Which is less realistic: Star Wars or Star Trek?

Posted by: theta_pinch

Do not just choose which one you like better!

Vote
37 Total Votes
1

Star Wars

29 votes
5 comments
2

Star Trek

8 votes
2 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
oculus_de_logica says2014-02-08T12:01:51.6090938-06:00
This is an absurd topic. Both of these franchises are supposed to be for entertainment and not realism. Asking which is more realistic is kind of like asking who are more likely to exists, Dementors or Nazguls. Both are equally improbable as we know both are fragments of imagination and cannot exists outside their own realm, their own context. Both franchises have things that make no physical sense in any frame of reference and both have things that are completely plausible. If all Sci-Fi movies where 100% realistic there would be a lot fewer of them worth watching.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:06:09.3999551-06:00
Star wars has hypermatter that violates the laws of physics. Star wars has the hyperdrive that can traverse the galaxy in two days. Star Wars has a 200 km wide space station that destroys planets. Star wars has 200 gigaton turbolasers. NOW HOW IS ANY OF THAT REALISTIC! Star Trek has anti-matter that doesn't violate the laws of physics. Star Trek has the warp drive whose mechanism inspired a real life method for FTL travel. Star Trek has it's largest ship being only 685 meters long. Star Trek has phasers with an output of a few terawatts. THAT SOUNDS WAY MORE REALISTIC!
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:23:09.5006169-06:00
Why is almost everyone just choosing their favorite show?
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-08T12:23:49.6238169-06:00
I didn't choose my favourite.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:25:09.6054948-06:00
That's why I said "almost."
STALIN says2014-02-08T12:25:40.9922169-06:00
Huh?
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:25:41.6324878-06:00
Stalin and theguywhoknowsnothing just chose their favorite one I think.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:26:29.8670169-06:00
@STALIN This wasn't about which you liked the most; it was about which is less realistic.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-08T12:27:28.5230169-06:00
Maybe he thought the one he chose was less realistic.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T12:28:54.0426764-06:00
I suppose that's a possibility but I don't see how guns that can reduce a planets surface to slag, a gun that can destroy a planet, and major violations of the laws of physics makes for a realistic movie.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-08T12:40:51.6916876-06:00
I see your point. However, I don't think they were looking at how realistic they would be when making them.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-08T12:41:37.1493400-06:00
Most movies are just for people's entertainment and to make money.
Buckethead31594 says2014-02-08T12:42:58.1757400-06:00
Realism and immersion are important with epic sagas- but the point is to take you away from life with the absurdity. A form of escape, if you will.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T15:05:33.6056565-06:00
One way to think about the difference between them is star wars being more like a comic book and star trek being a good long novel. The comic book is more entertaining/exciting but the novel is more satisfying.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T15:46:12.3746789-06:00
Theta_pinch: I'd like to appologize for my inconsiderat coarseness/bluntness on the debate. I assume you deleted it?
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T15:47:23.1050789-06:00
I decided to make it open; now anyone can accept it.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T15:49:08.7170789-06:00
Though why do you think star wars is more realistic than star trek? This was the comparison I made Star wars has hypermatter that violates the laws of physics. Star wars has the hyperdrive that can traverse the galaxy in two days. Star Wars has a 200 km wide space station that destroys planets. Star wars has 200 gigaton turbolasers. Star Trek has anti-matter that doesn't violate the laws of physics. Star Trek has the warp drive whose mechanism inspired a real life method for FTL travel. Star Trek has it's largest ship being only 685 meters long. Star Trek has phasers with an output of a few terawatts. To me star trek sounds more realistic. I mean; where would you even get enough material for a deathstar?
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T16:03:20.9294742-06:00
Star Trek has unexplained "phasers" I believe that destroying entire planets with lasers is scientifically possible. Star Trek has some sort of extra-terrestrial creature in every episode. We have seen reliable evidence of none. Many new concept are introduced also, like: silicon-based life (no such life has been found), hallucinogenic abilities naturally occurring naturally in life, and many other ideas. I don't recall anything in Star Wars called "hypermatter". Star Trek also has hyperdrive, which is impossibly fast. I don't really see a difference in the realism of size. Overall, I may change my mind, but I've picked a side for argument's sake.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T16:13:21.9522819-06:00
