Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Allan
I'm not too interested in the newer Star Wars films, I'm more of a Star Trek fan, since it was the more scientifically accurate of the two. I was 15 when Star Wars premiered in 1977, and after 10 years of watching Star Trek, I said, "Hey, why does Luke Skywalker's X-wing fighter have jet intakes when there is no oxygen in space (Bussard hydrogen collectors like the front of the Enterprise's warp nacelles?), and why does it fly like a WW2 fighter plane? Klingons were better shots than Imperial Stormtroopers, however the Klingons didn't have the Death Star, etc, etc. I still thought it was a fun movie. After seeing Samuel L. Jackoff as a Jedi Knight and alien nigger Jar Jar Binks, and jews Watto and Natalie Portman in Phantom Menace, that was enough for me. I realize Star Trek was quite jewey too, and there is even a thread about that elsewhere in the forum.
|
You may want to read a book, The Physic of Star Trek , which discusses the
technologies in Star Trek which are feasible and those that are not based
on our current understanding of physics. I don't believe that faster than
light flight is possible but the warp drive in Star Trek is based on the idea
that space can be warped to allow FTL flight.