Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Book Recommendation: The Physics of Star Trek

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Book Recommendation: The Physics of Star Trek

    This is a book about the physics of Star Trek which focuses mainly on TOS and TNG as it was written in 1995

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...12609?v=glance

    Many of the concepts such as Wormholes, time travel etc can also be applied to the Stargate Universe.
    gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
    so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
    love Torri

    #2
    No they can't since Stargate tends to be different to Trek and that is an attempted rationalization of Trek phenomena, decidedly different from 'gate ones.
    Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

    Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

    Comment


      #3
      I have the book and have read it and IMHO the laws of physics are the same whatever show you are talking about
      gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
      so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
      love Torri

      Comment


        #4
        I, too, have read the book, and the so-called "laws" of physics in these universes ('gate and Trek) are fictional ergo they are not interchangeable, although, Dr Kraus rationalizes Trek phenomena by applying real world principles and knowledge so it's a handy guide for Stargate in that sense because it teaches actual wormhole physics.
        Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

        Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lord §okar
          Dr Kraus rationalizes Trek phenomena by applying real world principles and knowledge so it's a handy guide for Stargate in that sense because it teaches actual wormhole physics.
          Which is exactly what the original poster was trying to say.

          However, make sure you grab the "Physics of Star Trek" and not the "Metaphysics of Star Trek". I had someone give me the metaphysics of star trek as a gift, thinking they were the same things
          Jarnin's Law of StarGate:

          1. As a StarGate discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the Furlings approaches one.

          Comment


            #6
            Well since Stargate wormholes are pure fiction also the usefullness of the book is limited, it's something of a curiosity for the stargater to see how these things work in reality.
            Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

            Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

            Comment


              #7
              In that case every single thread in the Science and Tech folder is also based on pure fiction and therefore its usefulness is also limited

              If that is the case then what ever argument I put forward in a thread is correct as in fiction there is no incorrect answers only made up things
              gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
              so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
              love Torri

              Comment


                #8
                The book is a physics book and therefore is able to talk about real science which is what we usually discuss in that section.

                Im sure some of the stuff in the book also falls under stargate category...
                Being that stargate and star trek both fall under the same category.


                Never forget the power of words, and how it can affect someone's life.
                Always remember there's another person on the other side of the computer.

                Comment


                  #9
                  In that case every single thread in the Science and Tech folder is also based on pure fiction and therefore its usefulness is also limited
                  In the scope of a stargate forum it's quite useful in just the same it's uselss in reality. The same is true of this book.

                  The book is a physics book and therefore is able to talk about real science which is what we usually discuss in that section.
                  From my experience you very rarely discuss real science in this section.
                  Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

                  Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

                  Comment


                    #10
                    but u guys have to realize THIS IS STARGATE WHICH IS FICTION not real sicience some of it is but most of it is FICTION and so is startrek so leave it be

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Stargate wormholes can be just as real as wormholes in the real world. Neither can be proven, only theorized.
                      "Those who sow the wind might reap the whirlwind."

                      "Only God knows everything and he works for the Mossad."

                      Comment


                        #12
                        yes ,yes they can but this is still fiction

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Lord §okar
                          No they can't since Stargate tends to be different to Trek and that is an attempted rationalization of Trek phenomena, decidedly different from 'gate ones.
                          Really. You must be watching a different show from the one I have for the last nine years.

                          More often than not Stargate doesn't OFFER a rationalization. There's no rationalization for the Rings or Transporters. There's no rationalization for Cloaking Devices.

                          That's both a bad thing and a good thing. Bad insofar as I would enjoy MORE of that sort of thing. Good insofar as there are fewer episodes like those in Voyager where the answer to the episode was meaningless technobabble (which is bad story writing by my standards).

                          But what does that leave us with? Probably a lot of the science of Star Trek rationales will work just fine in the Stargate universe, because there is simply no canon to overrule it.

