Claim that ST is more scientifically realistic than SW.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-02-21 08:23pm

SirNitram wrote:it's just that Trek butchers science to get the costs down.

That doesn't really compute. I think it's more because they don't care and are more concerned with with plugging in terms like a game of Mad-Libs than with coming up with any reasonable science.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-02-21 08:32pm

Batman wrote:That's what makes Wars more realistic (or more accurately less unrealistic), actually. They never explain how it works, thus you can't argue that it can't work that way.

My point was more in the nature of it's pretty hard to swallow an ISD having a 10 million EW reactor if you have any knowledge whatsoever of the practical problems that would entail. How does it keep itself from being instantly vaporized under all that waste heat? How does it even generate all that energy? At least the basic concept of the Enterprise warp core is relatively sound (it's a M/AM reactor), even if the crackhead writers butcher the science to hell and gone once they get hold of it.
Any, who really cares? A realism contest between Wars and Trek is more pathetic than a foot race between quadrupalegics.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-02-21 09:41pm

Junghalli wrote:
Batman wrote:That's what makes Wars more realistic (or more accurately less unrealistic), actually. They never explain how it works, thus you can't argue that it can't work that way.
My point was more in the nature of it's pretty hard to swallow an ISD having a 10 million EW reactor if you have any knowledge whatsoever of the practical problems that would entail. How does it keep itself from being instantly vaporized under all that waste heat? How does it even generate all that energy? At least the basic concept of the Enterprise warp core is relatively sound (it's a M/AM reactor), even if the crackhead writers butcher the science to hell and gone once they get hold of it.
Any, who really cares? A realism contest between Wars and Trek is more pathetic than a foot race between quadrupalegics.

You do understand that SW never once say this, and ST blurts out TW without grasping how silly it sounds, given the supposed things it is supposed to. And how is a M/AM reactor better then fusion, again...in the sense of realism?

Literally the reason SW works better, is because on the surface...shit works.

With ST it gets wrapped up in own personal stupidity and technobabble.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-02-21 09:46pm

How does it keep itself from being instantly vaporized under all that waste heat?

"Somehow."

How does it even generate all that energy?

"Somehow."

In real life, people don't stand around talking about the various operations in their internal combustion engine, or discussing the physics of electrons flowing through their computer processor. They ENJOY these technologies and talk about INTERESTING things.

THAT is what makes SW more realistic... not scientifically, but socially and aesthetically.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-02-22 09:21am

Junghalli wrote:Any, who really cares? A realism contest between Wars and Trek is more pathetic than a foot race between quadrupalegics.

Then why the fuck did you argue on behalf of ST. Both series is pseudo-science. Did you even read Mike's analogy? ST is guilty time and time again of trying to explain it's technologies through stupid techno-babble.

My favorite is when Trekkie's try to explain holodecks and how they could possibly work with 5 to 10 people in the room. We see in Next Gen a room that is approx 30' x 30'; yet they'd have us believe that 4-5 people can be in completely different environments simultaneously. Trekkie's explain this way with the most absurd of explanations. A combination of supposedly projections, artificial gravity treadmills, audio dampening fields etc.. It's all completely ridiculous and typical apologist behavior by rapped Trek fans.

If Trek, the writers, producers, directors, and actors had just stuck the stories and let the tech fade in the background like other Sci-Fi it would have been far better.

Nick Lancaster · Post by **Nick Lancaster** » 2005-02-22 04:49pm

While elements of Trek are within reasonable extrapolations of present-day science, its overall setting nonetheless remains 'fantastic' - suffering from the implausibilities and contradictions mentioned in previous posts.

The hallmark of Trek used to be the basic 'man vs. x' conflict template. Man vs. Hostile Alien, Man vs. Superior Alien, and so on. The story was about man (Kirk & Co. as much as the rest of us), and the technology was the backdrop. I have to admit that the most puzzling line in the Trek Writers' Guide is/was, 'Our technology will never fail solely to put our characters in jeopardy,' - yet this was done ad infinitum through the more recent iterations of the franchise.

And while Trek may not be the source of modern technology, it has paralelled or inspired the outward look-and-feel of the 'flip phone' and other innovations. It is not quite the same, however, as the Gemini and Apollo Programs, which required the development of compact foodstuffs, microwave ovens, smaller computers, and so on.

