Claim that ST is more scientifically realistic than SW.

[Rommie2006]

There has always been a common claim that the Trek universe is more "scientifically realistic/plausible" than the Wars universe.

Is there any comparative analysis made to support or refute this claim?

[Keevan_Colton]

Simple answer, neither are scientifically acurate.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is taking some serious drugs and no sharing.

ST - Technobabble != real science.
SW - Unexplained != real science.

[Crayz9000]

Personally, I feel that SW is more scientifically realistic in that they don't try to overexplain everything. Their technology just works, they don't care why, and they'll just leave it to the scientists to figure out why it works.

The good thing about it is that by that fact, we can figure out reasons why things work they way they do, and Curtis Saxton is probably the best at that. Hyperspace requires some assumptions to work, but it's at least not too outlandish (it's not like it requires more mass than is known to exist in the universe and it's not like it has been observed to allow starships to escape through cracks in event horizons). The Death Star needs unobtanium to get the energy density needed to power its superlaser, but otherwise works on observed principles (counter to all the planet-busting weapons seen in Star Trek).

Blasters, lightsabers, and the Force are all out of left field, since they look like magic to us (Lucas did name his FX group Industrial Light & Magic after all). Forget about sound in space, that's patently absurd.

[lPeregrine]

They've got it backwards. Obviously neither of them are "realistic" by any sane definition. But...

Star Wars: Near-magic technology that often defies our theories of what is possible. But it doesn't pretend to have any connection to real-world science, so it's neutral on realism.

Star Trek: Near-magic technology that actively contradicts real-world science. Unlike Star Wars, it claims that things are possible, abuses terms, etc. You can't even explain it as "advanced future technology" when they're presenting that version of 'evolution' and pretending it's the same thing as the real theory.

[DaveJB]

It's all in the technobabble - Trekkies seem to think that verbosity = realism. In fact, it's gotten to the stage where Trekkies are blasting the Original Series and earlier movies for not having enough technobabble!

[Sarevok]

Both are unrealistic in terms of science. But at least Star Destroyers dont try to find cracks in the event horizon of a blackhole.

[frigidmagi]

Star Wars has never claimed to have anything to do with modern day science. Stars Trek on the other hand...

The long and the short of it is that Star Wars has never pretended to be Sciencitily accurate and knowledgable. Star Trek however makes that claim every other week.

[Praxis]

There has always been a common claim that the Trek universe is more "scientifically realistic/plausible" than the Wars universe.

Is there any comparative analysis made to support or refute this claim?

ST is in no way more scientificly realistic. It is, in fact, less so.

With the more advanced technology, Star Wars makes no attempt to explain how it works.

Star Trek DOES make up explanations, but to people who understand the technobabble, the EXPLANATIONS MAKE NO SENSE. They constantly violate laws of physics or just pull words out of the hat. Fans hear these big words and think, "Oooh, it's sooo scientific!" But in fact, it's not.

Furthermore, all the 'high-tech' stuff in ST is very impractical. They overuse technology to the point it's ridiculous. Touch screens on a dumb bell a teacher uses...I mean, come on. Blast doors vs Force Fields is another one- when you're talking about sealing a damaged ship from leaking vacuum, Force Fields are barely even useful since if the ship is damaged and loses power, the force fields go down.

Etc, etc.

[Praxis]

Dang, no edit button :p

And then there is how phasers make people 'disappear' instead of vaporizing them (where's the vapor?), and the HIDEOUS scientific inaccuracies of Voyager (as mentioned above...cracks in an event horizon? What the heck?).

[ANGELUS]

and the HIDEOUS scientific inaccuracies of Voyager (as mentioned above...cracks in an event horizon? What the heck?).

Yes, and what about their "Warp 10"? it is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They claim that they can reach infinite speed and be at every point of the universe at the same time!

ST is full of stuff like that.

[General Zod]

and the HIDEOUS scientific inaccuracies of Voyager (as mentioned above...cracks in an event horizon? What the heck?).

Yes, and what about their "Warp 10"? it is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They claim that they can reach infinite speed and be at every point of the universe at the same time!

ST is full of stuff like that.

even then they're not entirely consistent. in the All Good Things Crusher's ship was supposed to be capable of warp 13. then they go and change it to where warp 10 is the maximum to reach some bs infinite velocity later in voyager. so much inconsistency. . .

[Darth RyanKCR]

Looking at everything before TNG, Trek is fairly accurate. That was one of Gene's requirements and got him into trouble a lot. He wanted everything to be believable. He consulted sceintists at the time and extrapolated based on their suggestions. That is not to say liberties were not taken. So the TOS is fairly accurate in a lot of what was done. Warp Drive has a theoretical basis that Lawrence Krauss had given a possible yet improbable way it could work. Star Wars no real thought was put behind it. There was no reason to. Lucas was doing something way different. He was creating a moder myth. The archetypes were more important to him.

[Keevan_Colton]

Looking at everything before TNG, Trek is fairly accurate.

*taps on Ryan's shoulder and points at the sonic weapons in space*

Bullshit...and that's a tip of the iceberg.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Looking at everything before TNG, Trek is fairly accurate. That was one of Gene's requirements and got him into trouble a lot. He wanted everything to be believable. He consulted sceintists at the time and extrapolated based on their suggestions. That is not to say liberties were not taken. So the TOS is fairly accurate in a lot of what was done. Warp Drive has a theoretical basis that Lawrence Krauss had given a possible yet improbable way it could work. Star Wars no real thought was put behind it. There was no reason to. Lucas was doing something way different. He was creating a moder myth. The archetypes were more important to him.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Star Trek was no better than anything else that passed for popular sci-fi at the time. You had 'dilithium crystals' and transporters, and more bizarre clones of Earth than you could shake a stick at. (The planet of Romans, the planet with the Yangs, the Planet of the Nazis, the Planet of the 30's Mobsters.) You also had half-human, half-alien hybrids, people with freaky 'psi' powers, and they routinely got a lot of science just plain wrong. And warp drive didn't have any basis in reality at all when Star Trek first aired. It was just another handwavus unobtanium drive to get the heros to the locale of the week. Lawrence Krauss and his Physics of Star Trek came almost three decades after the fact.

