction?
 
2013-05-17 03:51:14 PM  

AdrienVeidt: I am dealing with it, by telling you you're wrong. We used to classify black folks as subhuman monkeys, but we don't any longer because they were wrong. What do you gain by being wrong about classifying stories that have dick-all to do with science as science fiction?


Did you just compare the civil rights movement to your fantasy stories?
 
2013-05-17 04:51:49 PM  
Did you just completely miss the point?

Also, that movie you reference was made about 20 years before 'science fiction' was coined; do you're wrong on that, too.
 
2013-05-17 05:29:28 PM  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_film

Reality seems to disagree with you.
 
2013-05-17 05:58:47 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.


You're saying I'm not a geek? In my 54 years of life, nobody has ever suggested that one before! Hell, people thought I was a geek even back when it meant someone who bites the heads off live chickens. ;)

My scientist/professor wife is the nerd. Yes, we have a mixed marriage, but we've made it work.

Both of us care about the science. I just hated the school part.

The Bad Astronomer: And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do.

Hi, I never noticed you here before. We love your work!
 
2013-05-17 06:38:29 PM  

AdrienVeidt: And no, Science Fiction does not include space opera, dammit. Asserting that setting = genre is just dumb. May as well say Blazing Saddles and Leaving Las Vegas are Westerns.


In the younger days of fandom, we had categories like hard SF, SF, sci-fi, and fantasy. After Star Wars, the genre grew popular enough to get a category in bookstores, and they lumped it all together into "Sci-fi/Fantasy".  I personally think that's when it all got scrambled.

The categories weren't subjective, based on taste, either. There were semi-official written rules about what you could get away with in each category. Now that the genre's even more popular, and bookstores are dinosaurs, maybe it's time for that to come back. Or, maybe I'm an old fart having a "Get off my lawn!" moment. :)

But I guess I'm guilty, too.  Yes, I consider Blazing Saddles a Western, though it'd have to be a compound definition, like "Western-spoof". I also class Quigley Down Under as a Western, though it takes place entirely in the far east. But not Leaving Las Vegas.

Firefly I'd hyphenate as well, as a "SciFi-Western". The setting matters to me, although I suspect the same stories and characters would have worked fine set on a tramp steamer cruising Central America during the early 1900s.
 
2013-05-17 06:57:05 PM  

Lodger: Revek: Its for entertainment purposes only.  Get over it and accept that.

The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.


Thank you Mr. Romero.  While true it doesn't change any part of my statement.
 
2013-05-17 07:13:20 PM  

Revek: Lodger: Revek: Its for  entertainment purposes only.  Get over it and accept that.

The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.

Thank you Mr. Romero.  While true it doesn't change any part of my statement.


If you agree, then this part of your statement is no longer correct.  Entertainment doesn't necessarily or always mean inspiring or influential.  I'm sure you've watched countless entertaining stories and not been influenced to do a damn thing.
 
2013-05-17 07:18:13 PM  

Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."


They didn't seem to mind upgrading Geodi's eyes to see infrared and zoom and stuff.

cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-05-17 07:42:23 PM  

Lodger: Revek: Lodger: Revek: Its for  entertainment purposes only.  Get over it and accept that.

The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.

Thank you Mr. Romero.  While true it doesn't change any part of my statement.

If you agree, then this part of your statement is no longer correct.  Entertainment doesn't necessarily or always mean inspiring or influential.  I'm sure you've watched countless entertaining stories and not been influenced to do a damn thing.


Yes you are still missing the point.  The point being the that the shows themselves are there only to entertain.  To get upset that some of it doesn't track with science matters not at all.  The fact that people watch them and are inspired to create a version of what they see doesn't negate that they are only for entertainment.  None of them would exists if it wasn't for the revenue they produce.   Its just added bonus that it allows the writers,cast,producers to put their dreams and concepts in there.  Getting upset cause some of it is obviously plot filler is a useless waste of time.  Accept it and get over it.
 
2013-05-17 08:54:53 PM  

fusillade762: Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."

They didn't seem to mind upgrading Geodi's eyes to see infrared and zoom and stuff.