None of which makes Trek more or less realistic than Star Wars.

Trek's failings:

1. Never use a simple solution when a more complex one exists. This finds its best expression in the old, 'I'll beam a torpedo through your shields' argument, which assumes similar instrumentation. Tell a Trekkie that SW shields don't have this nanosecond gap, and they insist they'll beat down your shields, THEN use the transporter ... blind to the fact that, if you've beaten down the shields, why are you using the transporter at all? Or, as the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails.

2. Babble In, Babble Out.
Corollary to #1, above. If technobabble doesn't work, use even more complicated technobabble. Instead of shields (technobabble), use modulating multiphasic rotational clockwork orangey shields (more complicated technobabble). This seems to be related to the failure of some Trek fans to understand watt / megawatt / terawatt distinctions.

As for Star Wars, it may not possess any more 'technical' realism, but perhaps technical 'consistency' is a better term. Engines make ships move, blasters and turbolasers blow things up, and so on. You don't have to know precisely how gravity works to have it work. (And no 'cracks' in an event horizon!)

The precise details of where waste heat goes to are largely irrelevant; sure, someone could draft a document showing that there are hyper-cooled heat-sinks or other technobabble, but that's the Trek path. We've seen the consequences of the pure Trek path - where the accuracy of an explanation doesn't matter as long as it sounds good, and where basic critical thinking seems to be rarer than hydrogen. (Though, as Frank Zappa said, it's hydrogen and stupidity, with the latter having the superior shelf-life. Hmmm, wonder what those slush deuterium tanks on the ol' Enterprise are really hauling?)

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2005-02-22 09:26pm

To anyone who claims that Trek is more realistic than Wars, I respond with 1) "anti-matter residue" and 2) "toxic anti-matter waste." All too often, modern Trek writers don't even have a basic understanding of the terms they throw around. Not only does that throw realism out the door, it throws consistency out the door along with it.

I like how Batman put it: Wars is "less unrealistic." It doesn't go the extra step of throwing consistency out, while Trek seems to do so almost deliberately.

In Wars, we are given a somewhat realistic portrayal of the fantastic technology and concepts. Low-tech and high-tech are merged together in daily life, just as it is today. Trek, on the other hand, gives an unrealistic portrayal of its technology and concepts. As has been mentioned, everything must be high-tech, or else everyone's jaw drops in awe at the ancient, "outdated" technology. For them, it doesn't matter if the high-tech solution is less reliable than the old method, higher tech is better because it shows off the advancement of technology.

Of course, looking advanced and sounding realistic is exactly what Trek is trying to do. And, sadly, these people are seeing the shininess and buzzwords and are thinking just that. "I saw it on TV, it must be true!"

But to those who know what the words mean and what the technology implies, it's neither.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2005-02-24 01:43pm

This is how I see SW vs ST from a scientific realism point of view:

SW
42

ST
3+4=42

So SW just claims 42, how do you get to 42, what 42 really means, its up to the viewer, so you can come up with the most valid scientific explanation possible.

ST screws itself over form a scientific point of view, because they are trying to explain their science using terms and concepts they don’t even understand, making it hard to suspend disbelief to people who actually understand those terms, for while they may not understand the true meaning of 42, they know 3+4!=42. This turns ST into a fantasy, because only in fantasy would 3+4=42.

Blazican · Post by **Blazican** » 2005-02-28 06:24pm

well neither SW/ST are realistic no matter which one you think is more realistic then the other. Both ST/SW were made up to begin with, so logic and trying to make since out of either one for them is pointless.

those two shows were made so that everyone can imgaine what the future or what not would be in the minds of the creators not what was real and what wasnt. i mean in episode VI of star wars George lucas used the trench battle from an old WWII movie. Well thats just my opinion i like SW anyways i just like it because the story flowed and it had meaning (exculding the prequels) and didnt have a bunch of aliens taking over the death star every episode.

My 2 cents

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2005-02-28 07:45pm

Blazican wrote:well neither SW/ST are realistic no matter which one you think is more realistic then the other. Both ST/SW were made up to begin with, so logic and trying to make since out of either one for them is pointless.

Hang on, going by that logic, wouldn't all fictional action movies be equally (un)realistic, even if one accurately portray real-life weapons, while the other has silenced revolvers?