People like to say: "But Star Trek predicted this" and "Star Trek predicted that." Except that was wrong too. Communicators? There were already man-portable field radios in the army, and the first car phones were just starting to come out.

And a lot of thought was put into Star Wars. The people involved in the OT put a lot of thought into making sure everything behaved consistently throughout the film. Best way to draw the audience into the story without getting them to pause, scratch their heads and go "What the fuck?" like you have to do with Star Trek.

[Junghalli]

Both settings are absolutely stuffed to the gills with hideous offenses against known scientific reality. Asking which one is more realistic is like asking whether you'd rather fight a steel cage death match with the Nemises or a Tyrannid warrior.
That said, I'd have to say Trek is MARGINALLY more realistic because it doesn't have all of Wars insane wank power estimates such as a common warship putting out more energy than some stars, with no discussion of how it's generated beside pure bullshit and no consideration of how it fails to melt itself under its own waste heat. But the fanboys crowing about that is like boasting that you can just barely beat a guy with a broken ankle in a race; it's utterly pathetic.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

This is a common misconception among Trekkies who are ignorant or dont understand science or both. They believe that technobabble is what makes Trek scientifically realistic. Ofcourse, this is bullshit and simply shows exactly how ignorant these particular Trekkies are.

Besides, do we in our modern society constantly explain the inner workings of all our technology? Do we talk with our friends about the exact operating principles of nuclear weapons for one? Sure as hell not, and as SW mirrors that stand and takes its Tech for granted, it atleast sounds more realistic than Trek.

[NecronLord]

Well. Simply put, the smaller scale of Star Trek weights in its favour in terms of believeability.

However, the poor science of ST strikes blows against it. Added to the laughable technobabble, and ignorance of science, it is probably less realistic in most ways.

[Darth Wong]

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.

[Batman]

That said, I'd have to say Trek is MARGINALLY more realistic because it doesn't have all of Wars insane wank power estimates such as a common warship putting out more energy than some stars, with no discussion of how it's generated beside pure bullshit and no consideration of how it fails to melt itself under its own waste heat.

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. Trek regularly tries to explain its Technology in ways that are factually known to not work. Crack in the event horizon has been mentioned. How about Baryon removal treatments for starships? Care to explain NDF? How about energy beings not moving at c? Sonic weapons in space have been mentioned before. When one franchise does not explain its technology at all, and one franchise uses explanations that are factually wrong, it should be painfully obvious which one is the less unrealistic.

[Batman]

I wonder why I even post when Mike's online.

[SirNitram]

Complaining that a Galaxy-spanning civilization is 'Too powerful to be realistic' is bloody absurd. Even crossing a small part of a galaxy requires ridiuclously over-the-top energy levels; it's just that Trek butchers science to get the costs down.

[NecronLord]

Complaining that a Galaxy-spanning civilization is 'Too powerful to be realistic' is bloody absurd. Even crossing a small part of a galaxy requires ridiuclously over-the-top energy levels; it's just that Trek butchers science to get the costs down.

I was actually thinking of Photon Torpedos compared to Turbolasers, with the latter requiring trans-black hole mass/energy densities to operate.

[Gandalf]

even then they're not entirely consistent. in the All Good Things Crusher's ship was supposed to be capable of warp 13. then they go and change it to where warp 10 is the maximum to reach some bs infinite velocity later in voyager. so much inconsistency. . .

I would think that they've just redesignated the warp scale.

Easier than tacking another 9 onto the end of a long decimal reading.

[Skylon]

Furthermore, all the 'high-tech' stuff in ST is very impractical. They overuse technology to the point it's ridiculous. Touch screens on a dumb bell a teacher uses...I mean, come on. Blast doors vs Force Fields is another one- when you're talking about sealing a damaged ship from leaking vacuum, Force Fields are barely even useful since if the ship is damaged and loses power, the force fields go down.

Etc, etc.

Actually, we see blast doors several times in Trek. Mostly in engineering. In TWOK, when engineering is compromised we see blast doors sealing off the deck (always really liked that scene, complete with the cadets panicking like hell while Scotty and any experienced officers, go for breathers). Also in the TNG ep "The Best of Both Worlds", engineering is compromised Geordi ducks under a closing blast door.

What horrifies me was I remember a DS9 episode where its revieled basically a force field is protecting the engine room of the Defiant from a hefty dose of radiation (as I remember it was the 3rd season finale). I hope that is not standard on all Federation Starships...because that would be horrible over-reliance on technology.

[brianeyci]

I hope that is not standard on all Federation Starships...

O'BRIEN
Sir -- the ablative armor is
starting to buckle.


WORF
We have hull breaches on Decks
Three and Four.

ANOTHER HIT.
O'BRIEN
Without power for emergency
forcefields, there's no way to
seal them.

Sisko looks around the Bridge -- there's only one
chance left for his crew.

SISKO
(calmly)
Abandon ship.

In all fairness though, Defiant was designed on a "everybody survives or nobody survives" concept. Defiant lacked medical facilities out of stock. So designers probably thought any redundancy was pointless, because if shields are down you are fucked against Borg.

Brian