[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x399]


I never quite understood why Geordi and Data were so emo about being post-human. It seemed like the Star Trek universe, for all it's talk about open mindedness, had a weird undercurrent of showing people being miserable if they didn't conform to the ideal of the Federation, so they were always trying to fit in with the rest of the regular humans. The message seemed to be that if you were a round peg, you had to do your damnedest to fit into that round hole, otherwise you'd be ostracized like Barclay. Data was the saddest, because he was always struggling to be what he wasn't instead of embracing what he was (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).
 
2013-05-17 09:40:14 PM  
One thing that always pissed me off about most space sci-fi combat is that they always do "attack runs" by going straight at their target, which (while minimizing surface area in most cases) makes them practically a stationary target; the smarter move requires them to maximize their transversal movement and make it more difficult to be targeted by turrets.

/EVE Online
 
2013-05-17 10:11:28 PM  

Mad_Radhu: (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).


Never heard of that one. Worth checking out?
 
2013-05-17 10:43:46 PM  

fluffy2097: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_film

Reality seems to disagree with you.


Lol, guess again. A Trip to the Moon came out in 1902, while Hugo Gernsback coined 'scientifiction' in 1926, which slurred into the easier 'science fiction' afterwards. Anything else you'd care to be taught about science fiction?
 
2013-05-17 10:53:44 PM  

Mad_Radhu: fusillade762: Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."

They didn't seem to mind upgrading Geodi's eyes to see infrared and zoom and stuff.

[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x399]

I never quite understood why Geordi and Data were so emo about being post-human. It seemed like the Star Trek universe, for all it's talk about open mindedness, had a weird undercurrent of showing people being miserable if they didn't conform to the ideal of the Federation, so they were always trying to fit in with the rest of the regular humans. The message seemed to be that if you were a round peg, you had to do your damnedest to fit into that round hole, otherwise you'd be ostracized like Barclay. Data was the saddest, because he was always struggling to be what he wasn't instead of embracing what he was (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).


When he still had the visor, Geordi saw EVERYTHING, and couldn't tune any frequencies out. IIRC, he even saw non-EM energies. He disliked that he couldn't see things as normals do, while accepting that what he could see was often useful if not vital to helping solve a problem. I believe he also got headaches.

Data was basically programmed to be emo. He was only something like 5 years old when he joined the Enterprise, and simply not experientially complex enough to grow into his own skin yet. His father have him the yearning to be human so he would have *something* to motivate him to become more than a robot.
 
2013-05-18 01:28:29 AM  

Revek: Yes you are still missing the point. The point being the that the shows themselves are there only to entertain. To get upset that some of it doesn't track with science matters not at all.


It's nowhere near as pointless as the other pastime of geeks:  getting upset because movie adaptations don't match the completely fictional sequence of events in a novel.

I can see how people can get annoyed when a story has a plot hole, or otherwise violates facts or logic.  But it's pretty pathetic when people think it's wrong to change a fictional story in the retelling, as if The Lord of the Rings was a history book, as if there was a version that "really happened" and the other versions are unforgivable lies.
 
2013-05-18 01:32:58 AM  

dittybopper: ArcadianRefugee: I've always wondered, though, how the communicator knew who you wanted to call....

It wouldn't have to know.  I see them more as radios, than devices like cellphones.

With a simple radio, you pick a specific frequency or channel for a specific purpose, and it gets monitored continuously.  When I want to keep tabs on the distaffbopper at the mall,  we pick a common FRS radio channel and we both monitor it.  When I call her, she hears it immediately, and vice versa.

Likewise, I have a more powerful VHF radio at home, that I keep on the "calling frequency" (146.520 MHz) of the most commonly used ham radio band (2 Meter Band).  Because I have a bigger antenna that is higher up, I can talk to people using handheld radios much farther than the handhelds could talk between themselves.

That's what I imagine is going on with the communicators.  They pick a specific "channel" for different purposes (command, away teams, etc.) and it all gets monitored from the ship.  In fact, that's all Lt. Uhura did:  Work the radios.


But you [both] preselect that frequency. In ST, they merely tap their badge to start talking - we never see anyone adjust a dial or press buttons on the thing, they just slap it - and the listening bit is apparently always on (or you'd never hear a call). So either the computer somehow knows who they wish to speak with, or everyone on that band hears the requests. Constantly. For example, on ship, everyone - including the captain - would hear "Picard to Commander Riker", "LaForge to O'brien", "Data to Engineering" (yeek!), "Lt. Word to Sickbay"... etc, all the time. There'd be constant chatter through the things.
 
Displayed 192 of 192 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report