Blazican · Post by **Blazican** » 2005-02-28 10:58pm

What do you mean by that? im talking about realistic as far as SW/ST weapons ships being actually used in real life.

i dont think anyone has seen a REAL star destroyer or (insert star trek ship here) operate in real life is what im getting at.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-02-28 11:45pm

What do you mean by that? im talking about realistic as far as SW/ST weapons ships being actually used in real life.

You obviously haven't read the thread, or if you have, you obviously have the memory retention span of a goldfish.

Yes, they are both unrealistic. That's been pretty universally agreed. HOWEVER, the primary difference is that Star Trek's writers very often attempt to "explain" the functionality of their cute little devices. These explanations often take the form of the infamous "technobabble" (or "Treknobabble"). Numerous examples have been presented in this thread, so I won't repeat.

Star Wars, by contrast, has a history of presenting the technology and then not giving a good goddamn about trying to explain how it works. There are few exceptions, of course.

The end result is that we have one unrealistic universe that simply states, "This shit works," and another, equally unrealistic universe that compounds its unrealistic nature by trying to give an even MORE unrealistic explanation.

Blazican · Post by **Blazican** » 2005-03-01 10:06am

WOW Spoofe you sure showed me. the bad news is i dont think your the one who really understand whats the threads about.

How can anyone claim one made up show is more realistic then another just because people in the show THAT WAS CREATED by someone, attempt to explain an object that was made up to begin with?

Maybe star trek put that added jargon in just to make the objects sound cool. Maybe SW doesnt explain objects because theres no point in it? who knows. the point im making here is that its a waste of time trying to claim any sci fi show is more realistic that any other.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-03-01 01:00pm

Blazican wrote:who knows. the point im making here is that its a waste of time trying to claim any sci fi show is more realistic that any other.

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way:

Situation A: a guy fires a projectile that hurtles into space from a gun which appears to have no noticeable recoil. He explains onscreen that this is because the recoil was eliminated by a "graviton-based momentum-damping field based on subspace tetryon emissions".

Situation B: a guy fires a projectile that hurtles into space from a gun which appears to have no noticeable recoil. No explanation is given.

Which one is scientifically more realistic? Some idiots would say situation A, but they would be wrong. The fact that the character in situation A makes up some bullshit technical-sounding jargon to explain why it works makes it worse, not better. Because he has just stated that the device violates a fundamental law of physics via meaningless technobabble. The guy in situation B fires a gun which does the same thing, but since he doesn't try to slap some idiot technobabble on it, we are free to speculate on how this device might work without violating Conservation of Momentum.

Darth Wong said it better than I could as to why.....did you read it?

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2005-03-01 01:43pm

Blazican wrote:How can anyone claim one made up show is more realistic then another just because people in the show THAT WAS CREATED by someone, attempt to explain an object that was made up to begin with?

Maybe star trek put that added jargon in just to make the objects sound cool. Maybe SW doesnt explain objects because theres no point in it? who knows. the point im making here is that its a waste of time trying to claim any sci fi show is more realistic that any other.

There's a point of view that you're still missing. Let's look at it from a different perspective... which series is less realistic? When worded that way, I think we can agree that while neither are realistic, Star Trek is the less realistic of the two.

Now, if one is less realistic than the other, then the other must be more realistic by default. The only difference is you're taking the connotation that "more realistic" implies that both series are realistic to begin with at face value. I agree that the connotation is there, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily an accurate thing to say about phrase "more realistic."

So, basically, change "more realistic" to "less unrealistic" whenever you see it if it makes you feel better.

Blazican · Post by **Blazican** » 2005-03-01 01:55pm

yes i did tommy and thanks for putting that up, it actually supports what im saying.

heres what i wrote: (havent figured out how to use quotes yet)
[Maybe star trek put that added jargon in just to make the objects sound cool. Maybe SW doesnt explain objects because theres no point in it?]

heres what you just posted tommy from wong:
[we are free to speculate on how this device might work without violating Conservation of Momentum.]

Even darth wong basically suggests its near impossible to debate one sci fi flick from another as being more/less realistic. i mean really star trek comes up with off the wall explainations, while Star wars your left scratching your head. So does that put star wars on top? No, but you can atleast come up with your own possible explainations on how it might work right?