                          Originally posted by Lord §okar
                          I, too, have read the book, and the so-called "laws" of physics in these universes ('gate and Trek) are fictional ergo they are not interchangeable, although, Dr Kraus rationalizes Trek phenomena by applying real world principles and knowledge so it's a handy guide for Stargate in that sense because it teaches actual wormhole physics.
                          Wait. First it isn't useful, and now it is?

                          So we've already got the Wormhole bit as useful. As somebody who has read the book, does the text on Transporters work in the Stargate universe? How about cloaking devices?

                          Since there is an attempt to use real world physics as much as possible (I'm familiar with the book, I just haven't done the sit down and read the whole thing yet), and most science fiction writers at least TRY to use the principles of science (ergo the name, "science" fiction!), shouldn't an exploration of those principles be good pretty much anywhere?

                          Yes, I know that Stargate uses the idea of hyperspace travel while Trek uses Warp Drive (nowadays identified with the Alcubierre Drive ... look it up, it's an actual theory under current discussion), but still... do you have to throw the WHOLE thing out except the little bit on Wormholes that you found useful?

                          I'd really find sort of a "case by case" evaluation from somebody who read the book. Lord Sokar has been kind enough to provide one of those cases...

                          ... what about the others?

                          (I'd also be happy to get an explanation of how Lord Sokar got that funky bit of text in his sig.... Buddha knows fonts from a stint as a newspaper copy editor, but this other thing is outside my experience.)

                          Originally posted by Jarnin
                          However, make sure you grab the "Physics of Star Trek" and not the "Metaphysics of Star Trek". I had someone give me the metaphysics of star trek as a gift, thinking they were the same things
                          Yow. If it is metaphysics of any of the shows but DS9, do they include the rose colored glasses with the book?

                          Originally posted by vonbismarck
                          Stargate wormholes can be just as real as wormholes in the real world. Neither can be proven, only theorized.
                          The only big difference is that Stargate wormholes have characteristics that are not consistent with other theories and even laws of science that the scientific idea of wormholes is based upon.

                          That makes Stargate wormholes technically not even a theory. They are a fiction. A theory has just a bit more in the way of meat to it, and has to provide certain deductive consequences, even if they can't be evaluated at the time.
                          Last edited by Darth Buddha; 18 August 2005, 07:55 AM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'd also be happy to get an explanation of how Lord Sokar got that funky bit of text in his sig
                            Quoted from an especially hilarious post on the SG-1 Archive Fora. I'm compiling a "Best of the Fora" collection, to contain such noted performances as the gem in my signature, by deranged Binx (SG-1 Archive), double PhD faker and monumental blowhard jaden10 (from this forum) and infuriatingly obstinant and stupid Bentusi (Gaters.net), among others whose scalps now hang from my belt.

                            Buddha knows fonts from a stint as a newspaper copy editor
                            Sokar ponders what fonts could have to do with the crackpot rambling on in my signature.

                            But what does that leave us with? Probably a lot of the science of Star Trek rationales will work just fine in the Stargate universe, because there is simply no canon to overrule it.
                            It's remarkable the phenomena information can be gleaned from.

                            First it isn't useful, and now it is?
                            I explained this in the previous post. As a knee-jerk reflex I immediately dismissed any rationalization of Star Trek as inapplicable to 'gate but then reassessed that somewhat heavy handed judgement since some mutual subject matter is touched upon in TFoST.

                            Since there is an attempt to use real world physics as much as possible (I'm familiar with the book, I just haven't done the sit down and read the whole thing yet), and most science fiction writers at least TRY to use the principles of science (ergo the name, "science" fiction!), shouldn't an exploration of those principles be good pretty much anywhere?
                            Good? Yes.
                            Interesting? Very.
                            Applicable to stargate? Hmm.

