The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)

  • 25 Replies
  • 4266 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #20 on: 11/05/2019 12:08:05 »
Quote
I have been watching a SF TV series called "The Expanse",

An enjoyable series.  find the character development more interesting than the technology.
Isn't your ruler's length still observer dependent, though?
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 27448
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 64 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #21 on: 11/05/2019 17:30:49 »
You're perfectly correct Bill. In a way it's a question of what came before, the hen or the egg. In another it's a question of what you think this universe 'need'. I call that 'time', or as locally defined, a 'clock'.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 27448
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 64 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #22 on: 15/05/2019 17:31:24 »
Sure it is Bill. If you take a 'global approach' to it.
Locally defined it's not though.

Then it becomes a invariant always fitting your clock.

" Today, the meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds."
And if you define your clock as equivalent to 'c' then this will hold everywhere, locally.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline Rodin1880

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 17
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #23 on: 19/05/2019 05:47:28 »
Quote from: evan_au on 04/05/2019 22:01:50
their (often pedantic) audience...
That's a little insulting... MOST Trekies and Trekers, live in the real world and simply dream of how great it would be if we DID live in a world like Star Trek, where personal improvement is all we have to do and all the natural human prejudices have been out-grown... the fact that SOOO MUCH of what we've seen on Star trek has come to life is simply exciting, when you consider that while we were watching it it seemed so cool and yet so unbelievable... My observation too, is that most NON-Treks don't care at all about personal improvement, and are simply satisfied with being what they currently are...
Logged
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5248
  • Activity:
    27%
  • Thanked: 430 times
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #24 on: 22/05/2019 15:45:09 »
Quote from: Rodin1880 on 19/05/2019 05:47:28
My observation too, is that most NON-Treks don't care at all about personal improvement, and are simply satisfied with being what they currently are...
That’s a pretty sweeping statement and I’m not convinced there is a correlation let alone a causal relationship. I’ve been a fan since the original series, but my experience is that there are a large proportion of non-fans who are interested in personal improvement.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 



Offline instagyu

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)
« Reply #25 on: 09/03/2020 17:53:01 »
not so realistic
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Simple Motor - Homopolar motor - Kitchen Science

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 0
Views: 4794
Last post 24/11/2016 23:55:16
by thedoc
Discuss: British Science Festival 2013: Ugly Animal Preservation Society

Started by thedocBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 0
Views: 3604
Last post 13/09/2013 17:47:56
by thedoc
How is the science of captive marine biology affecting natural coral reefs?

Started by blobsterBoard General Science

Replies: 4
Views: 4575
Last post 21/11/2009 15:48:08
by blobster
Examples of weird, amusing, or ambiguous headlines/article titles in science.

Started by damoclesBoard That CAN'T be true!

Replies: 2
Views: 6513
Last post 01/03/2012 21:08:55
by damocles
Discuss: British Science Festival 2013: Ceri Brenner, Lasers

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 0
Views: 3317
Last post 10/09/2013 21:46:11
by thedoc
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.12 seconds with 47 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.