Blazican · Post by **Blazican** » 2005-03-01 02:28pm

MAD i completely understand what your saying, seriously and thanks for the reply.

what makes star trek the less realistic? is it the technobable?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-03-01 02:31pm

Blazican wrote:MAD i completely understand what your saying, seriously and thanks for the reply.

what makes star trek the less realistic? is it the technobable?

Yes.

Let's put it this way.

"Polarize the Cathion dish by energizing the capacitors"

vs

"Fire away"

Which sounds to be more scietifically sound?

Kartr_Kana · Post by **Kartr_Kana** » 2005-03-01 05:59pm

Why? Are we arguing this, because it is important or just because we like to argue? Star Wars is science FICTION, Star Trek is science FICTION. They are both FICTION, does degrees of fiction really matter? I find it far more enjoyable to figure out how to use modern tech to duplicate FICTION.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-01 06:01pm

Kartr_Kana wrote:Why? Are we arguing this, because it is important or just because we like to argue? Star Wars is science FICTION, Star Trek is science FICTION. They are both FICTION, does degrees of fiction really matter?

Degrees of stupidity matter. Trek has more.

I find it far more enjoyable to figure out how to use modern tech to duplicate FICTION.

Good for you. No need for you to waste everyones' time participating in this thread then.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-03-01 06:03pm

Kartr_Kana wrote:Why? Are we arguing this, because it is important or just because we like to argue? Star Wars is science FICTION, Star Trek is science FICTION. They are both FICTION, does degrees of fiction really matter? I find it far more enjoyable to figure out how to use modern tech to duplicate FICTION.

You come to a board that was explicitly created to argue this to complain that arguing it is silly. Thank you for your outstanding contribution.

Kartr_Kana · Post by **Kartr_Kana** » 2005-03-01 06:05pm

Sorry for the stupid comments. I just find that two pages of an old argument rather...silly? No offense. If you just want to go over the same ground again and again its your time to waste.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-03-01 07:30pm

Kartr_Kana wrote:Sorry for the stupid comments. I just find that two pages of an old argument rather...silly? No offense. If you just want to go over the same ground again and again its your time to waste.

Wow, and you feel this pertinent need to tell us this, instead of keeping to one self and showing the old adage still works.

"Don't speak if you have nothing to say"

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2005-03-01 10:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way:

Situation A: a guy fires a projectile that hurtles into space from a gun which appears to have no noticeable recoil. He explains onscreen that this is because the recoil was eliminated by a "graviton-based momentum-damping field based on subspace tetryon emissions".

Situation B: a guy fires a projectile that hurtles into space from a gun which appears to have no noticeable recoil. No explanation is given.

Which one is scientifically more realistic? Some idiots would say situation A, but they would be wrong. The fact that the character in situation A makes up some bullshit technical-sounding jargon to explain why it works makes it worse, not better. Because he has just stated that the device violates a fundamental law of physics via meaningless technobabble. The guy in situation B fires a gun which does the same thing, but since he doesn't try to slap some idiot technobabble on it, we are free to speculate on how this device might work without violating Conservation of Momentum.

Which also explain why Versimilitude needs to be better practiced in Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-03-02 01:09am

WOW Spoofe you sure showed me.

I did indeed. Congratulations on recognizing that.

the bad news is i dont think your the one who really understand whats the threads about.

Call me crazy, but I think it's about Trekkies that think Star Trek is more realistic than Star Wars, and we're mocking them for it.

How can anyone claim one made up show is more realistic then another just because people in the show THAT WAS CREATED by someone, attempt to explain an object that was made up to begin with?

Do you think Dr. Seuss is just as realistic as 2001: A Space Oddyssey?

Maybe star trek put that added jargon in just to make the objects sound cool.

Maybe they did. But Trekkies - at least the ones noted in the OP - think this makes Star Trek sound more realistic. Obviously, they're wrong. So what are you bitching about again?

Maybe SW doesnt explain objects because theres no point in it?

So?

the point im making here is that its a waste of time trying to claim any sci fi show is more realistic that any other.

You're right. That's why we're mocking people that are.

Read the thread, you brainless simpleton.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Claim that ST is more scientifically realistic than SW.

How Real is Real?