Discrepancies in Star Trek science

Started by Symmetric Chaos6 pages

I was quoting a guy on another website.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're assuming the script writer has a lot more power than he or she really does. The odds of the perfect storm you want are absurdly slim.

Uh. No.

The script writer has LOADS of power over their own script...as long as they are not held down by a contract. 😄

It's as simple as writing and getting an agreement written into the contract BEFORE you sign.

evillaugh

Do you think I was born yesterday and that I'd let my masterpiece be raped and destroyed? There's a reason why I think almost every last bit of horror always misses that little something and never succeeds at true horror.

The deal is...if it's good enough, it will remain mostly unscathed. I fully expect things to be changed, but I also fully expect just a small few things to change. 😐

If they want to shoot a scene slightly differently, fine. If they want to change some of the dialogue slightly, that's fine. In fact, I hope dialogue is changed as I....very sincerely think that it could be improved, but the essence of the story would be preserved.

Originally posted by jaden101
To show that a scientifically accurate sci-fi film can still be entertaining, just watch "Primer"

It's probably one of the most difficult films to follow, ever.

I will. I've never seen that.

Originally posted by Mindship
** dadude's workin' on a horror script;
Chaos's is working on a disaster movie...
...where the hell is my old space opera stuff...?? **

lamo

You definitely should keep working on it. My personal opinion...I think the more I write, the better I get. I think that it is possible to continually improve one's writing ability.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I will. I've never seen that.

I think you'd like it...Being a physics man and all. It's basically about a bunch of guys who try to make a machine that lowers the mass of objects so they can sell it to places like shipping companies. Through sheer fluke they realise that it effectively makes a time machine which they try to exploit, initially to make money on the stock market, but one of them becomes obsessed by controlling every little aspect of his life.

Even using the diagram on the films wiki page, i still don't fully understand the process but then theoretical physics aint really my thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

Originally posted by jaden101
I think you'd like it...Being a physics man and all. It's basically about a bunch of guys who try to make a machine that lowers the mass of objects so they can sell it to places like shipping companies. Through sheer fluke they realise that it effectively makes a time machine which they try to exploit, initially to make money on the stock market, but one of them becomes obsessed by controlling every little aspect of his life.

Even using the diagram on the films wiki page, i still don't fully understand the process but then theoretical physics aint really my thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

That presumes that there is only one timeline and that something like the multiverse does not exist.

But, yes, looks cool.

Have a "linear" timeline in sci fi makes it much easier to write a story around that concept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You definitely should keep working on it. My personal opinion...I think the more I write, the better I get. I think that it is possible to continually improve one's writing ability.
Agreed.

I write other things these days. Unfortunately, space opera has been done to death, IMO, otherwise I'd give it another look (if nothing else, I really enjoyed designing the ship).

Anyway, real-life factors (time, budget, ego) do sometimes make for inexcusable plot holes. A tight plot/backstory certainly isn't impossible, but in the real world, it seems like an uphill climb.

So it occurs to me, even assuming that your canonically impossible plot to replicate dilithium is possible, there's no evidence I'm aware of that ST has the technology to make matter from nothing. How would Voyager continue to produce dilithium once they ran out of material to turn into it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So it occurs to me, even assuming that your canonically impossible plot to replicate dilithium is possible, there's no evidence I'm aware of that ST has the technology to make matter from nothing. How would Voyager continue to produce dilithium once they ran out of material to turn into it?

That's a fallacy.

The dilithium wouldn't burn up fast enough to run out of things to turn into dilithium.

Also....they could stop along the way to gather matter. Just for like....2 seconds or something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a fallacy.

No, it's a reasonable question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The dilithium wouldn't burn up fast enough to run out of things to turn into dilithium.

I'll admit to not doing the math, you've suggested previously in this thread that at max warp they would be burning dilithium at fairly extreme levels.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also....they could stop along the way to gather matter. Just for like....2 seconds or something.

They have a Bussard-ramscoop onboard or something?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it's a reasonable question.

I'll admit to not doing the math, you've suggested previously in this thread that at max warp they would be burning dilithium at fairly extreme levels.

The question is, how quickly?

And, they'd have to devise a change-out system...meaning, they'd have to create a dilithium cluster. 2 would be enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They have a Bussard-ramscoop onboard or something?

No. A transporter. awesome

Good Lod, what a remakrable waste of time much iof this thread was.

Please do not make threads that require such an absurd song and dance. if you want to make an thread about you thinking they should be able to replicate dilithium, then do so, with an accurate name, and get straight to the point. Doing it this way is just pointless and confusing.

The answer is, in any case, no more complex than: They conceptually want the ships to need fuel, they conceptually want that fuiel to be scarce. That overrides anything else.

Closed.

I'm going to re-open this, but give it an appropriate name so as to clear up any further confusion.

I don't see a problem in discussing the finer points of science as it relates to star trek and why they should or should not be able to replicate such things as ships or deuterium.

Long as you guys keep it on topic, you'll get no problems with me.

If you want to discuss a particular topic- in this case about whether the Federation should be able to replicate dilithium- open a thread with that subject name. The first half of this thread is too confusing to be reasonable.