How realistic is Star Trek?

Wolc · Freshman Cadet Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Posts: 5

Guys, how realistic is trek anyway? I mean, we got nanotech prancing on our doorstep and they'r still baseline.
What gives?!

Hitchhiker · **Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:22 pm**

Baseline? I'm sorry, but your post doesn't make much sense. I don't blame Roddenberry for not accurately foreseeing how far technology would come since the '60s.

Back in the '60s they hadn't had much experience with nanotechnology, to use your example.

I don't quite see how we can fault them for that . . . admittedly the technology in Trek has not aged well in some circumstances, however in some instances their technology is quite amazing (those psychic doors, for example).

In later series the writers have taken pains to be more realistic, or at least more accurate when it comes to the science behind the technology, and it has improved as our own understanding of science improves.

Star Trek is not that realistic, but it wasn't designed to be realistic. It was designed to be a vehicle for social commentary and to explore the nature of the human condition.

The original Trek series certainly wasn't realistic (heck, let's not even try pretending--after all, how many times was the Enterprise nearly destroyed because some malcontent was able to open a random panel in an unguarded corridor and pull out a fuse?). However, it was potent enough to spawn six feature movies of the original cast and four spin-off series.

robbiewebster · **Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:55 pm**

There are a lot of things that probably aren't very realistic in Star Trek. But I love it anyways, and that will never change.

PrankishSmart · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:55 am**

In all honesty, it's not really realistic at all. But neither is sci-fi in general, is it? With that said, Trek is one of the more realistic Sci-Fi�s. There is a LOT of scientific theories on various technologies. Check out ditl.org.

TrekkieMage · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:25 pm**

^ I actually think I'd have to disagree with that after watching Firefly. No sound in space, nuclear powers ship, no faster than light engines, no transporters, no magic repairs to the ship, there are dirty and grimy cities contrasted with an upper class. Overall it's a spectacular show.

That said, I love Star Trek (I should hope that isn't a news flash to anyone here

). It may not me the most realistic show, but it is entertaining and well done. And they've obviously done something right if the show is this popular after 40 years, 5 spin offs, and 10 movies. Well, 11. Almost.

I basically agree with what Hitchiker said

StarfleetCommand74656 · Captain Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 653 Location: On STV

Everything possible except:
The universal translator
warp drive
the level of solidity on holodecks (and the EMH)
The humanoid appearance of all these aliens
The Nexus

Ship_Desingz · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:49 pm**

jonathan95 · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:33 pm**

Ship_Desingz · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:53 pm**

Another thing that you might not be able to not agree with is the time travel you can time travel becuase the effects are too risky if i go back change all these things it wont be the same, star trek could be real if i change something,if i go back in time to win the lottery and become rich for cheating.If there was a portal found to go back in time we would not use it becuase the risk it too high.

on the humanoid alien lifeforms im not disputing that they 100% dont looklike us but the chances are very unlikley for this in a parrell universe if that is what it is then this phenominon would work but you would see yourself not another person.There could be humanoid aliens becuase of the evolution of life we traveled through space to get to earth we could have left a presence so then life would grab onto that and evole to it.

Warp drive is impossible to believe basically we are saying that you can get to pluto maximum warp in a matter of seconds where at this rate you have to take over 200 years to get their,100 years ago there was no Car,no T.V No computer,but as soon as we evolved quick enough we though in the 60's star trek would be like 2006.Thats whats been happenning ever since in the 1890's and inventor was out of luck and he said "there is nothing left to be invented" now to me that sounds rubbish becuase there is no limit to where you can go, some people think that there is but really if you look at it for an instance of sport there is no limit in running, and fisical activities like that.

robbiewebster · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:10 pm**

Ship_Desingz · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:15 pm**

for all we know they could talk through there minds like mind meld but all the time.

robbiewebster · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:21 pm**

Yea, I've always told myself that in the Trek universe, anything can happen. And as I said before, I'll never stop loving it.

Ship_Desingz · **Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:44 pm**

Cheers to that Plus its all for fun we can sit hhere and dispute it all day but its for fun and there to enjoy.

robbiewebster · **Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:04 am**

agreed

StarfleetCommand74656 · Captain Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 653 Location: On STV

lionhead · **Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:54 pm**

Ship_Desingz · **Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:31 pm**

Yes we can transport a lazer beem through it but who would be the Guniea Pig to make sure there is no malfunction so then it is 99.9% safe.
the only thing this could be tested on is Man not Animals.

lionhead · **Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:57 pm**

They would first test it on dead objects. would kinda obvious the thing doesn't work if a fork is transported and ends up as a knife

.

Next would be animals still. as its obvious the thing doesn't work if the mouse that came out the other end starts walking backwards and roars

StarfleetCommand74656 · Captain Joined: 22 May 2006 Posts: 653 Location: On STV

If you like this sort of thing I suggest reading Lawrence Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek. It's really good.

robbiewebster · **Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:55 pm**

^That's a great book, I completely forgot about it.