Silicon based life and extraterrestrial life in general IS scientifically plausible. To get that super laser you'd need as much energy as the sun puts out every second. Supposedly star destroyers have the same amount of power as several main sequence stars. Almost none of the ideas in star wars are possible but most of star treks are based on scientific possibility along with a few highly unlikely ones.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T17:07:33.6673894-06:00
Star Wars is more based on what we know. Star Trek had to come up with something new every week. To keep it interesting, Star Trek was forced to make a lot of unrealistic scenarios and concepts. Life is only possible the way it was made to be possible. We don't know all of the ways life could exist, because we can't be sure that we don't know all of the life forms, which are the only way for us to know. This is a much larger topic, and I could easily wander off topic talking about it. I repeat: we've seen no evidence of silicon-based life. From an evolutionary view, we must assume that life could be made of any materials, but not that it is.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T18:10:17.1594724-06:00
Though you've got to admit planet destroying lasers, moon sized space stations, power cores with outputs equivalent to main sequence stars, and 5000 light year per hour hyper drives are not based on what we know. I've noticed tons of bogus physics and completely impossible technology.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T18:21:06.6514485-06:00
Like that suit your wearing. ;-)
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T18:21:17.9770485-06:00
*you're
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T18:22:27.4906485-06:00
Yeah, hyperdrive isn't realistic, but Star Trek has it too.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T18:23:15.4140229-06:00
And the size is a stretch, but still conceivable.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T18:26:45.7179327-06:00
Actually star trek has the warp drive which creates a distortion of space that the ship rides on; the idea behind it is actually sound(not how they achieve it but the distortion propelling it faster than light.) It's called the Alcubierre metric and NASA is actually experimenting on creating a "warp drive."
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T18:32:40.5243327-06:00
This is what the white house said in a petition to build a death star: The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons: 1. The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it. 2. The Administration does not support blowing up planets. 3. Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship? That 8.5 quadrillion price tag probably has a lot to do with the massive amount of supplies needed.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-08T18:34:42.0953785-06:00
Sounds like another pork project to me. Our knowledge just isn't close good enough yet for that to be worthwhile and safe. I never saw explanation for Star Trek's propulsion.
theta_pinch says2014-02-08T18:38:37.8749716-06:00
According to memory alpha they create a "subspace bubble" that distorts space time and then it rides on that distortion at faster than light speeds kind of like a surfer. NASA is working on warping space time to expand space behind the ship and contract space in front of the ship allowing the ship to reach it's destination faster than light; just like in star trek. The only difference in the idea's is the subspace bubble in star trek. NASA is working on warping space time in an attempt to make a "warp drive."
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-09T07:22:29.0944199-06:00
Why did you guys not debate this topic again?
theta_pinch says2014-02-09T08:18:28.4433646-06:00
Because abyteofbrain said that it was pointless.
abyteofbrain says2014-02-09T12:14:30.7396399-06:00
I've got serious doubts about this project. I doubt there's actually been anything even close to this yet. If there was, I'm sure we'd have heard about it.
theta_pinch says2014-02-09T12:18:20.7943146-06:00
According to JPL they've detected a vanishing but non-zero difference between the charged and uncharged states(the charged state is when the warp field is supposed to be formed) but the results remain inconclusive.
theta_pinch says2014-02-09T12:20:54.6886675-06:00
Http://www.Debate.Org/debates/star-wars-is-more-scientifically-plausible-than-star-trek/1/comments/
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-11T19:42:22.8082933-06:00
You two seem really passionate on this topic. JUST DEBATE IT ALREADY!!
gaurda506841 says2014-02-11T19:45:48.9778933-06:00
Guys judging by the technology and science now there is no way there are going to be alien life living on Earth and star wars doesn't follow physics and its just ridiculous.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-11T19:48:05.8522933-06:00
Instead of arguing about it on a <em> poll, please </em> just <em> debate </em> it
Student4Life1975 says2014-09-25T18:45:09.5364836-05:00
I like Star Trek more, but have to Admit the character Q was the most horrible creation by the Writers ever.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.