                            That makes Stargate wormholes technically not even a theory. They are a fiction. A theory has just a bit more in the way of meat to it, and has to provide certain deductive consequences, even if they can't be evaluated at the time.
                            Bingo. What relevance has actual wormhole theory to fictional constructs, aside from the fact that they share the same name?
                            Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

                            Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Lord §okar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              I'd also be happy to get an explanation of how Lord Sokar got that funky bit of text in his sig
                              Quoted from an especially hilarious post on the SG-1 Archive Fora. I'm compiling a "Best of the Fora" collection, to contain such noted performances as the gem in my signature, by deranged Binx (SG-1 Archive), double PhD faker and monumental blowhard jaden10 (from this forum) and infuriatingly obstinant and stupid Bentusi (Gaters.net), among others whose scalps now hang from my belt.
                              And yet, still no answer.... and a lot of unseemly preening. I can't tell whether that was a challenge or some sort of getting off for all the ego.

                              Originally posted by Lord Sokar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              Buddha knows fonts from a stint as a newspaper copy editor
                              Sokar ponders what fonts could have to do with the crackpot rambling on in my signature.
                              In a variety of newspaper layout fonts, I can duplicate most any character, which may be arcane to some folks. This is done through the use of fons containing said character. Ergo.. fonts. However, how to duplicate it on this site IS still arcane to me. If you want to answer the question, cool. If you want to take the request as yet another excuse to pleasure yourself, I'd rather you just ignored the request.

                              Originally posted by Lord Sokar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              But what does that leave us with? Probably a lot of the science of Star Trek rationales will work just fine in the Stargate universe, because there is simply no canon to overrule it.
                              It's remarkable the phenomena information can be gleaned from.
                              Another glib nonanswer... your comment is axiomatic, but has about as much to do with the question as the "scalps that hang" from your belt had with earlier requests.

                              Originally posted by Lord Sokar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              First it isn't useful, and now it is?
                              I explained this in the previous post. As a knee-jerk reflex I immediately dismissed any rationalization of Star Trek as inapplicable to 'gate but then reassessed that somewhat heavy handed judgement since some mutual subject matter is touched upon in TFoST.
                              What other issues did you overlook in that "knee jerk."

                              I'd have that knee looked at.

                              Originally posted by Lord Sokar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              Since there is an attempt to use real world physics as much as possible (I'm familiar with the book, I just haven't done the sit down and read the whole thing yet), and most science fiction writers at least TRY to use the principles of science (ergo the name, "science" fiction!), shouldn't an exploration of those principles be good pretty much anywhere?
                              Good? Yes.
                              Interesting? Very.
                              Applicable to stargate? Hmm.
                              Well, at least you are thinking about it now, rather than using your knee.

                              Originally posted by Lord Sokar
                              Originally posted by Darth Buddha
                              That makes Stargate wormholes technically not even a theory. They are a fiction. A theory has just a bit more in the way of meat to it, and has to provide certain deductive consequences, even if they can't be evaluated at the time.
                              Bingo. What relevance has actual wormhole theory to fictional constructs, aside from the fact that they share the same name?
                              Two things. How closely do they follow the best theories of science at the time, and how easy it is to suspend disbelief.

                              If the book provides an explication of current best theory in the real world, then it's relevant to both. If you get to the point of "isolinear chips", then it's useless! Hence my question, that remains unanswered, about the information provided on other technologies. Are they given a root in current science in the book? If so, which? That would inform my decision whether to buy the book or not, and whether to bother reading it.

                              There is a long history of evaluating science fiction (note that word science again) by the scientific standards of its time, and how well it then holds up later. Consider Jules Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" which is thought a classic in part because it predicted the aqualung that wasn't developed until Jaques Cousteau happened along amongst other technological marvels.

                              How good a show does with the science also makes the "suspension of disbelief" easier. Ships making noise in outer space is an obvious one that was done correctly as long ago as "2001: A Space Odyssey", but has been ignored by many other science fiction films and shows since. So when I see a program that DOES represent it correctly, I am impressed with the degree of realism.

                              So please, Lord Sokar, more content and less self stroking. It's unseemly.
                              Last edited by Darth Buddha; 18 August 2005, 09:23 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X